debates/debates2025-02-13c conversation_17
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-02-13)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-02-13c conversation_17

Bob Blackman:As you will know, Mr Speaker, I rarely, if ever, agree with the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. The Secretary of State has set out the position in relation to her change of heart, but will she commit to ensure that any proposal for a third runway at Heathrow will have a full impact assessment before it is approved or denied? \p Heidi Alexander: I fully support the Chancellor’s call for fresh proposals for Heathrow. Some of our airports in the south-east are running at or near capacity. We cannot pretend that that is not the case, and I am not prepared to be part of a Government who duck the difficult decisions. As the person who may ultimately be taking planning decisions on any application for a third runway at Heathrow, I will judge any scheme on its merits. We will update the airports national policy statement, and any expansion scheme must meet our legal and environmental obligations. \p Steve Race: As the Secretary of State knows, the south-west peninsula already contributes significantly to the UK economy, including through life sciences and climate tech. We are, however, held back from reaching our full potential by under-investment in transport connectivity, which is made worse by upcoming works at Old Oak Common and the continuing bottleneck on the A303. Will the Minister commit to developing a strategic investment plan to ensure that the south-west peninsula has the transport infrastructure it needs to unlock further growth? \p Simon Lightwood: As I have said before, growth is the priority mission of this Government, and we are committed to empowering local leaders. A regional transport strategy, and a strategic investment plan for the south-west, has been developed by the sub-national transport body Peninsula Transport. \p Cameron Thomas: As well as being home to both GCHQ and NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters, Gloucestershire has the largest concentration of cyber-tech businesses and aerospace engineering firms outside London, but the county, and particularly Tewkesbury, is subject to slow, unreliable and grossly outdated rail services. It is also underserved by road transport links eastward. The Government recently announced that they will develop a silicon valley between Milton Keynes— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are on topicals—I think you need an Adjournment debate. Who is going to answer that? \p Simon Lightwood: I will certainly meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: Department for Transport analysis carried out in 2017 showed that expanding Heathrow would displace 27,000 jobs from the UK regions to London by 2050, with 17 million fewer passengers using non-London airports. Does the Minister hope that the same analysis, if done now, would come to a different conclusion in order to ensure that UK economic growth really does benefit all UK regions and not just west London? \p Mike Kane: The Government are committed to regional airports. I am proudly wearing my “Yes to R2” badge from when we built a second runway at Manchester airport in 2001. The position is quite the opposite of what my hon. Friend describes: under the 2018 airports national policy statement, the number of connections from Heathrow to regional airports was expected to increase if Heathrow expanded, increasing productivity in those regions. \p Martin Vickers: Northern Trains runs one train per day on the Gainsborough-Brigg-Cleethorpes line. Does the Secretary of State agree that one train per day is pretty pointless? Will she arrange a meeting with the appropriate Minister for me and other affected MPs, so that we can discuss how to secure a better service? \p Heidi Alexander: Reliable, frequent train services are important, no matter where in the country we live. I will ask the Rail Minister for a meeting. \p Alison Taylor: Does the Minister agree that achieving economic growth requires sustained investment in our transport infra- structure? Would she be willing to visit Glasgow International airport to learn more about how transport infrastructure can assist with the further development of the proposed investment zone in my constituency? \p Simon Lightwood: I agree that investment in our transport infrastructure across the country is essential to our growth mission. I am aware of the investment zone bid involving Glasgow airport, and the aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), would be delighted to visit in the near future. \p David Mundell: I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that large swathes of British Airways flights between London and Scotland are automatically cancelled when there are serious weather or technical issues at Heathrow. British Airways says that if the Secretary of State’s officials, the Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow and airlines worked together, the number of cancellations could be minimised, even in those circumstances, so will she facilitate those discussions? \p Mike Kane: The right hon. Member raises an important point. The resilience of the UK aviation sector is important, and key to its success, so we will facilitate any discussions to make sure we are always on an improvement trajectory. \p Rachael Maskell: Access for disabled people was a condition of opening up planning for the York Central development. However,  I hear that the condition will be bypassed, and that planning will go ahead without disabled access being put in place. That clearly impedes disabled people. Can we ensure that difficult engineering work is undertaken before planning permission is granted? \p Simon Lightwood: The accessibility of all modes of transport is extremely important to this Government. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further. \p Will Forster: Despite my constituency being only a stone’s throw from Heathrow, we have no direct rail link to the country’s busiest airport. Last week, Heathrow Southern Railway submitted a business case to the Government. When will the Government consider it, to ensure that my constituents can get a train to Heathrow? \p Heidi Alexander: Alongside the question of how many planes should take off and land at Heathrow, there is the critical question of how people get to the airport. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I would be happy to discuss it further with him. \p Luke Murphy: Learner drivers in Basingstoke have been left stranded for months—in some cases, years—unable to book a driving test. That is affecting their jobs, their education and the local economy. Does the Secretary of State agree that urgent action is needed to extend test centre hours, to ramp up the recruitment of examiners, and to clamp down on the rip-off companies that book multiple slots, only to flog them at higher prices? \p Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is right to raise these concerns on behalf of learner drivers. On 18 December, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency set out a seven-point plan that recognises the need to fix the driving test booking system, so that we can get new drivers on the road. I will hold it to account for delivery of that plan and the changes that my hon. Friend and his constituents need to see. \p Tom Gordon: When the previous Government cancelled High Speed 2, they promised more than £4 billion for projects in the north and the midlands. Do the Government still plan to deliver on that, and when should we expect to see that money in the north? \p Heidi Alexander: I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman this, but that was fantasy money. We are working through a pipeline of transport infrastructure projects, and will make announcements alongside the spending review. \p Josh Dean: The long-promised platform 1 lift at Hertford North station, due to be delivered under the Access for All scheme, has been delayed yet again. This leaves some of my disabled constituents having to travel back up the line to get a different train to platform 2, so that they can use the lift there. Will the appropriate Minister meet me to discuss how we can urgently drive forward the lift project for my constituents? \p Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise concerns about disabled access at his local station. We want to ensure that everyone can access our public transport networks, and I would be happy to ensure that I or one of my colleagues met him. \p Jim Dickson: On economic growth, which we have discussed, will the Secretary of State clarify, for the benefit of the Conservative party, that economic growth depends on rather more than a well-oiled revolving door between the Tory party and big business—a door through which a former Tory Transport Minister and Member of the other place unsuccessfully attempted to walk last week? \p Heidi Alexander: Delivering economic growth requires a proper plan for investment in our transport infrastructure. That is exactly what this Government are determined to deliver. \p Laurence Turner: Once Birmingham’s Camp Hill line reopens, we will need track investment if we are to restore the pre-pandemic service frequencies on the cross-city line, including to Northfield and Longbridge. Will the Minister look fully at the case for upgrading King’s Norton station? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is an assiduous and informed campaigner for improved rail services for his constituents. He will know that funding for the midlands rail hub includes funding for designs for reinstated island platforms at King’s Norton. Decisions   still need to be taken on future investment, but I know that he will push for construction to start as soon as possible. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: The Calder Valley line was listed as a top priority for improvements by Transport for the North’s electrification taskforce 10 years ago, back in 2015, yet my constituents are still waiting for those improvements. Will the Minister commit this Government to delivering the infrastructure for my constituents that the last Government could not? \p Heidi Alexander: Network Rail is completing a strategic outline business case, covering electrification of the Calder Valley line. The business case will be considered in the context of the wider electrification strategy, so that we can determine how to deliver the best possible benefits across the region. \p Sam Rushworth: Next month, railway enthusiasts from around the world will come to my constituency, where we will mark the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington railway, which took off from the town of Shildon. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Rail Minister to meet me and other MPs along that route to talk about how the Government can be part of those celebrations? \p Heidi Alexander: I am sure that is an invitation that the Rail Minister could not possibly refuse. \p Lindsay Hoyle: On that basis, I look forward to a Minister opening the Coppull railway station, or at least doing an impact study on the main line. \p James Cartlidge: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Ukraine. \p Maria Eagle: Yesterday, at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary, we saw almost 50 nations and partners standing together. Ukraine is backed by the members of the group, and by billions of dollars-worth of arms and ammunition that have been committed to keep its warfighters equipped. That will increase pressure on Putin, help force him to the table, and bring a sustainable peace closer.

We were pleased that Secretary Hegseth confirmed the US’s continued commitment to the group, to Ukraine’s pursuit of what he called “a durable peace”, and to the importance of security guarantees. We heard his call for European nations to step up; we are, and we will. NATO allies pledged €40 billion in 2024, and went on to provide €50 billion. The majority of that came from European nations, while non-US NATO allies boosted wider defence spending by 20% in just the last year, so Europe is stepping up.

Finally, we saw a clear commitment to ratcheting up the pressure on Putin, using both military and economic tools. We all agree that 2025 will be the critical year for Ukraine. At this crucial moment, we will not step back, but step up our support for Ukraine. President Trump and President Zelensky have both spoken of their desire to achieve “peace through strength”. The commitments made yesterday provide the collective strength that we need to achieve peace. For our part, the UK will spend £4.5 billion on military support for Ukraine this year, which is more than ever before.

We have now provided more than 500,000 artillery shells, worth over £1.5 billion. Yesterday, the Defence Secretary announced that we will provide an additional £150 million of new firepower, including drones, tanks and air-to-air missiles. Ukraine’s security matters to global security. That is why the vital Ukraine Defence Contact Group coalition of 50 nations and partners stretches from the Indo-Pacific to South America. This war was never about the fate of just one nation. When the border of one country is redrawn by force, it undermines the security of all nations.

The US is serious about stability in the Indo-Pacific, as are we. That is why the Prime Minister announced that the carrier strike group will go there next year. If aggression goes unchecked on one continent, it emboldens regimes on another, so on stepping up for Ukraine, we are, and we will. On stepping up for European security, we are, and we will. \p James Cartlidge: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; we are in recess next week, and the day that we return will be the third anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine. In the past three years, Russia has inflicted unimaginable suffering on Ukraine. There has been military and civilian loss of life on a vast scale, at the hands of a dictator oblivious to consequences and only too willing to sacrifice his own soldiers to the meat grinder.

