debates/debates2025-11-20b conversation_24
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-20)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-20b conversation_24

Gagan Mohindra:Many of my residents rely on Transport for London services to travel every day, yet they are not entitled to concessions enjoyed by those who live literally hundreds of metres away. I have raised this issue before in the Chamber. Will the Secretary of State advise me of any way, besides turning up at City Hall, that I can meet the relevant person to discuss this? \p Heidi Alexander: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents want to avail themselves of concessions provided by the Labour Mayor of London. The hon. Gentleman will know that Londoners often pay a precept to fund some of the entitlements they have in London. That is why his constituents, who fall outside the Greater London boundary, do not have those concessions available to them. \p Peter Swallow: Bracknell Forest council, supported by Department for Transport funding, has delivered an early Christmas present for residents, with free bus journeys on the first three weekends in December. Will my hon. Friend share my joy in that scheme, which will boost our local economy? I know it is only November, but will he also join me in wishing everyone in Bracknell Forest a very merry Christmas? \p Simon Lightwood: It is my pleasure to wish my hon. Friend a very merry Christmas. I am pleased to hear about that. We have confirmed £1 billion of funding for buses to support and improve services in 2025-26 and to keep fares affordable. \p Katie Lam: Cross-channel rail was already mentioned this morning. Specifically, trains from Ashford to Paris were a massive boost for my constituents in the Weald of Kent and are much missed. It is fantastic news that Virgin would like to run trains again from Ashford and also from Ebbsfleet, but I know that there are some open questions about how the stations will be updated. It would be great to hear about any conversations that the right hon. Lady might have had with Virgin regarding what might need to happen next to move this forward. \p Heidi Alexander: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), there are a whole number of steps subsequent to the ORR decision, which we welcomed. We are keen to see the stations at both Ashford and Ebbsfleet reopened, and I will be talking to all operators that are interested in making that a reality. \p Euan Stainbank: Considering the imminent publication of the 10-year bus pipeline and rapidly rising Chinese market share in UK bus orders, will the Minister expand on what the Government will do to ensure that domestic manufacturers have a level playing field, which the SNP’s infamous ScotZEB2 shopping list for Chinese manufacturers dismally failed to deliver? \p Simon Lightwood: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have been working closely with operators and manufacturers as part of our bus manufacturing expert panel. We will publish that pipeline of orders in the near future. \p Thomas Tugendhat: The Secretary of State will know that there is no mandate for TfL beyond the bounds of London—little enough within it. Does she agree that it has absolutely no mandate to increase the price on rail fares to Tonbridge by extending the peak hours system in London to areas where there is now talk of putting in contactless? Will she assure me that rail fares to Tonbridge and to Borough Green will not go up through a contactless increase? \p Heidi Alexander: The expansion of the contactless system to wider areas of the south-east is, I am sure, welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, given the convenience that it gives them. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, but I can tell him that there are a lot of hon. Members across this House who are delighted with the roll-out of pay-as-you-go. If he wants to write to me with the detail of his concern, I would be happy to come back to him. \p Callum Anderson: East West Rail promises to be hugely transformative for Bletchley, positioning the town as a key economic hub, not only between London and Birmingham but between Oxford and Cambridge. With a new eastern entrance at Bletchley station, we can unlock the jobs and investment that will not only revitalise the town centre, but deliver a modern gateway for visitors to Bletchley Park. We have local backing; we just need some local funding. Will the Secretary of State meet me and key strategic partners to discuss how we can realise that opportunity? \p Heidi Alexander: I am very happy to ask the Rail Minister to meet my hon. Friend. East West Rail could be transformative for his constituency; indeed, I saw one of his recent Instagram posts explaining some of the improvements at Bletchley. That probably says more   about what I am viewing on Instagram than anything else! I have full confidence in the ability of the railway to transform the travel experience for his constituents. \p Max Wilkinson: The Spring bridge in my constituency was designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. The previous county council administration put off vital work to fix the bridge after a landslip. What can the Government do to help the current Liberal Democrat administration speed up the work to get it completed, and will the Government encourage the county council to open one lane as soon as possible, for the benefit of businesses and residents who are being put off by diversions? \p Heidi Alexander: The hon. Member may wish to suggest to his council that it considers the process for securing money from the structures fund, which we will make an announcement on in the new year, as that fund is designed to help resolve the sorts of situations that he describes in his constituency. \p Martin Vickers: There is a growing body of evidence about the dangers caused by headlight glare. I know the Department is doing its own research on this. Could the Minister give an indication of when new regulations might be brought forward to reduce the risks? \p Lilian Greenwood: I thank the hon. Member for that important question. He will know that last year we commissioned groundbreaking independent research to better understand the problems of headlight glare. We are looking at that and considering how we might take it forward, although—as I am sure he knows—the matter is subject to international vehicle regulations. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the urgent question, I once again remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major announcements be made to the House in the first instance, not the media. This applies to Secretaries of State. It is disappointing that the Secretary of State for Defence made a speech on television yesterday, yet no statement from the Government has been made in this House. I hate to say this, but the House went up at 3 o’clock yesterday. There was a huge gap that could have been filled.

This is the third time in a row from Defence that a statement has been made to the outside—to the media—rather than to the House. We are elected Members of Parliament. All Ministers serve this House, not Sky News or the BBC, so I hope that message is going back. The ministerial code is not fit for purpose if this continues to happen, so I hope that it will be used, and that Ministers will take it seriously. Please, as I stated yesterday: matters relating to the defence of the realm should always come to this House first. \p James Cartlidge: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of lasers by the Russian spy ship Yantar. \p Alistair Carns: Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I say this gently to the Minister: unfortunately, it is not a statement—that is what I had wished it would be. He is answering an urgent question, and I think that is the big problem; somehow, different Departments have decided that statements do not matter. I know that is not the Minister’s position, but I hope that people are listening and that the message about how important it is that this House comes first will go back to the Defence Secretary. \p Alistair Carns: Mr Speaker, I will pass the message on to the broader team.

I would like to make some comments on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research programme, known as GUGI. As the Secretary of State for Defence described yesterday, the Russian research vessel Yantar is part of this programme, and is used for gathering intelligence and mapping undersea infrastructure, not just in the United Kingdom but across many other nations, both in Europe and across the globe. The UK understands that the Yantar is but one ship in a fleet of Russian vessels designed to threaten our critical national underwater infrastructure and pose a threat to our economics and our way of life.

Russia has been developing a military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. GUGI is developing capabilities. It is deployed from specialist surface vessels and submarines that are intended to be used to survey underwater infrastructure during peacetime, but then damage or destroy infrastructure in  deep water during a conflict. Russia seeks to conduct this type of operation covertly without being held responsible. Such capabilities can be deployed from surface vessels like the Yantar. That is why Defence directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture, so that we can better track and respond to the threats from this vessel and many others.

The Yantar has been operating once again—for the second time this year—in and around the UK’s exclusive economic zone. During that time, she was continuously monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset and the RAF’s P-8s.

We will ensure that the Yantar is not able to conduct its mission unchallenged or untracked. But that has not been without difficulties: a laser assessed to be originating from the port side of the Yantar was directed at British personnel operating one of our P-8s in a highly dangerous and reckless attempt to disrupt our monitoring. The P-8 continued to monitor the Yantar’s activity. Post incident, when its personnel arrived back safe in the UK, they were medically assessed. No injuries were sustained and no damage was sustained to the aircraft or her equipment.

Russia does not want us to know what it is doing or what the Yantar is up to; it does not want the world to know what it is doing. But we will not be deterred; we will not let the Yantar go unchallenged as it attempts to survey our infrastructure. We will work with our allies to ensure that Russia knows that any attempt to disrupt or damage underwater infrastructure will be met with the firmest of responses. I finish by saying a great thank you to the brave men and women of our Royal Navy and RAF who continue to keep us safe at home and abroad. \p James Cartlidge: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I echo what you said: it is unacceptable that we are getting the Minister’s update on a major national security incident 24 hours after the Secretary of State gave his press conference. Have Ministers learned nothing from the total shambles of the strategic defence review, when defence companies got a copy many hours before parliamentarians?

I turn to the incident, which appears to represent a serious escalation by Russian forces in close proximity to our homeland. Given the priority of protecting our service personnel—I welcome the news that the P-8 pilots were unharmed—will the Minister outline what mitigations are being taken against the evolving laser threat involved?

This incident surely underlines that Russia remains a serious threat. That being so, we could not help but notice that yesterday the Defence Secretary got the podium out for the media just as the Defence Committee was publishing a damning report about Labour’s total lack of progress on boosting our defence readiness. The report said that when it comes to readiness the Government are moving “at a glacial pace”.

On the subject of pace, the SDR promised a defence readiness Bill that would include measures to deal with the grey zone threat, but Ministers recently told me that it has not even been timetabled. In what year will the defence readiness Bill become law?

Capability questions will be key when it comes to undersea cables, but every one of Labour’s defence policy papers has been late. The Government promised  to publish the defence investment plan “in the autumn”. With a week of that season remaining, will they keep that promise?

As the Minister knows better than anyone, when it comes to the hybrid threat, our special forces are more important than ever. Is he not concerned that General Sir Michael Rose, who led the relief of the Iranian embassy siege that made the SAS world-famous, has condemned the Government for “hounding SAS veterans”, warning that that will harm recruitment and morale?

The Yantar incident shows the seriousness of the threat that we face, but what are the Government actually doing in response? The answer: Labour is cutting £2.6 billion from defence spending this year, surrendering sovereignty of the Chagos islands and, following its shameful vote this week, putting the British Army back in the dock. \p Alistair Carns: The hon. Member is correct that Russia does remain a threat. With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine causing over 1,000 casualties a day, it is the biggest threat that the UK has faced in a generation.

As we progress and we hear the Opposition’s criticism of the Government, trying collectively to convince us that we are not doing anything, it is worth noting from my perspective of 24 years of service that we watched the degradation of defence, with the armed forces facing their lowest morale, equipped with equipment that was not fit for purpose, going alongside ships that had not left docks in years, and with families in houses with leaky homes and damp. We had to put up with delay, decrepitude and downgrading of all our defence capabilities.

Now, for the first time in a generation, the military is looking at an increase in defence spending and, with the strategic defence review, integrated missile defence, “NATO first”, and by 2027 running a Steadfast Defender with a whole-of-society approach. We are putting £4 billion into uncrewed systems and £1.5 billion into munitions. The defence readiness Bill is another legislative process to push further changes through by the end of this Parliament.

On elements at the tip of the spear, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, looking into the details, that recruitment and retention is not one. Indeed, we inherited the smallest Army since Napoleonic times due to recruitment and retention issues under the previous Government. Before the Conservatives start lecturing us, a year and a half into our government, on how decrepit our defence is, and downplaying our soldiers, Air Force and those individuals in the Navy, they should take some responsibility for the mismanagement of the defence portfolio for the last 14 years. \p Calvin Bailey: The Yantar’s presence within our waters makes clear Russia’s threat to our democracy, and I am grateful for the service of the brave men and women of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force who protect us. Within the context of the Defence Committee’s recent report, can the Minister highlight how our Government’s leadership of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group and our treaties with Germany and France are essential in ensuring that we reset our relationships and ensure that democracy is safe within Europe? \p Alistair Carns: I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution.

Since coming into Government, we have signed the Trinity House deal with the Germans and renewed the Lancaster House deal with the French. We have done the world’s biggest-ever frigate deal with the Norwegians, bringing in tens of billions in investment. We have done a Typhoon deal with the Turkish, and we have secured a UK-EU security and defence partnership. We have led the coalition of the willing with the French. We have taken on the UDCG, which has generated billions of investment for Ukraine. We have done deals with the EU, US and India. I would argue that this is like an episode—a really bad one—of “Deal or No Deal”. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: May I begin by joining the Minister in thanking our service personnel for their bravery and dedication? The use of lasers in this instance was a brazen act of aggression by Russia that endangered the lives of RAF pilots. Have the Government identified the Russian officials and military personnel who gave the order to engage so that they can be held accountable and sanctioned? What assurances can the Minister give that Russia understands the consequences of repeating this aggression towards the UK?

This episode has shown once again the lengths to which Putin will go to undermine Britain’s defence. It follows the reports of Russian sabotage of Poland’s civilian railway this week. Can the Minister tell the House what conversations Ministers have had with fellow European Ministers to agree a collective response to Russia’s hybrid attacks, including to protect Europe’s critical undersea infrastructure? Recognising also that our Ukrainian allies are on the frontline of Putin’s aggression, will the Minister take forward my private Member’s Bill, which calls for the unilateral seizure of Russian assets in the UK so that they can be used to fund Ukraine’s defence? \p Alistair Carns: The hon. Member brings up a really valid point: the Yantar and the GUGI programme is not just a UK issue; nor are the asymmetric threats that we collectively face across Europe. They are international issues. GUGI vessels operate all over the world. We will collectively work together to gather evidence and show Russia that we know exactly what it is up to, and indeed expose any nefarious activity. I would like Members to be in absolutely no doubt that we will hold people, states and organisations to account should any of our critical national infrastructure be threatened in any way. \p Nick Smith: Given both the Baltic sea incident in 2024, where underground cables were said to be sabotaged, and the latest provocation where the Yantar is said to be mapping undersea cables, will the Minister please outline how allied co-ordination, particularly with our Nordic and Baltic partners, could be strengthened? \p Alistair Carns: My hon. Friend raises a really valid point. We have seen several cables in the Baltics severed or cut. I would argue that the Yantar, with its intelligence-gathering capability, maps these cables, and perhaps accidents take place at a later date. We are working really well, in particular with our Norwegian partners and the US, to ensure that we understand the exact capabilities that sit  on some of these vessels, so if something were to happen, we can attribute and expose it , not just from a UK perspective but an allied one. \p Julian Lewis: Responding to that directly, if the Government are trying to map the capabilities of the vessel, can they tell us whether they knew in advance that it had this laser capability, and if they did, whether steps are being taken to find methods of protecting our personnel against such laser attacks? Will the Minister and the Government be careful not to fall for the bully’s playbook of the killer in the Kremlin? It is no coincidence that this incident happened now, just at the time that the Americans are coming up with a “peace plan” that plays into the hands of Putin and betrays our Ukrainian friends. \p Alistair Carns: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which was very focused and meaningful, as always. I will not go into detail on the specific capabilities, but from our perspective there has been no impact on the aircraft or the crew, and we have expanded our rules of engagement to ensure that no vessel can operate over sea, over our critical national infrastructure, without being watched and monitored in the closest and most sophisticated way. \p Sarah Coombes: The first duty of any Government is to keep our citizens safe, which is why this Labour Government are delivering a historic uplift in defence spending, in stark contrast to the cuts of the Conservative Government. The Minister set out a potent example of the rising threats to our country. Will he say more about how our increased defence spending will keep us safe and support jobs in the defence industry, such as at the Westley Group in my constituency, which makes all the castings for our UK submarine fleet? \p Alistair Carns: My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Defence spending is not just about defending the nation; it is an engine for growth. The Typhoon deal alone has created over 20,000 jobs, and Members will have seen just recently that we are providing up to 100,000 drones to Ukraine. That is to do not just with the capability going forward, but with the industrial base back here in the UK. The huge increase in defence spending in 2027 will broaden our defence industrial base; combined with deals here in the UK and overseas, we will make it an engine for growth, increase jobs and prosperity, and, importantly, shore up the defence of the nation. \p Bernard Jenkin: May I congratulate the Government on being more forward in their public responses to this kind of provocation than any other European member of NATO, let alone the United States, but also point out that this underlines what we know from what Putin and Lavrov have been saying? They think they are at war with NATO and with the United Kingdom already. The question is not how we retaliate directly, but how we retaliate in order to put pressure on Putin and Russia. The answer is by increasing our military assistance to Ukraine to tip the balance in its favour, change the calculus, and get the Russians to come to the peace table and agree a proper ceasefire, which even President Trump’s appeasing plan seems most unlikely to achieve. \p Alistair Carns: The hon. Member is right: we must push as hard as we can to impose cost on Russia. To date we have spent £21.8 billion in Ukraine—£4.5 billion in military support—and I know we have support from both sides of the House to do everything we can to increase the pressure. I mentioned that we have upped our drone production to 100,000 this year, and we are increasing our training of Ukrainian troops to 61,000 in total. We will do whatever it takes to enable the Ukrainians to win the peace. \p Torcuil Crichton: The Yantar was intercepted in the north Atlantic, which is the UK’s new frontline but my constituents’ backyard. I was reassured by the preparedness of the RAF and the Royal Navy and grateful for their defence of our airspace and seaspace, but what assurance can the Minister give my constituents about our preparedness and resilience to meet these kinds of hybrid attacks? These cables do not just run across the Atlantic; they run between our islands, too. \p Alistair Carns: My hon. Friend highlights a valid point. The north-west of Scotland plays an invaluable part in our defence architecture, and sustains economic growth with a variety of undersea infrastructure. We have some of the best ships, personnel, aircraft and Air Force members. They will continue to monitor, track and deter any Russian aggression anywhere near and within our territorial waters and exclusive economic zone. \p Graham Leadbitter: I associate myself with comments about the bravery and professionalism of the military personnel involved in the response to the Yantar’s presence, many of whom are based at Lossiemouth in my constituency. Yesterday, the Defence Committee published a report recommending that the UK Government accelerate and deepen defence relationships with the EU in the face of Russian threats. However, unsurprisingly, the EU is now charging the UK to enter agreements to which we had EU member access prior to Brexit. That leaves these isles more isolated. In the face of the very real Russian threat, what is the risk to RAF pilots and crews at Lossiemouth? Will the Minister tell me the specifics of any plans to work closely with European allies to ensure safety and security of the North sea and the protection of Scotland’s coast from Russian vessels? \p Alistair Carns: We are working closely with our European allies to get access to the Security Action for Europe programme and an EU-UK defence partnership. That is primarily for two reasons: first, so that we end up with a far more collaborative and interoperable defence capability, and secondly, to ensure that the economic benefits of both are seen south of our coast and here in the United Kingdom. Importantly, we have a trajectory to invest in P-8s long into the future. They play such an important role in our anti-submarine warfare fleet, and will continue to do so until the threat is gone. \p Jacob Collier: I thank the Minister for his statement and join him in thanking the Royal Navy and RAF personnel, and the civilian staff, who have been involved. There is a possibility that vessels such as the Yantar could be used to launch drone attacks on the UK. Will the Minister reassure us that he is working to bolster the UK’s air defence system? \p Alistair Carns: That is a valid point. For years we have not taken homeland security seriously. The House will note that, in the strategic defence review, we have invested in integrated missile defence, which is important both for very sophisticated systems and for the low-grade systems we have seen flying in our airspace, which are sometimes more difficult to track and defeat. I can absolutely give the assurance that we are investing in integrated missile defence as we move forward with the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome many of the Minister’s comments. I would add my enormous thanks to the intelligence personnel who assisted not only in zeroing in on the ship but in understanding its capabilities a long time before anybody else arrived on the scene.

As a fellow former military assistant in the MOD, may I raise one point with the Minister? We have both seen Governments of every colour making decisions and statements that sound good on the day before the reality of a lack of kit becomes clear. I saw that under Blair and Brown, and again, yes, under Governments of my own stripe. I am sure that the Minister, too, saw that under them all. I raise this because the reality is that the world has changed. We are much, much more vulnerable today than we have been, but we have fewer ships at sea, fewer men in uniform and fewer planes in the air than we have had at any time. Yet the aspiration for the 3% is still “by the end of the Parliament” or “over the next five years”, and always on the never-never. He must be very careful, as I am sure he is hugely aware, that he is there to change defence, not to apologise for failure. \p Alistair Carns: The right hon. and gallant Member raises a valid point. When we came into government, we took the significant step of raising defence spending, but he knows as well as any that it is not just about buying or investing in the same capability; it is about rebuilding and reshaping our armed forces to fight not yesterday’s war but the war of the future. We are absorbing many of the lessons from Ukraine to ensure that we can transform our military to fight in the most effective manner. That is why I got into this game in the first place—to move that along faster, particularly when it comes to autonomous systems.

The right hon. and gallant Member will have seen in the strategic defence review a massive increase of £4 billion for autonomous systems, as well as an increase in the number of drone companies. Just today, the Defence Secretary opened another factory down in Plymouth. I am away after this statement to go and open another in Swindon. A huge industrial base to build drones is growing in the UK. It is a Seedcorn capability that can expand rapidly at times of conflict. I am happy to take any of these points offline to talk further about how we can work collaboratively to move forward. \p Chris Webb: This reckless act from Russia demonstrates how important it is that the world stands united against Putin’s aggression. What discussions has the Minister had with his international partners about maintaining and galvanising that support? \p Alistair Carns: That is a really useful point. Individually, we are strong. Collectively, we are united. It is really important that we double down on our allies and partners  to collaborate—whether that is with NATO, the joint expeditionary force or some of our European or international allies. This is all about our being stronger together, whether that is the UK Army, Navy, Air Force and intelligence partners working to expose the Yantar’s capability, or collectively, working with all our like-minded allies to make sure that we are mapping and tracking its capability. Should there be a disruption in critical national infrastructure, we can then expose it and attribute it as fast as possible. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Everyone in this House should be concerned by the increase in Russian sub-threshold activity, and this certainly is not the first time we have found ourselves in this House discussing the Yantar specifically. The use of lasers against an operational P-8 very much pushes the boundaries of what we could consider to be sub-threshold activity.

I want to ask the Minister a question that is very much within his bailiwick. I do not expect him to be able to comment on whether we have deployed any elements of the Fleet Contingency Troop to HMS Somerset, which is tracking the Yantar, but under what circumstances and geographically whereabouts within our waters would the Yantar need to be in order for us to apply some maritime interdiction via the Fleet Contingency Troop? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his point. As someone who used to be in that part of the organisation, I am sure there are lots of people who are champing at the bit to get involved. We must adhere to the international rules of the sea, but let me be really clear for anyone listening to this today that we know exactly what Russia is up to—without a shadow of a doubt, we know what it is up to—and should there be a connection between understanding our cables or undersea infrastructure and disruption, individuals, units, organisations or countries will be held accountable. \p Peter Prinsley: The sight of this sinister ship snooping around our shores strikes alarm. How can we be confident of the security of our vital undersea communication cables and what, without compromising our security, is plan B if they are severed? \p Alistair Carns: As my hon. Friend will know, we work with our allies to build contingency across all our critical national infrastructure. There is lots of work to do, and we are working in collaboration with other Governments to do it. The point he raises, which is one of the most important, is that Russia wants to operate behind a veil of darkness, in the shadows, but let us be really clear: we know exactly what it is doing; we know everything that it is up to. A laser pen is not going to deter us. We will continue, we will double down and, if required, we will expose and attribute. \p Charlie Dewhirst: In the light of this recent escalation, what specific and immediate steps is the Minister taking to ensure that UK armed forces are equipped both to protect critical underwater infrastructure and to respond rapidly and effectively to direct threats from Russia and others? \p Alistair Carns: The strategic defence review points to the multi-role ship and our buying into mapping and tracking our infrastructure, protecting it and, importantly, if  required, deterring capabilities such as the Yantar, and a suite of capabilities that the Russians can field, to ensure they cannot work with impunity in either the EEZ or international waters. \p James Wild: In January, the Defence Secretary came to this House to make a statement when the Yantar passed through British waters, but he did not see fit to do so when that ship directed lasers at our pilots, which I think reflects poorly on him. Has the Russian ambassador been summoned over this highly dangerous action, and if not, why not? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. It is something I will take up with my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. If there is unruly or escalatory activity, we have to continue to ensure that, diplomatically, individuals are called in and held to account, and we will continue to do so. \p Nick Timothy: We know, as the Minister has said, that Russia and China target undersea cables and interconnectors, which we rely on increasingly because of the Government’s energy policy. We know that the Russians put listening devices on our offshore infrastructure to monitor our submarines, and we know that China, which dominates the world market for cellular internet modules, inserts kill switches into the turbines that this Government want to buy from them. I have been asking the same question for a year now: why is there not a single Minister in charge of the security of our offshore energy infrastructure? What representations have Ministry of Defence Ministers made to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who is causing so many of these problems? \p Alistair Carns: I would not say that there has been a lack of accountability, but the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that until now there has been a lack of centralisation   around our critical national infrastructure. A recent report was issued and we now have clear lines of accountability. Defence is a part of that and we are building our capability, with the view eventually of fulfilling our role with that structure. We are working collaboratively across Government to ensure that our critical national infrastructure is protected, so that should there be an incident, there is accountability. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his strong words and his answers, which encourage both hon. Members and those who are listening. Let us be clear and succinct: Russian ships have twice entered British sovereign waters, and to add to that aggression, they have been tracking our RAF pilots with lasers. Our enemy has breached our waters disgracefully, disregarded neutrality and shown disrespect. The facts and the evidence are there. To quote Winston Churchill, who I loved when I was a boy and who was certainly my hero:

“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be”.

Will the Minister confirm that this is a form of attack, and that the might of our armed forces is poised, their equipment is trained and they are ready to go? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insightful question. Be in no doubt: we will defend every inch of this country and our territorial waters. If anything is taking place in our EEZ, in particular, we will expose, we will attribute and, be in absolutely no doubt, we will hold people, organisations or countries accountable should there be any impact on or disruption to our critical national infrastructure. \p Caroline Nokes: I will now announce the result of yesterday’s deferred Division on the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 376 and the Noes were 16, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.] \p Priti Patel: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of the war in Ukraine and the forcible removal of children to Russia. \p Hamish Falconer: Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on a sovereign democratic state. For over three years, Ukrainians have defended their country with courage and a fierce determination to defend the shared values that we cherish.

President Putin continues to intensify missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities which continue to kill civilians, including children, and damage vital civilian infrastructure. President Putin is also taking children from their families. Almost 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly deported to Russia or to Russian temporarily controlled territory by Russian authorities. We are closely engaged with Ukraine and our international partners to ensure that Ukraine gets the support that it needs to defend itself and achieve a just and lasting peace.

President Putin has shown no readiness to engage in meaningful peace negotiations. At last week’s Foreign Ministers meeting, G7 partners were clear that international borders must not be changed by force. We will also continue to use the full might of our sanctions regime to bear down on the revenues that are funding Putin’s war and to ratchet up pressure to force him to engage in meaningful talks. To date, this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals and entities, targeted Russia’s illicit shadow fleet and its two largest oil producers, and announced a ban on maritime liquefied natural gas, all to curb funding of Russia’s war chest.

Russia’s heinous policy to deport, indoctrinate and militarise Ukrainian children demonstrates the depths to which they will sink to eradicate Ukrainian identity and future.

The UK has committed more than £2.8 million to supporting Ukrainian efforts to facilitate the return and reintegration of children deported by Russia. Since the beginning of September, Ukraine’s pilot tracing mechanism, which the UK is co-funding, already identified more than 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated in the temporarily occupied territories. The Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister during last week’s inaugural meeting of the UK-Ukraine strategic dialogue. We are working internationally in support of Ukraine and Canada, which co-chairs the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children. \p Priti Patel: This House has been resolute in its support for Ukraine and its defence of its territories, sovereignty and freedom. Since 2022, the amount of support we have given to Ukraine has placed us at the forefront of those working with it to secure peace on its terms. As US military officials are in Ukraine today, we need to know what role the UK Government and the coalition of the willing are playing. What is the Government’s position on reports that the United States is brokering a deal with Russia that will involve Ukraine making  territorial concessions, with Russia gaining territory, or being party to some form of lease arrangement, under which it effectively controls the east of Ukraine? Was the UK involved in drawing up those proposals? Reports suggest that under those proposals, the Ukrainian armed forces will be reduced and limited. What is the Government’s view on that? Are these reports accurate, or are there proposals on the table that align more closely with our view, and the Ukrainian view, that Russia should leave Ukraine?

Can the Minister give an update on the steps being taken to pressure Russia and its economy? We know of the sanctions and measures, and that they are being kept under review, but are proactive steps being taken to press countries to stop refining Russian oil? Turkey, India and China all have refineries, and are significant importers of Russian oil. When the Prime Minister met the Turkish President last month, did the Prime Minister raise this issue, and press him to stop? We have asked that question before, but we did not get a direct yes-or-no answer. Have British Ministers raised this issue with their Chinese counterparts in the Chinese Communist party when they have gone to Beijing to conduct shuttle diplomacy? Is there an update on securing the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea to support Ukraine?

Finally, today is World Children’s Day. Our thoughts are with the 20,000 Ukrainian children reported to have been abducted by Putin. We welcome the reports of the returns, and the rescue of 1,800 Ukrainian children, but what further steps is Britain taking to secure their return as soon as possible? Is that a priority in the talks that are taking place? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her questions. The whole House is united both in support of Ukraine, and in outrage at the iniquity of what the Russians are doing to Ukrainian children.

We are glad of our partnership with the Ukrainian Government on the new tracing mechanism. As I said, it has made some progress since September, having identified more than 600 children who should be returned to Ukraine, and we will use our full efforts to ensure that they are returned. The shadow Foreign Secretary asks about reports made in recent days. I am sure that she will have seen the statement this morning by the US Secretary of State, in which he indicated that a range of ideas were being discussed. The Foreign Secretary is in direct regular discussions with the US Secretary of State, and he made an important statement last week at the G7 on these questions. That statement reiterated that an immediate ceasefire is urgently needed.

We should be clear that President Zelensky is ready for an immediate ceasefire, and the UK supports him in that initiative; it is President Putin who is failing to come to the table. What should be the starting point of negotiations? It was clear in the G7 statement that the current line of contact should be the starting point, and we remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. I know that principle is held strongly across the whole House. \p Johanna Baxter: Today, on World Children’s Day, we are reminded that safeguarding the next generation is not just a value that we hold dear, but the responsibility of every Member of this House. In recent days, more than 100 Members  have backed President Zelensky’s Bring Kids Back initiative. They stand united with Ukraine and its stolen children, and I thank all those Members.

I also thank the Minister for working with me on supporting the Ukrainian Government’s launch of a new pilot programme to trace the children. Since September, it has found 600 of those children. If media reports from the last 24 hours about a US-brokered peace deal are to be believed, they should trouble every single one of us. A deal that trades away Ukrainian territory and security and makes no mention at all of the 20,000 children whom Russia has stolen from Ukraine is not peace; it is capitulation. This House should stand united in rejecting that deal. Can the Minister assure us that before any peace deal is considered, the future of Ukraine’s 20,000 stolen children will be top of the agenda? \p Hamish Falconer: The whole House recognises my hon. Friend’s work on this issue, both before she arrived in this place and since being elected. The atrocities that have been committed against Ukrainian families are at the top of our minds, and the removal of children is first among them. This issue remains a priority for the Government; I described the tracing mechanism, as has my hon. Friend, and we are pleased with the results since the pilot began in September. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary discussed it with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister during his visit last week, and we will continue to work on these issues. It cannot become the norm in international relations to kidnap children and relocate them, which is what we have seen the Russians do. We oppose that, and it is why we will continue with our work on this.

I have already provided some response on the question of negotiations, but to state the very obvious, the Ukrainian flag flies from the Foreign Office. It flies from many churches in Lincolnshire, and from buildings across the constituencies represented in the Chamber this morning. The UK is steadfast in its support for Ukraine, and it will be for Ukraine to determine what negotiations it is prepared to enter into. That is what the Foreign Secretary was discussing with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, the US Secretary of State and a range of her other international partners last week. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: Donald Trump’s latest proposals for securing peace in Ukraine might as well have been written in the Kremlin—indeed, they probably were. Those in Reform UK who have been paid to repeat Russian propaganda might disagree, but I believe that those in the House today will see the proposals for what they are. If Kyiv is pressed by Moscow and Washington into accepting these terms, which include the surrender of the Donbas and a halt to vital weapon supplies, it would be nothing less than a betrayal of our Ukrainian allies, so will the Minister publicly express the Government’s unequivocal rejection of those proposals, including the sacrifice of Ukrainian sovereign territory, and will the Government urgently convene a coalition of the willing, with a view to generating fresh support for Ukraine?

The abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children by the Kremlin is the clearest and most grotesque evidence of Putin’s cruelty and desire to erase a whole nation. It will go down as one of the gravest crimes of  the war. What further financial support are the Government offering to Bring Kids Back, and will the Minister back my Bill to seize Russian assets in the UK and make the proceeds available for helping Ukraine’s children, women and men? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions. I will not answer on Reform’s approach to these questions. Reform Members have not made themselves available this morning, unlike many others who have a deep commitment to, and interest in, these questions.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the funding that we have committed to tracing Ukrainian children and reuniting them with their families. We have provided more than £2.8 million to support those efforts. He also asked about the latest reports on what a deal might look like. I draw his attention to the statements, which I read from earlier, made last week by the US, the UK and the G7, and to the US Secretary of State’s statement this morning. \p Nia Griffith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her excellent work on the stolen Ukrainian children, whom we all want returned as soon as possible. Does the Minister agree that only greater resolve, unity and support from the west can drive back Russia’s outrageous demands for Ukrainian territory, and pave the way for a peace that represents Ukraine’s interests? What more can he do to encourage greater support for Ukraine among our allies? \p Hamish Falconer: There is resolve in Ukraine and among its allies, and there is significant unity. There have been a range of steps taken in recent weeks, including the sanctions that the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, the steps announced over the weekend on Ukrainian children, and the strategic dialogue with Ukraine that the Foreign Secretary conducted in London last week. We will continue to press. There is an illusion, I fear, taking root in Moscow that one more push and yet further military operations will lead to a weakening of resolve in Ukraine, the UK and across the west. That is an illusion. We will remain steadfast in support of our Ukrainian friends. \p Bernard Jenkin: I remind the Minister that I look forward to tabling a motion for a Backbench Business debate on Ukraine, which will refer to the 20,000 abducted children. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on the work she is doing on this subject. That motion will also draw attention to the other atrocities. Just this week, we welcomed two former Ukrainian prisoners of war, who had been held and tortured by the Russians, completely without regard to the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war, because the Russians fabricate this narrative that they are not at war in Ukraine and are conducting some special military operation. They do not have the regard for the norms of warfare that we would expect any civilised country to have. Can the Minister underline the point that the Trump proposals are unacceptable, and will he join all the NATO allies in making it clear to the United States that these proposals are unacceptable? \p Hamish Falconer: I will ensure that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is aware of the hon.  Gentleman’s proposals for further discussions in this House on these important questions. He is right to draw attention to the clearly preposterous Russian position that it is engaged in an operation, rather than a war. I am less well versed in military matters than the Minister for the Armed Forces, but this is clearly not an operation. We are some years in, and there have been thousands upon thousands of casualties—men, women and children —and a significant loss to Russian forces, even over the past month. The hon. Gentleman asks about our position on some of the media speculation. He will understand why I am reluctant to be drawn on that in great detail. I can point him to the clear statement from the G7 last week, and to the latest comments from the US Secretary of State this morning. \p Nick Smith: The stealing of 20,000 children like this is an outrage. I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the Bring Kids Back campaign is right to emphasise that the return of these children is non-negotiable in any future peace deal? \p Hamish Falconer: It is non-negotiable. You cannot steal children in 2025 and think that is an acceptable way to conduct war. The relevant international legal provisions are absolutely clear, and I know that this whole House, and indeed the whole country, is genuinely outraged by what the Russians have done. \p Julian Lewis: By putting forward proposals that could have been drafted by the killer in the Kremlin himself, it seems that President Trump has finally given up on the Nobel peace prize, and is content to settle for the Lenin peace prize instead. Do the Government share my concern at the remarks, admittedly aspirational, by the US ambassador to NATO about his long-term hope that Germany will take over America’s role at the heart of the alliance? Does that not betray the decades of peace after the second world war that NATO was created to preserve? \p Hamish Falconer: I am not familiar with the Lenin peace prize; I will google it afterwards. I have been clear on the position and the basis of negotiations. Clearly, it is for Ukraine as a sovereign nation to determine the position that it takes in negotiations. I saw reports of the discussion. I think it was, to be fair, about who should perform the role of SACEUR—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe—rather than the future division of responsibility between forces in NATO. NATO remains a vital component of European security and perhaps the most signal commitment to Europe and America’s shared defence and shared values. Long may it continue. \p Rachel Hopkins: Russia is enduring significant financial pressure as a result of its illegal war in Ukraine. Does the Minister share my view that we must impose maximum economic pressure on Russia in order to force Putin to the negotiating table? \p Hamish Falconer: I do. I feel great sadness for the Russian people, because the truth is that President Putin appears to be happy to endure their hardship at almost any cost.  The Russians are suffering terribly, both on the battlefield and in their standards of living across Russia. The sensible thing for President Putin to do—the thing that he has refused to do—is enter into the ceasefire talks that President Zelensky, the UK and many of our allies have called for him to enter into. This is not complicated or difficult. We will continue to apply financial pressure on the Russians until he does so, and it is with great regret that some of the sanctions will put further pressure on the already suffering Russian people. That is what we must do, and it is what we will continue to do until those ceasefire talks begin. \p Dave Doogan: The Minister is very well read, so I wonder whether he can identify any point in history when the appeasement of an aggressive, expansionist autocrat has ever worked out well. The population of these isles and the rest of Europe have endured high energy prices for the last three years, have taken Ukrainians into their homes, and have heard his Government and the previous Government unite the House by saying that, whatever it takes and however long it takes, we will get Ukraine’s sovereign territory back. Yet here we are, with the United States apparently in bilateral talks with Russia about how to carve up Ukraine. Does he have any positive message about the UK’s role in rejecting that? If he does not have a positive message for me today, what is the message from the UK to our allies in Norway, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Moldova, who know very well what appeasement of Russia looks like and feels like? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. This is my message for the people of eastern Europe and for the people of the UK: we remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. Russia will not win. The Russians are not winning; they are suffering terribly in trying to pursue a so-called operation that is bringing them nothing but misery. I hope that they realise that swiftly, that they start ceasefire talks on the basis of the line of contact, and that Ukraine is in a position to secure its full and sovereign rights. That is what the British Government are committed to. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Russia’s kidnapping of children as a weapon in its illegal invasion of Ukraine is absolutely abhorrent and wicked, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her sterling efforts to make sure that these children are not forgotten in this place. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that children have been used as a weapon of war; we have seen it in Nigeria and other places in recent years. What more can this Government do to ensure that this is not normalised by dictators and despots across the world, and that children cannot be used as a weapon of war? What more can be done to ensure the return of Ukraine’s 20,000 stolen children? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks an incredibly important question. She is right to suggest that children are bearing the worst brunt of conflict. I was in Yemen this week, and I was appalled to see so many children with both moderate and severely acute malnutrition. That malnutrition is in very significant order created by the Houthis, who have restricted aid access into north  Yemen and, indeed, detained UN aid workers and seized their offices. What the Russian forces do in Ukraine is seen elsewhere: it is seen by the Houthis and by militias in Nigeria. This country will stand up for an international rules-based order, which includes the protections that children are entitled to. We will continue to work to ensure the safe return of those 20,000 Ukrainian children. Six hundred of them have been identified by the mechanism that we co-fund and co-founded with the Ukrainians, and we will continue to work to ensure that all the remaining children are returned. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome the courage of the American people over many decades in standing up for our liberties and defending our freedoms, and I draw attention to the fact that this wonderful act of generosity has supported a US economy that has grown more powerfully, more capably and in more directions than any other economy in human history, making the United States the richest and most powerful country the world has ever known. Would the Minister agree with me that that stance on the side of truth and justice has genuinely been a great blessing for all free peoples, and that we should be standing up against people traffickers and child traffickers—by, for example, calling out folk like Jeffrey Epstein—but that seeing the world’s largest child trafficker almost getting away with it would be a betrayal of the great American values that have led to the happiness and prosperity of one of the wonderful countries of this world? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for his question. The US and UK have stood together on questions of European order ever since the second world war, and I am incredibly proud that it was a Labour Foreign Secretary who led on the creation of NATO. I know that our American friends continue to see questions of European security and order as being of the utmost importance, and that security and order cannot co-exist in a world in which territory is seized by force and children are abducted in exactly the way he describes. \p David Burton-Sampson: The stealing of Ukrainian children by Putin is scandalous and equally devastating for the Ukrainian families impacted. Putin shows no desire to agree a ceasefire in Ukraine, with continued bombardments on the Ukrainian people day in, day out. Does the Minister agree with me that, until Putin demonstrates that he is committed to returning these children and committed to a ceasefire, we must continue to provide Ukraine with all the military, economic and diplomatic support that it needs? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I do agree. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for all the reasons that hon. Members have expressed this morning. We will continue to do so until talks have started, and a just and sovereign future for Ukraine is secured. \p Clive Jones: In Wokingham there is a Ukrainian refugee community that has made a positive difference to the area. I have worked with local groups to help supply aid to civilians in Ukraine, and many have shared their concerns about the war and the safety of their relatives back home. I fully support the  hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her comments about the 20,000 Ukrainian children stolen by the Russians. What are the Government doing to reassure the many Ukrainians in my constituency that UK support for Ukraine will remain steadfast against the Russian invasion, that Putin will be held to account for his war crimes, and that Trump will not be allowed to backtrack on his support for Ukraine and NATO? \p Hamish Falconer: I pay tribute to the hon. Member and his constituents for their work to support Ukrainians. I know that hon. Members right across the House and their constituents have been engaged in supporting Ukrainians in many different ways. I myself have met the Ukrainian community in Lincoln, and there are many people in Lincoln who have taken in Ukrainians or provided support. I would like to assure all of those people that we will continue to stand with the Ukrainians on these questions.

The hon. Member asks an important question about how we can continue to identify those children who have been seized by the Russians. There is work ongoing, often using Russian databases themselves, which are relatively freely available, to identify where Ukrainian children are likely to have been taken in Russia. I imagine that the Russian authorities think people are not sufficiently interested to track individual children. I can assure the House that we are, that we will and that we will continue to follow this to the end. Alongside our Ukrainian friends, we have identified 600 individual Ukrainian children by name. We will not forget the names of those children, and we will not forget the locations of those children. The Russian families who have sought to take in those children should know that such an effort is ongoing, and that it is supported right across the Government, right across the House and right across the country. We will continue, day in and day out, to ensure that those children are returned. \p Adam Jogee: Using children in this way is sick—there is no other word for it. The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme opened their homes, they spoke out, they spoke up and they stood with the people of Ukraine—and they still do. They raise money and deliver medical supplies, books and clothes. I thank them all for their efforts and commitment. We rightly support the people of Ukraine against Russia, but we also see Russia continuing to seek influence in other parts of the world through money, arms and the rest. This is a geopolitical challenge that we think we are getting right in one part of the world, but we cannot afford to ignore it in others. What are we doing to help ensure that we neutralise Russia’s attempt at command and control in other parts of the world? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Russia exerts a malign influence not just in Ukraine; we have seen its relationship with the Houthis. We have seen its relationships in Syria. I am glad to see that they have declined in recent months, but it continues, through Africa Corps and a number of other arms of its state, to be a malign influence right across the world. Its efforts are always at the expense of the populations where they are found. We continue to work with our friends and allies across the world. I was discussing malign Russian influence in Yemen in recent days. I have  discussed it in Libya. I have discussed it in Syria. We will continue to act across the world—as my hon. Friend would expect; I know he pays close attention—and we will not rest while Russia continues to exert such a malign influence on global affairs. We wish to have a friendship. We have long and historic relations with the Russian people. I know that nothing would give greater pleasure to so many in the UK than to have a more normal relationship with the Russian state than we currently do, but that will require significant changes from the Russian state, which continues to exert such a malign influence on global affairs. \p Will Forster: One of the most important things the UK can do to support Ukraine is to push President Trump on a comprehensive G7 plan to seize the estimated £300 billion of Russian assets across those seven nations and funnel them to Ukraine. Please can the Minister confirm what steps the Government have taken to push President Trump to build international co-ordination on seizing Russian assets, including Sutton Place in my constituency? \p Hamish Falconer: We have worked across our allies and friends to ensure there is a robust and unified approach to these issues. I have described some of the statements we have made in recent days. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary discussed the questions engaged in Ukraine at some length with the Secretary of State on the sidelines of the G7 last week. We will continue to do all we can and everything it takes to ensure we are putting the pressure on Russia that is required to ensure that this war comes to an end. \p Richard Baker: In September I had the privilege of meeting, in Kyiv, Raisa Kravchenko and Yulia Klepets of the All-Ukrainian NGO Coalition for People with Intellectual Disabilities. They told me of the devastating impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on disabled people. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly distressing that when Russian forces have kidnapped Ukrainian children, they have targeted disabled children, and that when we can finally look to reconstruction and rebuilding Ukraine, specific support will be required for disabled people who have suffered so much as a result of Russia’s aggression and crimes—crimes for which Russia must be held accountable? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is right. These are actions almost beyond comprehension. To be targeting disabled children in this way is a crime that will not be forgotten. He is absolutely right: it is always the most vulnerable who are worst affected by conflict, and that is particularly true of people who are disabled. It is something that we consider in our own aid efforts in Ukraine and, as he says, must of course be considered as part of reconstruction efforts. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers and for his strong focus on the Ukrainian children. I also thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all that she has done—we appreciate it. The trafficking to Russia and forced adoption of Ukrainian children is truly  despicable. The re-education camps that are brainwashing children to forget—or to erase—their Ukrainian heritage are detestable, and the need for British involvement is undeniable. Will the Minister please outline what steps we will take to bring those children home to their families, instead of accepting that they are prisoners of war, which is disgusting, inhuman and contemptible? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman’s tone is absolutely right. I have described some of the tracing efforts that we are engaged in, but clearly, simply locating these children in Russia is not enough—they must also be returned. We will continue to work at every level; the Minister for Europe has met with civil society organisations involved in those efforts, as has Baroness Harman, our special envoy for women and girls, and the Foreign Secretary has discussed the children with her opposite numbers. We will continue to give this issue the focus that the hon. Gentleman rightly demands of us, and I assure the country that we will do so until the children are returned. \p Patricia Ferguson: It would seem that the traditional role of the American President as someone who can straddle the world stage, working with friends and allies to achieve outcomes for good across the world, is in danger of being diminished to the role of someone who proffers capitulation on behalf of another sovereign nation. That is something that we cannot accept.

On the children who are the focus of this urgent question, I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). As young people are returned—hopefully in increasing numbers—what work can we do as a country and a Government to ensure the reintegration of those young people into the society that Putin worked so hard to prevent them being part of? \p Hamish Falconer: We must work to see those children returned. We are an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and we work closely with the Ukrainian Government on these questions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one can hardly imagine the trauma, confusion and status of those children on their return to Ukraine. We will do what we can to support the Ukrainian Government in their efforts in that area. \p Jacob Collier: All of us want to see peace in Ukraine, but it must be on the terms of the Ukrainian people—terms that they are fully behind. Russia cannot gain, or be seen to gain, from its illegal and unprovoked invasion. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will stand fully behind Ukraine in ensuring that there is a peace agreement on Ukraine’s terms? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion for Ukraine’s interests in this House, and he is right. We are working with our friends and allies, particularly at the G7. I have described the statement that we agreed last week on the questions of ceasefire and negotiations, which, as my hon. Friend says, must happen on the basis of Ukraine’s sovereign interests. We will continue to work with G7 partners in condemning Russia’s actions—condemning its provision of arms to  others as well as its actions in Ukraine—and increasing the economic costs to Russia, as we have set out in our most recent sanctions measures. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for his responses. I will allow a few minutes for the Front Benches to swap over, during which time it might be helpful to remind Members that in an urgent question, the questioner gets two minutes, the Minister gets three minutes to respond, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman gets one minute. Any Member posing a question that is approaching one minute in length might think about reducing the length of their question. \p Robert Jenrick: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for national security and the management of terrorist offenders following disruption to the separation centre regime. \p Alex Davies-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important question. Separation centres are a vital part of our strategy to manage those who pose the most significant terrorist risk. Following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland in April this year, we took immediate action to ensure safety in our separation centres. Today, everyone is safe and a stringent regime remains in place.

Our prison officers are some of the hardest-working and bravest public servants in this country. It is right that they feel safe as they work to protect the public. That is why, following the attack at Frankland, we mandated the use of protective body armour in our highest-risk units, including our SCs, for the first time. The Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced a further £15 million investment in safety equipment, including to roll out up to 10,000 pieces of body armour to up to 500 staff trained in the use of Tasers.

The Abu judgment is very fact-specific and does not threaten the integrity of the separation centres themselves. This Government take the judgment and others that were referenced very seriously. We are clear that any decision regarding segregation must comply with prison rules and human rights obligations, including under the European convention on human rights. We are working to ensure that our referral process is robust and are strengthening our ability to defend against legal challenges. Specialist staff continue to assess referrals rigorously, and placements are made only where the criteria are met.

Let me be clear: the Government will always put national security first. Separation centres remain an essential operational tool, and we will continue to use these specialist units to protect the public from the most dangerous offenders. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Robert Jenrick: Sahayb Abu is a danger to this country. This is an ISIS fanatic who bought a combat vest and a sword so that he could, in his own words, “shoot up a crowd”, yet this week the High Court ruled that keeping him apart from other prisoners to prevent him from radicalising them was a breach of his human rights. We have reached the perverse situation where a terrorist’s mental health is prioritised over national security and the protection of the very men and women in uniform who are targets for these dangerous individuals with very little to lose. Abu is now in line for a payout from the taxpayer.

This is not an isolated incident; it is the latest in a line, including the double murderer and extremist Fuad Awale and Denny De Silva. Every extremist housed in a separation centre may now be able to deploy this judgment to escape being housed in such a unit and to get a payout. Terrorists are weaponising the ECHR and the public  sector equality duty to milk the state, and the Ministry of Justice is signing the cheques. I note that the Minister did not say that she would be appealing this judgment.

The separation centre regime was created to counter highly subversive terrorists recruiting inside jail and to ensure protection for prison officers, which is effectively collapsing. Prison governors are being paralysed just when there is a crisis of extremism and extreme violence in our prisons, necessitating more separation centres and more segregation.

Will the Minister finally publish Jonathan Hall KC’s review of separation centres, which was produced as evidence in court but which has not been published to this House or the country? Will she say that under no circumstances will any terrorist be rewarded in this manner, and bring forward emergency legislation to override this judgment, prevent payout, protect national security and protect our prison officers? I have said many times that it is only a matter of time before an officer gets killed by one of these monsters. Will the Minister bring forward this legislation? If she does, she will have the Opposition’s support; if she does not, we will do so. \p Alex Davies-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that I am unable to pre-empt decisions that are yet to be taken by the courts. The Government will always ensure that taxpayer money is used responsibly and effectively. On the most recent judicial review, announced just yesterday, the Government are considering all the available options, including the right to appeal. I want to put that on the record.

I find it quite disingenuous that the right hon. Gentleman—the almost Leader of the Opposition—talks about leaving the European convention on human rights. If he feels so strongly about this, why did his party do absolutely nothing on it when it was in government for 14 years? The Conservatives talk about action; this Labour Government are acting. We have been clear that we will not fail to act on reform of the ECHR; in fact, the sentencing Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards)—is in Strasbourg right now having discussions with partners on a range of topics, including reform of the ECHR.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the findings of Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres. The Government commissioned that following the attack at HMP Frankland, and Mr Hall’s report and our response will be published in due course. Let me just say, for the avoidance of any doubt, that it is the priority of this Government—as it should be of all Governments—to keep the public safe and to protect national security. This Government will always ensure that that is done. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: May I thank the Minister for reaffirming the Government’s support—which it should not be necessary to do—for the rule of law and the ECHR? Will she concentrate on the key points here? The first is making sure that the most dangerous prisoners are held securely and the  second is ensuring the safety of prison officers. Will she also say what the status of Jonathan Hall KC’s review is? I understand that it has been with the Lord Chancellor for some months. When will we see that and when will we implement the recommendations of the report? \p Alex Davies-Jones: As I have stated, the Government are committed to ensuring that separation centres continue to prevent those who pose the highest terrorist risk from influencing the wider prison population. That is precisely why we commissioned Jonathan Hall’s independent review following the appalling attack at HMP Frankland. Mr Hall has delivered his findings, which we and the Lord Chancellor are grateful for, and which we are considering very closely and with the utmost seriousness. We will publish the review and the Government response very shortly, but we are taking all relevant steps to ensure that our prisons and our prison staff are safe. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Will Forster: What a sorry state of affairs. This case highlights the consequences of a prison system, which includes separation centres, that was overstretched and under-resourced by the last Conservative Government, of which the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was a prominent member—he has now forgotten that.

Please will the Minister confirm what assessment the Ministry of Justice has made of the decade of Tory underfunding and overcrowding, which left prisons unable to safely manage violent extremists such as those we have been talking about? Will she also outline how Abu’s ideology and violent behaviour escalated the need for extreme segregation measures? Finally, violent attacks on prison staff are on the rise. We have seen high-profile cases of prisoners, including one from my constituency of Woking, being accidentally released. What assurances will the Minister give us, as MPs, that public safety and the protection of prison staff will be prioritised in the under-resourced prison system that the Government inherited from the Conservatives? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions and for the constructive way in which he asks them. He is right to highlight the chronic underfunding of our Prison Service and our criminal justice system over 14 years of Tory austerity. He is right that if there is a dereliction of the duty to look after our criminal justice system, this, sadly, is the result. We are slowly beginning to pick up the pieces of what was left of our criminal justice system when we came into office 18 months ago, and this is yet another example of how the previous Government failed to keep us safe and failed to invest in our Prison Service. This is the result.

We realise that more needs to be done and we are committed to doing it. I pay tribute again to the brilliant prison staff and prison officers who work in intolerable conditions. We are committed to investing in them to make sure they are safe, as I have stated, with effective body armour and better training. We are listening to them and to the governors of prisons directly about what they need, because they are the best people to identify the needs on the ground, and we are seeking to provide reassurance. I extend a hand across the aisle  and offer to work with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and his party to ensure that we get this right for the sake of everyone. \p Warinder Juss: The European convention on human rights has safeguarded the lives and rights of many people. Will the Minister please tell the House what the Law Society of England and Wales thinks about the Conservatives’ plans to leave the ECHR? \p Alex Davies-Jones: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In the past, the convention has served the victims of John Worboys, the families of the 97 killed in the Hillsborough disaster and British troops who died in Iraq, and it underpins the Good Friday agreement. It is frankly astonishing that the Conservative party, after 14 years of failing to do anything on the ECHR, seeks for us to withdraw from it, when the only other country to do have done so is Russia under Vladimir Putin. Is that the company the Conservative party wants to keep?

We are working to ensure that our referral process is robust, and we are strengthening our ability to defend against any legal challenges. Specialist staff continue to assess referrals rigorously, and placements are made only when the criteria are met, but to answer my hon. Friend’s question specifically, the Conservative Government, as we have already heard, left our prisons at breaking point. They were at 99% capacity, and the Law Society of England and Wales has stated that the answer to that is not leaving the ECHR. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: When it comes to terrorists, what is worrying a lot of us is the fact that people are pouring across the channel illegally and there is absolutely no check whatsoever on them. The Minister may not be able to answer this now, but I am interested in the state of the law. Surely it is a very risky thing for our nation that our enemies could be infiltrating our country in this way. Would it be possible under the refugee convention to detain all illegal migrants, do full background checks on them, and put them in separation centres or whatever, so that we can check that these people are actually safe? \p Alex Davies-Jones: We are working very closely with the Home Office on this, and on our proposals regarding reform of the ECHR. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are bringing forward legislation to clarify exactly how article 8 of the ECHR, the right to a private life, operates domestically in relation to immigration rules, to ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals and the national interest. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister speaks from a sedentary position regarding article 3. Again, we are looking at the interpretation of article 3, so that varied prison conditions or access to healthcare is not a bar to extradition or deportation. I reiterate our commitment to do everything we can to keep our national security safe. I will happily write to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) with more information and clarification on those points. \p Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for her response to the urgent question. The Frankland attack was awful. Given that  body armour is crucial to the safety of prison staff, can she please tell us more about its procurement, so that prison staff are protected as best as possible, as soon as possible? \p Alex Davies-Jones: It is right that we equip our prison officers with the most robust security and protection possible. That is why we are working with them, with the unions and with governors to ensure that all steps are taken. I stress that it is also really important that prisoners’ mental health needs are taken into account. We have medical staff advising on the placement of prisoners within separation centres. I will happily write to my hon. Friend with further details on procurement, but I reassure him that we are doing all we can, working with our prison staff, who work in exceptional circumstances, to ensure that they feel reassured and safe. \p Julian Lewis: Normally, I like the Minister’s can-do attitude. Is she really telling the House that this Government would rather make payouts to terrorists than disapply the ECHR? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I do have a can-do attitude, and I am willing to do everything we can as a Government to ensure that we get this right—that we keep our public and our prison officers safe, and keep dangerous criminals locked up where they belong. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the legal proceedings are still ongoing. I reiterate that we are looking at all options available, including the right to appeal, because we will be as responsible and effective with taxpayers’ money as possible. \p Andrew Snowden: Hashem Abedi was in a separation centre at HMP Frankland when he attacked three prison officers with hot cooking oil. Under these rulings and interventions by European courts, determining the human rights of convicted and violent terrorists, does the Minister really think that it would be appropriate for this individual to be given access to a kitchen? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I will not pre-empt the findings and outcome of Jonathan Hall’s review, but we believe in separation centres. They are a valuable tool, as the judgments state. We are ensuring that all our prison officers are kept safe, and once the recommendations of Jonathan Hall’s review are published and the Government have carefully considered them, I will happily speak with the hon. Gentleman, and work with him to ensure that they are followed through. \p James Wild: This terrorist was moved to a separation centre over concerns that he would use his extremist Islamist ideology to radicalise others, and yet the ruling says that this move was a breach of his right to a private life under the European convention. Should national security and prison officers’ safety not come first, and will she rule out paying any money to this terrorist? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I echo my previous comments: we cannot pre-empt the judicial decision and we are looking at all our rights, including the right to appeal. There are select criteria for prisoners to go into a separation centre. Prisoners will be selected only if all other options  have been considered. This is not the case if it is the most desirable location. They are entitled to challenge their selection and raise complaints if needed; however, as I have stated, our priority remains the safety and security of our prisons, our prison staff and the general public. \p Bob Blackman: The key issue is that making a decision about whether someone goes into a secluded area away from other prisoners is a judgment call. What assessment has the Minister made of the implications of the judgment on what will happen to terrorists who should be separated from other prisoners? \p Alex Davies-Jones: Separation centres were never intended for use with all terrorist offenders; they exist to separate the most pernicious radicalisers. We are achieving that aim successfully using the current separation centres’ capacity, which is kept under regular review. We are awaiting the findings of the Jonathan Hall review, and we will look closely at the judgment from yesterday’s decision to ensure that all steps are taken and that we are working with governors and prison officers on the best steps forward. We are determined to ensure that prisons are kept safe. \p Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland, we have dealt with the spread of extreme forms of paramilitarism in our prisons, and we have learned that the influence of the most hard-line prisoners spreads easily and completely; there are those who enter prison for, perhaps, petty crime and come out the other end with hatred they never felt before. Those with extremist views should not be able to proselytise and convert people —younger inmates in particular—to extremist views. Legislative change has been mentioned. Given what we have learned in Northern Ireland would it be helpful— I always try to be helpful—for the Minister to contact the prisons Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to get their ideas? Perhaps we can be helpful to each other. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful for the extension of an offer to help. I will ensure that that is followed up with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. We will follow the evidence and do what works to keep our prisons safe. We will assess the risks of any further radicalisation in our separation centres and our prisons to ensure that that is not happening, and we will keep under review whether any individuals pose a danger through extending their views to the prison population or to the public. I look forward to working with counterparts in Northern Ireland to share knowledge and expertise to ensure that we get this right for everyone across the United Kingdom. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for her short, sharp answers—perhaps a masterclass for what is to follow. Business questions will run for an hour and no more. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business? \p Alan Campbell: The business for the week commencing 24 November will include:

Monday 24 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day one).

Tuesday 25 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day two).

Wednesday 26 November—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.

Thursday 27 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 28 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 1 December includes:

Monday 1 December—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 2 December—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 3 December—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill.

Thursday 4 December—Debate on a motion on the war in Ukraine, followed by a general debate on St Andrew’s day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 5 December—The House will not be sitting. \p Jesse Norman: May I start by recording my thanks to the Leader of the House for agreeing to the request to have the Ukraine debate on 4 December? I think we all feel warmly about that decision.

Politics at the present moment may not be enormously pretty, but it has been a week of triumph in the sporting world. We have had the joyous mayhem of Scotland reaching their first world cup for 28 years, but let us not forget the extraordinary thumping that the England rugby team dealt out to the All Blacks at the weekend or the perfect world cup qualification record of our English footballers. In that spirit, I hope many Members—if perhaps not all—will join me in sending our best wishes to the England cricket team as they prepare for the opening test in Perth tomorrow.

This has been another week in which the headlines have not been kind to the Government and their allies. They have reported that the Prime Minister has spent a sixth of his time in office abroad. That is two and a half months to date spent outside the UK since the last election. Half of all UK jobs lost since the Government came to power are among the under-25s. That is 80,000 more young people out of work since July 2024. Agency staff brought into work during Birmingham’s eight-month-long bin strike by members of Unite have now themselves decided to go on strike. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), is reported to be planning a leadership bid, following last week’s speculation about   the Health Secretary and last month’s unfortunate foray by the Mayor of Manchester. Since Labour took office, the energy price cap has not fallen but risen by £187 to £1,755.

I often wonder if the Government have forgotten that there is a world outside London and our biggest cities. In that spirit, I hope I may raise a couple of important issues on which I would be grateful for the assistance of the Leader of the House. The first is local. Last weekend, the village of Ewyas Harold in my constituency was devastated by flooding as a result of Storm Claudia. The village was inundated after record levels of rainfall flooded the Dulas brook, with water levels rising to the highest ever recorded by the monitoring station. The emergency services were called out to help vulnerable residents and houses, and local pubs and other businesses were severely damaged. Many local people have been involved in clearing up the mess—in particular the brilliant young farmers club—but it will take months for the village to fully get back on its feet.

The House was given time to discuss the severe flooding in nearby Monmouthshire in Wales yesterday, so may I ask the Leader of the House if he will encourage both the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take the swiftest and most comprehensive action to protect Ewyas Harold and other flood-hit areas across England in order to prevent this from happening again?

The second issue is a national one. The listed places of worship grant scheme helps thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other places of worship to reclaim or get grants to cover the VAT paid on repair and maintenance work. It is a small but very useful and cost-effective institution that has quietly worked away over more than two decades to preserve the historic fabric of our nation. Unfortunately, since the last election the size of the scheme has been cut in half and a new cap has been imposed on the level of individual grants. It is a feature of these repairs that if they are not made, the damage often leads to enormous further costs. The Government seem determined to maintain or increase public spending in other areas, so given that and the relatively very small sums involved, could the Leader of the House pick this matter up with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and see whether this scheme can be quickly restored to its previous glory? \p Alan Campbell: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his questions. Can I first, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank Mr Speaker for his timely reminder this week of our responsibilities in this House regarding national security? As the House will know, the Security Service issued an espionage alert to Parliament, highlighting targeted outreach by the Chinese Ministry of State Security to individuals in our community. This is a serious matter that the Government take very seriously, and I know that Mr Speaker does too. I urge all MPs to heed the advice and to report any suspicious activity immediately.

Next week is Parliament Week, when we encourage young people and the public to engage with the UK’s democratic systems and institutions. In that spirit, I was delighted yesterday to meet children from East Hunsbury primary school, after my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned them during a business questions earlier this year. The school  has won the kind school award, and it was a great pleasure to meet the children. They are a credit to their school, to their parents and, most of all, to themselves. They are a reminder to us all of the importance of being kind. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have been made an honorary kindness ambassador—[Laughter.] I have to say, that is an honour that I never received during my time as Chief Whip.

I was pleased to announce in this week’s business that the Backbench Business Committee has chosen Ukraine as the subject for its debate on 4 December. I thank the shadow Leader of the House, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for their representation to help secure the debate.

Members will welcome the publication of the men’s health strategy this week. It is an important topic that has been raised frequently during business questions. The strategy will address the stark inequality in men’s health to create a society where men and boys are supported to live healthier and happier lives. I encourage Members to contribute in the debate later, on International Men’s Day.

As the shadow Leader of the House said, it has been a good week for sport. I want to congratulate Scotland on qualifying for the world cup for the first time since 1998, and I remind the House that the only time a home nation has won the world cup was under a Labour Government.

The shadow Leader of the House complains about the amount of time that the Prime Minister has spent abroad. That reflects two things above all. One is the uncertainty of the international situation. The second is the fact that he has spent a great deal of time addressing the issue of trade and bringing investment into this country. On the issue of jobs, he surely must realise that getting good trade deals—which his Government were not prepared or able to do—will not only bring investment to our country but, hopefully, turn into jobs across our nation.

The shadow Leader of the House quite rightly raises the issue of flooding. I will draw to the attention of DEFRA and the Environment Agency the urgency of ensuring that preparations are made as far as possible, but I also gently encourage him to urge some of his colleagues to start recognising the effect of climate change.

As a constituency MP, the shadow Leader of the House has every right to raise the listed places of worship grant scheme. I have to say that his constituency and neighbouring constituencies have some fantastic churches, many of which are in need of repair. I will not comment on matters of VAT or possible tax changes, as we have only a few days before the Budget, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of not only DCMS but the Treasury. \p Barry Gardiner: The speedy passage of environmental legislation through this House is not often a feature, so I thank the Leader of the House for the speedy way in which the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty was dealt with by the Government. In contrast, I remind him that in 2023 our party said that we would bring forward legislation for a new clean air Act. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House is  thinking about what may be going into the King’s Speech next year. Given that it will be the 70th anniversary of the original Clean Air Act 1956, could he put this forward as something to be looked at to ensure that we meet World Health Organisation standards? \p Alan Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The biodiversity treaty is an important step forward, and I thank him for all the work he is doing in this regard. The Government are committed to environmental improvement. Although I expect that the second Session will be quite crowded, I will certainly bear in mind his comments. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Bobby Dean: I join the Leader of the House in thanking Mr Speaker for the seriousness with which he is taking Chinese interference in our democracy. I represent many Hongkongers in my constituency, and they are deeply concerned about this issue.

It was a relief to hear confirmation that the Budget will be taking place on the Floor of the House next week. I am sure it is also a huge relief to advisers in the Treasury, who have just days before they start leaking the 2026 Budget. One thing that people will be looking out for in the Budget next week is the provisions that will be made for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I am fully aware that this is a crisis that was inherited by this Government, but it was not an unforeseen crisis. Eighteen months into this Government, we hear that their major reform plans have been pushed back again, which is a disappointment to us on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are seeing councils go bankrupt, teachers in despair and families held in legal limbo—and ultimately, children being failed.

I appreciate that there are some really tricky issues to resolve—balancing legal entitlements on paper with quality provision in reality, and adjusting to a world with higher diagnosis rates—but there are some actions that the Government could take right away, in particular in relation to private placements. Those have trebled in the past decade, and they cost more than double a state placement—about £60,000. We know that private equity is really aggressive in this space; it is taking on institutions and eating up market share, and its profit margins are reportedly around 20%. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government introduced the idea of profit caps on those who are being exploitative in the children’s social care sector. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister whether that can be extended to SEND schools? \p Alan Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right to express concern about the SEND system. The Government have acknowledged that it is broken; it does not work for parents or children. He is also right to say that there were signs that things were not as they should be, but this is one of the many issues that, when we came into government, we discovered was even worse than we had anticipated. I will not comment on what might or might not be in the Budget, but I gently point out that we have already invested an additional £1 billion in SEND and  we are creating more specialist places in mainstream schools, with an additional £740 million on top of the £1 billion.

We will bring forward the schools White Paper early next year, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to keep some of his suggestions for that, or perhaps secure a debate on it in order to give further clarity to what he is saying. I know that this issue is frustrating, including for our constituents, but we need to work with parents and teachers, and the most important thing is that we get it right. \p Rosie Wrighting: On that note, the number of constituents who have contacted me since my election to raise difficulties and delays in the SEND system is staggering. I asked constituents to fill in my online SEND survey so that they could feed into the Government’s schools White Paper, and I have had 250 responses, which shows the extent of the problem. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking those parents in Kettering and across the country who are feeding in their experiences to this Government’s mission to fix the broken system we inherited? \p Alan Campbell: I am very pleased to do that. I thank everyone who has responded to my hon. Friend’s survey. That is one of the very best ways of getting information from parents, and the scale of the responses demonstrates the scale of the problems in the system. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done on this issue. As I said, we are committed to creating a SEND system that truly works for children and parents, and I am sure that her constituents’ comments will be reflected as the White Paper comes forward. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for 4 December in the Chamber. I understand that the House may be suspended for a period on that day because of a state visit, so will he give consideration to protected time for those two very heavily subscribed debates? Will he also indicate whether we will get time in the Chamber on 11 December? Our backlog of debates is such that if we had every Thursday between now and the Easter recess, we could fill every single one. I note that the House rose very early yesterday. If the Government are having a problem with business, we can always put on debates to allow colleagues from the Back Benches to debate what they wish to debate in Government time. If we are given Thursday 18 December, it will be the traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate for Christmas.

Our forthcoming business in Westminster Hall is as follows. On Tuesday 25 November, there will be a debate on the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes. On Thursday 27 November, because of the Budget debate in the main Chamber, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Business and Trade Committee, followed by debates on the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging and on protecting children from domestic abuse. On 2 December, there will be a debate on the adequacy of funding to support homeless people, and on 4 December, there will be a debate on a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan, followed by a debate on seafarers’ welfare.

Today is the 80th anniversary of the start of the Nuremberg trials. Earlier this week we had a very good briefing at the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and education centre from Adam Wagner, a renowned human rights lawyer. Twenty-four Nazis were put on trial, and the trial lasted 11 months. At the end of it, 22 of them were sentenced to either very long prison sentences or death; amazingly enough, two were acquitted. It would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Education Secretary on incorporating the business of the Nuremberg trials into the national curriculum, because this was the first time that human rights law started to come to the fore, particularly on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Could the Leader of the House arrange for that to happen? \p Alan Campbell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place and thank him for raising those important matters. The Nuremberg trials marked a reassertion of justice, human rights and accountability, and their 80th anniversary is a stark reminder of the need to commit to international criminal justice. That is one of the Government’s top priorities in supporting the international legal order. I will give consideration to what he says about a statement, but will also make sure that the Secretary of State for Education is aware of his comments.

I will certainly give consideration to the hon. Gentleman’s request for protected time; he knows that I am sympathetic to that. I do not think it is appropriate on every occasion, but I am sympathetic to it should the House be suspended for any reason. I will let him know about 11 December at the earliest opportunity. Yes, this week has been a little up and down in terms of sitting hours, with the debates and statements that we have had. It is always slightly difficult to get a balance, but let me say gently that it is not a problem for the Government and their business; it is a problem for the Opposition. If they cannot turn up in numbers to hold the Government to account, what are they doing? \p Chris Hinchliff: Nearly two thirds of the land in our country is owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and bankers, who often hide their wealth in trusts, and corporations, which never die. May we have a debate on how we might raise more revenue from those ultra-rich landowners, and so afford some more generous proposals on agricultural property relief for the farmers who are essential for our food security, nature restoration and climate action? \p Alan Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and join him in acknowledging the vital work that farmers do, which is one of the reasons why we are investing £5 billion over two years in the farming budget. I am not going to pre-empt the Budget, but I am sure that he will wish to amplify those points during the four days of debate on the Budget that I have just announced. \p Clive Jones: Brain Tumour Research states that one in three people are likely to know someone with a brain tumour; they could be our friends, family or constituents. Brain tumours are a cruel disease, and yet drug development and research has stagnated, denying patients access to lifesaving treatment. Will the Leader  of the House allow a debate in Government time on the need for immediate investment to improve brain tumour research and outcomes? \p Alan Campbell: I invite the hon. Gentleman to request an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate, because I think that would illustrate not just how many constituents, but how many of us personally—or our family and friends—have been affected by brain tumours, which can have terrible consequences. The Government are absolutely committed to doing as much as they can in this regard, not least through the 10-year health plan. A debate would be a great opportunity not just to hear about the problem, but to hear about what the Government intend to do about it. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Churches are the bedrock of our communities and play a particularly strong role at the heart of our villages. St Philomena’s church in Winchburgh has been a centre of spiritual, community and cultural life for 100 years. It celebrated that milestone with a special mass led by Archbishop Leo Cushley on 26 October. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Father Deighan, Father Henderson and Deacon Robertson, as well as the congregation of St Philomena’s, and wish them all the best for the years ahead? \p Alan Campbell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Father Henderson, Deacon Robertson and the venerable parishioners of St Philomena’s church. She is right to point out that places of worship provide a variety of services, often above and beyond the religious purpose—in the strictest sense—that they are there for. They are at the very heart of our local communities. I wish the church well for the next 100 years. \p Julian Lewis: Last Thursday, there was a heavily subscribed Westminster Hall debate about the terrible problem of rogue and conmen builders who fleece people of thousands upon thousands of pounds for work that is never completed and is often not started at all. May we have a statement from an appropriate Minister on the need to consider criminalising the process in which people are robbed of their money and told afterwards that that constitutes only a civil offence? \p Alan Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. He will know, having been in this House for quite some time, that it is a perennial problem. I will draw it to the attention of the Minister and see whether they might make a statement. The right hon. Gentleman might wish also to seek a debate on that matter. \p David Burton-Sampson: At this time of year, the fireworks debate always rages. As a dog owner, I share my constituents’ view that we need legislation to make fireworks safer and more controlled, not just for the sake of animals, but for people too. I recently met the fireworks impact coalition, which is also calling for a review. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to discuss this important issue further? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend is not the first Member to raise that issue with me—especially over the past few weeks. As he knows, it is not just a question of  the run-up to bonfire night; we are approaching end-of-year celebrations as well. Pet owners will once again be worried for their pets. It is important that measures on fireworks are proportionate, but this is such a big topic for MPs that if he were to secure a debate on it, he would find that it was particularly well attended. \p Wera Hobhouse: I speak today on behalf of one constituent, although there are many similar examples. My constituent, who does not want to be named in order to protect herself, is losing out quite substantially because the Child Maintenance Service is failing to enforce the regular payments that she is owed. The non-resident parent makes one partial payment after another and then simply defaults again. The CMS has the necessary powers to act, but is not using them effectively to stop that cycle. Might we have a debate in Government time on how the CMS can enforce the timely payment of child maintenance? \p Alan Campbell: The hon. Lady raises another issue that is constantly in our constituency postbags and inboxes. The CMS is committed to ensuring that separated parents support their children financially. The powers should be used, but that is not happening in too many cases, as she says. If she supplies me with the details of that case in confidence, I will raise it with the appropriate Minister and see whether we can resolve it. \p Dave Robertson: This weekend, a very special service will leave the station at Chasewater Railway in Burntwood in my constituency. The hospital Santa special trains are a Christmas service for seriously ill children, and are offered completely free of charge. This year, 1,300 kids and their families are expected to attend. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Chasewater Railway, its trustees and its fantastic volunteers on their wonderful work to spread the festive spirit? \p Alan Campbell: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Chasewater Railway on spreading joy this holiday season. He says that a huge number of people will be part of it, and I thank Chasewater Railway for that. These initiatives happen thanks to volunteers playing their part, so we thank them—and indeed volunteers across the country. \p Wendy Morton: This week, the Birmingham bin strike escalated further. Now, even the agency workers who have been keeping a minimal service going have voted to join the strike from 1 December. I have raised this issue with the Leader of the House before, and was promised a statement, but the situation has got worse since then. Will he assure me that we will have a statement before the new wave of action begins next month? \p Alan Campbell: The right hon. Lady knows that our priority has always been Birmingham residents. This is an issue for the employers in the first instance, but it is important that the council works with Unite to end the strike—that is long overdue—and to tackle concerns regarding agency work and issues of equal pay. We remain in close contact with the council and  continue to monitor the situation. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is looking into it and will update the House at the earliest opportunity. \p Liz Twist: Yesterday evening, I had the privilege of hosting the British Standards Institute at a reception at Speaker’s House to mark the launch of the UK’s first national suicide prevention standard—BS 30480: Suicide and the Workplace. That is a huge step forward in making suicide prevention everybody’s business, and I thank all those involved. Might we have a debate in Government time on how we can support employers and organisations to implement and make the most of that important guidance? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this topic. As she knows, the Government are committed to reducing the number of lives lost to suicide, which remains the biggest killer of men under 50. We have announced investment in suicide prevention projects for men as part of the first ever men’s health strategy for England. Her concerns will be shared across the House, so I suggest that she call for a Westminster Hall debate. \p Dave Doogan: I do not understand the mindset of an absent parent who tries to renege on their financial responsibility to support their children. Nor, it seems, does the Child Maintenance Service, because one of the manifold issues with that service is that absent parents renege on payments —starting and stopping payments again and again—and the CMS resets the clock every time, meaning that the receiving parent has to start from the very beginning. Might we have a debate in Government time on the manifold issues with the CMS, to find a way forward for that deeply dysfunctional agency? \p Alan Campbell: I will draw the hon. Member’s comments to the attention of Ministers, because, as he will have heard, that is the second time the matter has been raised this afternoon. He may wish to initiate such a debate, because, as I suggested before, his concerns are shared across the House. \p Nick Smith: Coalminers powered our great country in the 20th century. They need justice in this century in relation to their pensions. Labour put right the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme, but parity is needed for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. Will the Leader of the House ask the Treasury for a statement on pension justice for our mining communities, to right that historic wrong? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for all his work on that issue. He has raised it with me a number of times—as have colleagues at business questions, so there is real interest in it. Ministers continue to meet the BCSSS trustees, but as my hon. Friend knows, I have just announced the future business, and he will have two opportunities to raise it further: first, we will have a debate following the Budget, when he may wish to go into more detail; and secondly, there is some pension legislation coming down the track. \p Andrew Rosindell: Animal lovers across the country— most especially Katie Amess, the daughter of our late dear friend, who is continuing the  battle for animal welfare across the country—are raising concerns that after the seven-day statutory period, many healthy dogs are not being offered for adoption and are instead euthanised without transparency. One shelter that receives dogs from several councils lists only a handful that are available for rehoming despite its far higher intake figures. That lack of accountability is deeply troubling. Will the Leader of the House make time for Members to examine whether stronger reporting requirements and safeguards are needed to protect those animals, and may we have a debate on the welfare of stray dogs transferred by local authorities to contracted shelters? \p Alan Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these sad and often abhorrent cases. Should he seek a debate, he could amplify his message, and others could join him, so that anyone who is engaged in these practices recognises the scale of concern. If they cannot change the way in which they operate, the Government will need to consider whether legislation is adequate. \p Christopher Bloore: Gerry Marsden has been collecting for the poppy appeal in Redditch for 40 years. Since becoming the poppy appeal organiser, he has helped to raise over half a million pounds. At the same time, he has readily stepped in to lead the local Royal British Legion, to ensure that our town celebrates and marks the sacrifice made to protect our freedoms. Gerry will hate me doing this, but would the Leader of the House join me in thanking Gerry and all those who support him for his incredible contribution to Redditch and for all those who have served? \p Alan Campbell: I would be delighted to do so. Let me say a big thank you to Gerry and, indeed, everyone else involved with the Redditch Royal British Legion fundraising campaign. Let me also extend that to all the volunteers across our country who do such a fantastic job, particularly at this time of year but throughout the rest of the year, too. \p Helen Morgan: My constituents are no strangers to flooding, whether that is from the Rivers Severn and Vyrnwy in villages such as Melverley or from surface water or inadequate infrastructure in Gobowen and Hadnall. The Environment Agency says that another 1,600 properties in my constituency will be vulnerable to surface water flooding by 2050, and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill fails to address flooding or climate change at all. Given that the Government voted down my amendments and those of my Lib Dem colleagues to the Bill, which were intended to tackle this problem, can we have a debate or a statement from the relevant Minister on how the UK will build flood resilience? \p Alan Campbell: This is a concern across many constituencies. I am sorry to hear of what is happening in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I invite her to seek a debate, because many Members will share her concern, and she can then put those questions directly to Ministers. \p Johanna Baxter: One hundred and 10 years ago this month, Mary Barbour, who was born in Kilbarchan in my constituency, led the Glasgow rent strikes, standing up to improve  housing conditions for working people. The legacy of that strike gave us the rent restrictions Act, a landmark safeguard that shielded tenants from exploitative profiteering right up until the wave of Thatcher-era deregulation. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Mary’s legacy and calling out the SNP Government in Holyrood for undermining it? Some 13 councils across Scotland have now been forced to declare a housing emergency and 10,000 children in Scotland are left stuck in homeless accommodation. \p Alan Campbell: I will join my hon. Friend in recognising the important legacy of Mary Barbour. I invite my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate in which she could not only highlight the housing emergency she refers to in Scotland but put on record that Scotland has secured a record funding settlement this year, and therefore the Scottish Government should be held to account for that. \p Martin Vickers: Yesterday I attended a drop-in session in aid of those who suffer from Huntington’s disease. As is often the case when we attend these events, they signed me up as a champion. My first role as champion is to highlight the new guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for those suffering from this disease. Could the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to make a statement to explain how quickly those guidelines can be implemented, to help those suffering from this awful disease? \p Alan Campbell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being a champion—it has been a good week for awards for us both. Huntington’s is a terrible disease. The fantastic work by people across communities has kept this in the public eye, and the NICE guidelines are addressing this. The need for speed, I am sure, is in the minds of those who are involved. I will raise this matter with the Health Secretary. \p Warinder Juss: Last weekend I attended the annual conference of Interfaith Wolverhampton in my constituency, which has done much to bring different faith communities together, including those of no faith, and to celebrate diversity, which is so needed at a time when we face division and hate crime. The Conservative Government withdrew all funding from the national Inter Faith Network charity, forcing it to shut down. Will the Leader of the House meet me and the relevant Minister to discuss restoration of the national Inter Faith Network, so that it can again provide support for interfaith organisations across the country? \p Alan Campbell: Interfaith relations are vital for strong and cohesive communities. Last week was Inter Faith Week, which is a chance for communities to come together and celebrate different faiths and beliefs. I will ensure that Ministers hear my hon. Friend’s concerns and, of course, I am always happy to meet him. \p Tessa Munt: I would like to return to the listed places of worship scheme. Although departmental policy is to keep grant funding records for seven years, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport uses grant records only for the last  three years, since 2022, as only that data is considered reliable. The Leader of the House will know that slots for Backbench Business debates are taken until the next King’s Speech, and there is a massive queue for Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates. However, in hope and endless optimism, may I ask him for a debate about financial record keeping? Neither the Secretary of State nor the Treasury can possibly assess the value, importance and impact of schemes like this if they have no idea where the money has gone, because record keeping is so poor, it is inaccurate, or the records have been lost. \p Alan Campbell: I accept that the list of Backbench Business debates is long, but Adjournment debates are chosen frequently, and I encourage colleagues to request them and see where they get. The hon. Lady might wish to raise Treasury matters in the Budget debate; she does not need to wait for an Adjournment debate. \p Maya Ellis: Preston-based KeTech in my constituency is a British-based and owned technology and engineering company that employs around 50 staff and provides the live update data and displays for almost 80% of all UK rail passenger journeys, including much of the London underground. Its biggest competitors —Hitachi, Siemens and so on—are all foreign-owned. When I visited the company last week, its chief executive, Denise Lawrenson, shared that in a recent meeting with Department for Transport officials, she was advised that while buying local is encouraged in Government procurement, there is no firm accountability, leading to many contracts still going abroad rather than investing in British companies and British growth. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating this brilliant northern tech company on its 26 years of innovation and keeping the UK moving, and might he consider a debate on how this Government can put British small and medium-sized enterprises at the heart of our growth plans? \p Alan Campbell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking KeTech for its contribution over so many years, and I also thank her for her assiduous work for the people and businesses in her constituency. We have consulted on further procurement reforms to boost domestic supply chains and create more opportunities for local businesses. She could seek a debate on this, but as I have said in response to many questions today, we have four days of Budget debate in which some of these issues will be particularly relevant. \p Andrew Snowden: The 1 to 7 December is Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness Week, which is run by Crohn’s & Colitis UK to raise awareness and generate conversations about what it is like to live with the condition. Many Members in this House will know people—and they will certainly have constituents—who suffer with this condition but never talk about it, because of the stigma around talking about things relating to our bowels. Most people dismiss it as an irritable bowel or something to do with diarrhoea, when in fact it is crippling internal ulcers that generate internal bleeding and blood clots. I have watched my brave wife battle this condition for over 10 years, including two life-changing surgeries, the last of which required nine hours in  theatre. This disease is crippling and debilitating, and awareness of it is still, sadly, very low. Would the Leader of the House be willing to work across Government to look at how we in this House and the Government can work with Crohn’s & Colitis UK on its awareness week, so that we can all play our role in raising awareness of what this condition really is? \p Alan Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right to raise this subject on the Floor of the House. This debilitating condition affects a large number of people across our constituencies. We will join him in any cross-party work to highlight the condition during that week, but I can also offer him a meeting with Ministers so that he can speak to them directly, not just about the scale of the problem but about what we are doing to tackle it. \p Connor Rand: My constituent Naomi was a victim of extreme online stalking, slander and harassment for several years, which had a profound impact on her mental health. Despite the perpetrator pleading guilty, it took three years until they were finally sentenced to prison last month. The ordeal has shattered Naomi’s faith in our criminal justice system, so may we have a debate in Government time on support for victims of online stalking and harassment? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. Our thoughts are with Naomi and many others who find themselves in that terrible situation. We have introduced measures to tackle stalking. We are currently undertaking a review of stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and our violence against women and girls strategy will also cover online and offline stalking. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with a Minister to look into this further, I am sure that he will be successful in getting one. \p Ellie Chowns: The UK is coming under intense scrutiny at COP30 for saying one thing in public but doing the opposite in private, by apparently blocking progress on the Belém action mechanism to secure fossil-free jobs, workers’ rights, communities and our planet, despite the Prime Minister saying in his statement to COP

“that the UK is all in”

on embracing opportunities. Can we please have an urgent debate on how a shift in the backroom position of the UK could unlock negotiations, rebuild trust and align the Government’s actions with their public commitments? \p Alan Campbell: There is absolutely no difference between what the Government are committed to and have said publicly, and what we are saying in private. Of course, some issues require a great deal of diplomacy. The Prime Minister himself went to COP30 with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. When the Secretary of State returns, I would expect one of them to make a statement on COP30, so the hon. Lady will be able to put those points to them directly. \p Lewis Atkinson: Our creative industries offer huge opportunities for economic growth, and the Crown Works film studio in Sunderland will be a box office smash for jobs across the north-east. Last  year, the Chancellor premiered investment to prepare the site, adding Government support to that of our Labour council and elected Mayor. That release was critically acclaimed, but people are crying out for a sequel. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be time in the Budget debate to discuss growing the creative industries in the north-east? As a political A-lister, will he help me to ensure that we roll out the red carpet for further investment in Crown Works? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend is right to champion our creative industries. As well he knows, we have a proud record in this country. Many iconic films are filmed here, including in our region and in my beautiful constituency. As he alludes to, there will be four days of debate on the Budget, which should be ample time for him to raise those thoughts. \p Matt Vickers: Stockon’s Labour council has made the decision to close 11 play parks, taking away precious facilities from children in Long Newton, Ingleby Barwick and Bishopsgarth, despite charging among the highest council tax in the country and spending £300,000 on an opening party—yes, £300,000 on a party —for its urban park. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the benefits of play parks and the need for councils to spend taxpayers’ money with respect? \p Alan Campbell: Of course it is important that local authorities spend the money they have wisely, but for 14 years they were starved of the resources they need and we are determined to put that right. The hon. Gentleman is a loud voice in his constituency, and I am sure that if he were to seek an Adjournment debate, he could amplify it even further. \p Natalie Fleet: The food hygiene rating scheme means that we can celebrate five-star venues, like Alleppey Kitchen my constituency, and we can all avoid the ones with one star, if we choose. Councillor David Bennett from Clowne is running a campaign to make it mandatory to display those ratings in England, just as it is in Wales and Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House consider granting a debate in Government time to allow us to discuss that? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend raises some important matters, as does her constituent David Bennett. I would have thought that if she applied for an Adjournment debate, a Westminster Hall debate or a Backbench Business debate, that would allow further discussion of the issue. \p Max Wilkinson: The last general election gave us an extremely disproportionate result, with the Government getting a massive majority on just a third of the vote. Current opinion polls show that the next election is due to be even more disproportionate, with the party currently leading the polls likely to get a majority on around 30%, perhaps even less, of the vote. Given that is the case, given that there is huge support among members of the Labour party for voting reform, and given that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) himself supports proportional representation, is it not time that we had a proper consideration in this House of changes to the voting system, so that the next election is not a disaster for democracy? \p Alan Campbell: We have had many such discussions. In fact, opinion was tested on whether or not the people of this country wanted change, and they decided that they did not. The Government have no plans to bring that forward, but that does not mean that the debate will not go on. \p Douglas McAllister: Will the Leader of the House join me in again congratulating the Scotland men’s national football team on qualifying for the 2026 world cup? The entire team are heroes, not least John McGinn from my West Dunbartonshire constituency, who is a former pupil of my old school, St Columba’s in Clydebank. Does the Leader of the House recognise that:

“We’ve got McGinn,

Super John McGinn,

He’s Stevie Clarke’s man,

He’s better than Zidane”?

Does the Leader of the House agree that he is, in fact, super John McGinn and will he congratulate the entire team? \p Alan Campbell: I congratulate the entire team, John McGinn and everyone involved. I gently remind my hon. Friend, if my memory serves me correctly, that Steve Clarke was a Sunderland manager who honed his skills when he was there. I remind anyone who did not hear me say this earlier that the last time Scotland qualified was in 1998 and the last time England won the world cup was in 1966—the link is that at both times there was a Labour Government. \p Vikki Slade: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Jacques Jefferies, a grandson of my constituent Susan Jefferies, on his selection for Team GB at the winter Olympics in February? Does he share my frustration that Jacques has had to set up a fundraising page to make it financially possible to go? In the week that Scotland reached the world cup and England start the Ashes campaign down under, will he recognise the soft power of sport and agree to a debate in Government time on how we fund athletes, retain our place on the world stage and help people like Jacques to fulfil their ambition? \p Alan Campbell: I wish Jacques and all our athletes all the success in the world. We are very proud of them all. Sometimes funding is a major issue, but the Government are trying to put that right because we have great faith in our young people, and particularly the importance of sport in their lives. The hon. Lady might wish to call for a debate on these matters, and I am sure there are many others across the country who would be able to make similar points through their MPs. \p Andy MacNae: It is national Road Safety Week and soon the Government will unveil their much-anticipated road safety strategy. In my constituency, road safety is now the issue that is raised most often with me and our neighbourhood police, but when we raise these concerns with the Reform leadership at Lancashire county council, they consistently refuse to take action. The Reform policy is to wait for accidents to take place, stating that there need to be at least 10 collisions, of which 20% must have killed or  seriously injured, before action is taken. This flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to our residents, who see close calls and near misses every day. We must listen to our communities. I have been calling on the leadership of Lancashire county council to work with me, but so far they have refused even to meet. Road safety should be above local politics, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on this important matter? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question, which is timely, given that this is Road Safety Week, and I thank him for all the work he does on behalf of his constituents. Reform-led Lancashire county council comes up quite frequently. As I have said before, it appears that it has over-offered and is under-delivering. I find it astonishing that the leadership will not meet my hon. Friend, because whoever is leading in a local authority should be meeting with MPs. If they will not meet him, I am sure that a Transport Minister will do so. \p Victoria Collins: Twelve-year-old Hollie Goodwin from Markyate last week won in her age category at the world trampoline, tumbling and DMT championships in Pamplona in Spain for British Gymnastics. Like the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), Hollie’s family had to raise money for her to get there, because they will not get funding until she is 18. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Hollie and help me to secure a meeting with Ministers to see how we can support young people in sport, especially young girls and women? \p Alan Campbell: I congratulate Hollie and, as I said before, everyone else involved in sporting success. Two Members from the same side of the Chamber have raised that interesting point, so that is perhaps the beginnings of a debate. I think Ministers will be available to meet the hon. Ladies so that they can raise these issues directly. \p Chris Webb: Blackpool council has asked for the views of residents for the most ambitious and exciting regeneration project in our town’s history. In less than a week, more than 2,500 residents have signed my petition calling for Blackpool to build a world-class arena on the empty site in the Blackpool central area, which is backed by local industry experts and local artists. Such a venue could hold major concerts, e-sport tournaments and international sporting events and secure Blackpool’s legacy as a destination for world-class entertainment. Does the Leader of the House agree that a project of that scale could be transformational for my home town, which is in desperate need of an economic boost to tackle the highest level of deprivation in a place in this country? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend knows that I share very much his concern about the state of some coastal towns and his ambition to make them better. He is a tireless campaigner for Blackpool. There is clearly the potential for economic growth, investment and jobs in his constituency with the scheme that he talks about, and the Government want to see all those things in  every part of the country, including in coastal areas such as Blackpool. That is another point that probably falls within the parameters of a contribution to the Budget debate, because supporting coastal towns is a very important part of what the Government seek to do. \p Josh Babarinde: Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance, yet it is also the day when leaked Equalities and Human Rights Commission guidance on single-sex services has indicated, shockingly, that people could be challenged on their sex because of

“their appearance, behaviour or concerns by others”

and turned away if

“there is any doubt that they are telling the truth”.

That would unacceptably result in trans and non-binary people—and potentially anyone—being questioned because of how they look, and it would be unworkable for businesses and service providers. Will the Government commit to putting a workable and inclusive proposal before the House so that the Liberal Democrats can protect hard-won rights and dignity? \p Alan Campbell: Before I answer, may I wish the hon. Gentleman all the very best wishes? He got engaged this week—indeed, he got engaged in this very Chamber.