In the face of so many casualties and so much pain, of course we all want peace. We all want the senseless slaughter to stop, and for Ukraine to once again thrive and enjoy the trappings of peace and prosperity, which we all take for granted. It is clear that an end to this suffering is a goal that President Trump wishes to achieve rapidly; he set that out to the American people before securing their support for his election to the White House, and for a second mandate.

We remain 100% steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and in our backing for the Government in delivering that; they gave us the same backing when in opposition. We agree in principle with them and believe, as we stressed repeatedly in government, that it is for the Ukrainians to decide the timing and the terms of any negotiations on ending the war. Does the Minister agree that negotiations without the direct involvement of Ukraine would be unthinkable? What more can the Minister say about how the Government will work with allies to ensure that any negotiations are driven by the primacy of Ukraine’s needs, not least given its status as the democratic nation invaded, without provocation, by a dictator?

We welcome the news from the Minister about the commitments given by other European NATO nations this week, but is not President Trump right to consistently highlight the point that some NATO nations spend far below what is expected and required on defence? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government, using every lever at their disposal, will remind all NATO members that a win for Putin in any settlement may bring a temporary end to the conflict, but will not make the world a safer place? Far from it. It would be an illusion of peace, and would be likely to send a very dangerous signal to other potential adversaries.

Of course, the position expressed by both the US President and his Defence Secretary yesterday has huge implications for our defence policy. They have made it abundantly clear that the US will play no role in any future peacekeeping effort in Ukraine, should that be necessary. Although the Government will of course be cautious about contemplating publicly the implications of that, is not the key point straightforward: if higher defence spending was urgent before, it is now critical? \p Maria Eagle: I welcome the fact that, in the main, there is still consensus across this House on supporting Ukraine. That has been a tremendously important part of the support that we have given over the last three years, and before, to the Ukrainians.

The hon. Gentleman said that there should be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine; my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made that clear in his remarks yesterday. NATO’s job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for any talks, but there can be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine’s involvement. We want to see a durable peace and no return to conflict and aggression. That is the only way in which this war can end, with the kind of security that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have referred to. \p Rachael Maskell: We are all conscious of the three-year anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, and our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine at this time. However, there can be no peace without justice. It is therefore welcome that countries are collaborating to try to bring about a de-escalation  of the war. What are the Government doing to focus on the justice system, to ensure that war criminals are tried, and justice is brought to the Ukrainian people? \p Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always said that this has to be a just peace, and that those who have committed war crimes during the invasion of Ukraine need to be pursued for them. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p James MacCleary: Yesterday, the leader of my party warned the Prime Minister that we might be facing the worst betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945. The hours since have confirmed our fears. This is a moment of great peril for us all. Does the Minister agree that the US’s actions are a betrayal of our Ukrainian friends, who have fought so hard for their freedom, of the UK, and of all our European allies? Will the Government step up and show British leadership, starting by passing urgent legislation to seize frozen Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine whatever the US does? Clearly, in the light of the events of the past 24 hours, the Government need to look again at defence spending. Does she agree that the decision of the previous Government to continue with a cut to the Army of 10,000 troops at a time when war is raging on our continent now looks utterly unforgivable? \p Maria Eagle: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about being betrayed by our allies. The US Defence Secretary has made it clear that he that he wants a durable peace. That is what he and the President are proceeding to try to obtain, so I do not accept that point. In terms of our own forces, we are seeking to ensure that recruitment, which has failed to meet targets over the last number of years, is improved, so that the numbers in our armed forces are up to full strength. \p Sarah Edwards: I thank the Minister for her statement and the additional support that the Government have announced. It is essential that the UK supports Ukraine, and that the annual £3 billion pledge continues. Does she agree that working alongside our allies is even more essential in these turbulent times to bring about an end to the war? \p Maria Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that any such negotiations must involve Ukraine, and that the Ukrainians must be happy with the peace that is negotiated. Our role at present, while fierce fighting is still going on, is to put them in the strongest position that we can, in order to enable them properly to negotiate. \p Rishi Sunak: I welcome what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that in this new world, and in the event of any peace deal, the United Kingdom and its European allies must lead in providing Ukraine with military support and, potentially, military presence across land, air and sea, to give Ukraine confidence that any peace will endure? I assure the Government that they will have my support, if that is what they decide to do. \p Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, when he played a part in these matters he was in office, so he is very knowledgeable  about them. I can confirm that we aim to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to enable it to negotiate. That involves continuing to supply the Ukrainians with the arms and weapons that they need in order to fight, because the fighting is still fierce. We need to step up and ensure that we do that. Certainly over the last period, the EU and European nations that are involved in the coalition to support Ukraine have given the majority of military aid and support. As the Secretary-General of NATO confirmed yesterday, 58% of the support that Ukraine received last year was from European nations, so European nations are stepping up. We must continue to do so. \p Louise Jones: I welcome the Minister’s comments about Ukraine’s security being indivisible from global security. Does she agree that the UK must stand firm against those who believe that they can take land through aggression, and that we must continue to send a strong signal around the world that larger nations cannot just grab bits of smaller nations as and when they please? \p Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is correct. As I said in my initial response to the urgent question, it is important that we deter that kind of behaviour wherever it is seen around the world. \p Wendy Chamberlain: It is quite clear from events of the past few hours that the Atlantic and the high north are of increasingly critical concern. Indeed, I was a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee that considered that in the previous Parliament. I know that the Government have had conversations with Denmark, but what conversations are they having with our other Joint Expeditionary Force partners to ensure that those forces are given the support and the resources that they need? \p Maria Eagle: The Government have ongoing discussions with our partners in Europe and the high north. \p Graeme Downie: Does the Minister agree that this announcement should not affect the support of this House and the UK for Ukraine, and will she work with our armed forces and our defence industries to do everything possible to support Ukrainian forces on the frontline? \p Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is correct. We are doing that, but we must continue to step up our capacity to support Ukraine with weapons and the force that it needs to deter ongoing aggression, and to ensure that it is in the strongest possible position in any negotiations that it decides to enter. \p Julian Lewis: Will the Government impress on President Trump at every possible opportunity that the reason why appeasement led to world war two was that it left a vacuum in Europe, whereas the reason why the occupation of eastern Europe at the end of that war did not lead to world war three was that the United States filled any possible vacuum and contained further aggression? If he is going for a settlement against the wishes of the Ukrainian people, the least he can do is guarantee directly the security of that part of Ukraine which remains unoccupied. \p Maria Eagle: No matter which side of the Chamber he is sitting on, the right hon. Gentleman has a long history of supporting deterrence—whether nuclear or short of that threshold—and he makes the same point again. The US Secretary of Defence made it clear in his remarks to the contact group that deterrence is important around the world, so I think there is agreement there. \p Luke Akehurst: I welcome the announcement of the new £150 million package of military firepower for Ukraine., including drones, tanks and air defence systems. How will that boost Ukrainian resilience and the UK defence sector? \p Maria Eagle: It does both. There is only one way in which we can provide the Ukrainians with increasing amounts of munitions and drones, which are developing and changing rapidly, and that is by boosting the strength of our defence industries. That has the additional importance of enabling us to boost our capacity to deter any potential aggression, so in that sense we can do both, and we are doing so. \p Alistair Carmichael: Viewed from Washington, the idea of carving up the map in Europe might look like a pragmatic deal, even if history tells us that that always ends badly. Surely we in Europe understand that no matter what we give Vladimir Putin, he will always want more. Is that the context in which the strategic defence review is being carried out, and does the Minister accept that this moment requires a fundamental reset of our relations with our European partners—not just in defence—and that we need to get real about the financial and economic implications? \p Maria Eagle: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the strategic defence review is about identifying threats that we face now, rather than threats we perhaps faced before the Ukraine war began, so I can tell him that the review is being conducted with that in mind. On the deterrence that we need to be able to provide and the money we need to spend to provide it, the commitment is as it has been: as the Prime Minister has said, he will set out a path to 2.5% once the strategic defence review has been published, and we expect that to be in the spring. \p Claire Hazelgrove: As the Minister will know from her many welcome visits, my constituency is home to many defence companies that are playing a vital role in this conflict. Does she agree that it is crucial that we continue to support companies here in the UK to get military kit into the hands of those in Ukraine who need it most? \p Maria Eagle: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I have had the pleasure of visiting her constituency on several occasions, and when it was her predecessor’s constituency as well, so I am well aware of the strength of its defence industrial base. We need to strengthen that base across our nations and regions, and we are doing that. That has the additional importance of providing deterrence for our nation as well as supporting Ukraine. \p Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister agree that this clarifies what the benchmark of success for the defence review must be?  As some of the defence chiefs have been expressing, we must be ready, if necessary, to fight a war with Russia if we are to deter it and if we are to be in any position to guarantee the security of an independent and sovereign Ukraine after whatever is agreed between President Trump and President Putin. \p Maria Eagle: I agree—we all agree—with the hon. Gentleman that defence spending needs to increase. That must be done in the context of us setting out in the SDR precisely where we see the threats. It is important to spend money correctly and in the best possible way, and I do not think that there is any real disagreement across the Chamber about that. We will see in due course whether those challenges are met when the strategic defence review is published and we set out the path to 2.5%— \p Mark Francois: When? \p Maria Eagle: In the spring. \p Mark Sewards: I welcome the statement that any negotiations about Ukraine must involve Ukraine. In that spirit, has the Minister or any of her colleagues had conversations with their counterparts in Ukraine following the recent developments to find out how they are feeling? If not, do they plan to soon? \p Maria Eagle: I have not, but I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been having discussions and, indeed, our discussions are ongoing and frequent. I have had contact with my counterpart in Ukraine, just not since yesterday. \p Brendan O'Hara: Yesterday, no matter that we in this House wish it was not the case, the people of Ukraine were betrayed and the crimes of aggression and annexation were rewarded in a telephone call between Washington and Moscow. Right now, we have to be building closer partnerships with our European allies for whom democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law still actually mean something. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but how will the Government do that in the face of two men who believe that, because of their military superiority, they can do whatever they want to whomever they want? \p Maria Eagle: The US Secretary of Defence made it clear yesterday that any peace negotiations that the Americans are involved in need to lead to a durable peace that does not see a resumption of the aggression that has led to this war, and we support that. We have also made it quite clear that these negotiations must involve Ukraine—of course they must. That is the way in which this war will finally end. \p Johanna Baxter: I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the commitment that any negotiations about Ukraine must involve Ukraine, because if reports of the call between President Trump and Moscow are to be believed, this is less the art of the deal and more a charter for appeasement. Will we be working with NATO allies to  establish a clear road map with defined timeframes for Ukraine’s NATO membership, ensuring long-term deterrence against inevitable further Russian aggression? \p Maria Eagle: We have always said that Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO, and our position is that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership. However, we have also always been clear that the process will take time. I have already said quite clearly that the fate of Ukraine in these negotiations cannot be determined without Ukraine being fully involved, and that is our priority. At the moment, warfighting is still happening to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to negotiate from strength. \p John Whittingdale: In 1994, Russia —along with the UK and the US—signed the Budapest memorandum, pledging to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Given Russia’s flagrant breach of that undertaking, why should Ukraine believe a word that Putin says without concrete security guarantees? \p Maria Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there must be security guarantees, and the US Defence Secretary said as much. These are all matters for any negotiations that take place. Of course, we will be supporting Ukraine, and we have made it quite clear that there cannot be a peace that does not involve Ukraine or that it does not support. \p Phil Brickell: Can the Minister assure the House that it is UK Government policy that not only must Ukraine be involved in a peace and in securing its territorial integrity, but it is only the Ukrainian people—not President Trump, nor President Putin—who can determine the destiny of Ukraine? \p Maria Eagle: We have said that Ukraine must be involved in those negotiations, and that peace negotiations need two sides to come an agreement. It therefore clearly follows that the Ukrainians must be content with whatever the process comes up with. There must be security guarantees, and the peace must be durable—everybody agrees with that. \p Ellie Chowns: Is the Minister concerned that President Trump is repeating false Kremlin propaganda and perpetuating a gross misrepresentation of the war in Ukraine by suggesting that, for Ukraine, this