The Government respect the court judgment. This is a serious matter, and there are clearly different views on it, but the Government are absolutely committed to bringing forward proposals at the earliest opportunity and giving the House an opportunity to discuss them. \p Paul Waugh: Last week saw a big day for Rochdale and for Greater Manchester, as building works began on a world-leading research centre—the Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing Centre in Kingsway Business Park, which is backed by £15 million of this Government’s money. Does the Leader of the House agree that that proves the Government’s industrial strategy can boost the jobs and apprenticeships of the future to help towns such as mine that have a proud manufacturing past and present? \p Alan Campbell: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That kind of investment speaks to the strength of our industrial strategy, which the whole of Government are focused on delivering. He is absolutely right to draw attention to how the strategy is unlocking opportunities for young people in every part of the United Kingdom, and I am sure he will amplify the success of that investment and what the new manufacturing centre means for Rochdale and beyond. \p Jim Shannon: I am deeply concerned by the continuing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China, including some disturbing and well-documented allegations of forced organ harvesting. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what concrete actions the Government will take to press for an immediate end to the unethical harvesting of organs from religious minorities in China and to ensure the protection of the Falun Gong against transnational repression in the UK? \p Alan Campbell: I thank the hon. Member for raising such a serious and unreported issue. As ever, he is a real champion for religious minorities, and I commend  him on his commitment to that cause. He knows that the Government are committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. The environment for freedom of religion and belief across China is restrictive and includes the persecution of the Falun Gong both in China and overseas. We continue to monitor the situation and review evidence. If these matters are true as he reports them, in our view they would constitute a serious violation of human rights. I will draw the issue to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, but the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that Foreign Office questions are on 2 December. \p Patricia Ferguson: As we celebrate International Men’s Day, may I ask the Leader of the House to join me in thanking the staff and volunteers at Men Matter Scotland in Drumchapel? They offer social, financial and emotional support to men. In particular, will he join me in thanking Ian Sproull, who ran 10 marathons in 10 days to raise funds for the organisation? Will he also be so kind as to consider visiting the organisation next time he is in Scotland? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that serious point. I absolutely join her in thanking everyone involved in Men Matter Scotland for their input and work, and I note the success of Ian Sproull. She will know, as I am sure the whole House knows, that this week sees England’s first-ever men’s health strategy. I would be delighted to accept her invitation should I find myself in Scotland. \p Jacob Collier: May I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to the reform of business rates to boost our high streets? In Uttoxeter, one street faces much higher rates than other parts of the high street, where other businesses are exempt. That is negatively affecting owners such as Joe, who runs Fueled Coffee. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we can support community businesses such as Fueled before the new system comes into place? \p Alan Campbell: The Government are absolutely committed to supporting local businesses and local high streets. That is why we are seeking to protect high streets by creating a fairer business rates system. My hon. Friend will know that at the end of this month, we will mark Small Business Saturday, giving us the opportunity to further celebrate the small businesses in our communities. Should he seek to raise this matter through either a debate of his own or the Budget debate, I am sure it will be a popular topic. \p Mark Sewards: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who is no longer in his place, my inbox is full to the brim with emails about fireworks. When they are enjoyed as part of professional displays on national holidays, they can be magnificent, but my constituents are concerned that they are being deployed well outside of normal hours and holiday times. On behalf of my constituents—those with post-traumatic stress disorder or autism, veterans and families with pets, who have all contacted me—may I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the need to update firework regulations for the modern era? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue; he is not the first to do so today, and he is certainly not the first to do so in the past few weeks. This is an important matter, particularly at this time of year. It is true that there are rules on the use of fireworks, but, as we all know, they are not always kept to. That would be a popular topic for a debate, judging by the number of people who raise it with me. \p Richard Baker: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: As I suspect he has an important question on Scottish football, I call Richard Baker. \p Richard Baker: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating not only the famous and heroic Scottish football team on its qualification for the world cup this week, but the charity Fife Gingerbread in my constituency? It was also successful this week, as it was a finalist in the Centre for Social Justice UK charity awards. It was recognised for its stargazing strategy and brilliant work to tackle child poverty and promote employability for lone parents. Will the Leader of the House consider allocating time for Parliament to debate how we can best support the vital work of third-sector organisations in providing employability programmes? \p Alan Campbell: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Scottish football team. This is its first time qualifying for the world cup since 1998—in case Members need reminding, that was under a Labour Government too. I will absolutely join him in congratulating Fife Gingerbread on making it to the charity award finals, and I thank it and charities and volunteers across the country for the vital work they do to support families in tackling child poverty. \p Shabana Mahmood: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on a fairer pathway to settlement for migrants.

The story of migration in this country is woven through my own. My father came here in the early ’70s, my mother a little less than a decade later. Both came to seek a better life, and they found one here. In time, while always proud Kashmiris, they became British citizens themselves—Brummies, too—and brought up four children just as proud as them to be a part of this country and that great city. This is not just my story; it is the story of many of my constituents in Birmingham Ladywood, and of many millions more across this country.

Like so many others like me, I am a patriot. Mine is a love of a country that is forever changing, while something essential about us always endures. It is a patriotism that finds room for those who trace their roots back many generations and for those who, like me, do not. However, I worry that for some, that broad patriotism is narrowing, and that a vision of a greater Britain is giving way to that of a littler England, as anger turns to hate. Some will choose to scorn this analysis; they would rather that we simply wished it away, but those who look like me do not have that luxury. Our lives and those of our families are more dangerous in a country that turns inwards, so we have no choice but to ask what the cause of our division is, and how this country might be united.

As I said earlier this week, the pace and scale of migration in this country has been destabilising. I spoke on Monday of the 400,000 people who have claimed asylum since 2021, but that figure pales in comparison with the net migration figure for the same period. In that time, 2.6 million more people moved to Britain than left. To place that in perspective, around one in every 30 people in this country arrived in those four years. This is the result of the extraordinary open-border experiment conducted by the last Conservative Government.

In that period, now sometimes called the Boriswave, immigration controls were drastically lifted. This was most notable in the case of the health and care visa, for which minimum salary requirements were dropped. An attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. Over half of those individuals were not even filling jobs in the sector—rather, they were dependants of those who were—and as any Member of Parliament could tell us, abuse was rife.

I would have thought that my support for migration did not need to be stated, but after some of the questions I faced on Monday, I think I had better do so. Migrant communities have been woven into the tapestry of British life for generations. While I will never believe in assimilating communities, we have achieved cohesion because different communities have integrated, retaining their distinction within a single, pluralistic whole. This makes demands of those who are already here to remain open to new arrivals, but more than that, it demands something of those arriving. To settle in this country forever is not a right, but a privilege, and it must be earned. Today, that is not the case; settlement, or indefinite leave to remain, comes almost automatically after five years’ residence  in this country. At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.

As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million people are now forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028—around four times higher than the recent average. That will now change. As this Government announced in their immigration White Paper, the starting point for settlement will move from five years to 10. To ensure that this is earned, new criteria will be added, which will act as a disqualifying bar for those who do not meet them. First, the applicant must have a clean criminal record; secondly, they must speak English to A-level standard; thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions; and finally, they must have no debt in this country.

While these criteria set the bar that everyone must meet, there are a series of other tests, which today have been published for consultation. These either add to, or subtract from, the 10-year qualifying period. To recognise the particular value to society they play, the Government propose that those who speak English to a degree-level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement; those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years; and those on the top rate could qualify after three, the same as those on global talent visas. Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers and nurses, would qualify after five years, while those who volunteer—subject to this consultation—could qualify at between five and seven years. Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as is the case today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them. All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement schemes will also remain unchanged.

While some people will be able to qualify for settlement earlier than 10 years, others will be forced to wait longer. Once again, these proposals are subject to consultation, but the Government propose that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, the duration would rise to 20 years, and to encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years. As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years, although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years. This consultation is open regarding settlement rights for some cohorts of special interest, including children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.

As well as considering the responsibilities that are expected of those who seek a permanent life in this country, the consultation also raises the question of the rights that will be provided. Specifically, it proposes that benefits might not be available to those who have settled status, reserving them instead for those who have earned British citizenship. Finally, the consultation addresses the question of the so-called Boriswave, specifically the cohort of lower-qualified workers who—along with their dependants—entered the country through the health and care visa, and some of whom are never expected to  be net economic contributors. It is right that we apply more stringent controls for this group. For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement. Crucially, for these people and for every other group mentioned, we propose that these changes apply to everyone in the country today who has not yet received indefinite leave to remain, although we are seeking views on whether some transitional arrangements should be available.

May I make one thing absolutely clear, though? We will not change the rules for those with settled status today. These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here— wives, husbands and children. They have worked in our hospitals and taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.

The Reform party—whose Members, I note, are not in the Chamber today—has said that it will do this most un-British of things. The Tories have said that they will, but then said that they will not; I am left in as much of a muddle about their policy as they are, although perhaps the shadow Home Secretary might enlighten the House today. But I can be clear that this Government will not change the rules for those with settled status.

As this consultation shows, we listen to the British public, and I encourage all those interested to make their voices heard. Today I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why. I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago, but I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities. For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain’s story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, with those who come here contributing, playing their part and enriching our national life. While each will always retain something of who they were and where they came from, they become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: As always, I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She has had a busy week. I wonder whether this burst of hyperactivity has anything to do with her leadership bid. As her shadow, I will say this: I am rooting for her in her tussle with the Health Secretary as to who gets to replace the Prime Minister, although I fear my endorsement may not be entirely helpful to her!

Immigration under successive Governments has been far too high. That has included illegal immigration across the channel, which has surged since the general election, with 10,000 illegal immigrants crossing just in the 75 days that the Home Secretary has been in post. Last year—the first year of a Labour Government—there were a record number of new asylum claims. The number of illegal immigrants accommodated in hotels has gone up under this Labour Government, even though they promised they would reduce numbers.

Besides illegal immigration, on which this Government are so clearly failing, legal migration has been far too high, too, absorbing the equivalent of half the new housing supply in recent years. Allowing mass low-skilled migration is bad for the economy, not least when we have 9.5 million working-age people out of work. Mass low- skilled migration without integration has placed all kinds of pressures on society, not least because there are a million people here who do not speak English properly or at all and 10,000 foreign citizens in prison. Where I suspect we and the Government agree is that very limited, high-skilled migration is a good thing, but the days of mass, low-skilled migration must come to an end.

There is much in this statement that I support, not least because so much of it is so familiar. The idea of a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed in amendments to the Government’s Bill around nine months ago. Inexplicably, the Labour party voted against those measures, and now they have adopted them. We also proposed removing benefits from foreign citizens, including those on ILR who do not have British citizenship, and this consultation document now looks at doing the same thing. I am delighted to see that the Home Secretary, upon arrival at 2 Marsham Street, got out her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies.

I have one or two detailed and specific questions, which I ask in a spirit of constructiveness, given that the Home Secretary has adopted so many Conservative policies. Importantly, she said that these policies on ILR qualification would apply to those people here already. She is absolutely right to say that, and I support it. She mentions transitional arrangements. I just urge her to be cautious about those, lest they create loopholes. Can she give the House an estimate as to when these new measures will be implemented? I think the previous rules around legal migration took effect in January 2021, so the people who arrived under them will become eligible under present ILR rules from January 2026—just a few weeks’ time. When will these changes be implemented? I hope it is as soon as possible.

The Home Secretary also says that to qualify for ILR at 10 years, people will need to have made national insurance contributions. I have tried to get through the consultation document in the past half hour, and I think I am right in saying that the qualifying threshold is to have earned £12,570 for a period of three years. She can correct me if I have got that wrong, but that strikes me as a very low level of earnings—some £12,500 for three years would not represent a net economic contribution to this country—and I urge her seriously to consider setting the threshold a great deal higher.

The Home Secretary also mentions the possibility of volunteering meaning that people get ILR at five years, rather than 10. We know how people game the system when it comes to immigration, such as by pretending to convert to Christianity to get asylum. I urge her to draft those rules carefully and to be extremely cautious, lest she creates some loopholes.

Will the Home Secretary consider adopting one last Conservative policy, since she appears so enthusiastic about them, by introducing a binding cap on legal migration? It could be voted for by Parliament each year so that this House can democratically decide the level of inward migration. She has adopted so many of our other policies, and I strongly urge her to adopt that last one too. \p Shabana Mahmood: I am pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition let the shadow Home Secretary have a go today. He seems overly concerned about my personal future, but he should worry about his own and that of his party. One good way to secure the future of the Conservative party would perhaps be to start with an open and honest acknowledgement of their track record in government and, dare I say it, perhaps even an apology for messing up the system so badly in the first place. Given their track record, they barely have the right to ask questions, let alone propose solutions. It is my view that, as with settlement, people have to earn the right to offer solutions. One way of earning that right would be to apologise for what the Tories did.

The shadow Home Secretary asked a specific question about when the changes will come into effect. The 12-week consultation will end in the middle of February, and we anticipate making changes and to begin the phase-out once the changes are adopted from April 2026. As he knows, the immigration rules usually change twice a year every year, and that is when we will begin making some of those changes. Some could require technical fixes and solutions that may take a little longer, but the intention is to start from April next year.

The shadow Home Secretary made a point about the qualifying threshold being around £12,000. He will know that we have used the national insurance contributions threshold specifically because it is one of the quickest ways to establish whether somebody is in work. It is designed to give an indication of the period spent in work. He will also know that there are different income thresholds for the different routes by which people can come into the country, and those are not being changed.

The shadow Home Secretary made a valid point about ensuring that the new system does not have any loopholes. I will be alive to that. As we discussed at length in the House on Monday, there is a relationship between some types of visa overstaying and coming straight into the asylum system as well. I am alive to those risks, and we will do everything we can to shut that down. In the end, this will be a whole package of reforms to clamp down on abuse and retain public confidence in running a migration system overall and in the asylum system in particular.

What can I say about a cap? The cap has had a long life in the Conservative party, and I gently suggest that they never managed it in 14 years in power. I do not think we will be pursuing that failure now. \p Meg Hillier: I applaud my right hon. Friend on many points, not least for debunking the idea that a cap will solve anything or is even achievable. There is a lot of detail in this statement, but one issue is that people going through the system have to apply repeatedly to extend their discretionary leave to remain until they reach settlement status. That is costly for them, cumbersome for the Home Office and does nothing to help them integrate or work in the community. I have had the opportunity to meet a junior Minister on this issue, but can the Home Secretary give any assurance to the House that the Home Office is looking at it? We should ensure that those who are welcome here have a less burdensome system to go through. That will hopefully save money and enable the Home Office to focus on more urgent issues. \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend brings a huge amount of personal experience to this discussion, having been a Minister herself, and she has a very august track record as a Select Committee Chair, so I will always take seriously any suggestions that she makes. I will discuss with my ministerial team the detail of what she suggests. Our principled position is that it is right that people pay fees for visa extensions, and that we move from a five-year to a 10-year qualifying period for settlement. We are not consulting on whether we move from five years to 10 years, which is already decided policy. What is set out in the consultation are some of the other questions that sit underneath that. I will happily discuss that with her, because I know she has much experience in the area of Home Office capacity and how we build a system that can work effectively, not only in being delivered by the state but in providing certainty for the people who ultimately want to make their lives in this country. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Max Wilkinson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I beg your forgiveness for taking a few extra seconds to reflect on the exchanges in this Chamber on Monday. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my utter contempt for those who abuse the Home Secretary and anybody else who is abused based on the colour of their skin or their religion. That is not what Britain stands for.

The Home Secretary will, of course, choose the language that she wants to use in this debate, and I will choose my language too. The constructive and moderate tone of voice that I and the Liberal Democrats will use in discussions about immigration will remain, as will our attempts to help offer feedback as and when the Government bring forward proposals. The number of Liberal Democrats present today shows that we are not ignoring this issue; indeed, we have as many in the Chamber as there are Reform Members—and none of them is here.

Like others, we are aware of the issues facing communities up and down the country, and immigrants who live here too. We agree with the Home Secretary that faith must be restored in the immigration and asylum system, as I stated on Monday, and we agree that that requires changes to policy. Of course, most of what we are discussing today is distinct from some of the discussions we had on Monday about desperate refugees and asylum seekers.

We also believe that it must be acknowledged that prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration and asylum. The Conservative party is responsible. We think it is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy, and we believe that discussions about regaining control must also come with a proper discussion about the opportunities that that provides and the potential risks.

Changes to pathways to settlement must be done with regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect that some changes could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place  for science and innovation, not least because of Brexit. The cost of a five-year global talent visa to Britain is £6,000 per person—around 20 times more expensive than comparable visas in our competitor countries, where similar schemes typically cost a few hundred pounds. It is no surprise that so few researchers come to Britain on these visas every year. Cancer Research UK alone spends £900,000 annually—money that could be better spent on setting up research labs instead.

The Government must also be careful about the effect that their rhetoric and policy will have on our public services. The NHS is heavily reliant on nurses and staff who are not British nationals. Has the Home Secretary made an assessment of the risk that some will leave, and what steps are this Government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector? \p Shabana Mahmood: I do not propose to revisit the detail of our exchanges on Monday, but I will always listen to constructive contributions, wherever they come from in this House, and I will reflect on the points that the Liberal Democrats make in order to be constructive. One thing on which we will perhaps continue to disagree is just how important it is that we acknowledge that there is concern across our country. It is not made up, and it does demand answers of politicians. I hope that that is now a point of agreement between us.

I think the hon. Gentleman made a point in relation to the asylum system. I did not pick it up directly, so if I do not address it now, he is welcome to write to me. Again, I do not propose to go into the details that we discussed on Monday during the asylum policy statement, but one thing that I made very clear is that the number of those arriving on small boats in this country is almost exactly the same as the number of people who overstay visas. There is a relationship between legal migration and illegal migration in the overall migration system: when people overstay and then come straight into the asylum system, and particularly into asylum accommodation, at the point at which a visa ends, it is a very real problem, and a significant number of people are doing that. It is incumbent on us to resolve that, which is what the totality of all these reforms is designed to do.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government has made huge strides in resetting our relationship with the European Union, and these are matters that we discuss very closely with our counterparts in Europe. The progress made since the EU reset has been considerable, and we will continue to build on that. Once again, though, I do not propose to revisit old debates. We live in a new reality, and we are forging a new path ahead.

Of course, we want to give certainty to people who are already in this country. That is what we are doing through the consultation that we have set, and I have given certainty to British citizens who wish to bring their dependants over and to those from Hong Kong. Those arrangements will not change, and we have also given certainty through Windrush grants and EU settlement grants, none of which is affected by the consultation. Since the Government published our immigration White Paper, people have known that the qualifying period will move from five years to 10.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about fairness to individuals. I agree with him, because giving fairness and certainty to those who have come here to work  and make a contribution to our economy is absolutely important. However, our reforms are also designed to give fairness to those who are already here, and to build public confidence in the system overall.

The hon. Gentleman made some points on the national health service. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care takes very seriously future labour market reforms and ensuring that there is a pipeline of the required labour so that our NHS keeps going. We absolutely value the contribution that those from overseas who have come to work in our national health service have made, are making and will always continue to make. \p Nia Griffith: I have a constituent, born and bred in Llanelli, who is unable to bring in his foreign spouse because of the current earnings limit of £29,000. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Government’s family financial requirements review notes that a threshold in the region of £23,000 to £25,000 would allow most British workers in full-time minimum wage jobs to qualify. When will she consider this review and look again at the fairness of the current earnings thresholds? \p Shabana Mahmood: We always keep those thresholds under review, and we will continue to do so in relation to family and to bringing dependants over. \p Edward Leigh: The Home Secretary loves our country and I love her efforts, frankly, because it is not just the fate of this Government that depends on her success, but good community relations, saving dozens of lives at sea and, let us be frank, probably our political fate. Will she undertake to be judged not just by the strength of this announcement and words spoken in the House of Commons but by results, so that we actually make a real contribution towards stopping the boats? Is she prepared to constantly ratchet up the pressure so that if someone is sitting in France, they think, “Is it worth the risk? I’ve got virtually no chance of being allowed to stay in Britain forever. I will have my case reviewed regularly—every two years. I will be sent back to where I came from when it is safe; otherwise, I will go back to a return hub.”? Can we not all agree on that? \p Shabana Mahmood: Results are all that matters. It is incumbent on me to think about the way that we have to reform the system, to make a public argument for it, to win that argument, to persuade people and then to get this done. What I care about now is ensuring that we can deliver these proposals, and we will do so. Then I need to ensure that the Home Office is in a position to run a system properly, administratively and fairly in the future. That is what matters. This is a low-trust environment for the public—all of us involved in politics know that. In the end, the public have heard a lot of rhetoric from a lot of people, but this Government intend to get on and deliver and to win the trust of the British people. \p Lewis Atkinson: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly what she said about the more than 75,000 nurses working in our NHS who have arrived in this country since 2021. Those nurses and other healthcare professionals were actively encouraged to come here to fill the gaps left by  the previous Government’s failure to do NHS workforce planning. Since they arrived, they have served our communities and cared for our citizens with distinction. I welcome what she said about maintaining a five-year route for those who are engaged in public service. Could she confirm that that will apply to NHS staff, such as those I have mentioned, and could she explain how she will continue discussions with DHSC colleagues to ensure that there will be no unexpected reduction in NHS workforce staffing in the months ahead? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is right about the contribution that those nurses and other staff in the national health service are making. He will know that we are consulting specifically on the element of the proposals that relates to public service and to its getting people a five-year discount on the qualifying period. No doubt he will make his own responses to that consultation, and we have heard them, too. Of course, in the normal run of things, public service would include those who work in our critical public services. \p Nick Timothy: I broadly welcome the changes to ILR, but I seek clarification about whether there will be revocation for those already settled who break the law. Why are the Government proposing making low-skilled workers who are net fiscal recipients wait for 15 years for ILR, instead of telling them to just leave the country?

On the broader question of immigration, the Government say that they want to get the numbers down—it is correct that the Boriswave was a disgrace—but the measures implemented so far by this Government are projected to reduce the number of people coming here by only 61,000 a year. That is before we take into account the new rules for Gaza, Afghan dependants and the schemes launched this week by the Home Secretary. In fact, that is less than the revision by the Office for National Statistics of the number coming here last year. If she does want to get the number down, when will she bring forward new policies to ensure that the number of visas issued falls by the hundreds of thousands as soon as possible? \p Shabana Mahmood: The powers to revoke indefinite leave to remain are not going to change as a result of this. The hon. Member will know that the specific provisions for foreign national offenders will also be unaffected. Separately, we are going to review the threshold in relation to criminality. The current rules work on the basis that someone cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they have received a sentence of 12 months or more. However, given the changes being brought forward in the Sentencing Bill and others, we will be looking at that threshold in its entirety. He raised a point about retrospectivity, and we will be reviewing that as we review all the criminal thresholds that apply here. He had another question, but—forgive me—I missed it. [Interruption.] If he will write to me, I will come back to him, but I think he was asking about wage thresholds.

The hon. Member made a final point, which I did pick up, about the modelling—essentially, the numbers—and whether a reduction of 61,000 a year is the right number. Let me just say to him that I will be coming to this House on a regular basis to be held to account for  the delivery of these reforms and those that I set out on Monday about the asylum system. It is a big package of reforms, taken together. These are the biggest changes to settlement for 40 years, and the asylum package is one of the biggest packages of modern times. The combination of the two will keep modellers and others very busy over the coming months, but I promise the House that we will be transparent on the data, the numbers and what our proposals mean in practice. That will inevitably change as we design the new system, but hon. Members will always get transparency from me in this House. \p Stella Creasy: I agree with the Home Secretary that our immigration system needs reform and that people are concerned about it. I think we should also be very clear in this House that we recognise the benefits of immigration to our country—the talents, the jobs and the entrepreneurship it brings—and that nobody would ever argue that we will bring this country together by tearing families apart. On that basis, it is very welcome to hear the Home Secretary commit to a five-year pathway for partners of British citizens. Many of my constituents have been deeply concerned about that, because they would never wish the state to tell them whom they could fall in love with. However, given that some of those people are on different visas here, can she clarify how the five-year term will be calculated, so that we do not inadvertently end up penalising people who fall in love with somebody who came here on a worker visa, but has been here for five years? Love is love, and let us make sure that in this country we welcome it. \p Shabana Mahmood: None of the rules about marriage in-country, as it were, are going to change, but if my hon. Friend wants to send me some of her constituency examples, I would be very happy to look at them. It is important to have a distinction between what citizenship unlocks as a set of rights for British citizens and what applies for those who are working here and who may not have settled status but may acquire settled status. I think it is right that we open a question in the consultation about what is unlocked from the British state and for people’s rights here at citizenship as well as at settlement. I would be very happy to discuss these matters with her in more detail, and I am sure I will do so over the next few months. \p Josh Babarinde: Many migrant survivors of domestic abuse apply to settle in the UK permanently if their relationship has broken down because of domestic violence or abuse, and the right hon. Lady knows just how close this issue is to my heart. Will she reassure this House and survivors of domestic abuse that they will be protected under her reforms, and that her changes to ILR will not have the adverse and perhaps unintended impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships? \p Shabana Mahmood: First, let me put on record my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his engagement.

The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner on domestic abuse issues, based on his own experiences. He and I have had many debates across this Chamber on those matters, and I very much respect the perspective he brings and the way in which he constructively engages  with the debate. I can assure him that we will continue to have pathways to settlement for victims of domestic violence and for other vulnerable groups as well. In the consultation, we are inviting views and perspectives on how some of the changes might have unintended consequences, and on how we can ensure that those pathways continue to exist. I am sure he will be engaging with the consultation in that regard. \p Alison Taylor: I agree with the Home Secretary that fairness must be at the heart of the immigration system, but would she say a little more about the route to settlement for the Ukrainian families to whom my generous constituents opened their doors following the horrific invasion of their country? \p Shabana Mahmood: Nothing I have said today changes the position of those who have come to this country on the Ukrainian scheme. That is a bespoke scheme for the people who have arrived here from Ukraine. In fact, it is seen not as a refugee route, but as a temporary scheme. All its provisions were supported by us in opposition, and they continue to be supported by us in government. Nothing in the position of Ukrainians in this country will change as a result of anything in the asylum policy statement or today’s Command Paper. \p Julian Lewis: As the descendant of immigrant grandparents, I have a high degree of empathy with the Home Secretary’s opening remarks about her own family. Does she agree that the reason that both main parties are facing the possibility of an electoral bloodbath is not so much the overall level of immigration, but the fraction of it—still a very large number of people—who come to this country on small boats and by other illegal means? We do not know what they believe, we do not know what values they have, and because in many cases they destroy their documents, we do not even know who they are. Can she explain how the measures she has outlined today will have an impact on deterring that sort of person from breaking into our country? \p Shabana Mahmood: I have acknowledged that the way the system is working—or, more appropriately, not working—is causing deep unease across the country, including in my constituency and among people who are of immigrant backgrounds themselves, because of a sense of unfairness. A lot of people in my constituency regularly report overstaying to me, which they see as an abuse of visas and as a particular problem, while others are more concerned about the small boats. I acknowledge that those concerns are legitimate, real and felt deeply across the country. That is why I think it is so important that we rebuild public trust in the overall system by dealing with both illegal migration and legal migration, based on the principles of fairness and contribution, and give the public confidence that the rules we have can be maintained, enforced and followed properly.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the destruction of documents and the other ways in which people seek to frustrate our ability to remove them from this country is driving some of the discontent. That is why the reforms I set out in the asylum policy statement are designed to say to those making the calculation in the north of France, “Don’t get on a boat. It’s not worth it. That is not the way to come to this country.” As we  build safe and legal routes to this country—which will clearly be a much more privileged way of entering, with a faster path to settlement at 10 years, as I have said—the reforms will show very clearly to people making that calculation which path is worth it and which one is not. \p Barry Gardiner: I welcome the assurance the Home Secretary has given to those who have achieved indefinite leave to remain and have settled status in this country. That certainty is really important. She will know that in my constituency I have many families from Syria and Afghanistan, who came under the Syrian programme and Operation Pitting. They have limited leave to remain and are deeply worried, from what the Home Secretary has said, as to whether they will ultimately be deported from this country. Can she give an assurance to those who are currently seeking ILR and who came on those programmes that they will be able to follow the path that was set out for them when they arrived? Will she give that assurance and ensure that this country will never do a deal with the Taliban to deport women and children from this country? \p Shabana Mahmood: We will always have specific obligations on not returning anybody who has arrived in this country seeking asylum or who has been granted refugee status. We would not return those individuals to danger. We will abide by our international obligations, as I hope I made clear in the statement on Monday. However, our ability to have new rules that look more carefully and more regularly at whether a country is safe for citizens to be returned is important. It is a shift in the way we do things, but we will never return people to face danger. I would be happy to look at some of the examples my hon. Friend has raised today in more detail with him. \p Seamus Logan: First, I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing part of her statement, but I have read it. Will she confirm whether any assessment has been carried out on the economic impact on Scotland of extending the ILR wait time to 10 years and beyond? If not, why not? Whatever the needs of Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s economic and workforce needs once again appear to have been ignored. Does the Home Secretary understand that such a blanket policy risks exacerbating skills shortages, threatening vital sectors and making it harder for communities to thrive? Incredibly, for a so-called Labour Government, this lurch to the right now appears to favour the wealthy over the less wealthy. \p Shabana Mahmood: Really, Madam Deputy Speaker! The hon. Gentleman will know that immigration is a reserved matter. That will not change. The thing that is holding back the labour market in Scotland is skills and education policy, which is devolved. It is on the SNP to sort that out. \p Natalie Fleet: In 2024, in the run-up to the election, I knocked on door after door where people told me that they were absolutely sick of our broken immigration system that we inherited from the Tories. They did not trust Reform, who are not here today, to tackle it. I welcome the intervention from our Home Secretary. Does she agree that to be the open, tolerant and generous country that we know we are, we must get order and control at our borders? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is an open, tolerant and generous country. What I have acknowledged in the reforms I have set out, both today and on Monday, is that there is a condition to unlocking the full extent of that openness, tolerance and generosity. It is about having order and control at our borders and a fair, managed asylum and immigration system where the principles of fairness and contribution are at its heart. That is the way we can prove to the public that it is possible not just to have an asylum system, but one they can be proud of. \p Kieran Mullan: I am not sure it helps the Home Secretary’s cause for me to say that I have a great deal of respect for her and that I thought her interventions this week were very important, particularly those pointed towards members of her party on the left who will make the cause they choose to champion more difficult if the system as a whole is not brought under control. The people who support asylum and refugee processes and want them to be there in future need the system to be brought under control.

My sincere question relates to what I would describe as tinkering around the edges of the human rights laws. The Home Secretary must know that whatever she does to clarify the fringes of the rulings the ECHR has made over the years, they have created a case law that forces our judges to rule in favour of spurious claims. She cannot change that; those rulings are those rulings. Unless we are willing at the very least to have a derogation from some elements of the Court’s decisions, how does she think we can override those well-established rulings which give enormous amounts of rights to people when they are making their asylum claims? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Gentleman and I have an obvious point of difference on the European convention on human rights. This Government will not be leaving that European convention. We do not see the case for derogation or any other measures. We believe it is possible to achieve the reforms we need by legislating for the way that article 8 applies to immigration cases, by defining family life and by more tightly drawing up what is known as the public interest test. We will debate that legislation in this House in great detail, but I hope to show to everyone who is currently a sceptic of our ability to stay in the ECHR and get control of our migration system that it is possible to do both those things. The convention—the Human Rights Act brought the rights into our domestic legislation—is an important international treaty and we do not see any reason to leave it or derogate from it. I hope that Opposition Members will engage in good faith on the changes we seek to make to article 8, and the immigration rules in particular, because we think that is one of the best changes we can make to get control of our migration system. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Members will notice that we have two debates after this business. I am going to finish this statement in around 10 minutes, so I ask remaining Members please to keep their questions short and the Minister to keep her answers short. \p Warinder Juss: I ask, as someone who was not born in this country, whether the Home Secretary agrees that we should not stop talking  about the benefits of immigration while managing migration. As she has already acknowledged, will she confirm that we will always offer sanctuary to those truly fleeing peril? Does she accept that for those people, we should be making settlement and integration into British society quicker and easier, not more difficult? \p Shabana Mahmood: I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on how I opened my statement today and how I closed it. I see the benefits of migration. I would not be here if this country had not welcomed my parents. It is literally the story of my life and how I have managed to get from there to this Dispatch Box today, so I very much feel those benefits personally. I will always speak up for them—as I have done today, as I did on Monday and as I will always do—as I make the case out there in the country for the need for these reforms. I hope that he and others will always support me on that—I know they will. I have also made clear that we will always offer sanctuary. I want us to be a country that offers sanctuary to those who are in need. That is why it is so crucial that we get order and control back into our asylum system and open up new safe and legal routes. It is important that today I have confirmed that those safe and legal routes will have the earlier 10-year path to settlement. That is what will enable the integration we all want to see. \p Vikki Slade: In the summer, I spent the morning with Anushka, a senior social care worker in Wimborne. She and her colleagues earn more than the earnings threshold and came here with their families on the understanding that they could make a new life here, contributing to society and paying their taxes. The recent hostile narrative is making her and others consider leaving for places such as New Zealand and Australia. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether Anushka and her colleagues, doing jobs that cannot be filled by British workers who will not do the work, will be considered public sector workers? \p Shabana Mahmood: These will be matters for the consultation and I encourage the hon. Lady to engage with it. We have put in an element around public service, because we recognise the specific contributions made by those who fill the gaps in our labour market that we are not otherwise able to fill. On the general principle, I would say to her that settlement is not a right and that it is absolutely fair for a Government to say that it has to be earned. It is not unusual for countries to change their settlement requirements. That is quite normal. It happens all over the world, as British citizens who work abroad know all too well. The proposal to go from five years to 10 years will not change, but all the other measures I have set out today are subject to consultation. I encourage her to engage with that. \p Noah Law: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, the care and fairness with which she has crafted the proposals, and the incentives that they instil. In my work on the International Development Committee, I have seen the immense negative impact of global displacement and the loss of over $20 billion of economic activity every year from developing countries. Then, of course, there is the impact of asylum accommodation on our overseas assistance budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the measures might ostensibly seem harsh, there is nothing progressive  about well-meaning people on the left of politics excusing a situation where thousands of people are risking their lives to cross the English channel from already safe countries? \p Shabana Mahmood: It is immoral if we stand by and watch people make dangerous crossings, pay thousands of pounds to criminals, and put their lives and those of others at risk, while we do nothing. That would be a total dereliction of duty. It would also be a dereliction of duty for a Labour Government to continue to preside over a broken system, or to not have the mettle to go ahead and reform that system, and then watch as we lose public consent for having an asylum system at all. I think it is existential for us to have public consent for the asylum system, which is why all the changes are so necessary. \p Judith Cummins: I call Bobby Dean, with a very short question. \p Bobby Dean: I thank the Home Secretary for her confirmation about the five-year pathway for Hongkongers—that is a promise kept to them. The statement was otherwise a series of push measures. I am always fascinated by how much more difficult it gets, when it comes to the individual decisions made within the system. To push the Home Secretary on the Boriswave, which she has criticised, the vast majority of those figures were made up of Hongkongers arriving here under the BNO scheme, Ukrainian refugees, and deferred student visas after the covid pandemic. Which of those measures does she think was a mistake? \p Shabana Mahmood: I was clear about our responsibilities towards Hongkongers, and that the issues in relation to the Ukraine scheme are not going to change. However, the hon. Member will know that the stats on health and care visa holders, primarily those who came to work in adult social care, will be the main contributors to the settlement increase between 2027 and 2029, because they will make up nearly half of all settlement grants in 2028. The figures really do speak for themselves, so it is important that the Government move to deal with the vast number of settlements due to happen over the next few years. It is therefore right that we extend the path to settlement, and ask some questions about how we manage the situation in the future. \p Sarah Russell: I entirely agree that we need control of our borders in this country. In respect of transitional arrangements, over the next 12 years there will be an 83% increase in the number of over-80s in my constituency. Health and care visa workers are currently providing critical services to many of my constituents, as well as supporting the NHS. Can the   Home Secretary confirm how the transitional arrangements will ensure that this care continues to be provided to my constituents? \p Shabana Mahmood: The Health Secretary and his Department are always reviewing and considering the arrangements. We need to ensure that we have a workforce capable of sustaining the national health service. We have an ageing population, which brings its own specific challenges. We are not talking about preventing people from working in our national health service; it is about the pathway to settlement. It is about extending the pathway from five to 10 years, and then thinking about the rules we need to bring that number down from 10 and closer to five years, or that might increase it instead. In that spirit, I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with the detail, and I would be happy to talk to her offline. \p Will Forster: The Home Secretary announced a consultation on a five-year pathway to settlement for those who work in the public sector to recognise the particularly valuable role they play in society. Will she please put that to the vote, so that MPs can ensure that those who work in organisations that are fundamental to the public sector—such as those who work in hospices, like the amazing Woking & Sam Beare hospice in my constituency—are always included in the five-year pathway? \p Shabana Mahmood: All the measures will be taken through in the usual way. \p Mark Sewards: I am delighted to hear the Home Secretary announce that we will keep our promise to British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. That is something that I have worked with my constituents to lobby the Government on over the past few months, and I am delighted that the Government have listened. As well as transnational repression, Hongkongers bring other issues to me. Many of them in Leeds South West and Morley are highly skilled and have excellent qualifications, but employers in this country do not necessarily recognise those qualifications, which makes it much harder for them to get their first job. Will the Home Secretary work with other Departments to help employers in this country recognise the amazing contribution that Hongkongers can make to the UK economy? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and while it is not the direct responsibility of the Home Office, I will ensure that those conversations happen across Government and that a Minister from the Department for Business and Trade writes to him on the matter. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Judith Cummins: We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Justice Committee. Andy Slaughter will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not to the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning. \p Andrew Slaughter: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement on behalf of the Justice Committee. This is the seventh report of the Committee and its subject is rehabilitation in prisons.

This time last year, the Justice Committee began its principal inquiry to look at the crisis of reoffending against the backdrop of a broken criminal justice system. Around 80% of all offending is reoffending. That figure alone suggests there is a serious issue, and that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is not currently serving its stated mission of rehabilitating the people in its care. The purposes of prisons are clear: punishing, protecting the public, and rehabilitating offenders. The opportunity for offenders to be rehabilitated in prison should not be considered a luxury; it is a fundamental necessity to ensure that those who have done their time can return to society as law-abiding citizens.

The evidence we received, however, paints a starkly different picture. Instead of being places of reform, too many of our prisons have become places of stagnation, where offenders languish and rehabilitation opportunities are scarce. Our inquiry into rehabilitation has taken place amid a prison capacity crisis. Overcrowding, staffing shortages and deteriorating infrastructure have created conditions that actively undermine rehabilitation. The Committee found that the current conditions across the prison estate are simply not conducive to reform.

Overcrowding has led to arbitrary prisoner transfers, disrupted sentence progression, and reduced access to purposeful activity, education and family contact. With the demand for prison places set to keep increasing, the Government must set out the steps they will take to ensure that rehabilitation is not compromised, alongside how they intend to manage demand and supply.

The challenges do not end there. In the 12 months to 30 June 2025, there was a leaving rate of almost 12% among prison officers. These staffing shortages are not just an operational inconvenience, but a public safety risk. As we heard recently, in the year to March, 262 prisoners have been released in error. Overworked staff, outdated systems and inadequate training have meant that when officers are stretched to breaking point, the likelihood of administrative errors skyrockets.

Current levels of wrongful releases are not isolated blunders, but symptomatic of a system under intolerable strain. Alongside that, high turnover, poor recruitment  processes and limited professional development have all contributed to a culture that hinders rehabilitation. Governors lack the autonomy to lead effectively, and the current staffing model is unsustainable. The Committee recommends that prison staff should receive training at least annually, with more frequent support as they progress through their careers.

Furthermore, the prison estate is in a state of disrepair. Dilapidated buildings and broken infrastructure limit access to rehabilitative spaces and contribute to poor mental health. Despite recent capital investment, it remains unclear how the Government intend to address the £1.8 billion maintenance backlog. That backlog is not just a financial figure; it represents real barriers to rehabilitation. We call on the Government to provide a clear breakdown of how funding will be used to address the backlog and to ensure that investment is targeted at improving prison conditions and rehabilitative activities.

The Committee is deeply concerned by the widespread failure to meet the statutory minimum for time out of cell. Many prisoners are locked up for 22 hours or more each day, with limited access to fresh air, showers or rehabilitation. This lack of time out of cell undermines efforts to reduce reoffending and contributes to poor mental health and disengagement.

Purposeful activity including education, work and offending behaviour programmes is central to rehabilitation, yet it is inconsistently delivered and often deprioritised. The Sentencing Bill rightly aims to incentivise good behaviour and engagement in purposeful activity through its earned progression model, but this ambition will fail if purposeful activity remains inaccessible. The Committee calls for a renewed focus on ensuring that all prisoners have access to meaningful activity, for time out of cell to be formalised and standardised, and for data on it to be published.

Education is the cornerstone of rehabilitation, yet prison education is underfunded and poorly delivered. Participation rates are low—50% of prisoners are not in education or work. For those who do take part, Ofsted ratings remain poor, with 75% of prisons inspected in 2024-25 rated “inadequate” or “showing no improvement”. It is therefore unsurprising that two thirds of offenders are not in education or work six months after release from prison. Given that, we are alarmed by reports of significant real-term cuts to prison education budgets of up to 50%. We expect the Government to clarify the rationale of any budget reduction.

Conditions across the youth estate are also in decline. Children in custody are entitled to 15 hours of education a week, yet the Committee heard that that minimum is routinely not met and that children are spending up to 23 hours a day in cell due to the failure of HM Prison and Probation Service to manage behaviour effectively. As well as making every effort to meet the statutory minimum of 15 hours of education, HMPPS must set a statutory minimum for time out of cell in young offender institutions.

Health and wellbeing services are failing to meet the needs of prisoners. Mental health support is inconsistent and operational pressures prevent timely access to care. Women in prison face acute and complex health needs, yet the system is failing to provide even basic support. Although the Government have set out their ambition to reduce the number of women in custody, it is unclear what action will be taken for those currently in prison.  The Committee expects the Government to respond with a clear plan for how they will meet the health and wellbeing needs of the women currently in their care.

Remand prisoners now make up 20% of the prison population—the highest level in at least 50 years—yet they remain excluded from much of the prison regime, including access to education. We heard that remand prisoners often spend extended periods in custody only to be released directly from court following conviction, without any support or intervention. This raises serious concerns about how the Government expect these individuals to avoid reoffending. Rehabilitation must be available the moment someone enters custody, and remand prisoners should therefore have access to all parts of the regime, should they choose to participate.

There is plenty more to be done to improve outcomes for offenders. The Committee will shortly commence part 2 of its inquiry by examining how rehabilitation continues in the community for those released from prison, as well as those serving non-custodial sentences. A further report will follow, making not only recommendations for changes in how community sentences work, but long-term recommendations for structural reform across the criminal justice system in order to once and for all end the cycle of reoffending.

Let me be clear: the time for action cannot wait. The Sentencing Bill represents a welcome opportunity to rethink how we reduce reoffending, but legislation alone will not deliver rehabilitation. I apologise that it is a bleak prospect that I set out, but that is the reality of prison life—prisons are simply not working, and that is particularly true in the field of rehabilitation. As this report sets out, legislation must be matched by renewed focus from HMPPS to deliver better time out of cell, education, and health and wellbeing services. I urge the Government to take these recommendations seriously, to promote rehabilitation effectively and to ensure that our prisons are places of reform, not despair.

The Government have inherited a very difficult situation here. They are trying to address that in a number of ways, but the prisons crisis cannot be underestimated—we have seen the symptoms recently in wrongful releases and other tragedies in prison sentencing. We have to deliver a system that truly serves the public good, and that will come in the longer term only with effective rehabilitation in prisons. \p Tessa Munt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for presenting the Committee’s statement. With the chief inspector of prisons recently concluding that the outcomes for children in custody are not improving and the urgent notification issued to Oakhill secure training centre, and given that it is children we are discussing, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the conditions across the youth estate are completely unacceptable and, as recommended, the Government should produce an action plan for youth custody? \p Andrew Slaughter: I thank the hon. Member, who is an effective and active member of the Committee, for her question. We should not ignore the fact that youth custody is one of the successes of the prison system in the sense that over the past few decades, the number of young people in custody has gone down from over 3,000, I think, to around 400. However, those who remain in youth custody, in a rather confused variety of institutions, are not being well served. It is the intention  of the Committee to look at youth custody and young people in prison itself, but we can only examine and recommend; it is for the Government to look as a matter of urgency at the crisis in the youth estate for those who remain in custody. \p Warinder Juss: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that reducing reoffending through rehabilitation is the key to reducing not only prison overcrowding, but the court backlog? It is unacceptable that prisoners very often have to make the choice between engaging in work or education and accessing their basic needs, such as time out in the fresh air, a shower or a hot meal. \p Andrew Slaughter: It is certainly true that there is a close relationship between the crisis in the courts and the crisis in prisons. A good example is that, as I mentioned in my statement, the number of people on remand is at a 50-year high, with remand prisoners occupying prison places for far longer than they should be. It is also true that if we can break the cycle of reoffending—as I have said, 80% of offences are reoffending—the numbers in prisons will come down. That in itself will make rehabilitation in prisons a lot easier, which will mean that fewer people will be coming before the courts. We are in a downwards spiral at the moment, and we have to not only stop that but reduce it; lower numbers of offences against the public at large mean fewer people in prison and fewer people before the courts. It is a big ask, but if we do not start with that, we will not get there. \p Julian Lewis: In the light of the urgent question earlier today, does the Chairman of the Committee believe that it is essential for the purpose of rehabilitation that prisoners should be protected against indoctrination by convicted terrorists? \p Andrew Slaughter: I do believe that—very much so. I believe that is what this Government, and indeed previous Governments, have set out to achieve. I hope that the report by Jonathan Hall KC will shine a light on what is not working; given his background, I believe that it will. The Government then have to implement that. One of the problems with prisons, as we covered in another recent report on drug culture in prison, is the operation of not just extremists but organised crime. The lack of control, organisation and discipline, not only in the prisons that Jonathan Hall KC talks about, but across the prison estate, is one of the most worrying aspects of prison life. \p Sarah Russell: There is an epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country, and the Government have a stated aim of reducing that by 50%. In that context, it is critical that our prisons play their role in rehabilitation. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that with 70% of people being released from remand—either directly because they are found not guilty or, in fact, because they are found guilty but released on the basis of time served—we are missing a huge opportunity to do rehabilitative work, because it is typically not offered at all to those on remand? \p Andrew Slaughter: The numbers of women and, indeed, young people in prison are a small percentage of the prison population, but they give particular cause for  concern. As I mentioned in my statement, the health and mental health needs of women prisoners and the levels of self-harm are both higher. There is a clear need there and it is one that, to be fair, the Government have recognised and which they have policies to address. It is the practicality that we are lacking at the moment, because of the levels of support required. I welcome that the Government have clearly said that they want to see fewer women in prison, but we need to know how that will be achieved from this point onwards. \p Vikki Slade: Around half of prisoners are neurodivergent and the population of young prisoners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is around 10 times higher than in the population at large. With such specialist targeted support needed for those prisoners, we have heard that they have been let down by the system and that they cannot access the right support at the right time, regardless of the new system that is in place. Does the hon. Member agree that the delay in producing an update to the neurodiversity action plan is unacceptable and that it really must be published straightaway? \p Andrew Slaughter: The hon. Lady is the newest member of the Committee, and I am pleased to see her here today. She has obviously got behind the brief very quickly: we are waiting for an update on the neurodiversity action plan. Many levels of societal problems are reflected to a much higher level in prisons, whether that be around people with learning difficulties, literacy problems or neurodivergence. That is not a coincidence, but it is a wake-up call to the fact that such issues have to be addressed. Rehabilitation is for all prisoners, and special  steps need to be taken, particularly in relation to neurodiverse prisoners. I hope that we are going to see that. The very capable Minister for Courts and Legal Services is in her place, listening to all this, and I am sure that she will tell us soon when that action plan will be updated. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Bobby Dean presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a framework for the regular evaluation of tax reliefs, including in relation to their effectiveness, cost and value for money and to require annual reporting under that framework; to require the Secretary of State to review all existing tax reliefs; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 335). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Max Wilkinson, supported by Lisa Smart, presented a Bill to place a duty on candidates for elected office to declare any past or current income or gifts from the government of the Russian Federation or from any person or organisation connected to that government; to place a duty on political parties to ensure that their candidates have made this declaration; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July 2026, and to be printed (Bill 334). \p Judith Cummins: I call Josh Newbury, who will speak for around 15 minutes. \p Josh Newbury: I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day, the issues affecting, and contributions made by, men and boys, and what it means to be a man in Britain today.

It is an honour to lead this debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the House to consider this important issue. I also thank Members from across the House who supported the application and recognise the need for a serious national conversation about men’s health, men’s wellbeing and modern masculinity.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of our International Men’s Day debate—a chance for us to celebrate men and commit to tackling the challenges they face head on. For me, being a man means being there for family and friends, particularly when they need support the most. It means being the best dad and husband that I can be and, perhaps most importantly, being a completely fallible human being.

But let’s face it: you do not need to be an expert to know that being a man in Britain today can be very tough. We hear that from the men in our own families, on our street and in our workplace. Mental health issues are on the rise, preventable killers such as heart disease and prostate cancer are being caught too late and, most shockingly of all, suicide remains the leading cause of death for men under 50—something that I know many hon. Members wish to focus on today. With that backdrop, many men and boys are turning to online influencers who promote a particular, reductive view about what being a “real man” is, but that rarely gives them any sense of hope or optimism about their future and role in society.

The uncomfortable truth is that men often do not ask for help. For generations, we have been taught that a stiff upper lip, sorting yourself out and manning up is the best response to life’s challenges. When we combine that with higher rates of addiction of various types, it is no wonder that men’s health has reached a crisis point, and that hits families, workplaces and our communities. That is why the first ever men’s health strategy for England, published yesterday, is so welcome. I commend the Government and all the organisations involved in writing it for listening to what men need and not shying away from tackling issues that affect men specifically.

The strategy will mean that we meet men where they are to break down enduring stigma around mental health. It will improve care for men with prostate cancer and will support ex-miners, like those in my constituency, with better NHS diagnosis and treatment for people at high risk of respiratory disease. It is the first serious effort to understand the problems that men face and to chart the path to a country where men and boys can live longer, healthier and happier lives.

As the first speaker, I want, as best I can, to set the scene for the discussion and highlight the breadth of issues affecting men and boys across the UK, from health and  education to employment, fatherhood and social wellbeing. Today we will touch on the challenges men face at every stage of life, celebrate the contributions they make to their families and communities, and home in on what we can do to shift things in the right direction.

I particularly thank the Dad Shift campaign for its support in shaping today’s debate. Its campaign for better paternity leave, backed by undeniable evidence, is grounded in lived experience. The Daft Shift is also the reason you might expect one or two dad jokes this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will go into the campaign in more detail later, but I want to kick things off with one of my favourites:

“Scientists have found that dairy cows give a better yield when farmers talk to them. It’s a case of in one ear, out the udder.”

Madam Deputy Speaker, I was tempted to put “pause for laughter” in my speech notes, but I am glad I didn’t —[Laughter.]

Jokes aside, the challenges we face begin very early in life, with boys lagging behind girls, from school readiness through to further education. This year, 45,000 fewer men under 19 started university compared with their female peers, and boys are disproportionately excluded from school. And let’s say it as it is: white working-class boys are at a particular disadvantage, and not because of a lack of talent but because of the hand they are dealt from birth.

Employment outcomes paint a similar picture, with young men making up 62% of those unemployed—that is nearly 1 million men out of work, all while our construction, teaching, healthcare and social care sectors struggle to fill vacancies. Yesterday, More in Common published a report into the disillusionment among many men, particularly those in their 40s and 50s. Some in the media might characterise this as a backlash against feminism, but what is actually behind it is men feeling that their lives are out of control.

No matter how hard they work, they cannot provide the security and opportunities they want for their families. They cannot plan for the future, so it is no wonder they feel vulnerable and let down, particularly by politics and politicians. Their priorities are unsurprisingly very similar to the general public: daily pressures, like the cost of living, insecure work, unaffordable housing and high levels of immigration, all combine into a sense that the system is rigged against them and in favour of those who are already privileged.

Loneliness and poor mental health are an inevitable consequence—particularly concerning given that middle-aged men are among the least likely to seek help either from professionals or their peers. Just as men take on more and more pressures and responsibilities, many find that their social circles shrink. Community groups like Andy’s Man Club and Stand By Me in my constituency have such a vital role to play. They work tirelessly to give men that non-judgmental space to meet others in a similar position and know that they are far from alone.

On that note, International Men’s Day should be an opportunity to smash through stigma. One taboo that I believe still persists among men is being the victim of sexual harassment and assault. Breaking the silence can mean those of us in privileged positions telling our stories, so here is mine. Around 10 years ago, I went on a night out in an unfamiliar city with a group of friends.  I was very conscious not to overdo it because if I got separated from the group, I wanted to be able to find my way back to the hotel.

I remember going to a few bars and having a good time, but then it is a complete blank, which is something I have never experienced before or since. The next morning, I woke up with the worst headache I have ever had. The man I was sharing the hotel room with commented that he had had a great night but I had overdone it a bit and needed to be looked after. That did not seem to tally with my being determined to pace myself, but I thought maybe I had drunk too much, and I just wanted to get home and sleep it off.

What followed in the days after was constant text messages from this man, initially just asking whether I was okay but then repeatedly asking what I remembered and commenting that I was a “great shag”. That made me freeze because I had no recollection of getting back to the hotel, let alone anything else, and he had repeatedly told me how out of it I had been, so how could I have ever consented? It took me a few weeks to piece together my memories, the blanks, the text messages, and this man’s insistent tone. Obviously, I cut myself off from contact, but it took me a long time to admit, even to myself, that I was a victim of rape. I never felt able to report this and face the likely conclusion that, months on from that night, there was not the tangible evidence to ever bring a charge, and I will probably always carry a bit of guilt around that.

I found myself processing all of this with thoughts like “I count myself lucky that I was unconscious when it happened”, but I want to say clearly today that no victim should ever feel that they have to put themselves in a hierarchy or feel any shame. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is the people who do this to another person who should feel shame, and I hope that we can foster an atmosphere where men have the courage to speak out about this and seek justice, even if it is a hard road.

I realise that this is a very heavy topic, so I would like to end on one that brings me and so many men a huge amount of joy: fatherhood. The vast majority of dads want to play a bigger role in raising their children than previous generations did. The traditional role of protecting and providing is still there, but more and more, dads are clear that providing also means their children benefiting from their presence as much as possible.

Right now, we have the least generous statutory paternity leave in Europe at just two weeks, and at less than half the minimum wage, with nothing at all for self-employed dads. One stat that I find shocking is that 90% of paternity leave claims are made by those with above average incomes and far more is claimed in London than the rest of the country. That is a stark class divide and certainly not what the last Labour Government envisaged when paternity leave was introduced. A poll by Movember found that 62% of new dads struggled under financial pressure and a third take no leave at all. It is no wonder that recovery times for mums with birth complications are getting longer and mental ill health among new dads is on the rise. This is the future of our country that we are talking about, and we deserve so much better than this.

Before I sit down, since I am in such good company, I will tell one more dad joke. I went into B&Q recently and asked for some nails. The assistant asked me how  long I wanted them. I said, “Well, I was planning to keep them.” [Laughter.] Maybe I could have paused for laughter on that one.

Let me end on this: supporting men and boys is not a fringe issue, or an issue for men alone. Say this loud and proud: a society that helps men to be healthy, hopeful and present is a society that works better for women too. Want stronger families, better relationships and happier communities? Lifting up men and boys is part of the solution. Men who protect and provide should not be shamed; they should be celebrated. To my fellow men, I say, “If you are ever struggling with anything at all, just know that we will hear you and be there for you.” International Men’s Day is a reminder that change is possible, and it is necessary. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I will impose an immediate four-minute time limit. \p Clive Jones: As we mark International Men’s Day, we have an opportunity to address the biggest inequality in men’s health: prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, yet it is the only major cancer without a screening programme. Hopefully, the Secretary of State will ensure that that changes in the national cancer plan. We are approaching a pivotal moment on the path towards the UK’s first prostate cancer screening programme. We cannot afford to wait while more men miss out on lifesaving early diagnosis.

Some men face greater inequalities than others. Prostate Cancer UK reports that black men face twice the risk of prostate cancer, and men in deprived communities are 29% more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage, incurable prostate cancer. Without targeted and urgent action, those inequalities will only deepen. A national screening programme is urgently needed. It would result in earlier diagnosis, and we all know that when prostate cancer is identified early, survival outcomes are dramatically improved.

As I said, I am sure that the Secretary of State will ensure that prostate cancer will be a priority in the upcoming national cancer plan, but could he confirm that? Can he also confirm that GP guidelines will be updated so that they can start lifesaving conversations with men at risk? There must also be clear advice on a simple online risk checker, and the Government need to fund nationwide awareness programmes so that every man knows his risk and can act early.

Implementation of those four things would dramatically improve outcomes for many with prostate cancer. I am afraid there will be no dad jokes from me. My daughters constantly tell me that all my jokes are dad jokes, and that they are bad ones. \p David Burton-Sampson: Madam Deputy Speaker, you may or may not have noticed the unusual growth appearing between my nose and top lip. Yes, it is Movember, and for the first time I have had the opportunity to prove to everyone that I can grow facial hair—if that is what you can call it. My Mo is becoming the subject of much contention,  with many suggesting that this premiere of what I now affectionately call Bob should remain after 30 November, while I am gaining a growing respect for those whose sensible opinion is that Bob needs the chop—and that is exactly what will happen.

Movember is one of many great organisations focusing on men’s health, including improving men’s mental health. I am growing this Mo to highlight a plight that many of us will have been touched by: not just poor mental health but male suicide. As I have said in this place before, I have been personally impacted by male suicide, having lost a good friend a year ago last week. A year on, I know that for me and all those who were part of his life the initial shock may have gone but the sense of loss and pain still lingers, as do the endless questions of “What if?”—for no one more so than my friend’s husband. We often forget that suicide has a profound effect on those left behind, especially partners. Suicide survivors, as they are known, will often go on to develop depression or post-traumatic stress disorder and need psychiatric care. Most worryingly, people bereaved by suicide are 65% more likely to take their own life than somebody bereaved by a natural loss.

The story of my friend is sadly a story that is repeated time and again. The stats around male suicide are simply shocking. Three in every four suicides are male, and it is the leading cause of death among young men aged 20 to 34, with the highest rates of suicide among men aged 40 to 54. Many of these men have been in contact with either their GP or other primary care services prior to their death, but men account for only 33% of referrals to NHS talking therapy, which does not match with the fact that 75% of deaths by suicide are men.

What is leading to this? It is often thought that men just do not talk about their feelings, similarly to how they ignore signs of ill health, and that much of this is because of cultural norms around masculinity that cannot be broken for fear of appearing weak—but is that really the case? As I have just said, many men will reach out to primary care; an estimated 43% of men aged 40 to 54 who die by suicide saw their GP in the three months before their death. What men often do not do is talk about their feelings in environments where they are likely to get more peer support from their community. Some amazing work is being done in this space by organisations such as Movember, Men’s Shed and Andy’s Man Club. \p Warinder Juss: My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution. On men not expressing their feelings, I had a constituent at my last surgery who told me about the domestic abuse he had suffered. As a man, he felt that he could not express that because of the idea that men do not get beaten up by women. Does my hon. Friend agree that domestic abuse is an evil and that, although it largely affects women, men can also be affected? \p David Burton-Sampson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend just said. Domestic abuse is abhorrent, and although it does mainly affect women, we cannot deny that it also affects men. We need to look into and address it.

I was delighted to see the first ever men’s health strategy launched yesterday, starting to address head on the issues that I have raised, with £3.6 million invested  in suicide prevention projects for middle-aged men as well as expanding mental health teams in schools and a partnership with the Premier League’s “Together Against Suicide” initiative with the brilliant Samaritans.

Moving forward, we absolutely need to keep the focus on supporting men’s health, and especially their mental health. We want to see more men’s spaces continue to evolve to be more supportive of men’s emotional needs. I will continue to work hard through the all-party parliamentary group on male suicide to drive and promote better mental health for men. We must see suicide rates come down before we lose too many more of our sons, brothers, fathers and partners.

To finish, in the spirit of the Dad Shift request for as many dad jokes as possible, here is mine. Why did the maths book look so sad? Because it had too many problems. On that note, if you feel that you have too many problems, do not hold them in—get talking. \p Natalie Fleet: I am thrilled to be here to celebrate the incredible men among us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). I thank him for sharing his story.

Men need to be celebrated today—those who pick up the pieces, make our lives better by being in them and provide positive role models to our children. I want to speak about the most undervalued man in my life, my husband Ritchie Fleet. In March, it will be 25 years since we met, with me at 16 with a newborn and him ready to step up into a role that he chose and which he has absolutely smashed. He makes me feel supported and loved, and I am proud to see him growing from a caring and present father to an incredible grandad. I cannot wait to see his adventures with our granddaughter as he drops his hours to take on his share of her childcare.

There is breaking news, Madam Deputy Speaker: all the toilet seats have been stolen from Scotland Yard, but police say they have got nothing to go on.

Everyone loves a dad joke, but we cannot let paternity leave be the real joke. How we see it is really important. It is an important class issue, with 90% of paternity leave taken by the 50% of top earners, and dads in my area less likely to take paternity leave than those who live in London. The men’s health strategy, which I am thrilled that we are introducing, is right to identify that flexible working and sufficient paternity leave positively impact a father’s health, relationship with their partner and involvement with their child. When we get it right, it is not just better for men but better for women and children.

I was honoured to be at the first ever International Men’s Day celebration in Downing Street last night. I could take a guest, and there were so many to choose from in my constituency, including: Kyle Barnes in Langwith, who set up a football team for his daughter; Andrew Joesbury in South Normanton, who spends so much time volunteering at the school; and Tony Mellors in Newton, who wants to ensure that our area’s history is passed on to the next generation. But the man I took was Paul Oxborough from Holmewood.

Paul’s friend Dale Caffrey was a man we lost too soon. Suicide remains the biggest killer of men under 50, and the destruction left behind is immeasurable.  Paul set up Mental Health Motorbike with Dale’s wife and best friend, which is a mental health charity that provides free online and face-to-face support. In five years, the charity has grown to 100 volunteers and is holding over 400 events this year, taking mental health peer support to the biker community across the UK. I am thrilled to have that national charity established in my constituency by that incredible bloke.

As I saw Paul speaking to the Prime Minister last night about all that the charity has achieved, I thought about the suicides that could be prevented. There is so much to celebrate today, but there is also so much more to do. Let us show our boys that real courage is talking about men’s mental health. Strength comes from opening up when you need to. Let us make it normal that proper, brave men talk about how they feel.

I will finish with the words of my friend Tracey about her late husband Kurt Hayes-Bradley: one life lost is one too many; each life saved is a blessing. It is definitely time to talk. \p Alistair Strathern: I start with a thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for the incredible way in which he opened the debate. Securing it was important enough, but the bravery that he has shown today, as well as the leadership that he has shown on so many of the issues he spoke to in his speech, will perhaps serve men right across the country far better in the future than politics has managed to do in the past. It is a day after International Men’s Day, but I cannot think of a better model of a modern, strong man than the vision of himself that he set out today, in being so brave in sharing that deeply personal experience with us all.

As my hon. Friend finished, I want to start with a dad joke—as we know, all good jokes need some forewarning. Last week, I went to the Library—I do not know why in this place, but I wanted to find a book on paranoia. I went up to the librarian, tapped her on the shoulder and asked her where I might be able to find one. She leaned over to me and whispered, “I am afraid, sir, they’re all right behind you.” [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] That is as good a reaction as my jokes get in this place—it is great to see everyone else lowering themselves to my level for one day.

The point behind the campaign is a really important one: paternity leave in this country is a bit of a joke. When I have held events with new mums, new dads and new parents across my constituency, it has been heartbreaking to hear about the impact that the challenge of paternity leave has on them. I have seen mums with high-risk pregnancies along with dads struggling to see whether they will be able to take off enough time before the birth—let alone after—to be there to support them. New mums have told me heartbreaking stories of how they have had to go through caesarean recoveries alone after the dads had to return to work. That cannot be good enough. As progressives, the statutory paternity leave offer, which is so narrow and tight that only some of the wealthiest in society can really take it up, should not be good enough for us. We have to do far better. I really hope that we will make the most of the upcoming paternity and parental leave review to put that right.

As so many have already said, that is not the only issue failing men today. As was identified in yesterday’s landmark announcement, men’s mental health, its issues and strategies have not been forensically focused on in this place for far too long. I know about that from my own challenges, after a bad concussion left me out of work for the best part of six months. I was unable to comprehend and struggled to read at times—some Members might be wondering what has changed. While I can joke about it now, it was no laughing matter at the time.

I was lucky that I had friends who pointed out the fact that my symptoms went well beyond concussion; I was getting quite deeply depressed. They ensured that I got the right support and guidance to get back to work and feel comfortable and confident in myself again. While all I can do to thank Joe, George and Alex is put their names on the record and forever associate them with me—a dubious privilege I am not sure they will be so grateful for—I want to highlight the importance of making sure that no man should ever be in the position of having to go through such a challenge alone.