“was not a good war to go into”?

Will the UK Government be making it clear to the US President in no uncertain terms that Ukraine has just defended itself from invasion, bombing, rape, murder and occupation, and that it is an outrage for President Trump to suggest that Ukraine should give up its sovereign territory to Russia? \p Maria Eagle: We have made quite clear with our 100-year partnership with Ukraine that we back it in the long term. We have provided Ukraine with support from many parties across this Chamber over a number of years to ensure that it can continue its fight, and we will continue to support Ukraine during any negotiations that take place so that it can get the peace that it wishes to have. \p Laurence Turner: The Minister’s commitment to continued defence support for Ukraine is essential, and I am sure the House’s thoughts are with Ukrainians who are fighting for their freedoms and all the Ukrainians in our own communities who have found sanctuary in this country. Does she agree that any settlement cannot be a repeat of the Budapest memorandum or the Minsk agreements, which failed to deter future Russian imperial aggression? \p Maria Eagle: I think everybody agrees that any peace that is negotiated must be durable. That will require security guarantees, given the past experience that the Ukrainians have of Russia and Russian aggression. \p Gavin Williamson: As the Minister will be aware, much of the Russian war effort is being sustained by other nations, including several of the BRIC nations, which are supporting Russia through direct military aid or dual-use products. What is the Minister doing to try to deter the flow of arms that is continuing to sustain Russia? \p Maria Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman will know very well that there are sanctions, which we do our best to police, and they have had some impact. I think they have to continue both while the war is still ongoing and while the peace is being considered and negotiated. \p Peter Swallow: All wars end, but I know it is the feeling of Members across the House that we very much owe it to the men and women fighting for Ukraine that, when this war ends, it does so with Ukraine in a position of strength at the table and in the driving seat on the terms and timescales. \p Maria Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to continue to support Ukraine to put it in the strongest possible position both while it is fighting the war and during any negotiations that take place. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Could we take a moment to reflect on the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost in this war—Ukrainian civilians, Ukrainian soldiers, Russian soldiers—and all the families who are mourning today?

Efforts were made earlier on by Latin American and African leaders and the Pope to try to negotiate an end to this war, and we may now have an opportunity to demonstrate that one country should never occupy another. Does the Minister believe that there is any possibility in the near future of a ceasefire, ahead of negotiations, that would be acceptable to the people of Ukraine as well as the rest of Europe, because we need to see an end to this ghastly conflict? \p Maria Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman is correct that conflicts such as this need to come to an end as soon as possible, so I acknowledge the point he makes about the death on all sides and how bad that is. However, I think it is important for any peace that may be negotiated to be durable and lasting, so we need to focus our minds at present on supporting Ukraine as much as we can so that it goes into any such negotiations in the strongest possible position. \p James Wild: Given Putin’s illegal invasion and declared intent, do the Government agree that any negotiations must result in a sovereign Ukraine, and that the UK will play its part in providing security guarantees that are meaningful, unlike those of the past, because that is crucial to securing a lasting peace? \p Maria Eagle: The hon. Member is right that security guarantees are likely to be an important part of any peace agreement given the past history. We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, and we are committed to ensuring that it can defend its sovereign capability to continue to exist. While it is too early to talk about any details of what those security guarantees may be, we are committed to making sure that Ukraine can continue as an independent state. \p Wera Hobhouse: On Monday, there will be a concert in Bath abbey in support of Ukraine. My constituents have been unstinting in their support for Ukrainians living among us, but also for Ukrainian communities such as in Oleksandriia. Now is not the point at which to weaken our support. How will the Government ensure that Ukraine’s voice is heard loud and clear in any peace talks, and that no European countries may potentially, or will ultimately, be bullied by US President Trump? \p Maria Eagle: I agree very much with the hon. Lady when she says that our Ukrainian friends here in this nation have received a lot of support—not only in her constituency, but across the UK—from their friends and neighbours, and that that will continue. We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. We have supported the Ukrainians through the toughest times of this war with arms and other necessary support, and we will continue to do so. \p David Mundell: I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, as I do, the huge effort of the Ukrainian diaspora in the UK, of which a large proportion is in Scotland, particularly in and around my constituency. Given the huge efforts they have made, does she agree that we must not convey the idea in the coming weeks that we have in any way let them or their countrymen down? \p Maria Eagle: I do agree with that, and we have no intention—I think in any part of this House—of doing so. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Jim Shannon \p Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Speaker —I am surprised to be called so early. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Do you want to wait a minute? \p Jim Shannon: No, no—I will grab the chance.

I thank the Minister for her answers. It is obvious to me and other Members of this House that she has a heart that wants to help those in Ukraine, and we appreciate that, especially since it comes from Government. I welcome the potential peace that might come, but of course it has to be a peace of justice; it has to be fair to the Ukrainians, and we hope a way can be found. Does  she agree that any signs of negotiation are to be welcomed, but that there can be no doubt that Ukraine retains the support of this House? She has said that, and everyone has said it. What role will the UK have in ensuring that the people of Ukraine have security from further Russian aggression when Putin recalibrates his forces a year or two from now? \p Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these concerns. It is clear that any peace that is negotiated, which must have the consent of the Ukrainians themselves, has to be durable, and to the extent that that requires security guarantees, those have to be present for it to work. \p John Cooper: It is a truism from ancient Roman times that if we want peace, we must prepare for war, and I am glad the strategic defence review is preparing us for war—sadly—although in slow motion, unfortunately. Will the SDR consider the unlocked back door that is Ireland, which sits outwith NATO? It is clear that alarm bells are ringing in NATO, but Ireland, cash rich, sits outside NATO and has a critical role in defending undersea cables. We learn from the Irish press that its navy is setting sail without sufficient officers to man its main guns—it is sending out gunboats without guns. What can we do to encourage Ireland to play a full role in what will, I think, be a confrontation with Russia? \p Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to prepare. The strategic defence review will set out the threats that we face and we will then turn our attention to making sure we obtain the capabilities to deal with them. Obviously we will look at any weaknesses there might be and try to shore them up. \p Will Forster: Every time President Trump makes a statement about Ukraine I hear from constituents that they are terrified for the future of Ukraine, and never more so than in the last 24 hours. Will the Minister confirm whether the British Government were consulted on or told about President Trump’s call with Vladimir Putin beforehand? \p Maria Eagle: I am afraid it is above my pay grade to know the answer to that question, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to ask those whose pay grade it is not above at another questions session. As far as I am aware we have had friendly conversations at the Ukraine defence contact group with members of the US Administration. \p John Lamont: What practical help are the Government providing to Ukraine’s legal system and judges to ensure the prosecution of war crimes? \p Maria Eagle: We have a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which has been signed. That will be supporting it in any way it feels it needs support that we might be able to offer. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question today about what help we have given, but I am absolutely certain that if Ukraine asks us for help and it is considered that our legal profession is able to supply it, we will think about doing so. \p Ben Spencer: Does the Minister not agree that the lesson to draw from this is the importance of military strength, working with all our NATO and European allies, but critically being able to stand on our own two feet militarily? We need to see defence spending as investment, and in that light does she wish we were not giving however many billions of pounds it is to Mauritius and that we could invest that money in our defences instead? \p Maria Eagle: We have a commitment to getting our defence spending back to 2.5% of GDP, and the last time it was at that level was at the time of the last Labour Government. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business? \p Lucy Powell: The business for the week commencing 24 February includes:

Monday 24 February—Remaining stages of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 25 February—Second Reading of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 26 February—Opposition day (5th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 27 February—General debate on the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine, followed by a general debate on St David’s day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 28 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 3 March will include:

Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Tuesday 4 March—All stages of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill.

Wednesday 5 March—Estimates day (1st allotted day). At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Thursday 6 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills. \p Jesse Norman: Like some of our leading podcasters, we love a storm cloud or two in business questions. Sure enough, the poor Government have been desperately hoping that recent events in America would drive the storm clouds away from the UK economy. Even though the news from Washington DC has been startling, to say the least, it has not been enough to dispel yet another week of adverse economic headlines. Both the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England have reportedly downgraded their growth forecasts, the latter cutting its by half, to a measly 0.75% for the year. So much for the Chancellor’s much-vaunted dash for growth.

Meanwhile, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has reported that “zero fiscal headroom remains” to deal with any shocks, in the same week that President Trump has announced 25% tariffs on steel. It is easy to see what has happened here: Labour never expected President Trump to win. It sent a team over to campaign for his opponent. The Government passed an anti-growth Budget, and they did not build enough leeway into their financial planning. Indeed, the Chancellor promised no new taxes or spending. Now we are having to live with the consequences.

It was also hard to miss the continuing controversy that the Attorney General is creating, and harder still not to notice the extremely critical words of his Labour  colleague, Lord Glasman. I do not propose to repeat those words here, but they point to two issues that demand this House’s full and proper attention. In both cases, the concern is not over the legal positions taken by the Attorney General as such, but the contradictions that they offer to the rest of Government policy. People can agree or disagree about the policy, but the contradictions cannot be fudged. They cannot be blamed on others, and they require explanation.

The first contradiction is in relation to international law. On 3 February, the Attorney General told the Council of Europe that the Government would

“never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or refuse to comply with judgments of the court”.

In doing so, he was simply restating settled UK policy for many decades, a fact that he somehow neglected to mention. The difficulty arises, however, because the Government’s new legislation on small boats appears to retain a measure banning migrants from claiming protections under the modern slavery laws. That is a ban that the Prime Minister went out of his way to denounce when it was first introduced in 2023. In his words:

“It is a crying shame that…we face legislation that drives a coach and horses through our world-leading modern slavery framework, which protects women from exploitation.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 295.]

That is quite a U-turn. You see the deeper problem, Mr Speaker. Which is it to be: will the Government abide by international law in this instance and protect women from exploitation, as the Prime Minister said, or will they reverse his newly adopted position in support of the ban?

The second problem relates to domestic law. Last November, the Attorney General strengthened his official guidance to Government lawyers on possible legal risk. He specifically cautioned against offering legal support for policies that have only a tenable case. Elsewhere, he has pledged to restore checks on Executive—that is, Government—action. This comes at a time when the Prime Minister has specifically pledged to end vexatious litigation while building a huge amount of new housing and infrastructure. You see the problem, Mr Speaker. It was the problem that the noble Lord Glasman was pointing out when he praised the rule of law, but not of lawyers. This edict will have a chilling effect on what I think we can already agree is pretty sluggish decision making by Ministers.

Will the Government now take less legal risk, as the Attorney General requires? Will their lawyers now require Ministers to act only when they can defeat a legal challenge, or will they curb the judicial reviews and other legal cases that will otherwise inevitably disrupt their building plans? I do not expect the Leader of the House to tell us how the Government plan to resolve those obvious problems today, but the House would be grateful for a debate in Government time on what on earth the Government’s approach will be to resolving them. \p Lucy Powell: May I first update the House on the work of the Modernisation Committee, which I chair? We established the Committee to rebuild trust in politics, raise standards, improve culture and make Parliament more effective. In recent years, the role of an MP has changed significantly, with many more demands and  expectations in the constituency. The make-up of the Commons has changed a great deal too; many more parties are represented and Members better reflect the country we serve. So how we do things needs to change, too. I thank all of those who contributed to our wide-ranging call for views.

Work is already under way, with the Standards Committee’s inquiry on Members’ outside employment and the Procedure Committee’s inquiry on proxy votes and call lists. Today, we have set out three further areas for consideration: improving accessibility; ensuring that the Chamber remains the crucible of national debate; and how we can provide more certainty on parliamentary business.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points and gave a list of economic statistics. I might give him some alternative ones, if I may. Inflation is down, mortgage rates are coming down, wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years, business investment is at the highest level for 19 years, and the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are both saying that Britain will be Europe’s fastest growing major economy in coming years. He supported the former Prime Minister —not the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is in his place, but the one who crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates flying and inflation to record highs—so I will not take lectures from him.

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman raised the Attorney General. Quite honestly, the way in which the Conservatives and their friends in the right-wing media are trying to undermine the Attorney General is pathetic. They were once the party of law and order, and now they seek to undermine law and order at every turn. As someone who works closely with the Attorney General, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is an asset to the Government and a formidable partner in our attempts to restore integrity to how we make and implement laws in this country. The Conservatives’ laws did not fit that remit, and that is why in many cases they never got off the ground. They were challenged time and again in the courts, wasting everyone’s time and money and not delivering the outcomes that they wanted. We will not take lectures from them on that.

The shadow Leader of the House did not want to talk about the substance of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we debated this week. That is because the previous Government lost control of our borders: net migration rose to a record high of almost 1 million in their last year in office, and small boat crossings increased by one hundredfold. To be fair to him, he knew that the Rwanda plan was a gimmick and would not work—he said as much when he resigned as a Minister—but I am at a loss as to why he and Conservative Front Benchers voted against giving the Border Security Command new counter-terrorism powers and other measures. They are chasing the tail of Reform so much that they are going around in dizzying circles, leaving the incredible sight of the modern Conservative party voting against strengthening our borders.

I also noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take up my invitation last week to celebrate the Leader of the Opposition’s first 100 days in office. Earlier this week, however, he did mark the anniversary of another leader being elected. Those were the days, weren’t they? Back then, the Tory party knew what it stood for—back  when it was a serious party and represented large parts of the country. I am not sure Margaret Thatcher would even recognise the Conservative party today. It is no wonder the Conservatives herald and respect their former leaders far more than their current leader. Let us be honest: like their current leader, their party is a shadow of its former self. \p Navendu Mishra: Women’s centres provide vital support for women facing issues including isolation, domestic abuse, health problems and navigating the social security system, among a wide range of other support. I recently visited Stockport Women’s Centre and want to place on the record my thanks to all the staff and volunteers there who support women from across Stockport. Can we have a debate in Government time on the enormous contribution of organisations that support women in our society, in particular women’s centres across England, and on how to secure the essential funding they need to continue their important work? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the women’s refuge in Stockport on the work it does. He will know that this Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls and that we want to halve those statistics over the next 10 years. That is a huge ambition and will take detailed and committed work, which I know he will join us in doing. \p Marie Goldman: As we now know, local government is being reorganised, and the Labour Government have cancelled local elections while affected councils work out how on earth they will reorganise themselves. Like many residents in these areas, I would have hoped that that plan would have been in place before the elections were cancelled; many issues are very much up in the air, and the public deserve to know what they are in for.

In Woking, for example, successive Conservative administrations at the council racked up £2 billion of debt with absolutely no plan for how to pay it off. In Greater Essex, Conservative-run Thurrock ran up debts of around £1.5 billion largely due to investments in a solar farm that did not exist. With both Essex and Surrey now on the fast track for local government reorganisation, what will happen to those debts?

Last week, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote a letter to all the leaders of the two-tier councils and unitary authorities in Essex, in which he said:

“there is no proposal for council debt to be addressed centrally or written off as part of reorganisation…proposals should reflect the extent to which the implications of this can be managed locally.”

Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to come forward with a statement to confirm that what he really means is that residents across places such as Essex and Surrey will be forced to pay for the incompetence of previous Tory administrations of other councils, and that they are likely to see reduced services and higher council tax bills simply because this Labour Government are determined to press ahead with local government reorganisation but not prepared to offer any financial support to alleviate that? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Lady raises the important issue of local government finances, and she is right to identify the mess those finances were left in by the previous Government. Many councils had to spend their reserves on statutory services, which is not what they are intended for. We saw council after council going bust month after month under the previous Government, and many more were left in severe debt, like the ones she has described.

We have given local government a significant settlement this year, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We need to fix the long-term problems; we need multi-year settlements. I know the transition will be difficult, but the devolution revolution—giving local areas more say and more powers over how they spend and raise their revenue—will, in time, lead to more secure and sustainable funding for local government. I will ensure the relevant Minister comes to this House with regular updates. \p Ian Lavery: At the stroke of a pen, Tory-led Northumberland county council is about to wipe 9,000 people off the county’s housing waiting list. My office is beset by constituents in desperate need of secure and affordable accommodation, but even those in the highest priority bandings are often unable to get the housing they need. This is a simple, callous attempt to massage the huge housing list rather than deal with the issue. Can we have a debate in Government time on how to ensure that those in need of decent, affordable housing are not easily cast aside and thrown on to the scrap heap, as in the case of Northumberland county council? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about what has happened with Northumberland county council and its housing waiting list. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify that waiting lists are far too high and that many people are in desperate need of affordable, social or council housing. That is why the Government are really committed to not just building 1.5 million new homes over the course of the Parliament, but ensuring that we have very many more council houses, affordable houses and social houses. We announced further plans on that this week, and I will ensure that Ministers are accountable on these matters. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: I remind the House that the Backbench Business Committee is taking applications for estimates day debates on 5 March, and that applications close a week tomorrow. We will then consider the applications for debates—we understand that there may be several—at our meeting on 25 February.

In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, on 6 March there will be a debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a debate on political finance rules. On Thursday 13 March, if we are given the time, there will be a debate on the future of farming, followed by a debate on knife crime among children and young people. On a rough calculation, with the queue of applications we have for the Chamber, we have enough business to allocate until the end of June, provided we are given every single available Thursday.

In Westminster Hall when we come back, on Tuesday 25 February there will be a debate on maternity services, followed on the Thursday by a debate on rural crime  and a debate on women’s health. I will leave the other business for when we come back.