I am lucky to have great groups in my constituency such as For Men to Talk in Hitchin, Stotfold’s men’s health walking group, and the great group in Shefford, where I live, run by Steve Coxon. They are there to ensure that men have spaces where they can reach out. That is why it is so important to see investment in these groups and a wider community approach to men’s health front and centre in the strategy.

We know that we need to do far more. The fact that this strategy was the first of its kind speaks to a wider problem in our politics—that at times we shy away from being confident in speaking to the challenges that affect men particularly and specifically. As progressives, this should be our fight. We should be making sure that society is there for vulnerable lads at school and dads and mums going through vulnerable births. We should make sure that we are there for men at the darkest moments of their lives. These are big progressive causes, and we should be comfortable taking them on and being loud and proud about speaking to them.

At the end of the day, men’s issues are issues not just for men but for everyone. We all have men and women in our lives, and we should all be passionate about policies that tackle the challenges they face. We should be full-throated and proud in not shying away from them. \p Connor Rand: It is great to contribute to this debate and follow so many powerful speakers. I commend the Government for marking International Men’s Day by launching their men’s health strategy. This initiative will not just change lives but save lives. As part of International Men’s Day, like many of my hon. Friends I have been working with the group Dad Shift, which is campaigning to improve the UK’s paternity leave offer—which quite frankly is itself a bad joke as the worst in Europe.

Speaking of bad jokes, I will follow on from some of my hon. Friends, though I have to admit to being slightly hesitant to include a dad joke in my speech, because the last time I tried a joke it went badly wrong. It was a joke about Chewbacca, but I messed it up. It was Wookie error, and one that I will not repeat. [Laughter.] I know what Members are thinking: “Stick to the day job!”

I am lucky enough to have two amazing jobs. One is being the Member of Parliament for Altrincham and Sale West, and the other is being a dad to two young boys. The latter was made so much easier by having access to paternity leave. It meant that in those early, formative and precious—and slightly less precious—moments that come with fatherhood, I could be there as a new parent for my boys and my partner Catherine. We were a team on that journey together.

However, one third of new dads do not take any leave at all when their children are born, and we have to be frank and honest about why that is. It is because they cannot afford it. Our statutory paternity leave of just two weeks at less than half the minimum wage, and with nothing for the self-employed, shows a system and a settlement that is fundamentally broken. I am delighted that this Government have the chance to fix that, through both the Employment Rights Bill, with the granting of the day one right, and the parental leave review. We must fix it for mums, who are shouldering an unequal caring burden and responsibility, and we must fix it for dads, who are having to lose out on time with their new children.

Some 90% of dads want to play a more active role in their children’s lives, but as polling from More in Common reveals, too many men believe that a life where hard work means security for their family is out of reach. What better way to tackle disillusionment than by improving paternity leave and showing that Governments not only listen but can make the lives of men across our country better? Supporting dads to be the best parents that they can be will go some way to creating the role models that younger boys need when growing up. In a world of Andrew Tates, online misogyny and grievance politics, that feels more important than ever. We should want young boys to grow up with fathers who are active in their lives, who are comfortable enough to embrace being a truly equal co-parent and who feel like hard work brings rewards, support and security for their family as part of the social contract in our country. The Government have a responsibility to help to create these conditions.

On International Men’s Day, I pay tribute to all the dads out there doing their best, to all the organisations across Altrincham and Sale West, such as Andy’s Man Club and Home-Start, and to all the organisations across our country who are helping dads to be the best they can be. I urge us all to work together on creating a society to support dads to be the best possible role models for their children. \p Matt Turmaine: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for giving an incredibly moving introduction to this debate. International Men’s Day, which is held on 19 November but which we debate today, is a wonderful chance to celebrate all that is good about men and boys and to commit to ensuring that we as legislators do all we can to support that agenda.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a very emotional contribution in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I thank him for his moving question, which touched everyone on the Government Benches and I suspect those across the House. I also want to acknowledge the Prime Minister’s  social media post, “A letter to my son.” What a moving piece that was. Whether we have sons or daughters, nephews or nieces, the emotion with which my right hon. Friend spoke was truly heart-touching.

As a participant in today’s debate, and having worked with the Dad Shift on raising awareness on paternity pay and other issues, I am obliged to deliver to the House a dad joke:

“I went shopping and someone threw a block of cheese at me. I said, ‘That’s not very mature!’”

I’ll get my coat at the end of the debate.

Things have moved on since I was a lad, but I recognise the frustrations that some men and boys feel upon emerging from education into an adult world that is not very caring. When I finished my education and started work, I struggled. Flush with the sense that hard work and dedication would see me through to success, it was alarming to discover that that was not necessarily the case. The assumption that I needed only to work hard to get on was revealed to me, in the midst of a brutal economic recession, to be a lie. It has been said by the economist Gary Stevenson that if we just tell young men that all they need to do to succeed is work hard, we should not be surprised when their reaction is not positive.

The challenges that men feel are often focused on employment, family and identity. It is the structures of the society around us, which we ourselves have created, that result in the frustrations and challenges that people feel. As the documentary maker Adam Curtis has said, we could just as easily create a world in which those frustrations and challenges, and reasons that people despair, do not exist. We have, as Members of this place and members of society, simply to decide that that is what we want to do. Will we rise to the challenge, I wonder?

Let us consider as an example social media and its potential for toxicity. I am of a vintage that means I was present not just at the birth of that media but at its conception. I cannot tell the House how optimistic everyone was for the future—optimistic to meet like-minded friends in virtual spaces and discuss ideas; to discover hitherto unexplored aspects of oneself; to revolutionise work; and perhaps, at its most pleasurable, to play games with people for fun and engagement. What a contrast with the world in which we now live, where many young people—and, arguably, many others—wish that they could just switch the internet off to get some respite.

It has been said that, at its core, the British dream extends to having a family and providing for them. We all know how difficult that is under the circumstances we are debating today. Conversation is required. What stops men and boys feeling that they can have conversations about their fears in an environment that is open and supportive, rather than a pathway to despair? We all know the reasons men and boys do not have those conversations: fear and repression, and their perception of how society regards them. It does not have to be this way.

Others may make this point too, but 90% of paternity leave, and 95% of shared parental leave, is taken by people in the top half of earners. This cannot be the world that we wanted to create. The issues affecting men and boys are serious. This International Men’s Day, let us determine to come together and resolve them. \p Sarah Russell: First, let me say an enormous thank you to my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for talking so movingly about their own experiences. They are role models for us all.

Speaking of role models, if one saw what was on the television and on social media about men, one would think that they were just a bunch of feckless teenagers who grew up into man-children. It is really distressing. I only know really good men. I am obviously fortunate, but the men in my life and my community are fantastic. They are great role models for their children, pillars of the community, businessmen and volunteers. My community is so much richer for the men in it, and my life is so much richer for the men in it.

When I talk about men and boys, I would never want anyone to think that it was from a place of negativity, but I see so much negativity around me. It is fantastic, then, to see the work being done by my local boys’ school, which is having conversations with its year 7 group at the moment about masculinity, and about the different forms of social hierarchies among men and how that can work for them socially, or not.

It is also fantastic that the Government have announced £60 million to rebuild large chunks of that school— I welcome that, as well as the men’s health strategy.

So many fantastic community groups do mental health work and support the community in my constituency. I cannot list them all, but I give honourable mentions to Goostrey community shed; the Shed Crew in Holmes Chapel, which produces a lot of exciting things for the community; the Sandbach men walking and talking group; the Congleton Mentell circle; and the No Tier Snooker Society. None of them excludes women, but they all have an emphasis on ensuring that men can live their best lives.

Enabling men to live their best lives includes increasing paid paternity leave, so I am campaigning for that alongside the Dad Shift, Pregnant Then Screwed and other organisations. It is extremely sad that self-employed men do not receive any paid paternity leave whatsoever, and it is incumbent on us as a Government to change that as soon as possible. Women get statutory maternity allowance, and I do not see any reason why the equivalent cannot be made available to men. Of course, I must also participate in the dad jokes. What do you call cheese that isn’t yours? Nacho cheese!

And what do we call two weeks of paternity leave? Not nearly enough. \p Maya Ellis: I gave my handyman a to-do list the other day, but he only finished items 1, 3, and 5. Turns out he only does odd jobs.

I know, that is a terrible joke, but as the Dad Shift and my colleagues across the Chamber are highlighting, paternity leave in this country is also a terrible joke, and it is letting our brilliant men down. We must do better.

Before I was a socialist, I was a feminist—and a precocious one at that. I was about 17 when I read a book called “Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Illusion of Equality”. Quite apart from all its valid analysis of equality going to the wall after women have  babies, the fact that most horrified me was that husbands could not stay in hospital with their wives after their baby was born. What was this medieval treatment that the writer was telling me still happened in the UK? Of course 20 years later, it still often happens.

It was at that moment that all my illusions about equality having been largely achieved were shattered. I had grown up on the girl bosses of the ’80s, such as the glorious late Diane Keaton in “Baby Boom”, but how could there be equality if it was only in the workplace and not in the home? How can we have equality in the home if men are shut out the very moment they become parents

On this International Men’s Day, my plea to the Government is that they take this once-in-a-generation chance to lock in six weeks’ paternity leave at full pay, paid by the Government. Many studies have shown that the earlier men get involved in caring for their children, the more equal the distribution of work in the home becomes—and the amount of conflict reduces, too. No man goes into a marriage or becomes a dad wanting conflict. I fundamentally believe that the key to unlocking true equality is ensuring that men have as much of an appreciation as women of what it takes to care for a family and a home.

I could spend all day reading Members a love letter to fatherhood. I have said before in this place that I would not be here if my husband had not chosen to be a brilliant father holding down the fort at home—while still running his own successful business. I see my friends’ husbands trying so hard to be the dad that they often did not have themselves. We are letting men down by not giving them the money, structures and role models to help them embrace this huge experience in life, from which men in generations past have been excluded.

Only last week, I spoke with firefighters at Fulwood fire station in my Ribble Valley constituency. They said that when the funding for a post within a shift team is cut, the flexibility of the rest of the team, most of whom have families, is the first thing that is affected. Those men—and women—want to be present parents, and we should enable them to be great public servants and great dads.

I am a huge fan of how the internet and social media can connect people, so I cannot celebrate fatherhood without giving shout-outs to some of the brilliant creators on Instagram and elsewhere who make dads feel less alone. Dean Walker—AKA Fun Dad Dean—and comedian George Lewis give dads role models for modern parenting. They give light relief and offer a reminder that being a dad is hard for everyone and that dads are doing their best. In the depth of parenting exhaustion, I know that many of us communicate by sending their videos back and forth, and I am sure they have prevented a few explosive arguments—I may or may not be speaking from personal experience.

As the incomparable Emmeline Pankhurst said,

“We have to free half of the human race, the women, so that they can help free the other half.”

I am glad to be here today, and in this Government, to do my bit to help free the other half, as they have helped to free me. I look forward to this Government taking the single biggest next step they could make towards equality, by introducing six weeks’ paternity leave at full pay, paid by the Government. \p Sam Rushworth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading this debate and for his powerful and courageous speech.

We have come a long way in 12 months. Twelve months ago, as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues, it was my privilege to lead the debate on International Men’s Day. At the time, people came up to me and said I was being whispered about and had better show my feminist credentials, so I am really grateful to those who have showed up today and for all the fabulous contributions from our female colleagues.

I feel a bit for the Secretary of State, because one of the calls over the last 12 months has been for a men’s health strategy, and most of our speeches today have focused on a new call about paternity leave. I can only say that he has been a victim of his own success, because he has listened and delivered. I was so proud yesterday evening to join him and fellow Members of Parliament in Downing Street, where the Prime Minister announced the men’s health strategy. I was joined by somebody from my constituency who runs peer support groups for men with mental health struggles. The funding for many of these groups is under threat, and the strategy makes it clear that we need that intervention, so I am really grateful for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) just stole my dad joke, so I will cross that one off the list. I’ve got a new pen that can write under water. It writes other words, too. I hope we can store all of these dad jokes in a “dadabase” somewhere.

I would like to take a moment to address the importance of fatherhood, what it means to me and why the call for paid paternity leave is so important. Linking that to mental health, I want to say that in some of the darkest moments in my life—when, like a lot of people, I experienced depression, my self-worth was lacking and I felt that I was failing at everything I tried—it was my children, and picturing their faces and my responsibility as a dad, that pulled me through.

Some of the happiest moments in my life were in those early days, holding a newborn child. I remember vividly holding in my arms my youngest daughter, looking into her face and feeling like I had been given this precious gift from heaven. All I knew about her at that time was that she was precious. I could not predict how she would turn out to be. She is now a 12-year-old, and she is going through all the emotions and stages that girls at that age go through. When she tries my patience, I still remember that moment, and I still say to my wife, “She is precious.” We absolutely adore her.

My oldest daughter is the one whose birthday party I broke my leg at a few months ago when I was roller-skating with her around the disco to “Mr Brightside”. I remember being up in the night with her when she had colic. Those early weeks are so important, and far too often women are left alone to recover from their surgery while the fathers are missing and not having those moments to bond. A really important call coming from this debate is for fathers and their children to have that precious time together.

I met this week with the Minister for School Standards, and we talked about the need for parenting classes. There is no shame in saying that sometimes we need  skills to help us develop our children’s values. I am certainly a better dad today than I was 18 years ago when my son was born, so I hope we can take that up, too. \p Scott Arthur: This debate is a chance to speak honestly about the pressures, expectations and challenges that too many men carry alone and in silence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) exemplified all that in his speech, and I thank him for it.

Across my constituency, there are organisations large and small supporting men and dads. One of them is Dads Rock, which has become a vital source of support for fathers at every stage of parenting. When I was elected last year, one of the first people to contact me was from Dads Rock, making it clear to me that I had to support the Dad Shift campaign.

I do not just have a dad joke, but a Scottish dad joke. There are 10 cows in a field, but which one is on holiday? Anyone? It is the one with a wee calf. [Laughter.] Thank you, thank you, but back to the Dad Shift. Its WhatsApp peer support group now brings together more than 700 dads from across the country. In its most recent survey, the top request from those fathers was for stronger mental health support, particularly for new dads.

We see the power of Dads Rock in stories like that of Euan, a young dad in his 20s in Edinburgh South West. He came to Dads Rock struggling with anxiety, isolation and difficulties maintaining contact with his eight-month-old child, after a separation from her mother. He was not included on the birth certificate, meaning that he had no parental rights, and as a result he felt overwhelmed and unsure about where to turn. With one-to-one support from Greg, one of the Dads Rock workers, Euan received guidance through a confusing and emotional court process. Greg helped him to rebuild communication with his child’s mother, and eventually she agreed to add him to the birth certificate, granting him parental rights and more stable access to his daughter. Euan then joined the dads and dice group, where he built friendships and confidence. In his own words:

“Attending Dads Rock’s dads night has me bonding with other dads and having a laugh.”

That is very important in life, with or without dad jokes. That is what meaningful, compassionate support for men looks like. It changes lives and strengthens families.

Dads Rock is not the only organisation doing this vital work. I pay tribute to Dr Ian Hounsome, whom I met in my office recently. Ian recently received a well-deserved award from Napier University for his extraordinary work supporting Andy’s Man Club. Ian first walked into Andy’s Man Club in 2021 fleeing an abusive relationship and looking for a sense of community. He soon became a volunteer and he now runs the club for the Edinburgh, Lothians and Borders area, supporting men at their lowest point. The recognition that he has received is well deserved, and the impact he is having on men across the region cannot be overstated. One of the big things in my life is parkrun. One of the people who organises parkrun in Edinburgh has really benefited from Andy’s Man Club, which is a great example of the work that Ian is doing and the impact it is having.

When we support men, their mental health, their relationships and their role as fathers, we strengthen our society. Organisations like Dads Rock and Andy’s Man  Club show us what is possible when community, compassion and practical support come together. On the day after International Men’s Day, let us recognise these challenges, celebrate the men in our lives and the organisations driving change, and commit to ensuring that no man feels that he has to struggle alone. \p Amanda Martin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this important debate and on his eloquent and brave words to open the conversation.

As he said, today is a chance to celebrate the men and boys in our lives, acknowledge the challenges that many face, and recognise the positive roles they play in our families, workplaces and communities, so let me begin with my own. I want to celebrate my dad, Terry, my brother, Lee, and my partner, Robin, who are all fantastic role models, brilliant men and hugely important to me, our family and friends. I also want to celebrate my fabulous nephews, the young dad, Luke, and Frankie who turned 10 this month, as well as my male friends and colleagues in this place. Finally, I want to take a moment to celebrate my three beautiful sons. I say to them, “As you make your way in this changing world, you make me proud every day with your openness, your kindness, your humour, and your love and respect for each other and for those around you. I love you boys.”

Every man in my life has faced challenges, be it school or workplace bullying, health conditions, disability, bereavement from illness or suicide, or loneliness. The difference is that they had each other and, crucially, they felt able to talk and to ask for help, but too many men do not. The statistics are stark: one in five men does not live to 65, more than 5,000 men die by suicide each year, nearly 1 million men are unemployed, and paternity leave is a class issue and works against the self-employed.

These numbers are not abstract. They are real lives: young men lost in education, and fathers struggling to balance work and family, including some going through break-ups and separation from their kids. They are veterans adjusting to civil life, older men being pushed out of the labour market, and men of all ages wrestling with health worries but determined not to be a burden.

It is partly because of these realities that colleagues, partners and I have established a Labour group for men and boys. Our purpose is simple: to ensure that this Government build policies and politics that better represent men and boys and, in doing so, to improve outcomes for everyone. We believe in a modern, positive vision of masculinity that strengthens rather than undermines gender equality.

Men feel that their identity has been shaken by rapid change and feel that so much of life is out of their control. They mistrust politics and politicians, and in that vacuum toxic, dominance-based narratives can gain ground, so it is important that we as a Government have their back. We need to offer hope, be inclusive and offer a story of what British manhood should be built on: pride, purpose, belonging and trust.

Supporting men and boys is not a zero-sum game. It is about listening, acting and rebuilding trust. This Labour Government are already taking action. We have  abolished exploitative zero-hours contracts, raised the minimum wage and launched England’s first ever men’s health strategy. We are reforming apprenticeships, delivering pride in place investments and strengthening communities. The Government must take responsibility— \p Jim Dickson: I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. I have heard her talk glowingly about her boys to me and to others, and she is doing them real justice in her speech. I believe she is absolutely right to welcome the men’s health strategy, which was published yesterday; it is a fantastic document and road map for us.

Does my hon. Friend agree—especially given that her boys are still growing up and in early manhood—that young men are particularly prey to the problems of gambling, particularly online gambling and rapid turnover gambling, and that it is really welcome that the men’s health strategy contains proposals to tackle the real problem of men and gambling from the grassroots upwards? \p Amanda Martin: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Online safety is also crucial in protecting boys from harmful content, misogyny and gambling promotions, which he mentions.

The measures that this Government have taken are a start. We know that we need to do more to restore trust, dignity, opportunity and a sense of belonging, where too many men have been forgotten and ignored, so that men see and feel the changes in their everyday lives.

I want to highlight the work I have been doing with tradespeople through my tool theft campaign—Members may have heard of it! Tool theft disproportionately affects male workers, many of them self-employed or running small businesses. Losing tools is not an inconvenience; it can mean lost wages, contracts, reputations, and indeed lives. I launched the campaign after hearing countless stories of livelihoods being destroyed, and I thank everyone who has shared their experience. Their voices matter, and they are part of what we celebrate today.

When it comes to fatherhood, let me give a small nod to every tired dad out there, with a dad joke. Madam Deputy Speaker, what do you call a woman who sets fire to all her bills? Bernadette! Yeah, my boys will probably roll their eyes at that, but beneath the joke lies something very serious. The Dad Shift campaign is showing how many fathers want to be present in the first precious weeks but simply cannot afford it. Strengthening paternity leave is not just about fairness for dads; it is about giving the best starts, helping families to build resilience and shaping the kind of society we want to be here in Britain.

I want to leave Members with a quote from a brilliant book, “The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse”, which captures the courage I see in so many men every day:

“‘What is the bravest thing you’ve ever said?’ asked the boy.

‘Help,’ said the horse.

‘Asking for help isn’t giving up,’ said the horse. ‘It’s refusing to give up.’”

That is the bravery we celebrate today. \p Jeevun Sandher: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) not only for securing this debate, but for his  incredibly courageous and powerful contribution, which is no doubt making waves across this country—I thank him so, so much for that.

Today men are finding life unaffordable in a way that their fathers did not, which is leading to anger, to despair and even to death. It is on us, and it is within our gift in this Government to ensure that every single man—indeed, every single person—in this country can find life affordable, with decent jobs everywhere. The second part of my PhD focused on the topic of why non-graduate men cannot find decent jobs. While I cannot force hon. Members to read my PhD, I can force them to listen today. Chapter 1—[Laughter.]

Men, particularly non-graduate men, have gone through a huge crisis. In the 1980s, about 10% of non-graduate men were not working; today, the figure is 25%. That is over 2 million men in total, with 1.3 million off long-term sick. That is not through any fault of their own—it is because of the way the economy has changed, both in this country and across high-income nations. Manufacturing has declined; there is no longer a factory in those men’s local town or city. They can no longer leave school, get a good job, get a good home and support a family. That has all ended, and now what we see across this country and across nations like ours is a small number of good jobs in major cities, and not enough elsewhere.

We see young men doing the right thing, getting a good education, and then finding that they can no longer afford a decent life. That leads to anger and despair, but —tragically—more than that, it leads to death. The number of middle-aged men dying from alcohol, suicide and drug overdoses has doubled in this nation over the past 30 years, the result of despair caused by deindustrialisation. The scars of Thatcherism have not left this nation or stayed with one generation alone; they have passed from father to son.

That is the country we are living in today, and stepping into the void caused by that despair, anger and frustration are those on the radical right who say, “The cause of your poverty, your penury and your difficulties is those who look different. If you just attack them with enough vigour—if you are violent enough—your life will be better.” We know where that leads; we saw where it lead a century ago, and sadly we are seeing it across our nation again today. Violence only begets violence. Anger only begets anger. In this moment, it is for us in this country and in this Chamber to realise that and step to it.

We in government have that gift within us. Good jobs will not appear magically across this country; they will not come with economic growth alone. It is for Government to help create them, both directly by building the homes we need, through home insulation and clean energy, and indirectly by working with the private sector through our industrial strategy. Beyond the economics—which are very important—is our political vision, which says that every single person in this country deserves a decent life. More than that, it says that we are stronger when we stand together. It says that when each and every one of us does well, we all do well—that we are stronger together and weaker apart. To those who say that we only need to attack others, we say that that does not live up to the best traditions of this nation, and it does not meet the moment we are in. It is on us to meet that moment.

I am so proud to be in this Chamber with all of you, and so proud of my hon. Friend the Member for  Cannock Chase. It is up to all of us in this place to create a country in which every single person—including every single man—can afford to live a decent life. \p Stella Creasy: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) and to be in the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who made a truly extraordinary speech.

I want to reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will not be making a dad joke, not least because my father—a brilliant man—inspired in me the love of a deeply filthy joke. I suspect that such jokes are probably not parliamentary language, especially the one about the Bishop of Birmingham, so you will be relieved to hear that I am not going to tell it.

I am also proud to be speaking in this debate, and that it is taking place in this Chamber. In previous International Men’s Day debates that I have participated in, we have been relegated to Westminster Hall, so I am proud that we are here today. There are people who want to suggest that campaigners like myself, who have worked on women’s rights, do not care about men—that we do not know about men and do not understand them. I did actually put “Tell me facts about men” into ChatGPT. It told me that men have less sense than women—what it meant was less sensitive tastebuds and smell receptors. It also told me that men’s beards can house more bacteria than dog fur, although different types of bacteria; that most men own three pairs of shoes; and—my favourite one—that men are more likely than women to have an extra nipple.

I am not sure that looking to the internet to tell us about each other is the way forward, but from talking to men and boys in my constituency and across the country—and with pride in my colleagues in this place—I do know the challenges that we face in raising a generation of men and boys who can be happy and content with themselves. That is why I very much welcome the new men’s health strategy being introduced by the Health Secretary. This is not about trading off between the sexes. There is not a battle of the sexes; there is a bafflement about how we can help each other, because we are being pitted against each other in the very environment described by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough.

I take great hope that the evidence shows us that young men in this country are rejecting Andrew Tate, but they are crying out for something else—for alternatives. Samaritans tells us that 70% of men would live differently if they were free from social judgment, and I know many women for whom that would strike a chord. That is the challenge we are facing. We are putting the men and the boys in our lives under a huge amount of pressure. Nearly 40% of men say that contributing less than their partner makes them less of a man, and more than three in four Britons say that a man who stays home to look after his children is less of a man. Yet men are so unhappy; that tells us that we can and should do things in this place to change that dynamic.

Men are not a homogenous lump. Women used to get mad about being treated in that way. We have a multitude of problems and challenges, and so do men. We see the rates of suicide, but we also see the variation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for  highlighting the difference for black men when it comes to prostate cancer, and the importance of developing a strategy that does not just see men with prostate cancer, but sees those challenges. I also look at the experience of disabled men in our society, who often find that they are being denied their own sense of identity in services.

In the time left to me, I want to add my voice to those calling for us to support men to be able to build positive relationships with their children from the get-go. Frankly, we missed the boat with the Employment Rights Bill and, as a result, we have reinforced the gender stereotype that it is ladies who do babies and men who need to go out to work. We must not make that same mistake again. I pay tribute to the work of Elliott Rae, Joeli Brearley, Pregnant Then Screwed and all the campaigners now making that case. Frankly, we have got the evidence that doing at least what the Women and Equalities Committee said to do—pay at 90% for six weeks of paternity leave—would be a step forward, both for our young boys and men to have each other at that critical point in life from the get-go, and for them to be there with the women who love them. I think of the latest young man in my life—Marlowe Jay, born last week, who is just starting his fight in life—and of his parents. I want better for him, like I want for every child in my constituency. \p Calvin Bailey: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing the debate and for the strength he showed in his speech. It was not a speech; it was an act of leadership.

It is also a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), because International Men’s Day is not in opposition to International Women’s Day; it is not a zero-sum game. We must be honest about the challenges facing men and boys, because if we do not address them openly, others with malign intent will exploit that space. It is disappointing that we do not have broad cross-party representation here today. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) for his speech.

Even as a highly decorated RAF pilot, I cry, and I do so publicly. I say that for two reasons. First, we must show our men and boys that vulnerability and courage are not opposites, but are expressions of strength. We must give young men permission to show that strength. Secondly, I say it because I need to continually remind my friend, the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), of my previous career.

As chair of the APPG on prostate cancer, I will focus my remarks on the most urgent men’s health challenge that we face. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, with 63,000 diagnoses and 12,000 deaths every year. Early diagnosis, particularly among the highest risk groups, alongside more effective treatment pathways, would save thousands of lives and spare families immense suffering.

Yesterday, I visited the Imperial Centre for Translational and Experimental Medicine in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). Researchers there are leading the world in mapping how fat and microRNA influence tumour growth and in developing far more accurate diagnostic  tools. Their work is opening the door to improve tests and promising new treatments, including for advanced disease. It is testament to the excellence of UK science, and I am grateful to the researchers, to Prostate Cancer Research and in particular to Joe Clift for their partnership.

This week, the launch of the first ever men’s health strategy for England is a pivotal moment, and I am proud of the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. Easier access to PSA testing and better communication with consultants, both at home and in community settings, will help the half a million men already living with prostate cancer. Monitoring is crucial. Many early-stage cancers do not require immediate treatment, but they must be watched carefully so that changes can be caught in time, because too many men fall through the gaps.

However, there is more that we must do, and I again raise the commissioning of abiraterone for men with high-risk but curable prostate cancer. The evidence is clear: it halves relapse rates, would save 650 lives every year and would save the NHS £200 million over five years. Yet because this is an off-label use, it is stuck in a web of unnecessary bureaucracy. I am grateful for the constructive engagement from the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), and I hope we will see progress soon.

Early-stage diagnosis among the highest-risk groups remains the decisive factor. Next week the National Screening Committee will consider targeted screening for black men, men with a family history, and men with a genetic vulnerability, who all have at least double the average risk of developing prostate cancer. By combining PSA testing with magnetic resonance imaging, we can reduce unnecessary biopsies, improve safety and catch cancers far earlier. This would cost £25 million per year, but it would deliver a net financial benefit of £54 million over five years.

Finally, to my dad David, I love you and thank you. I hardly ever tell dad jokes—but when I do, he always laughs. \p Christopher Bloore: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing this debate. He is a man I deeply admire, and the bravery he has shown in retelling the story of what happened to him is extraordinary. I am proud to be his colleague, and this House is unquestionably better for him being here.

Cannock Chase holds a special place in my own heart: it is where I spent many hours with my grandad. A former police officer, he would often take me walking across the Chase. He was the first person I ever spoke to about politics as he picked me up from school and fed me every day to support my parents. He was a kind man—a proud one-nation Tory—who taught me that far more unites us than divides us and that in public life we are not enemies, but simply people with different viewpoints on how best to solve the challenges before us. That lesson has stayed with me throughout my life, and I know I am lucky to have had such a strong male role model in my formative years. I miss him every day.

Today’s debate gives us an important opportunity to reflect on the issues affecting men and boys, and on the contributions they make across our society. This is not  about pitting one group against another; it is about acknowledging that if we want a fairer and healthier society, we must be honest about where help is needed. The figures on men’s health and wellbeing remain concerning. Men continue to account for the majority of suicides. They are less likely to seek support early, and too often feel compelled to deal with difficulty silently. The old idea that emotional openness undermines masculinity has lingered for far too long. It has cost lives and prevented countless men from getting the help they need.

In that context, I am proud that this Government have launched their men’s health strategy, which sets out a clear 10-year vision for improving the health and wellbeing of men and boys in England. The strategy recognises that reality, and begins the work of addressing it through earlier intervention, better support and a more honest understanding of the specific challenges that men face. I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their hard work.

I am also proud of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his bravery in speaking openly about his own mental health challenges this week. Far too many men still feel that it is a weakness to demonstrate their humanity by opening up about their struggles. His honesty helps normalise these conversations, and can help save lives.

In Westminster Hall today, we have debated the role of carers—carers such as my dad, who is right now sitting next to my mom in her hospital bed. Hundreds of thousands of men like my dad support their families every day, quietly and with dedication. We can see the pressures faced by boys growing up in Britain today, who are navigating a world shaped by online influencers—some positive, but many harmful. It is men such as my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer and for Cannock Chase, and my dad and grandad, whom I admire and look up to. As a father myself, I want my son to see their examples, and not the false prophets he might see on TikTok, as the true representation of what it is to be a man. Boys need strong, positive role models and reassurance that there is more than one way to be a man.

Today is a moment to celebrate the positive contributions made by men and boys, and by the fathers, grandfathers, carers, teachers, mentors and volunteers who shape our communities—men such as Carl Dickens at Wallop boxing club, who supports young men; Pete Martin, who fights knife crime; Gethin Farnes, who supports veterans; and so many more in Redditch. Supporting men and boys strengthens society as a whole. When men feel able to seek help, relationships improve.

Today would have been the 100th birthday of my political hero, Bobby Kennedy. One of my favourite quotes of his is:

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask, ‘Why?’ I dream of things that never were, and ask, ‘Why not?’”

I am proud that this House is united in its insistence on changing things for the better, and in supporting men and boys to live healthier, fuller and more meaningful lives.

I will finish with a “knock, knock” joke, if that is permissible. Knock, knock! \p Hon. Members:: Who’s there? \p Christopher Bloore: Tank. \p Hon. Members:: Tank who? \p Christopher Bloore: You’re welcome! [Laughter.] \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Susan Murray: I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for bringing forward this debate, but also for sharing his experience.

I am the mother of two young men, and I am very proud of the way they tackle the challenges that life has put in their way with kindness and resilience. Before the debate, I took the time to sit down with some more young men, and we talked about their experience of living as young men in the UK today. They are successful individuals, university graduates with good jobs and what, from the outside, look like steady lives, yet their outlook was shockingly bleak. They talked about their belief that, without support or systemic change, they would never own a house. They are resentful about their opportunity to build up a good pension. They talked about how the cost of living is reaching a point where even basic leisure activities, such as sport after work, are becoming unaffordable. Most worryingly of all, they talked about how younger men are being radicalised by this. They said they are increasingly seeing boys and young men being pushed into far-right and hateful echo chambers while searching for an alternative path.

It is clear that we are failing young people as a whole, and young men in particular. Buying a house is a distant dream for most young people, and even renting is, by the Government’s own assessment, unaffordable. Mental ill health services are inaccessible, and male suicide is now the biggest killer of men under 50. Young men are falling behind young women in education and earnings, which at a time when traditional expectations are shifting, is challenging their sense of identity and place in society. This is not about dismissing the struggles faced by women, many of which are the same; it is about recognising the nuance in the ways these pressures affect men differently and how many men cope with them differently.

Too often this debate swings between two extremes: those who wish to dismiss men’s concerns altogether; and those who wish to capitalise on male disillusionment to sow division and hatred. That is why we welcome the Government’s new men’s health strategy, and applaud the campaigners and organisations that fought so hard to bring it to us at this moment. It is right that the Government finally recognise the specific ways in which men are suffering—from suicide to substance abuse and prostate cancer—but we need to go further. Many of the steps are still modest, especially on suicide. I have been directly affected by the suicide of a young man, who had his full future ahead of him. As we have heard, this is the greatest killer of men under 50, but the Government have scrapped the suicide prevention grant—a £10 million lifeline—and the new measures barely replace it. With thousands of people dying by suicide every year, we have to be more ambitious. That means restoring the suicide prevention grant in full, introducing regular mental health checks at key points in life and tackling the wider determinants of health, including ending rough sleeping, which disproportionately affects men.

Beyond mental health, we must also address the deep sense of hopelessness felt by so many young men. We must acknowledge that men are now 14% less likely to attend university than women, and we need to provide respected alternative routes into good work through apprenticeships and skills programmes. We must also confront the housing crisis more quickly. Investment in housing will not only ease pressure on the market, but create long-term jobs in construction and engineering. This is deeply important because, ultimately, we can invest in mental health support, but without job prospects, a home to build a life in and a future to believe in, young men will continue to feel hopeless, and when young men feel hopeless, they will continue to look for answers from those on the extremes. So while I welcome the men’s health strategy, this is just the first step of many. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading this debate on International Men’s Day. He focused on wellbeing and modern masculinity. He was hugely brave and absolutely right when he said that no victim should not be able to speak out and seek justice. It was wonderful to hear his positives around the joy of fatherhood.

It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I particularly welcome this debate as the co-chair, along with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), of the all-party parliamentary group on men and boy’s issues. He spoke about the preciousness of fatherhood and I am delighted to be working with him. I thank all the men and women in this place who have stood up for the men in their constituencies. I thank those in East Grinstead and Uckfield who are taking part in Movember, raising money for charity, raising awareness of men’s health and growing some really iffy ’taches in certain areas—very praiseworthy.

The theme for 2025, as mentioned throughout the debate, is celebrating men and boys, and I think we have done that incredibly well. We need to talk about the positive value that men bring to families and communities. We have reflected that well this afternoon, but frankly—hence our all-party parliamentary group—we need to do it more often. I thank all dads, father figures and top chaps. It is vital that we talk about the positives.

My dad has long passed, but I am going to give his favourite joke a go because, as the Dad Shift rightly says, we need to highlight crucial role models and fathers. I still love it: how does the monkey cook his toast? Under the gorilla, of course. [Laughter.] There we go. How was that, Lincoln? My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) has been judging the jokes. \p Lincoln Jopp: Very good! \p Mims Davies: My dad suffered from a head injury, so I was struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) about that being an unseen issue, and I thank him for raising it. Headway was particularly brilliant in my father’s case.

Turning to how we talk about masculinity in a positive way, as we have heard this afternoon, role models are so important. If men and boys are only told that they are the problem and that the issues they face do not matter, we cannot be surprised when they flock to questionable social media influencers and people on the fringes of politics who tell them, in the wrong way, that they do in fact matter and have value. For us, it is important to reflect on the work of the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys. It states that the narrative must continue to change from the problems that young men and boys cause, to the problems young men and boys have, and that we should now do something to properly help them. That would be incredibly welcome.

As the mum of two girls, I know that they want boys to feel the support and positivity that young girls rightly have. It was right for the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) to big up her young boys and the importance of protecting our youngsters from harm. Gambling and pornography we know about, but there are other sectors where young men, particularly young farmers, can feel isolated, lonely and struggling. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) rightly talked about men wanting a decent life. It is vital to look back on employment, but it is the employment opportunities now that truly matter. I completely agree on that.

The recent crucial Centre for Social Justice report “Lost Boys” identified six areas where boys and young men are falling behind in this generational crisis.

The first area was education, where boys underperform at every stage, lagging behind girls from early years to university. The second area was employment, where, as we have heard, the number of males aged 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment or training has increased since the pandemic by a staggering 40%. The third area was health; suicide is the top cause of death for men under 50, and many of us have lost family members or friends because of suicide. The fourth area was family and fatherhood: one in five boys grow up without a father—an epidemic of fatherlessness that is linked to poor outcomes. The fifth area was crime; 96% of the prison population is male. The final area was digital behaviour, with platforms amplifying misogynistic influencers and extremist content, shaping identity and attitudes for our young men.

I thank Jane Packer and the team at the British Standards Institution. I was proud to join the BSI event in Speaker’s House last night on the new suicide and workplace standard to help employers support the wellbeing of men and boys across the country. I am proud to continue to work with the Samaritans—I am wearing the badge today—which tells me it needs more volunteers to do its great work, particularly supporting and listening to men.

Now that I have the Health Secretary sitting opposite me, let me highlight that the Government have not resumed recruitment of the men’s health ambassador. Perhaps he will tell the House differently in his speech. Opposition Members who were in the previous Government would love to see that.

Yesterday, I met Richard and the amazing team at MAN v FAT, who do great work, particularly in Wales, with all communities, using football and rugby to help with being fit and healthy and focusing on body image. Again, like the Samaritans, it is a male space in which to talk.

Under the last Conservative Government, the suicide prevention grant provided £10 million for 79 organisations between 2023 and March 2025. We rightly welcome—and I think it is roundly welcomed—the dedicated men’s health strategy. However, it does appear to have less money than the £10 million under the previous Government, at £3.6 million over the next three years. I ask the Health Secretary to help boost and push the neighbourhood-based support for suicide prevention. The £3 million is very welcome, but we absolutely need to push forward on health and community-based programmes.

International Men’s Day is the opportunity for all of us to promote charities and initiatives in our constituencies, like the amazing men’s sheds that have been mentioned today. Brilliant initiatives in my constituency also include the growing East Grinstead Sea Cadets, the Scouts and many after-school clubs, which all make a big difference supporting our men and boys—they are something to do and somewhere to talk to someone. The Uckfield Youth Club—like many groups—needs more volunteers and leaders.

As MPs, today and every day, we should be encouraging men to seek help in our communities; we should check in on them to highlight the positives. I would like to do that with one of my councillors, Ed Godwin, who is passionate about involving young people in politics. At just 18 he stood to be a town councillor and serve his community, and I am proud to welcome him into politics. I also mention Councillor Gary Marsh in Mid Sussex, a district councillor for Ardingly, Balcombe and Turness Hill in my constituency, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the start of the year. He has used his platform to urge men not to ignore the signs, and to ensure that his constituents and ours know that there is help out there.

I thank Mark Brooks OBE for his 10 years of work with the Association for Male Health and Wellbeing to get this parliamentary debate so that we can keenly talk about men’s issues. It is vital that MPs champion causes, particularly for men, and discuss, debate and strive to help men and boys with the issues affecting them nationally and internationally. It will help all communities, and all Members in the Chamber have made great contributions to that work today. I truly think that when all parties work together we will see the changes that we need for the better—which may include an improvement in the quality of dad jokes in the Chamber. \p Wes Streeting: What a pleasure to follow the spokespeople for the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Members for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), whose contributions were very much in the spirit of what we have heard this afternoon. I can reassure both of them that the suicide prevention funding is not gone; it is devolved. This will be a challenge that we have to work through during this Parliament as we embrace devolution and set local authorities and health trusts free to spend as they choose. We will need to keep a focus to ensure that the emphasis on suicide prevention is not lost. I really welcome the challenge the hon. Members have brought and the spirit of it. I can confirm that we will be appointing a new men’s health ambassador, and I will keep the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield updated on that.

It is customary when beginning these debates to thank the Backbench Business Committee, as well as the hon. Member who opened the debate for their outstanding contribution, whether the speech was any good or not. I can honestly say, though, having been in this House for 10 years, that it is a rare moment to hear such a courageous speech as the one we heard opening this debate. We can be truly proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). I hope his constituents know how diligently he fights for them every single day here. He is a conviction politician; he is prepared to speak truth to power and use his influence to get things done for his community. Just through his words today, he will have had such an impact on so many people he will never meet, but who will none the less draw strength from his courage.

I do not think anyone listening to the powerful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members today could fail to be moved by what we have heard—nor could they be anything but truly appalled by all the terrible dad jokes. I think the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was truly the worst. I would like to get involved, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as is well known, I have absolutely no sense of humour—less sense of humour than Downing Street has for tolerating my jokes. I am not a fan of political jokes anyway, as too many end up getting elected. However, I did once hear of a Canadian politician who was popular with everyone—it’s probably not Trudeau. [Laughter.]

As I listened to the debate, two broad themes emerged. The first is how every day, many boys and men make wonderful contributions to our families, schools, communities and workplaces, and not just in jobs, roles and behaviours that are associated traditionally with masculinity and men, but in roles such as nurses, carers and primary school teachers. They have embraced a genuine commitment to equality—that no matter who someone is and where they are from, and whatever their background, sex or gender, they can grow up to be whoever they want to be.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) said so powerfully, the role of men and boys as allies, advocates, mentors and role models and their capacity for love, laughter and empathy inspire others, lift up our society, change lives and bring joy to those around them. I pay tribute particularly to two of the most important men in my life: my dad and his father, my grandad. For those who follow my family history, that is not the armed robber; it is the working-class east end Tory. I have to say that I have that in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), with his family heritage and political leanings.

Without those two men, I would not be standing here today. They have been a rock of stability and inspiration in life. My grandad was my closest friend and moral compass; my dad has been the rock of stability I needed, particularly when things were hardest in my childhood. I am lucky that both of my parents have always been in my life, but I must say that when I talk about being brought up by a single parent, the shorthand too often used in newspapers is “single mum”. As my dad often points out, he was the one who got the terrible teenage years and had to move out of the area to get me to move out before I hit the age of 30. I am very grateful to my dad, whom I love and admire very much.

We have heard powerful contributions today. I could not help but notice that almost everyone endorsed the Dad Shift campaign for greater paternity rights and leave. This Government are legislating for day one rights, but I know that the advocacy and representation that we have heard across the House will have been heard by my colleagues in Government. There will be a consultation, and I am sure that we have not heard the last of that.

None the less, for all the positivity, the second theme we have heard about today is an altogether less positive one. It is a startling reality that being and growing up as a man in today’s society can be very tough, especially for those from working-class backgrounds such as mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) spoke powerfully about the economic injustice in our society, the poverty and inequality that add up to the pressures and strains, the educational disadvantage and the lack of security and opportunity that too often hold back people, and especially men and boys from backgrounds such as mine. Though I am proud to stand here today, proud of my working-class roots and proud of having beaten the odds that were stacked against me, the object of this Government—the object of the Labour party—has always been to change the odds for everyone and not just to have the exceptional few beat the odds. That is at the heart of this Government’s agenda.

I want to pay tribute to those who have brought this agenda to the mainstream. This debate is 10 years old, but I must remember and recall, back when it started, an awful lot of eye-rolling about whether it was necessary—including, I suspect, by me and others who wondered whether this was truly relevant. How wrong that sentiment was and how much of a brilliant riposte we have heard.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) who spoke so powerfully at Prime Minister’s questions about the “dark cloud” that hung over him following the difficult birth of his and his wife’s first child. As he said, the strength of a man is about being open about his emotions. Sometimes, as we have heard so painfully today, those struggles become so overwhelming that men feel that the only way out is to take their own lives. When that happens, it is not just an individual, personal tragedy; it is like a nuclear bomb and the fallout hits everyone around them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) spoke of so powerfully.

We know that that impacts men in different ways, from different backgrounds and in different sectors. During an interview on Fix Radio: The Builders Station yesterday, I was told that men in the construction industry are four times more likely to die by suicide. One of the biggest causes of stress and anxiety for tradesmen is tool theft. That is why I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), who has been like a dog with a bone on that issue, with her campaign already delivering tougher punishments for the perpetrators of tool theft. Indeed, I promised Clive Holland, the host of Fix Radio, that I would pass on this message to the House. He said:

“I would love to stand up at that Dispatch Box and speak to all the people in Parliament…and I would grab them by the lapels and say, ‘Get it through…Just get it through. It’s crucial. We all need this industry. We’d still be living in caves without the skills of our industry’.”

He is absolutely right and that is why we are lucky to have my hon. Friend championing that issue on behalf of that industry.

The Government’s response to many of the issues raised in today’s debate is the country’s first ever men’s health strategy. It covers physical and mental health, and I am most proud that it was drawn up in partnership with men themselves, experts, men’s groups, charities and campaigners. We are all aware that politicians today are about as popular as tax collectors and traffic wardens, so we need wider allies and advocates, groups such as Movember, Men’s Sheds and Everton in the Community, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week. There are also campaigners such as Stephen Manderson, better known as Professor Green, and Clarke Carlisle, the premier league footballer, who use their own experiences with suicide and mental ill health to spread awareness and prevent that from happening to others. I also pay tribute to the journalists, such as the LBC philosopher king Tom Swarbrick, for talking about modern masculinity, the importance of male friendship and keeping the ties that bind us.

There are a number of ways in which we will act. First, by expanding access to support services; secondly, by helping men to take better care of ourselves; and thirdly, by ensuring that stigma is challenged and every man feels empowered to reach out for help. This is not just a plan; it is a call to action. It is not just about changing services and laws; it is about changing hearts and minds and culture, particularly in an online world of harms and radicalisation, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), as well as many positives, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis).

Half the battle for men and boys is to have the conversation in the first place, opening up the space to utter what are often the most challenging words: “I need help.” That is why our strategy meets men on their own terms and their own turf—partnering with the Premier League’s “Together Against Suicide” initiative; investing £3 million in community-based men’s health programmes; workplace pilots with EDF to support workers in male-dominated industries; support for minors; and new research to help us tackle the biggest killers of men, including rising cocaine and alcohol-related deaths, as well as taking action on gambling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) exhorted us to. On prostate cancer, I will keep the House updated as we await the recommendations of the National Screening Committee. I heard the representations today, particularly from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).

Our aim is to create a society where men and boys are supported to live longer, healthier and happier lives, where stigma is replaced by understanding and where every man knows that his health matters. As we heard so powerfully, including from some of this House’s most outstanding feminist campaigners, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), this is not an either/or. This is not a choice between men and women; it is the recognition that while women’s health inequalities have sexism and misogyny layered on top of them—something that we as men must take responsibility for tackling, too—men and boys do face challenges when it comes to our education, employment, health, wellbeing, life chances and opportunities.

As we heard so powerfully, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, it is not as if the women out there do not care about their sons, dads or brothers—quite the opposite. Similarly, we care about our mums, sisters, daughters, nieces, friends and colleagues. There are differences between the sexes—there are differences in how we are impacted by and contribute to the society around us—but we are born equal, and we have a responsibility to stand together to make sure that we create a rising tide that lifts all ships. A healthier, happier, more equal and more just society is what this strategy will help to bring about, and it is why this debate has been so wonderfully powerful. \p Nusrat Ghani: As the Secretary of State mentioned brothers, it would be remiss of me not to mention my five brothers—this will give Hansard a run for its money—Basharat, Nasim, Rasalat, Nazir and Imran, and obviously my husband David. Those wonderful men in my life have enabled me to be in this Chair today. I call Josh Newbury to wind up. \p Josh Newbury: I repeat my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, and to hon. Members from across the House for supporting the application for this debate. We have had such a wide-ranging debate, reflecting the many challenges that men face and the myriad ways that men enrich the lives of women, the places in which they live and work, and our country.

We heard from Members across the House about so many fantastic organisations doing brilliant work to support men, often at the lowest points in their life. We heard about new grandads reducing their hours to step up to care for their grandchildren in their formative months and years. We heard about the health conditions that affect men, the inequalities, and the need to ensure that they get the care they need, from stepping through the GP’s door to getting the all clear. We heard about the shockingly and stubbornly high rates of mental ill health and suicide among men. The stigma is starting to fall away, but it was so encouraging to hear what hon. Members and the people in our lives are doing to reverse those statistics, one life at a time.

We heard about the joys and pressures of fatherhood, and how central it is to the lives of many men and boys. Inescapably, we also heard some of the finest dad jokes that Britain has ever seen. Seriously—we should get together and write a book. Better paternity leave would enable all dads from all walks of life to be there for their partner and children in their vital first few weeks, and the call for it has been heard loud and clear today. It has been such a privilege to be part of this debate, and I so look forward to continuing the hard work on all the issues that we have raised. The whole country, not just half of it, depends on it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day, the issues affecting, and contributions made by, men and boys, and what it means to be a man in Britain today. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Tom Morrison to speak for around 15 minutes. \p Tom Morrison: I beg to move,

That this House acknowledges the extreme risks faced by police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel in the line of duty; further acknowledges that many suffer catastrophic, career-ending injuries while protecting the public; regrets that these sacrifices are too often met with inadequate formal recognition; notes that existing honours are limited in scope and rarely conferred in such circumstances; believes this failure to properly acknowledge those who have sustained life-altering injuries in public service is a serious oversight; welcomes the growing cross-party consensus that urgent action is needed; and calls on the Cabinet Office to rectify this injustice by establishing a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the extraordinary sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its support in securing the debate. In May this year, a police sergeant’s legs were crushed when a car reversed into him repeatedly in a hit-and-run incident in Rusholme, Manchester. Greater Manchester police described it as a “stark reminder” of the risks that our frontline officers face daily as they work to keep our communities safe. The officer suffered tissue and muscle damage, but thankfully he is expected to make a full recovery. However, not every brave officer, paramedic and firefighter does recover, and not everyone can continue with the job that they chose and love. When injuries are so severe that they force someone to give up their work in public service, there is no recognition, no award and no medal.

I first found out about the “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign when my constituent Jane Notley came to my surgery last year. Jane told me her story. She had always wanted to be a police officer, and when that happened and she joined the force, it was one of the proudest days of her life. Sadly, her career ended far too prematurely.

While on duty in Manchester in 1989, Jane attempted to stop a criminal stealing cars in the area. During the incident, her legs were crushed between two cars by the criminal, who Jane said laughed while he did it. That horrific attack left Jane completely unable to walk, and she was medically discharged from the force. The offender was never caught.

I want to make this clear: Jane Notley is one of the most inspirational and wonderful people I have ever met. After years of surgery and treatment, she can now walk, and does so with the aid of her now infamous pink walking sticks. She is now self-employed as a therapist, selflessly continuing to help others, albeit in a different position. Jane lost the job she loved but has continued to serve her community—that is the kind of person she is—but if someone met her on the street, they would have no idea of the ordeal she has been through. They would have no idea that she bravely put herself in harm’s way to protect her community and no idea of the sacrifice she made so that we could be safe.

Jane is not alone; many other ex-emergency service responders are injured every year and face the same awful loss of career. It is estimated that 800 injured ex-Greater Manchester police officers are still alive today. Please, let that sink in: that is 800 people who lost  a career they loved after putting themselves in harm’s way to ensure that we, and our families and friends, were protected and safe. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

I was honoured to meet many of those people in July, when they came to a cross-party roundtable in Parliament to describe their individual experiences. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) who joined us on that day. I met some incredible people that day, including Robert Barlow, John O’Rourke, Gary Pearson, Andy Walker, Robert Hindley, Shahid Mahmood, Simon Bywater and Kerry Snuggs, who has now set up the intrepid games: a sports event for service workers who have been injured or disabled while on duty. I know that a number of them are in the Gallery watching the debate; I hope that we can all do them proud. They deserve their moment. They deserve recognition for all they put on the line and sacrificed. It is a national shame that no Government have acknowledged them and thanked them for their service. That has to change now.

While I am talking of people who deserve their moment, I have to mention Tom Curry. May I make it clear that this is Tom’s debate? Tom started the campaign and has fought tirelessly to get support across the House. He is truly a force of nature, and I can honestly say that it has been a pleasure to work with him this year to ensure that the injury in service award becomes a reality.

Tom Curry has built the campaign from the ground up. A former Sussex police officer, he was cruelly injured just weeks before reaching 22 years of service and so was denied any recognition for his work in the community. He is a former detective, which really does show as nothing gets past him—especially Governments dragging their feet. I can attest to hon. Members in the Chamber that Tom is relentless. Our phones will not stop ringing and our inboxes will never be cleared until the medal of recognition is delivered—Tom has personally promised me that.

Earlier this year, with Tom and Jane’s help I tabled an early-day motion that has since gained 111 signatures, making it one of the most supported motions in this Parliament. The signatories are from every single party, right across the political divide—the Liberal Democrats, Labour, Conservatives, Reform, the Green party and independents. This issue transcends party politics. It is a cause that we can and should all rally around, and one with a simple and obvious answer.

From freedom of information requests to 44 police forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we know that there are over 16,000 injured police officers across the country, but we do not know the total number of injured servicemen and women across all emergency services, as that figure is not available. This is an injustice we have to put right. There are many who are injured and are then deprived of the long service and good conduct medals that are awarded after a sustained period of service. Until 2010, emergency responders had to have served for at least 22 years—later cut to 20 years—to get the long service and good conduct medals. The gallantry award is also insufficient, as the vast majority of attacked personnel are deprived of the  opportunity of gallantry because they are sprung upon and ambushed. That means that through no fault of their own, there are tens of thousands of people out there without recognition simply because their cowardly attackers jumped them from behind.

The “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign believes that any new award for those injured in the line of duty should be similar to the Elizabeth Emblem, in that it should be awarded to all public servants. A constituent from Cheadle who works as a prison chaplain wrote to me this week and suggested involving prison officers, as they are essential workers who get little or no public recognition. They are another stark reminder of the way our public servants put their safety on the line for us.

In 2019, a Ministry of Justice report stated that there were over 10,000 attacks on prison officers a year, with many ending in career-altering injuries and severe psychological trauma. We must make sure that all public servants are involved. The award could be offered to all living survivors, and the criteria would be threefold: a public servant, injured on duty, and medically discharged from the service due to that injury. The medal would recognise the health and career sacrifice of those who are injured on duty. The medal would mean that those who have made significant sacrifices could wear their medal proudly, and the public would be able to recognise and understand the bravery and service that they have contributed to this country.

The medal would mean that brave emergency responders such as police constable Kris Aves, who is now paralysed and confined to a wheelchair, would rightly be recognised. Kris now lives a completely different life, unable to continue the job of protecting us because he was mown down in the terror attack on Westminster bridge in 2017. This impacts us all. Many colleagues will remember PC Keith Palmer, who sadly died in that attack. He was rightly awarded posthumous awards for gallantry and the Elizabeth Emblem. His bravery saved many lives that day, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude. Kris is also owed our thanks. He received no medal or recognition for his bravery. Instead, he lost his career and the job he loved.

The medal would mean that emergency service responders who survive the most awful situations are met with respect, acknowledgement and honour. The medal would mean that Pam White’s bravery and injuries during the IRA attacks on Harrods in 1983 would be recognised. Despite her injuries and the terrifying uncertainty of the situation, Pam guided members of the public to safety. The injuries sustained were so bad that she was forced to leave the force. Those killed in the IRA bombings have now been awarded the Elizabeth Emblem, but the officers injured on that day, including Pam who lost her job—the job she aspired to from a young age—are overlooked.

All those emergency service workers will tell us that they are lucky, as they survived while some of their colleagues lost their lives in the line of duty. That is certainly true, but we cannot allow this to become an awful game of comparison. The people I have mentioned have all suffered in the most appalling ways. They suffered gunshot wounds, paralysis and other life-changing injuries—and of course post-traumatic stress disorder, with many of these brave men and women reliving their trauma day in, day out.

I say to the Government that we cannot allow these people to wait any longer. They need the recognition now. Thanks to Tom Curry’s work, the proposal for the award reached the Cabinet Office before the general election. Multiple Members have brought it to light in both ministerial correspondence and on the Floor of the House, but the same line is trotted out time and again. With Elizabeth Emblems now being awarded as of December last year, it is yet another reminder to those overlooked and injured survivors that they are forgotten and have no recognition.

Many family members of the fallen who have received the Elizabeth Emblem support the introduction of this award and agree that it is wrong that the injured are forgotten. This has been delayed for too long, so I urge the Minister to do the right and honourable thing. Get this award off the ground, because those incredible people sat in the Gallery right now should not have to wait another day longer. Politically there is no resistance. This is a worthwhile investment that would increase national pride and community cohesion, and celebrate the incredible work of our emergency services.

I thank the Minister for being here today and look forward to his remarks. I hope he will listen carefully to the debate, take heed and note with urgency that establishing an injury in service award is the right thing to do. I also thank all my colleagues who have joined this important discussion. It has been a long time coming. I hope it is worth the wait, and I hope it will transform the lives of many injured ex-emergency service workers.

Thank you to Jane, Tom and everyone watching for driving this cause all the way to the Houses of Parliament—that is no small feat. I hope we can all do you proud. This is your moment—it is your time. I look forward to continuing this campaign with all of you, and I promise that I will not stop until injured emergency service workers get the recognition they deserve. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. As the debate is oversubscribed, Back-Bench speeches are limited to four minutes. \p Jessica Asato: I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for bringing forward the debate. It is certainly long overdue. I also thank former police officer Tom Curry, who was injured in the line of duty and whose campaign with other injured emergency service workers has brought us here today.

I want to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Sue Mitchell, who I met today alongside her husband. In November 1984, Sue was 22 and on her sixth day working for Essex police when, while pursuing teenage burglars, she was severely rammed by their car as she and her colleague tried to block their escape. Despite having a shattered kneecap and hand injuries, Sue was able to chase and arrest one of the burglars. She was beginning to recover, but crippling back pain and losing feeling in her legs prevented her from returning to the frontline. She had to leave her flat because she could no longer climb the stairs. Nine months after the incident, she returned to light duties at Southend police station, but despite surgery on a damaged spinal disc, which was  diagnosed three years later, the police retired her on medical grounds at the age of 26, less than a week after the operation.

The teenage burglars were handed 12 months’ youth custody, but Sue has had to live with what happened that day for the past 41 years—a lifetime of chronic pain and medical issues. She sustained those injuries in the service of us all, out of duty to maintain law and order, and an eagerness to right wrongs. Five days after the incident, the then chief superintendent praised her “meritorious” conduct and wrote that

“consideration will be given to more formal recognition of”

her and her colleague’s

“action at a later stage.”

That later stage never came and Sue was never recognised. We have the chance now to right that particular wrong—something so long promised should now be delivered.

As we have heard, it is estimated that 15,000 former police officers have, like Sue, been forced to retire due to an injury they suffered in our service. Today’s call to action is supported by nearly a third of Members of this House, across all parties, and by the Police Federation, the Fire Brigades Union, the Fire and Rescue Services Association, the National Fire Chiefs Council and Unison, of which I must declare I am a member.

Medal recognition for Sue and other blue-light emergency workers who have been injured in the line of duty will not change what has happened to them, but it could go some way to repaying the debt we owe them for their service and their sacrifice. \p James Wild: I am pleased that this debate has made its way to the Floor of the House, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing it. My late uncle Malcolm served as a police officer in Norfolk for many years, so I understand a little about the level of dedication and personal sacrifice required to serve in the police force, and I am pleased that this campaign enjoys widespread support. I join others in paying tribute to Tom Curry for leading the campaign, getting thousands of people to sign the petition and securing lots of support in the House.

Like other Members, I have been given first-hand accounts by constituents of horrific incidents that ultimately ended their careers. One of my constituents, Robert Gifford, who is watching proceedings today, has been very active in persuading me of the importance of this issue. He spent over 20 years in the British Transport police before his career was brutally cut short. As he explained to me, while serving in the counter-terrorism unit, he was witness to multiple bomb explosions in 1993. He was called out to the bomb threat at Bishopsgate. I will not go into all the details of what he told me, but the bomb, which was planted in a stolen truck, exploded and killed one person and injured 44. Later that year, he was called to Reading station, where an improvised explosive device had been discovered. When that bomb exploded, he was only 150 yards away. Then, in 1999, he was early to the scene of the Ladbroke Grove train crash—a tragedy of 31 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Mr Gifford’s experience in service ultimately led to him having to leave it because of what he had seen. I think it fair to say that he is a very fine example of all those who serve on our behalf.

Another constituent who has contacted me served with Greater Manchester police and Norfolk police for 13 years, before his career was also tragically cut short. He was beaten and physically dumped into a trailer by three thugs when responding to a complaint of antisocial behaviour in my constituency. He has lived the rest of his life in fear, with constant anxiety attacks, and is unable to go out other than to a few safe spaces.

Those are the people we are talking about in this debate. I have referred to police officers, but as the hon. Member for Cheadle said, we are also talking about prison officers, paramedics and others who put themselves in danger on our behalf. The debate has highlighted that, although each case carries its own story of suffering, thousands of people are affected. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) referred to the 15,000 police officers forced to retire, but thousands in the other emergency services would also be affected.

It is right that the House acknowledges risks faced daily by our incredible emergency responders, who, like Mr Gifford, suffer career-ending injuries while protecting the public. In September, the Minister for Policing said that the Home Office continues to consider proposals for new awards to members of the emergency service. Having spent three years working for a Defence Secretary, I understand that there can be inertia in the system when creating new awards to recognise people’s service, but I encourage the Minister to push back against that. I am proud to support this campaign and call on the Government to establish a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty on our behalf. \p Clive Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate. We all know how important emergency service personnel are to us. They often put their lives on the line to protect others. I have met many police officers, firefighters and paramedics in Wokingham, and have seen their selflessness and bravery at first hand.

My constituent Ian, who I think is in the Public Gallery, has contacted me. He served in the Thames Valley police for 30 years, often putting himself in difficult and dangerous situations while protecting us, the general public. Although he has not been injured himself, he knows of too many colleagues who have been—some have had to end their service—but have not been recognised.

Only in 2024 was the Elizabeth Emblem introduced, to be given to the next-of-kin of deceased police officers, firefighters and public servants. Surely an award is equally needed to recognise those who have been severely injured and medically retired from those services. Those people, who served our communities, deserve an award. Like so many others, I urge the Government to establish an official injury in service award to honour and acknowledge the sacrifices made by those brave individuals. \p Zöe Franklin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion and my constituent, Andrew Barr, who is in the Gallery. Andrew served in the Metropolitan police as a detective constable from 2003 to 2019, and also volunteered with a search and rescue unit while off duty. He is among the many great servicepeople we are discussing today who have had their careers cut short by severe injuries sustained while protecting the public. He now lives with complex PTSD after years of assaults, road traffic fatalities and traumatic incidents—injuries that will remain with him for life—and yet, because those very injuries cut his career short, he was denied the long service and good conduct medal. At official events, he stands as a spectator beside former colleagues as they proudly wear their medals, while he has nothing to show for his committed years of service and for the health, career and identity he lost in the line of duty.

The creation of a dedicated injury in service medal would give men and women from the emergency services like Andrew the simple but powerful and important thanks and acknowledgment they deserve. To him and to all those injured in service, I say: thank you for your service. Like colleagues who have spoken today, I urge the Government to commit to creating this award. We must show men and women who have been injured in service that they will no longer be overlooked. \p Gideon Amos: I first heard of the “999 Injured and Forgotten” campaign and the enormous work Tom Curry has been doing to campaign for an award for those injured in service from constituents of mine. One of the constituents was a police officer who served for 27 years and suffered spinal injuries on two occasions. On the second occasion, he had spinal dislocation and was paralysed, but in a year’s time, he went back to work. Shortly afterwards, he had to attend a fatal air crash and then had to retire due to further injuries sustained as a result of attending that incident. People like him deserve recognition and an injury in service medal.