On Sunday 23 February, when we are due to come back after recess, the renowned hate preacher Mohamed Hoblos is due to speak in this country. He has been banned in Germany and Holland. The shadow Home Secretary has written to the Home Secretary asking that he be banned from this country. Given that antisemitism is at its highest peak ever and that anti-Muslim hatred is at a peak, it is clear that the last thing we want is someone coming along stirring up racial and religious hatred. Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to encourage the Home Secretary to issue a banning order to prevent this man from coming to this country? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for announcing the forthcoming Backbench Business in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I am sure he will understand that I cannot guarantee him every Thursday between now and the end of June, but we have been allocating Backbench Business debates regularly and often, and hopefully they will be filled in the usual way. I am really glad to hear about the debate on International Women’s Day, which he and I have discussed. I will let colleagues know about this more formally, but we are hoping to arrange to get all the women Members of the House together for a photo in the Chamber to mark International Women’s Day. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Which I have not approved, but I will do now! \p Lucy Powell: Sorry, Mr Speaker. That is why I am not formally announcing it, but saying that we are hoping to. I am gently lobbying for it through your good offices, thank you very much indeed.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raises a serious matter, as he often does, about how we tackle antisemitism and hate speech, and how we take action to ensure that those who are spreading hate and antisemitism are prevented from doing so. I shall certainly raise the matter with the Home Secretary and make sure that he gets a full response. \p Dawn Butler: This week I was visited by some constituents as part of the Board of Deputies of British Jews parliamentary advocacy day. We talked about how great our local multi-faith forum is, and it was suggested that we should have a British-Jewish culture month to celebrate all the multicultural elements and diversity in the Jewish community. One constituent said to me, “You could have two Jewish people in the room and three different opinions.” Would it not be wonderful if we could have that culture month, and could we perhaps spend some Government time discussing it? \p Lucy Powell: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend had such a good meeting with the Board of Deputies, and I thank her for all the work that she does—along with other Members on both sides of the House—to organise multi-faith gatherings and bring people together. She is right to refer to the fantastic contribution that the Jewish community have long made, and continue to make, at the heart of our country, and I am sure that others will support her call for a British-Jewish culture month. \p Rishi Sunak: Last week I met two of my constituents, Mark Farrow and Stephen White, who volunteer for the Driving Ukraine charity, which takes modified vehicles to Ukraine to serve as ambulances and for other humanitarian purposes. Later this month, they will take one more vehicle out, funded by generous donations from local people. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending their efforts, as well as the charitable contributions made by so many across our country in support of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people? May I also thank her for giving us an opportunity to commemorate their efforts during the week following the recess? \p Lucy Powell: Let me take this opportunity to pay my respects to the right hon. Gentleman. The way in which he has conducted himself since leaving office and remained here as a parliamentarian, active on behalf of his constituents, provides a model for others to follow. I do, of course, join him in commending Mark and Steve for the work that they do. The whole House wants to support Ukraine and, indeed, we have continued to do so, as have many of our constituents in a range of ways. I am very pleased that we will have that debate when we return. \p David Baines: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rugby football league, I will start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, and congratulating you on your recent term as president of the Rugby Football League. You have always been a great champion of the greatest game, and I thank you for that. I am sure you are as excited as I am that the season is under way and the super league kicks off tonight.

This year, rugby league celebrates its 130th anniversary. In all that time, no representative of the sport has ever received the highest honour of a knighthood or damehood, although there have been many worthy candidates for those honours and recipients of others, including Billy Boston, Alex Murphy and Kevin Sinfield. Does the Leader of the House share my dismay, frustration and surprise at this oversight? Can she advise me on how best to raise it, and who with, to ensure that our great game and some of the outstanding individuals who represent it receive the recognition that they deserve? \p Lucy Powell: I certainly recognise the issue that my hon. Friend has raised, and I know that you, Mr Speaker, will share some of his views. I am not speaking for you, of course, but I know that we all want to recognise the valuable contribution that rugby league makes to our communities and our country.

It is indeed a surprise that rugby league players have not been honoured in the way that others have. As my hon. Friend will know, I cannot comment on the right of individuals to be awarded honours, but I too think that Kevin Sinfield has been an incredible ambassador not just for sport but for charitable fundraising, and he is definitely someone I think we should all consider. I shall ensure that the powers that be have heard my hon. Friend’s comments, and I will help him to make representations. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Let me just say, as I have been tempted into the conversation, that I have raised this matter with the Prime Minister, because there is a major injustice in the stigma attached to rugby league and the fact that  not one player has ever been knighted. Given that Kevin Sinfield has raised millions for motor neurone disease charities, I should have thought that now is the time and we should wait no longer. \p Ellie Chowns: On Monday, the Home Office published updated guidance that seems to prevent anyone from being granted citizenship if they have come to this country through a dangerous journey, despite the fact that for the vast majority of those seeking refuge, there are no safe and legal routes available. Can we have a debate in Government time on this deeply misjudged policy, and in particular on the call from a former Home Secretary to the current Home Secretary to consider very carefully its implications? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that matter. She will be aware that there are long-standing rules that prevent those who arrive illegally in this country from being granted citizenship. We have strengthened those rules in a small way for those who arrive on small boats, so that they also will not be able to become British citizens. It is important that we take away some of the pull factors that bring people to this country and that we take tough action to control our borders. She makes a very important point about safe routes, which I know the Home Secretary has been taking action on and updates the House on regularly, but I will ensure she continues to do so. \p Meg Hillier: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been in Committee this week, slightly delayed, and for good reason, because it is obviously a very important issue to debate. Can she confirm whether the Government will still wait until the end of the Committee stage before publishing the impact assessment on the Bill? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is right: the Bill has gone into line-by-line consideration in Committee this week. She will be aware that it is a private Member’s Bill and that the Government remain neutral on the issue, as it is a matter of conscience, but the Government have been clear that we will work with the Committee—indeed, there are Ministers on the Committee—to ensure that the Bill is workable and operable, and any such assessments will be made available in due course. \p Wendy Morton: This week is Wear it Red week, an opportunity to show our support for the amazing work of the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity. My question to the Leader of the House—as it is the week before recess, I am being gentle on her—is, will she join me in congratulating and thanking the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity for the amazing work it does in support of my constituents, the wider midlands and our NHS? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the right hon. Lady for being gentle on me—I do not mind her being robust with me either; that is what the job is all about, and I am here for that. I will absolutely join her in congratulating the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity on the critical work it does, often in a voluntary capacity. Had I known it was Wear it Red week, I would have worn one of my red outfits—maybe next time she will let me know. \p Lee Pitcher: Last week was a big one for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. On Tuesday, Mayor Ros Jones announced that Munich Airport International will provide operational and management services for Doncaster Sheffield airport upon its reopening. Then on Thursday, the Chancellor visited Yorkshire wildlife park—it is amazing; come and see it—with Dan Fell and businesses from the chamber of commerce to discuss, among other things, her support for the reopening of the airport. With National Apprenticeship Week currently taking place, it is vital that investment in projects such as this creates skilled jobs in the area. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the importance of creating skilled jobs across the UK, and will she support me and other local MPs as we work with businesses to ensure that apprenticeship opportunities are in place when our airport reopens? \p Lucy Powell: Once again, my hon. Friend lives up to the name I have given him: Mr Doncaster Airport. I am pleased to hear that preparations have moved a step closer for flights coming into Doncaster again. He raises the importance of a project such as Doncaster airport being about not just transport connectivity but bringing jobs and opportunity for young people in the community. I commend him for his work. \p Julian Lewis: I shall try to avoid the temptation to say that when the Leader of the House, in her upbeat way, describes the Attorney General as an asset, we can all agree at least on the first syllable, and instead ask for a debate on—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It took a while! Instead, I will ask for a debate on trends in defence spending during and after the cold war, so that those on both sides of the House have the chance to appreciate that when we are involved in a serious confrontation, we should not be arguing about 2.5%; we should be arguing for a figure much nearer to the 5% that President Trump, for once, is right to demand. \p Lucy Powell: I will ignore the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to say anything other than I absolutely stand by my comment that the Attorney General is a fantastic asset for this Government, and we are lucky to have him working with us.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are absolutely committed to working towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but he is right to point out that defence spending has been too low to meet our country’s strategic needs. He will also know that the last time Government spending on defence reached 2.5% of GDP was under the last Labour Government. It never reached that level under his party. \p Barry Gardiner: Could we have a debate on Thames Water, which provides water disservices to 20 million people in this country? We now know that the company received from bill payers money that was supposed to be spent on environmental measures such as stopping illegal discharges, and that that money has been used to pay bonuses and dividends. We need to discuss whether the people running Thames Water are fit and proper persons to run a public company. \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the way our water industry has been run over recent years is absolutely shocking, with shareholder dividends being  paid out over and above infrastructure spending and addressing discharges and other things in our waterways. It is absolutely shocking, which is why this Government have brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which is about to receive Royal Assent and will stop erroneous bonuses. We have established a new Independent Water Commission, and there are further reforms coming, but I will ensure that the House is kept fully up to date. \p Will Forster: The main road through my constituency of Woking has been closed for the fourth time in short succession following cladding falling off a hotel. Cladding fell off it during construction, and has fallen off it since it opened. The developer, Sir Robert McAlpine, is responsible and seems to be in no rush to fix this problem. Will the Leader of the House please agree to hold a debate on the responsibility of developers? If companies prove that they cannot deliver, they should lose the right to work for the public sector. \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman will know that the cladding scandal is a shocking embarrassment for our country, and we still have some way to go in putting that right. The Government set out a remediation action plan just before Christmas—that is on top of the Building Safety Act 2022, which was passed under the previous Government—but we absolutely need to be able to hold freeholders and developers to account when they put dangerous cladding on buildings and refuse to replace it. \p Rachael Maskell: The Belfrey in York is losing around £1.4 million through the changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme. The National Railway Museum was promised money by the last Government—I appreciate that it was not necessarily real money—but that has been taken away. Both those projects are midway through development. Will the Leader of the House make representations to the Chancellor to say that when projects are under way but have been stripped down after development has started, money should be put in place to ensure that they can be completed? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear what is happening to the Belfrey in York. My hon. Friend will know that we have had to look at making some changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme, but I will certainly ensure that her particular—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) says that the scheme has been cut. In fact, the previous scheme, like many others run by the previous Government, was a work of fiction, and there was not the funding that people thought was there. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a full reply about the particular case that she raises. \p Andrew Snowden: Those who have recently visited the Fylde coast will have seen lots of volunteers burying Christmas trees in the sand, and I am sure Mr Speaker will back me up by confirming that this is not a strange Lancashire tradition. It is actually a fantastic wildlife trust project to vastly extend the sand dunes, which are vital for nature and Fylde’s flood defences. Over the years, more than 11,000 Christmas trees have been buried to help rebuild the sand dunes, 80% of which have been lost over the last 150 years. The project has seen 6 hectares of dunes completely replenished.

The Deputy Prime Minister recently agreed to nip up the road to Fylde to have a pint with me to discuss an issue, so could I tempt the Leader of the House with an ice cream, to come for a walk with me on St Anne’s beach to see this project, to meet some of the fantastic people who have put in more than 10,500 hours of volunteering, and to discuss coastal life? \p Lucy Powell: I have many happy memories of rolling down the sand dunes in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as a child—and as an adult, but the less said about that the better.

I had heard about the project to restore the dunes, but I had not appreciated that so many Christmas trees were being buried. I am always happy to accept such a lovely invitation, but perhaps we can wait until the weather is a bit nicer. \p Matt Western: I am sorry that I forgot to wear red today.

If we are to meet net zero, we need to address the CO2 emissions from our housing stock. We have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe, and it accounts for 17% of our CO2 emissions. As I understand it, one issue is that houses in conservation areas and grade II properties cannot be changed to double glazing or secondary glazing. Can we have a debate on the hundreds of thousands of affected homes across this country? These households want to do the right thing for this country by reducing their CO2 emissions, and they want to reduce their bills. That means changing their glazing—it is as simple as that—so we need to change our planning legislation. \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The warm homes scheme and the other measures that the Government are introducing are vital to reducing our demand for energy, as well as reducing people’s bills.

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and there is always a balance to be struck between keeping people’s homes warm and their bills down, while retaining heritage and other matters. He is right to raise this point, and I will ensure that he gets a full response. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I strongly support the request of the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for a statement on Thames Water. This company pays out its huge profits to shareholders and executives, presides over leaks across the region and pollutes our seas and rivers. To me, it is an example of the disaster of privatising the water industry.

We need a clear statement from the Government that, instead of regulation, they will return Thames Water to public ownership so that the people of London and the whole region can enjoy clean water, and so that our seas will no longer be polluted. \p Lucy Powell: The right hon. Gentleman is right that there have been severe problems, which have let everybody down. The problems, which stem from severe failures in the governance and regulation that underpin the water sector, are completely unacceptable. We passed the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will shortly receive Royal Assent, to stop these erroneous bonuses being paid for poor performance. We will soon be introducing wider water reform, and the measures are currently under review. I will ensure that the House is updated and that the right hon. Gentleman’s opinions are included. \p Graeme Downie: This week, the UK Government announced positive changes to apprenticeships that will cut red tape and increase collaboration between businesses and skills providers, setting more young people on a path to successful careers. In Scotland, by contrast, the last two years have seen delays and freezes on modern apprenticeships, harming people in my constituency and across Scotland. Does the Leader of the House agree that the SNP should follow the lead set by this UK Labour Government and take radical action to support the next generation of the workforce? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Let us be honest: the Scottish Government have failed on apprenticeships, with a 10-year decline in apprenticeship starts and numbers. This new Labour Government are absolutely determined to turn around the problems we have seen with apprenticeships in England and elsewhere. That is why we are unlocking 10,000 new apprenticeship starts this week with some of our changes. The Scottish Government should follow our lead and ensure that young people in Scotland get the opportunities they deserve. \p Andrew Rosindell: I would like the Leader of the House to be made aware that the residents of the Oldchurch estate in Romford have been terribly let down by Sanctuary housing association for months on end, with long delays to urgent repairs leaving residents suffering without heating or hot water throughout winter, as well as malfunctioning lifts rendering disabled residents prisoners in their own homes. As she will know, section 11 of the Housing Act 2004 mandates landlords to carry out essential repairs within a reasonable timeframe, but that is often not enforced in practice, leaving constituents such as mine living in unacceptably poor conditions. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Minister for Housing and Planning to make a statement on that frightful situation and take urgent action to get such a heartbreaking matter resolved as quickly as possible for my constituents? \p Lucy Powell: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that on behalf of his constituents? I am sure it is something that many of us across the House are familiar with. I am really sorry to hear of the poor service and the poor state of repair of houses provided by Sanctuary in his constituency. He will know that that is one reason the Government want to strengthen the rights of renters, whether they be in social or private housing. We are currently taking the Renters’ Rights Bill through both Houses, which will give those living in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency even more rights to ensure that they live in a decent, well-maintained and safe home. \p Julie Minns: Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that I and many new Members have been grateful over the last seven months for your guidance and for the support from your teams in helping us get to grips with the rules and procedures of this place, which I know the Leader of the House is committed to ensuring are upheld and respected at all times. I imagine that my right hon. Friend therefore shares my concern that last night’s political broadcast from the Conservative party not only extensively featured the use of a taxpayer-funded ministerial car, but was filmed in part on the parliamentary estate in Speaker’s Court, in direct contravention, as I understand it, of the rules of this House. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the matter is fully investigated? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter, which has very recently come to light. She is absolutely right; that is against protocol. It is against the protocol of this House to speak without permission, particularly in Speaker’s Court. If the Leader of the Opposition is hearing this today, she should offer Mr Speaker a full and speedy apology. Also, we have high standards that we are all judged by and using ministerial and publicly paid-for cars for party political campaigning purposes is not allowed—and rightly so, because our constituents would not expect that to be the case. I hope the Leader of the Opposition has heard my hon. Friend’s question today and takes action to put that right. \p David Mundell: With grateful thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, I am leading a debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon on HIV Testing Week. The all-party parliamentary group on HIV, Aids and sexual health is keen to highlight the week and very much welcomes the test taken by the Prime Minister as part of highlighting that facility. In poorer countries, however, tests and treatment are only available thanks to the resources from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Given the uncertainty of funding from the United States, can the Leader of the House ensure that a statement comes forward about the UK’s approach to the replenishment of the Global Fund? This time around, the UK’s leadership will be vital if the fund is to be sustained. \p Lucy Powell: First, let me say that I have brought up with Ministers the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised with me last week about the Hughes report. I hope that he and I will get a full reply on that. He yet again raises an important matter, and I congratulate him on securing a Westminster Hall debate on it this afternoon. HIV testing is very important. I was so proud that ours was the first Prime Minister to take a public HIV test; that will encourage others to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is our mission to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. He raises important matters to do with the Global Fund. We support funding for it, and I will ensure that he is updated on how we will continue with that. \p Gurinder Josan: As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on semiconductors, it was a pleasure to join colleagues in welcoming academics, industrialists, researchers and manufacturers to a reception in the Palace this week to celebrate semiconductors. The UK has very real strength in this area. Our research base is the best in the world. Our manufacturing base, too, is world-beating, and we have semiconductor clusters across the UK, securing us high-quality employment in the compound semiconductor field. However, at the event, we were told that the industrial strategy mentions semiconductors only once. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers are aware that a reliable supply chain for the high-quality semiconductor industry is important for our drive to become more self-sufficient in green energy, defence and other sectors, and for our growth agenda? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the vital role for semiconductors in future technologies and in our current industry. We are a world leader in this space, particularly in his region. Semiconductors  are covered in our industrial strategy; we have a new one for the first time in many years, and academia, business and others rightly welcome it. This is also about our economic security—making sure that we have these home-grown technologies and all that is needed to support them. I will ensure that he gets a full reply. \p Robbie Moore: This year marks the 160th anniversary of Ilkley train station, a vital transport link for my town. I am delighted to say that Steven Thornton—I met him again just last Saturday—and his wider team at the Friends Of Ilkley Rail Station are pressing ahead with developing a business case for improving interconnectivity between the train station and the buses that pick up from the adjoining street. This will improve accessibility and make the station a more inviting and user-friendly place for all. They are also trying to get toilets at Ilkley train station. Can we have a debate in Government time on how Government can support these vital projects in getting off the ground? \p Lucy Powell: May I join the hon. Member in congratulating the Friends of Ilkley Train Station on all that they are doing to improve the experience for train users? The interchange with local buses is absolutely vital. I strongly support the provision of public toilets—lack of toilets is a particular bugbear of mine. This Government are taking great steps to ensure access for all on our transport network, including at Ilkley train station. \p Luke Akehurst: My constituents in North Durham have endured months of inadequate services by Go North East. There have been widespread and last-minute bus cancellations, resulting in people missing school, work and health appointments. This issue is raised with me more than anything else at the moment. Can we have a debate in Government time about the reliability of bus services and the measures in place for holding operators to account for such poor service? \p Lucy Powell: Affordable, reliable, local bus services are of great importance to all our constituents, and clearly to my hon. Friend’s constituents as well. I am sorry to hear of the poor service that they have received. This Government are absolutely committed to delivering more reliable, affordable buses. We have brought forward the Bus Services (No.2) Bill, which, hopefully, will come before the House soon, and we have put in an extra £1 billion of investment. That is only the start. We really need to ensure that communities like my hon. Friend’s are better served with better buses. \p John Lamont: Will the Leader of the House allow time for us to debate the importance of small businesses to the rural economy? The annual Countryside Alliance awards celebrate rural businesses, communities and individuals who make significant contributions to the countryside. This year, I am delighted to report that there are four finalists from the Scottish Borders: the Gordon Arms, the Allanton Inn, Scott’s of Kelso, and Andersen & Sondergaard Wild Game Charcuterie. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those businesses on reaching the final, and agree that this is yet another fantastic reason to visit the Scottish Borders? \p Lucy Powell: This is becoming a weekly occurrence, but I have to say that today’s offer of an invitation is one that I really could take up. Visiting the hospitality businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that have made the final of the Countryside Alliance awards would be fantastic. I congratulate them on getting so far. \p Leigh Ingham: This week, Pub Aid announced the finalists of the community pub hero awards. There were more than 1,000 entries, and I am over the moon to be able to say that the Bird in Hand pub in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages is one of the 31 finalists. It is an incredible venue that does so much for the community in Stafford, and particularly for the Royal British Legion. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the importance of pubs to their local communities, and will she visit the Bird in Hand with me when she next comes to Stafford? \p Lucy Powell: I am getting a lot of invitations to pubs today. I have become a complete lightweight, so I am generally on zero-alcohol beer these days, but the Bird in Hand in Stafford sounds like a great hospitality venue. I congratulate it on being shortlisted. Pubs really are at the heart of our communities; they provide great fare and great company, and are a warm place for many people in these winter months. I think my hon. Friend might be inviting me to her constituency soon anyway; I am sure that we can pay a visit to the Bird in Hand soon. \p Luke Evans: May I ask the Leader of the House for the help of her office, please? The Government have produced an elective reform plan, a key plank of which is having 10 direct-to-test pathways. I have written two parliamentary questions to find out what is being considered, and have been told that 10 pathways are under consideration. I raised the matter with the Health Secretary directly this week. He answered:

“If he wants to do a pop quiz, he can use Google.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 155.]