Another constituent who has come to me about this is my colleague and councillor, Simon Coles, the Liberal Democrat chair of the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue authority. He said:

“Gallant firefighters risk their lives daily in the service of their communities. When you’re having the worst day of your life, it is a normal day at work for our firefighters. They deserve the recognition these awards would confer on them. All our communities would approve of such recognition.”

I urge the Minister and the House to make sure that this long overdue campaign reaches a triumphal conclusion and that those who are injured in service are properly recognised with the medal that they deserve. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this important debate, and I welcome and thank all the public servicemen and women who are in the Gallery and watching at home.

This debate coincides with the fantastic news this week that the brave train driver Samir Zitouni, injured during the Huntingdon train attack, has finally been discharged from hospital. It reminds us how often the people on our frontlines do not receive the credit or  recognition they truly deserve. If that is true for a single shocking and horrifying incident that rightly captured national attention, we can only imagine the countless cases faced by our emergency personnel who risk their lives day in, day out and are so often unnamed in the reporting that follows.

Only last month, I took part in a ride-along with West Yorkshire police, where I saw at first hand the pressures involved even in what we think of as routine neighbourhood policing. Reflecting on that experience, I am struck by how our officers can within seconds find themselves face to face with frightening and unpredictable situations. We might assume these are lower-risk encounters, but the reality is that any moment can turn into danger, leaving officers not only injured but sometimes medically discharged from the career they loved because they were protecting the public.

In preparing for this debate, I learnt that since 2022 over 6,000 officers in West Yorkshire police have experienced assault-related injuries, and over 15,000 former police officers have suffered life-changing injuries in the line of duty across England. That is before we even begin to count paramedics, firefighters and so many others. The words of the campaign stayed with me: many of these people are left “injured and forgotten”—how incredibly upsetting that someone can give so much to the public yet receive so little in return. The very least we can do is recognise their sacrifice.

As we have heard, there is currently no formal honour for those who survive catastrophic, career-ending injuries in the line of duty. To me, and to many across this House, that is a glaring injustice. I welcome the growing cross-party consensus and the clear strength of feeling in this place. That is why I strongly support the introduction of an injury in service award, mirroring the recognition rightly given to those who lose their lives, but extended to those who bear lifelong scars for their service. These individuals met every duty that the public asked of them, so it is time that the state met its duty to them.

I urge the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Honours and Appointments Secretariat to act to ensure that these extraordinary sacrifices are finally recognised, formally and permanently. It would not take much from them, but it would mean the world to those who gain the recognition that they have long deserved. Our emergency services are there for us at the very worst moments of our lives. It is long past time that we showed them that this country sees, remembers and honours their courage. \p Charlie Maynard: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this excellent debate.

I want to seek the Minister’s help with the case of my Witney constituent, Bill Maddocks. Bill was an on-call firefighter at Witney for 22 years and contracted covid at work, while seconded on a whole-time contract to assist the ambulance service during the pandemic. This became long covid and, as a result, he was retired from the fire service due to ill health. During this process, he was assured by senior managers that a pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter would be his, and he was independently medically assessed as having a tier 1 level and 100% disability, entitling him to a compensation pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter wage.

There has been a long-standing dispute about his disablement and the apportionment. Even though it was independently assessed and agreed by Oxfordshire fire and rescue service as legally binding, the amount awarded was equivalent only to on-call pay rather than the full-time wage. As a result, the Pensions Ombudsman became involved, as well as the Fire Brigades Union. There has continued to be a Byzantine maze and the Pensions Ombudsman has walked away saying that the case lies outside its brief. Four years on, Bill remains incredibly debilitated and suffering deeply, supported wonderfully by his wife, Nikki. I would like your help in finding a way through this situation monetarily, but the man also deserves an award, exactly as we have named here today. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I was going to correct the hon. Member’s use of the word “your”, but I did not want to interrupt his flow. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Will Forster: Police officers, firefighters, paramedics and members of other emergency services and public services face real risks every day to keep people safe. When those risks lead to life-changing injury, it can bring a sudden and permanent end to a career built on service. We need to show our support and appreciation for them, whether they be emergency service workers, our NHS heroes or others.

Recognising the amazing work that they do for us every day is the least that we can do. They put themselves in harm’s way and they prioritise our lives over their own, regardless of the circumstances, to keep us safe. They protect us, rescue us and put us back together when we are sick or injured. We need to be forever grateful for their sacrifice, dedication and commitment, and we must not take that service for granted. As we have heard, at the moment, this country does just that and we do not reward their effort as we should. People have given everything in service, and yet they feel overlooked.

I wholeheartedly commend the initiative of retired Sussex police officer Tom Curry, who has led the campaign for the recognition of police officers injured on duty. His work, alongside that of the National Association of Retired Police Officers and others, has shown the strength of feeling on this issue. I also support the Fire and Rescue Services Association in calling for a medal for emergency workers who are severely injured and then have to retire for medical reasons.

Debbie Adlam, the mother of the late PC Andrew Harper, has warned that many injured emergency workers feel brushed aside. She has spoken powerfully about colleagues of her son who suffered both mentally and physically through their bravery, yet have had no official recognition. \p Danny Chambers: There has been a lot of discussion about police officers and other emergency service workers injured in the line of work, and there has been some mention of issues such as PTSD and other mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see those as being just as important? The experiences that some of these frontline servicepeople encounter on a regular basis have long-lasting effects. \p Will Forster: My hon. Friend is completely right. Being injured in the line of duty needs to be about physical and mental health, and we have heard many examples of that so far. Debbie reminded us that what might be five minutes on the news becomes a story that affects an individual for the rest of their life.

Let me go back to Tom Curry. He left Sussex police in 1989 because of the serious injuries he received while on the job. He has talked about being only a few weeks away from receiving his long-service medal before he was injured, and now he has nothing to show. The example I have from my constituency in my area of Surrey is that of PC Geoff Newham, from Surrey police. He was named as the winner of an award from the Police Federation back in 2020. He was an outstanding police officer and a member of the Surrey roads policing unit, but he was involved in a collision during a pursuit in 2018 that left him with serious back injuries that prevented him from being able to do his previous job.

Despite that injury, Geoff’s tenacity and positive attitude saw him utilise his first-class criminal intelligence skills and experience to support colleagues, allowing them to target and disrupt a number of high-level organised crime units in Surrey, go after a number of county lines gangs and help to lock up numerous offenders. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that deserves to be rewarded.

I have been moved by stories from colleagues across the Chamber. Over several years, whether it be in 2018 or 2022, Parliament has increased sentences for criminals who have targeted our emergency services. If we are increasing their sentences, we should be able to reward and recognise emergency workers at the same time. For all those reasons and more, I support the creation of an official injury on duty award scheme, which would provide the recognition and dignity that those people deserve.

I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for bringing this debate to the House and for his work on this issue. I am sure that Jane Notley, with her distinctive pink walking sticks, would be really proud to have him as her MP.

The Home Office has said that it is considering proposals to recognise emergency service personnel injured in the line of duty. It is time for this House to make those proposals reality. I hope the Minister will confirm that today. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Matt Vickers: Emergency service workers are the bedrock of society. They are the people who run towards danger while others run away, and they are there in our hour of need and deserve our utmost respect. I pay tribute to every emergency service worker across the country for the incredible job that they do, in difficult circumstances, to serve the public and their local communities.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate and those who have engaged with and supported this campaign. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), who secured the debate and ably set out the need for this recognition. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who has long championed this cause.

Tom Curry, who joins us in the Gallery today, is a truly remarkable campaigner who is not prepared to take no for an answer. Tom served in Sussex police as a detective, but he was forced to retire early after suffering a life-changing injury. It is fair to say that Tom is not a quiet man, but he is a great man who brings people together and has spearheaded this campaign. I know that hon. and right hon. Members across the House will want to join me in paying tribute to him and all the former emergency service workers who join us in the Gallery today.

Tom calls it a “scandalous national disgrace” that those forced to retire through injury in the line of duty are not awarded a medal, and I agree entirely. It is time that we honoured their service. These individuals have put themselves in harm’s way to serve our communities, and their injuries have cost them their job—often, a job that they had dreamed of all their lives.

Earlier this year, alongside the hon. Member for Cheadle, we welcomed dozens of former emergency service workers to Parliament. It was an insightful and, at times, very emotional discussion. Anyone who listened to their stories, and to the real impact on those people’s lives and that of their families, could not oppose awarding this recognition. Each and every former emergency service worker there had a story—many Members will have heard about the experiences of their own constituents, but there is one story I would like to share with the House today. Elsie Galt, who also joins us in the Gallery today, is a former police officer. She was injured while serving with Merseyside police, involved in a horrific road traffic accident with a lorry. Sadly, her injuries were severe, and have left her relying on crutches to remain mobile. To join us today, Elsie has travelled from the Scottish highlands on the night train, and will make her return journey on the same train later today—that is how much this debate means to her. She wants to see recognition for other people who might have to endure what she has had to live through. Elsie’s determination is truly inspiring.

Turning to the specifics of this campaign, the ask is very simple—that those injured in the line of duty must be recognised. As it stands today, no such medal exists other than for actions of high gallantry, but for understandable reasons, very few of those medals are ever awarded. It is right that those who serve our communities and are injured in the line of duty have their service recognised. The proposal has very clear qualifications, replicating the established injury on duty pension criteria. I also understand that both the Fire Brigades Union and Unison fully support this proposal. Thanks to Tom’s determined efforts and perseverance, such a medal was already being looked at by the last Government after the then police and fire Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—who is now the shadow Home Secretary—ensured that the matter reached the Cabinet Office, which oversees the awarding of decorations and medals. There appears to have been little progress or news since the election, but given that the new Policing Minister is one of the 219 MPs who signed up to support this campaign, I am hopeful that we can rely on her to take it forward.

I urge the Minister to listen to the campaigners and the Back Benchers. This is a no-brainer—let us get it done. We have heard some excellent contributions from Members across the House today, and I hope the Minister  understands just how important this issue is to former police officers in the Gallery and right across the country. I hope he will be able to update the House on progress today, and I also ask him to commit himself and the Policing Minister to meet Tom Curry. I think if Tom were stood at this Dispatch Box, his question would be “When, not if, will we award these heroes the recognition they deserve?” Emergency service workers do so much for us; now it is time that we do something for them. \p Mike Tapp: I begin by adding my voice to what I consider to be the prevailing sentiment emerging from today’s discussion, which is that our police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel are the very best of us. We owe them a massive debt of thanks for the work they do to keep us safe, and for always answering the call when we need help.

As a Home Office Minister, I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Government, but as the son of a career police officer and having worked in law enforcement myself, I have listened to today’s discussion with especially keen interest. Every day that my dad went to work, we worried, and I know that the same is true for all the families in the Gallery and the family of every officer who has served. Before this debate, I had a quick chat with my dad and asked whether he had sustained any injuries. He told me that only his ego had been injured, when he was stuck in a lift with nine other overweight officers and they had to call the fire brigade to get them out. That did make the papers—the headline was “Podgy PCs in a jam”.

On a more serious note, a lot of the points that have been raised resonate with me personally, and it is in that spirit that I express my sincere gratitude to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing the debate.

As was evident from the knowledge and passion with which the hon. Member spoke, this is an issue about which he feels strongly, as do other Members who contributed, to whom I am also thankful. Tom Curry sounds very much like the sort of man I would like to meet—a good bloke and obviously a fantastic campaigner.

A number of specific cases have been cited in the course of discussions, all of them deeply moving, and I will go through some of them. The hon. Member talked about a number of extremely emotional incidents that have happened in Manchester, including two incidents of leg-crushing by vehicles. The fear that must have been felt by those officers is unspeakable. Tom Curry, who I have already mentioned, is one of your constituents, I believe. He started the campaign, and I thank him for that. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Minister, you were doing so well, but you are using, “You” or “your” and you should be speaking through the Chair. \p Mike Tapp: My apologies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned Sue Mitchell, who in November 1984 was also subject to ramming by car. She actually managed to commit an arrest, which shows immense bravery on  the ground. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about Robert Gifford, who served with the British Transport police and witnessed the Ladbroke Grove train crash, which must have been harrowing in many ways. The hon. Member mentioned another constituent, who was beaten by thugs. That demonstrates the challenges our officers experience every day out there on the ground.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke about Ian, who served for 30 years in Thames Valley police, and I thank him for his service. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) talked about Andrew Barr, who served with the Met police for 16 years, as well as with search and rescue. Service is often in the blood of those who serve with the police force, and that is why they often volunteer in other ways. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about air crash injuries and Councillor Coles, who rightly praises the fire brigade. As with the police, every day while we are in this place, the fire brigade officers literally run towards danger, and I thank them.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a really good point about high-profile cases that the press pick up on, when we all send out to the country our thanks to the police, but we must remember that the unnamed do not get that from the media. Routine policing can become dangerous at any moment. While we are safe in here, the police are out there on the streets putting their lives at risk.

The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) spoke about Bill Maddocks, a firefighter. It sounds like an extremely complex case, so I will not comment on that at this moment. If the hon. Member will write to me and the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), we can get into the detail.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a considered statement, which I thank him for, and mentioned PC Geoff Newham, who was involved in a crash and was injured. After his injury, his trying to solve complex issues, such as county lines, demonstrates the dedication to service that so many in our police forces and emergency services have. I thank him very much for that.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his considered approach. He mentioned Elsie Galt, to whom I send my thanks, who suffered from a road traffic accident.

There are clearly physical effects that can have significant or, in the most serious examples, life-changing consequences. Then there is the emotional and psychological impact, which, again, can last for years or even a lifetime. We must always remember that the impact of such incidents is felt not only by the individuals themselves, but by their loved ones, their colleagues and their families. When dedicated public servants suffer serious injuries in the course of their duties, it is of course incumbent on us as a state and a society to wrap our arms around them and ensure that they are given all the support they need.

I turn to the specific focus of the debate. I will summarise the Government’s position, but I will do so with full recognition that I am a relative latecomer to this debate, as has been set out by others in a very long-running discussion. I commit to take any outstanding questions away, including on the case that the hon.  Member for Cheadle raised. The first point to make is that the Home Office is well aware of the proposal under discussion. Senior officials have spoken many times to leaders of the campaign; indeed, the previous Minister for Policing met a number of them to hear their thoughts on this important matter.

My understanding of the situation is that work continues to identify whether a medal is the best method of recognising emergency services workers who are injured as a result of their duties, and whether it is viable. I realise that the hon. Member for Cheadle and other Members in favour of his proposal would wish me to go further and make a commitment. Respectfully, and with full recognition of the importance of the issue in question, I am afraid I cannot do so today. What I can say is that when any decision is made, it will be communicated to all interested parties, including those in the Gallery today. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I am sure there is a bit of disappointment at the Minister’s statement, but could he enlighten the people in the Gallery and the Chamber on the timescale for when a decision might be reached? \p Mike Tapp: I cannot give a timescale right here and now, but I will meet the Policing Minister in the next week and we will come back to you with an answer on that. \p Julian Lewis: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Before Sir Julian Lewis makes his intervention and the Minister responds, I remind the House that “you” and “your” are not permitted. Let us stay focused. \p Julian Lewis: I have listened carefully to the whole debate, and I thoroughly support the proposal. From the Minister’s summing up, it sounds as if the decision is more in the hands of civil servants than in those of Ministers. May I gently point out to him that civil servants are never remiss when it comes to awarding themselves all sorts of decorations and recognition? Here, it is more a question that the feeling of the House has made itself heard, and it really ought to be conveyed to those people to whom this task appears to have been delegated that they ought to do what they have been told by the elected representatives of the people of this country. \p Mike Tapp: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his question. I reassure the House and those in the Gallery that the Policing Minister is a Minister who has authority. We saw that in the past week with the scrapping of police and crime commissioners—something that is well overdue. That came well and truly from the Minister, but of course she will have heard these words today.

If Members will indulge me for a second, I will set out some general points about medallic recognition that are relevant to the debate and my response. In this country, all medals are a gift from Government on behalf of the monarch. They are instituted by royal warrant and sit firmly under royal prerogative powers. The advantage of this is that we keep our medal system above the political fray, and no amount of political patronage can affect the criteria. That is why the British model for such recognition is highly respected across the globe.

My reason for mentioning that is not to offer a commentary on the merits of the proposal we are debating today, but to set the discussion in its proper context. I wholeheartedly agree with the general notion that acts of extraordinary courage, sacrifice or selflessness should be recognised and celebrated. Having worked in law enforcement and served in the military, I am behind that notion. That is why in policing, for example, we have worked closely with forces and staff associations to increase the number of officers and staff receiving formal gallantry awards. \p James Wild: I referred to my time in the Ministry of Defence, and during that time we created the Op Shader medal for British service personnel who were involved in operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The original proposal was that that medal should only go to the pilots in the planes conducting the strikes, but the Secretary of State and the Ministers in the Department ensured the case was made for it to go to the ground crews who got those planes in the air, so Ministers can make a difference. We have the system that the Minister has described, but Ministers are there to drive this through. \p Mike Tapp: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We are having the debate in this House today, but the point stands that the decision is not a political one.

We know that for a great many emergency service personnel, their work is more than a job. It is a vocation, which they do because they feel passionate about serving our country and helping others. For those who have to leave the job they love due to injury, that is an immensely painful experience. Every effort must be made to support them in adjusting to their new circumstances.

On the financial impact, to use the example of policing, depending on the injury and its severity, a gratuity and a pension may be payable through existing provisions. Financial awards are not a substitute for medals, but they are not nothing. They have their own meaning and impact, and I think it is important that that point is made.

However, recognition is not just about payments or medals; it is about how we treat people during and after their service. Through the police covenant, we are ensuring that officers and staff who are injured physically or psychologically receive the support they need both during service and after they leave.

To turn briefly to the Elizabeth Emblem, which was raised during the debate, I have been informed that extending it to cover those injured on duty is simply not viable. Aside from potentially disrupting the Elizabeth Emblem, for which some recipients have waited 80 years, extending it would fundamentally alter the nature of the award. It is not normal practice for medal cohorts to be expanded. Normally, a new medal would be created.

I thank all Members for their contributions and of course all those in the Gallery. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and for advancing this cause with such care and enthusiasm. I hope he will understand that I am not in a position to make a commitment on the proposal he has put forward. However, I have heard what has been said across the House and will ensure that my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for this area are fully aware of it. As I said, I will have a meeting next week.

For the risks that our officers face and the sacrifices that they make, they are the epitome of public service. They are, to put it simply, all heroes. On behalf of the Government and our country, I finish by thanking them for everything that they do. \p Tom Morrison: I thank all Members across the House for engaging with this debate. We have heard so many stories of heroism, so many stories that have been inspirational and so many stories of heartbreak.

I thank the Minister for being present and for his remarks. I am obviously disappointed that we have not come to a firmer conclusion. To quote Tom Curry, “Patience is a young man’s game”, and many of the people we are talking about do not have patience. They have been waiting a long time for recognition. These  people feel as though they have been discarded and forgotten. We need to do more.

I say to the Minister and the Government that the gauntlet has been laid down. There is clearly cross-party support for this scheme. We have one of the most signed early-day motions and a petition has been delivered to Parliament, and we can see that public support is behind the scheme. I say to the Government that we need to act now. There are people who deserve this recognition—they deserved it yesterday. Let us not wait another day. They need it now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House acknowledges the extreme risks faced by police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel in the line of duty; further acknowledges that many suffer catastrophic, career-ending injuries while protecting the public; regrets that these sacrifices are too often met with inadequate formal recognition; notes that existing honours are limited in scope and rarely conferred in such circumstances; believes this failure to properly acknowledge those who have sustained life-altering injuries in public service is a serious oversight; welcomes the growing cross-party consensus that urgent action is needed; and calls on the Cabinet Office to rectify this injustice by establishing a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the extraordinary sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Lilian Greenwood.) \p James Asser: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the support available to children—and, crucially, their families —living with serious neurological conditions. I applied for this debate after hearing the moving testimony of my constituent, Shelina, a mother who, like so many parents in similar circumstances, never expected to find herself navigating the complex and overwhelming world that confronted her when her daughter Tafida fell seriously ill.

Following Tafida’s diagnosis, Shelina not only became an advocate for her own child, but went on to support others facing similar paths. She founded the Tafida Raqeeb Foundation, a charity dedicated to helping families understand treatment options, access specialist knowledge and feel supported at a time when many can feel at their most isolated. The foundation now supports families both here and abroad, and the insights it has gathered are invaluable in helping to shape thoughtful and compassionate reform.

Shelina’s story, sadly, is not unique. Each year, thousands of children in the UK are diagnosed with life-limiting neurological conditions. \p Daniel Francis: I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Today, on Carers Rights Day, will my hon. Friend join me, as the parent of a child with a neurological condition, in paying tribute to all carers and charities for their work in supporting families like the family in his constituency? \p James Asser: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in that. I certainly know, and I think the House knows, his expertise in this area and the knowledge he brings to the House. That is something I will touch on further in a little while.

Some conditions present at birth and others emerge unexpectedly in early childhood. What unites the families is not only the complexity of the diagnosis, but the emotional, financial and practical challenges that follow. When faced with these circumstances, support is not an optional extra; it is the difference between families coping or reaching breaking point. Today, I want to focus on areas where the Government can continue to make a tangible difference, while also reflecting on several principles identified by families and organisations working closely in this space.

The first is access to high-quality information and specialist expertise. In the early weeks and months after a child’s diagnosis, many parents simply do not know where to turn. Conditions may be so rare that even highly experienced clinicians have encountered only a few cases. Understandably, families seek second opinions, sometimes internationally, in their search for clarity and reassurance. That is why proposals for more consistent access to second opinions, including clarity on how families can request them and where they may come from, are so important. Ensuring that such opinions are available promptly and from appropriately qualified  clinicians would help prevent misunderstandings and reduce distress at an already emotional time. Similarly, early involvement of mediation and clinical ethics support can help families and clinicians work through complex decisions collaboratively, rather than feeling pushed towards formal disputes. When available at the right moment, these mechanisms can preserve trust and keep conversations centred on the child’s best interests.

Families have also highlighted the importance of having clear and safe hospital transfer options. Where another suitably qualified hospital, whether in the UK or abroad, is willing to accept a child, and where the clinical risks are manageable, families understandably value the reassurance that such a transfer could be facilitated. Greater clarity on how transfer decisions are made would help families feel respected as partners in their child’s care. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined, when she replies, what further steps might be taken to strengthen these early support mechanisms and to ensure that families across the country have timely, consistent access to the specialist guidance they need.

The second area where the Government can make a difference is in emotional and practical support for families. Caring for a child with a serious neurological condition frequently requires round-the-clock care. Parents become experts in medical equipment, emergency responses, symptom patterns and complex medication schedules. This can take an enormous emotional toll. Consistent access to counselling, respite breaks, community nursing and psychological support can make an extraordinary difference. However, we know that this provision can vary. Some families receive exemplary support, while others find themselves waiting months or navigating multiple agencies before help arrives. Strengthening those forms of support so that they are reliable, accessible and sensitive to the pressures that families face would greatly reduce the emotional and financial burden that parents often shoulder.

The third area is ensuring that public services are co-ordinated, compassionate and connected. Many parents describe the system as fragmented, not through lack of dedication from professionals but because structures do not always align. Families may find themselves repeating their child’s history multiple times, facing delays in equipment provision, or juggling unco-ordinated appointments. For children with complex neurological needs, health, education and social care are deeply interconnected. A more joined-up approach can relieve pressure and help ensure children receive the right support at the right moment. \p Mark Sewards: My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument for more support for children and families in this position. A family in my constituency wrote to me about their granddaughter who has Huntingdon’s disease. She is 10, and she desperately needs an education, health and care plan so that she can get to the right special educational needs and disabilities school next year. However, the family found that there are not enough educational psychologists to give referrals, and time is running out. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to prioritise support for people in that position to get them the education and support they deserve as quickly as possible? \p James Asser: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is the thrust of this issue. There are multiple agencies involved, but if one is failing in an area or there is a gap, it creates huge problems. It is about being parent-sensitive and child-sensitive, looking at where the gaps are and ensuring that we have the necessary facilities, support and access available speedily where they are needed. \p Adam Jogee: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I put to him the importance of communication? He has just touched on the many cases of families going to a million and one different agencies to seek support. More often than not, when there is a need for those agencies to speak to each other and then get back to the families who are trying to support their children, those agencies are missing in action. Improved communication across the piece has never been needed more than now. \p James Asser: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Communications are a key part of the point I was making about interconnectivity. Parents are required to repeat the diagnosis so many times. Agencies need to be talking to each other and sharing information to make life easier for the families and carers of children.

A joined-up approach can help relieve the pressure. Within that, it is vital that parents—and grandparents, where that is the case—are recognised as genuine partners in decisions about their child’s care. Their experience, insights and wishes should carry appropriate weight from the outset, and reflect the deep understanding they hold of their child’s day-to-day needs. In addition, families have emphasised the importance of improving access to paediatric neurorehabilitation, which is uneven across the country.

For children with long-term neurological conditions, timely access to specialist rehabilitation can significantly improve outcomes, independence and quality of life. Reducing the overall burden on families, emotionally, practically and financially, should remain a guiding principle. Strengthening the pathways for second opinions, mediation, ethics involvement, transfer options and rehabilitation would all help to support families during their most vulnerable moments.

I want to recognise the work of the Tafida Raqeeb Foundation and similar organisations. Their experience with families in the most difficult circumstances offers valuable insight, and their contributions can help inform the foundations of a more supportive framework, one that ensures parental involvement, early resolution of disputes, safe transfer options and improved rehabilitation, all centred on the welfare of the child—much as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) suggested when he spoke about involving families.

Finally, I pay tribute to the extraordinary resilience of the families: the parents who become carers overnight; the siblings who grow up with remarkable empathy; and, above all, the children themselves, who show courage that humbles us all. Their strength inspires us, but it also reminds us that our systems must match their resilience with compassion, clarity and consistency.

We do not require radical restructuring to make progress; what is needed is better co-ordination, commitment and recognition that caring for children with serious neurological  conditions is a whole-family, whole-system challenge. In honour of the children we have lost, in support of those still fighting and in solidarity with every family navigating these profound challenges, I believe we can continue to do better. \p Ashley Dalton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) on securing this important debate and acknowledge the journey of his constituent Shelina Begum and the work she has done on behalf of her daughter, Tafida Raqeeb, with the establishment of the Tafida Raqeeb Foundation and all the work it does.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for his contribution. His tireless work raising issues around supporting and caring for children with neurological issues is well known in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) raised the issue of access to EHCPs—which are provided through local authorities—which continues to need work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) highlighted the need for joined-up care and services.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on a subject that touches on the lives of thousands of families across the country. There are hundreds of serious neuro- logical conditions that affect children, ranging from epilepsy and cerebral palsy to rare, genetic and degenerative disorders and acquired brain injury. I will speak on the common themes that unite people’s experiences: the need for timely diagnosis, integrated care and comprehensive support for every child and family, regardless of the specific condition they face.

Living with a serious neurological condition is a life-altering reality for children and their families. Whether congenital, acquired or progressive, these conditions often bring profound physical limitations, developmental delays and complex care needs. Families face relentless hospital visits, financial strain and the emotional toll of uncertainty, all while navigating fragmented health, education and social care systems.

The Government recognise these challenges and are committed to improving access to care, reducing inequalities and providing holistic support through health, education and social care systems. Our 10-year health plan will transform care for children with serious neurological conditions by delivering integrated, community-based services that put families at the centre and by prioritising early identification and intervention, ensuring that children receive timely diagnoses and treatment to prevent complications. Through neighbourhood health centres, multidisciplinary teams—including paediatric neurologists, therapists, mental health professionals and social workers—will provide wraparound support that meets medical, emotional and practical needs. Digital tools will empower parents to manage appointments and access records as easily as they bank online. This is about creating a system that works for families, not against them.

Through NHS England’s neurology transformation programme, we are creating pathways that wrap around families. The national bundle of care for children and young people with epilepsy sets clear standards for paediatric epilepsy care. For cerebral palsy, new commissioning  frameworks ensure early intervention and co-ordinated services. Specialised paediatric neurosciences services provide access to life-changing procedures, such as epilepsy surgery and selective dorsal rhizotomy—that is a difficult word to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Government are committed to improving lives for those affected by rare diseases, which includes some serious neurological conditions, under the UK rare diseases framework. This includes better co-ordination of care and improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. We also hear that children and families impacted by these conditions can struggle to access mental health support, which is just not right. To address that, the NHS genomics education programme has published new resources on rare diseases for healthcare professionals to help them with sensitive conversations. The 10-year health plan also sets out ambitious goals to transform mental health services across the country so that everyone living with a rare disease, along with their loved ones, can get the support they truly deserve.

We know that timely access to care is critical, yet many families face delays of months. That is unacceptable. That is why we have committed to meeting the NHS constitutional standard of patients seen within 18 weeks by March 2029. For the elective reform plan and the neurology transformation programme, we are expanding diagnostic capacity, rolling out virtual consultations and opening more community diagnostic centres seven days a week. Those steps will cut waiting lists and ensure that children and families get the care they need when they need it.

We know that neurological conditions often come with emotional and behavioural challenges. That is why mental health support is being embedded into paediatric neurology pathways. Initiatives such as the national bundle of care for children and young people with epilepsy include psychological support as a core component. We are also expanding mental health support teams in schools and launching young futures hubs to provide integrated local support. This holistic approach recognises that physical and mental health are inseparable.

For many families, the move from paediatric to adult services is a key time of uncertainty. We are addressing that through structured transition planning, as set out in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and NHS England frameworks. \p Daniel Francis: Transition is a key issue for families in this area. In the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy issued recommendations about health pathways for adults, because for a lot of these conditions, including cerebral palsy, there are not the same health frameworks for adults as there are for children. Will the Minister take that point away and look at how we can replicate some of the pathways that are there for children in the adult sector? \p Ashley Dalton: I am more than happy to do that. All too often, we have seen that the transition is a really difficult time, and as he points out, where services are perhaps not as joined up and cohesive for adults as they are for children, that is hugely jarring—a huge problem for families to navigate. We are committed to making sure that transition plans start early, involve families and ensure that continuity of care. Our goal is to make the process smooth and supportive, not stressful and fragmented.

Health is only one part of the picture. Children with serious neurological conditions often have special educational needs and disabilities, and their success depends on a joined-up approach across sectors. That is why the SEND reforms that the Government are working on are so important. We are moving towards earlier intervention, stronger inclusion in mainstream education, and better collaboration between health, education and social care. These changes will ensure that support is needs-led rather than diagnosis-driven, with clear accountability across integrated care boards and schools. By embedding mental health provision, improving workforce expertise and planning smooth transitions into adulthood care, we aim to deliver consistent, high-quality support that helps children to thrive and restores confidence in the system.

Caring for a child with a serious neurological condition can place enormous financial strain on families. The welfare system is designed to provide a crucial lifeline, ensuring that no family is crushed by the additional, often substantial, costs associated with their child’s condition. The Government provide support through a   range of benefits, including disability living allowance, carer’s allowance, personal health budgets and local authority support, including respite care and equipment provision. Financial support is not just about money; it is about giving families the stability and security they need to focus on what matters most—their child’s wellbeing.

Our commitment to children with serious neurological conditions reflects the core values of our society: compassion, fairness and the belief that every child deserves the chance to reach their full potential. By improving healthcare access and providing comprehensive support systems, we are building a more inclusive and resilient future for all. We will ensure that no child or family feels abandoned, and that compassion and co-ordination define the care that they receive. \p Nusrat Ghani: We have just checked the pronunciation of dorsal rhizotomy—hopefully I have not got it wrong either!

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 376, Noes 16.

Question accordingly agreed to.