Google says that plans for 10 pathways are being considered. Here is why it matters: the plan had one example that was found to be unsafe, was met with outcry from doctors, and has been removed. How can this House and the public hold the Government to account if we do not get answers to questions? I know that the Health Secretary has been under a lot of pressure. He has lost a Health Minister, and Prime Minister Llama—I mean Starmer—has produced a new one, but that is no excuse for the Health Secretary not being across the detail. Will the Leader of the House kindly write to him to ask what 10 tests are being considered, so that we can scrutinise them properly in this House? \p Lucy Powell: I think I will swerve the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to make a party political point, because it is really not becoming of him on this occasion. He raises a serious matter, and he knows that I take very seriously the issue of parliamentary questions being answered in a timely and forthcoming way, with the information that the Member of Parliament is asking for actually provided in the answer. If that has not happened in this  case, I will absolutely take that up with the Health Secretary and ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets the full reply that he needs. \p Mark Sewards: A couple of weeks ago at my surgery in Wortley, I met a resident who had been waiting 26 weeks for a hip operation. Sadly, he had just found out that he had at least another 40 weeks to wait. During our meeting, it was clear that he was in pain. He was on strong medication, but his eyes watered every time he made any sort of movement that involved his hip. I am proud to be part of a Government who have put so much money into the NHS to bring waiting lists down, but given my constituent’s situation, and that of many people like him, please can we have a debate in Government time on the urgent need to spend that money and get waiting lists down as quickly as possible? \p Lucy Powell: The figures are shocking: over 7 million people are, like my hon. Friend’s constituent, on NHS waiting lists. Behind every single one of them is a story like the one he describes—someone in pain, someone debilitated, someone unable to work or get on with their life. That is why getting the waiting lists down is one of the Government’s first priorities. We have set an elective reform plan, and we want to hit the 18-week referral target by the end of this Parliament. That is incredibly ambitious. I hope that, thanks to those ambitious plans, his constituent gets the hip replacement that he desperately needs. \p Ashley Fox: Ben and Amy Branson are my constituents. Their daughter Bethany was 19 when she was killed by a drunk driver on 8 November 2022. The driver crashed his van into a car and fled the scene, before skipping a red light and crashing a second time into several cars, one of which was carrying Bethany. At the scene of his arrest, the driver admitted guilt and said:

“I hope I killed someone. Oh well, you know what, I will get three, four, five years. Hopefully I killed them.”

Despite his admission of guilt at the scene and there being no doubt as to his crime, he was still entitled to a one third reduction in his sentence as a result of his guilty plea, so 15 years were reduced to 10 years, and with good behaviour he could serve as little as six years and eight months in prison. Bethany’s family do not believe that that reflects the severity and heartbreak of his crime. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on sentencing policy? \p Lucy Powell: My heart goes out to Bethany’s family. What a heartbreaking and appalling case. Every single one of us can relate to what an awful tragedy that is for the family, and how it is made worse by what seems to be a shocking injustice in how the offender was sentenced. The hon. Gentleman will know that these matters were raised many times in previous Parliaments, which strengthened sentencing, but perhaps we need to go further. A sentencing review is taking place, and the House will be updated on that. There will be further legislation, and he could raise these matters further during proceedings on it. We need to do more to reduce tragic deaths like the one that he describes, and to deter people from drink-driving and dangerous driving. \p Christopher Bloore: My constituents are incredibly proud of our non-league football club, Redditch United. Led by chairman Dave Faulkner, the Valley stadium hosts thousands of young boys and girls playing football, hosts learners with special educational needs and disabilities, and is a hub for local businesses. Recently the club even secured a kit sponsorship with the Reddit r/football community. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on how the Government can support non-league football clubs, which are so often the beating heart of local communities? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those at Redditch United on all their work. Grassroots sport and non-league football clubs are at the heart of our communities and what we do. The Football Governance Bill will come to this House from the Lords very soon. I am sure that will be a great opportunity for him to mention the important work that Redditch United does. \p Emma Foody: Year 4 pupils from Burnside primary school in Cramlington recently got in touch with me. In their geography lessons, they have been studying our local rivers and waterways, and they are really concerned about pollution and the difficulties created by the poor treatment of those waterways. May we have a debate on the Government’s action to address those pupils’ concerns by cleaning up our rivers, seas and waterways? \p Lucy Powell: I know that young people, including those at Burnside school, are incredibly worried about our waterways. The pollution in our rivers and seas is absolutely unacceptable. This Government are cleaning up the mess left by the previous Government. Through the Water (Special Measures) Bill, we are taking tough action against water companies for discharge and pollution. Further measures will come soon. \p Jim Shannon: I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We have started the Prisoner of Conscience scheme, in collaboration with ADF International. I wish to highlight the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a musician and follower of Sufi Islamic beliefs who was arrested and sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2022. In January 2021, a higher court in Kano state overturned Sharif-Aminu’s conviction. Despite that, he remains in prison and faces a retrial under laws that violate both the Nigerian constitution and international human rights standards. Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy and a key UK trade partner, so will the right hon. Lady raise with her Cabinet colleagues the potential economic and business implications for international companies operating in northern Nigeria if the Supreme Court there upholds the constitutionality of blasphemy laws, and the impact that might have on investor confidence, corporate social responsibility commitments and long-term business stability? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman will know, I am sure, that the UK Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, including in the case that he raises. The right of individuals to express their belief or non-belief is essential to a free and open society. We have raised, and will continue to raise, those matters with the Nigerian Government. I thank him for raising them today. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Before I call the next Member, I remind the House that we need to finish in the next 15 or 20 minutes, so I would appreciate it if Members kept their questions short—as would their colleagues. \p Joe Morris: The recent news of the loss of three bank branches in my constituency further illustrates the crisis facing communities, including in the Tyne valley, of growing banking deserts. May we have a debate in Government time about the need for access to cash, not only for older people but for those starting businesses, those purchasing houses and those who need to access face-to-face banking services, to promote growth in rural areas? \p Lucy Powell: Protecting vital banking services is important for local communities like my hon. Friend’s. We are accelerating the roll-out of at least 350 banking hubs, more than 100 of which are already open, and plans were announced at the end of last year to open a banking hub in his constituency.[Official Report, 11 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 10WC.] (Correction) \p Josh Dean: This week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Hertford regional college campus in Ware. I met some of its talented hairdressing apprentices and instructors, heard about how they are filling jobs at small and medium-sized enterprises in our community, and discussed HRC’s apprenticeship offer to my constituents. As we mark National Apprenticeship Week, will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Hertford and Stortford’s apprentices, and will she allow for a debate in Government time on how the Government’s apprenticeships and skills offer will drive growth and help to deliver our plan for change? \p Lucy Powell: As my hon. Friend can see, I am particularly keen on hairdressing apprenticeships. Hairdressing is one thing that we will never be able to do on the internet, so it is a job for life for people who go down that route. He is absolutely right that we need to open up more apprenticeship opportunities to more young people. That is why, as we mark National Apprenticeship Week, we have announced changes to flexibility on maths and English requirements, which we think will open up far more opportunities for young people such as those in his constituency. \p Johanna Baxter: Last weekend, Renfrewshire council confirmed a case of H5N1 avian influenza at Castle Semple loch in Lochwinnoch in my constituency. That outbreak’s proximity to RSPB Scotland Lochwinnoch nature reserve has raised serious concern in the local area. What steps are the UK Government taking to engage with the Scottish Government on that matter, and what action are they taking to support conservation organisations and farmers in Scotland in respect of avian flu? \p Lucy Powell: The outbreaks of avian flu in recent years have been incredibly difficult for the birdkeepers on the frontline of that terrible disease. My hon. Friend will know that disease control is a devolved matter, but an animal disease policy group co-ordinates the response  across the devolved nations and with the UK Government. I will continue to ensure that she is updated on those matters. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of sport in the community, and particularly of sustainable community-focused programmes? That is particularly pertinent for my constituency given that the fantastic Caerau Ely AFC is taking on Connah’s Quay Nomads FC in the quarter-finals of the Welsh cup on Sunday. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Caerau Ely all the best for Sunday? \p Lucy Powell: I wish Caerau Ely all the best for this weekend’s game. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that grassroots sports play such an important role across our communities for young people, particularly in keeping them fit and healthy and giving them the skills for life they need, including through team sports. That is why the Government continue to be committed to grassroots sport. \p Sonia Kumar: Last weekend, I went to see Dudley Town FC draw 1-1 at home against Lichfield City. Unfortunately, that “home game” was not within the constituency. In fact, Dudley has not had a stadium in the constituency for decades, despite being established in 1888. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on grassroots football and how we can bring clubs like mine back home where they belong? \p Lucy Powell: I hope that the club will one day be back in the constituency. She is right to raise such matters. Grassroots sports and football are important to the Government. That is why we are bringing forward the Football Governance Bill, among other things, and there are routes to clubs like hers getting the funding support to bring them home. \p Louise Jones: Last week, I had the honour of visiting Unstone junior school in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the staff. There was also the opportunity for some of the children to ask me questions, and a range of issues were raised, including the environment. Crucially, I was asked this question: what more can we do to support the school in providing healthy eating and, in particular, allowing the children to have watermelon and strawberries for their lunch? \p Lucy Powell: I would strongly encourage the young people of my hon. Friend’s constituency to have access to watermelon and strawberries for lunch. How refreshing that is, because they would certainly not be at the top of my children’s list of things for lunch, so the school is obviously doing a great job on educating its young people on healthy eating. \p Rachel Hopkins: UK Sport-supported events generated £373 million in 2023 alone. Luton Hoo in my constituency is bidding to be a venue for the 2031 Ryder cup. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on attracting major international sporting events to the  UK as part of supporting our growth agenda, attracting local investment, providing good jobs and inspiring pride in local communities? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. England has not hosted the Ryder cup since 2002. I know that Luton Hoo has a strong bid to host it, and I wish it the very best. She is absolutely right that big sporting events bring huge amounts of regeneration, economic input, jobs and opportunities, as well as giving pride in place for constituents like hers. \p Sarah Edwards: Tamworth town centre is being obliterated by roadworks that started on Monday. Staffordshire county council has not properly consulted or informed schools, businesses, residents or the borough council. A hotel has lost £700 of business in 24 hours; traffic is at a standstill; and roadworks are going through the night—my community is rightly up in arms. Can we have a statement on how the Government are holding councils to account to ensure that they are not undermining the Government’s growth agenda around core administration and planning, particularly around roadworks? \p Lucy Powell: This issue will be familiar to many of us in the House. Poorly carried out roadworks can cause a great deal of disruption to people and businesses, like those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I hope that her local council will have heard her call, and I encourage the council to get a grip of this project so it does not cause such disruption. \p Josh MacAlister: Last year, the Government announced an extra £1 million for boosted antisocial-behaviour patrols across Cumbria, which was extremely welcome. Since then, we have seen a huge reduction in antisocial behaviour in those hotspots in Cleator Moor, Workington and Whitehaven. Under the leadership of the brilliant Labour police commissioner in Cumbria and the Government’s support, we are putting an extra £1.7 million in for the coming year. Would the Leader of the House thank the members of the public who have come forward to report crime and share intelligence and thank the officers who have done so much to bring down crime? \p Lucy Powell: I am pleased to hear that action is being taken in my hon. Friend’s constituency on crime and antisocial behaviour, because it is such a blight on our communities and gets raised with us as Members of Parliament all the time. As part of our safer streets mission, the Government are committed to reducing antisocial behaviour and crime. My hon. Friend described some of the measures that we have brought in, and many more will be in the upcoming crime and policing Bill, including respect orders, dispersal orders and tough action on quad bikes. \p Alice Macdonald: My constituent David Freeman is a nuclear test veteran who was deployed to Christmas island. Since he returned, he has faced a range of health issues, including cancer. He was rightly awarded the nuclear test medal, but much more needs to be done to recognise and compensate veterans like David. Like many, he has been unable to access his medical records. Will the Leader of the  House join me in thanking David and all nuclear test veterans, and will she provide time for an update on this important issue, including on medical records and compensation? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking David and all our nuclear test veterans. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they did and what they put themselves through for this country. We are looking into the unresolved questions about the medical records. It is a priority, and I hope that the House will be updated on the matter as soon as there is something to say. \p Sojan Joseph: I welcome the announcement that there will be a public inquiry into what led to the tragic killing of three people in Nottingham in 2023. This follows the publication of the independent mental health homicide review into the case last week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or statement to consider the findings of the review to ensure that, while the public inquiry takes place, important lessons are learned immediately in every part of the mental health system to prevent similar cases? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences once again to the families of those who were killed in that horrific attack. The Prime Minister met those families this week, and he confirmed that a retired judge will be appointed in due course, that the process will begin to ensure there is a proper inquiry, and that the families get answers to all those unanswered questions. The details of the inquiry will be announced to Parliament in due course, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is informed. \p Jonathan Pearce: Conservative-led Derbyshire county council is axing care services. At Thomas Fields care centre in Buxton, the council is cutting residential beds and dementia beds, meaning that Alan and June, who are 96 and 91, have been married for 72 years and have never been apart, will be separated. Will the Leader of the House support a debate in Government time to protect care services across Conservative-led Derbyshire and help Alan and June stay together? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear of what could happen to Alan and June—it is just unthinkable—and of the proposed closure of the care home. It will not help my hon. Friend’s constituents right now, but the Government are obviously committed to sorting out the social care crisis, and that is why we have a special commission led by Baroness Louise Casey. But I hope that Derbyshire county council has heard his question and will ensure that every step is taken to ensure that his constituents can stay together in the final days of their lives. \p Warinder Juss: I was pleased to support the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on Monday to deliver on our election promise of implementing the Border Security Command, tackling the organised immigration crime gangs and bringing order to our asylum and immigration system. However, for most people, it is not possible to claim asylum from outside the UK, which means that any asylum seeker has to make their way to this country  first before they can claim asylum. That has led to many calls, including from MPs, to provide safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. Does the Leader of the House agree that after achieving border security, we need to have a debate on providing an alternative way of seeking asylum so that genuine asylum seekers do not feel the need to risk their lives crossing the channel in small, unsafe boats to claim asylum? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do need to take further steps to secure our borders, because the levels of illegal immigration coming into this country are not acceptable. That undermines the whole system that he has described, and trust in that system, which is there for those who need it most and are fleeing persecution, or who want to make a home for themselves in this country. We will always do our bit to help those who are fleeing persecution. It is a long-standing policy that those who arrive in this country illegally are not eligible for citizenship, but I will certainly make sure that the Home Secretary keeps the House updated on these important matters. \p Alison Taylor: Corseford college in my constituency is Scotland’s only further education college for people with complex and additional needs. After an anxious few months, that college has learned that funding has been secured for the next two years. Does the Leader of the House agree that colleges such as Corseford need long-term security of funding to plan and build their support for people with complex needs in Scotland, and would she be willing to have a debate on long-term support for college services for young adults with complex and additional needs? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. Colleges such as Corseford in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which provide education and support for those with complex needs, are vital for our young people, and I am sorry to hear about the uncertainty it has faced. This Government have boosted funding for colleges, but this is a devolved matter, so I hope that the Scottish Government, who have now received a significant increase to their funding, will follow suit and ensure that colleges such as Corseford are secured for the long term. \p Paul Davies: Yesterday, I hosted “Taste of Colne Valley”, at which we celebrated the rich diversity of local businesses, featuring J Brindon Addy butchers, Zapato Brewing, Longley Farm and Dark Woods Coffee. People were able to come along and sample home-made sausage rolls, yoghurt, IPAs and coffee. That event emphasised how important it is to support locally run businesses in our communities, something I have long advocated. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss the significance of supporting local businesses? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely—I am all for supporting local businesses, especially ones that serve sausage rolls and beer. I am sure we can all be encouraged to continue to do that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: shopping local and shopping independent supports our vital high streets in communities such as his, and I am sure that we all welcome his comments. \p James Asser: As we have heard, it is National Apprenticeship Week. In constituencies such as mine, apprenticeships are hugely important for people securing good jobs underpinned by strong skills. Given the Government’s commitment to growth, supported by a lot of infrastructure projects and building, does the Leader of the House agree that we need to make sure that an apprenticeship scheme is embedded in each of those projects, so that we are building not just infrastructure but jobs and skills? Will she use her good offices to make sure that challenge is picked up across Government? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. Without apprenticeship reform, and without increasing the number of young people who can access apprenticeships, we will not be able to meet our big ambitions for house building, infrastructure and other programmes. That is why we have begun the process of reform: we have made announcements this week about functional English and maths, the Bill to establish Skills England will come before the House after we return from recess, and there are many other things that we are doing. I join my hon. Friend in that call. \p Luke Murphy: On 1 April, Tory-run Hampshire county council will remove the ability of those with disabilities to use their concessionary bus pass before 9.30 am. Multiple constituents have written to me in great distress about the impact this will have on them and their family members. One mother wrote to me to tell me how that bus pass has given her daughter, who has autism and learning difficulties, incredible opportunities and independence, including access to education. I am calling on Hampshire county council to think again. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to debate this important issue? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear that Hampshire county council has removed the ability of disabled people to use their concessionary bus pass before 9.30 am. That decision is of great concern; it flies in the face of what that this Government—and, in fact, this country—should be seeking to do, which is to support those with disabilities to get an education, in order to help them to work. Clearly, this decision goes in the opposite direction. \p Judith Cummins: Before I call Helena Dollimore to ask the final question, I would like to note that we have got 55 people in. I thank the Leader of the House very much for her persistence and her devotion to business questions. \p Helena Dollimore: At a time when local news organisations are closing or being cut back, we in my constituency of Hastings, Rye and the villages are very lucky to have two fantastic independent news organisations, Rye News and the Hastings Independent Press, both of which are celebrating their 10th anniversary. They are volunteer-led, and those volunteers do a huge job, updating the community on what is going on and holding people such as myself to account. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing them a happy 10th birthday and thanking them for all their hard work? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking Rye News and the Hastings Independent Press, on the occasion of their 10th anniversary, for all the amazing work they  do. She is absolutely right that local journalism—however difficult it might be at times for us as local MPs—is vital to our media and our communities in unearthing and reporting on important stories that are often missed by many. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to provide an update to the House on the progress made to provide compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal.

In May 2024, the infected blood inquiry’s report exposed a catalogue of failures at the systematic, collective and individual levels. Thousands of lives were needlessly lost, and too many people continue to suffer as a result of failures stretching back decades. I welcome the commitment across the House to holding the Government to account on responding to the inquiry’s recommendations, and I will continue to provide regular updates on the Government’s progress.

In December 2024, I published the Government’s response to the infected blood inquiry. In that response, on behalf of the UK Government and working closely with the devolved Governments, I accepted either in full or in principle all 12 of the inquiry’s recommendations. I will provide a further update on those recommendations in May of this year, as requested by the inquiry.

I will now update the House specifically on the inquiry’s recommendation on compensation. In August 2024, I established the infected blood compensation scheme in regulations. That enabled the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making compensation payments to people who are infected. I was pleased that IBCA delivered on our shared commitment to make the first compensation payments by the end of last year. That was a significant step, and the work to progress payments quickly continues as an absolute priority.

Yesterday, I laid before Parliament the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. As those regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, there will be an opportunity for parliamentarians to debate and approve them before they become law. When laying before the House the previous regulations to establish the scheme for people who are infected and are claiming compensation under the core route, I made a commitment on the Floor of this House that those regulations would come into force by 31 March, subject to parliamentary approval. I would welcome the support of the House in approving those regulations, enabling us to deliver compensation to those who deserve it as quickly as possible.

I am fully aware of how important it is to the House, and to the many victims of this appalling scandal, that the Government provide clear and regular updates on our progress in establishing the infected blood compensation scheme. I have therefore come before the House today to explain the steps that have been taken and what they mean.

Once approved by Parliament and in force, the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 will provide IBCA with the powers it needs to begin making payments to eligible affected people. By way of a reminder, those affected include partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. Those people have suffered terribly from the impact of infected blood on their loved ones, and these regulations mark a significant milestone for them. The Government will do all we can to support IBCA’s aim of the first compensation payments  to eligible affected people being made before the end of this year, and by laying these regulations we are a step closer to achieving that aim.

As we set out in August, the infected blood compensation scheme is tariff-based. The tariffs are intended to work in a way that would be appropriate for the majority of people applying to the scheme. However, we know that the impact infected blood has on people’s lives varies hugely. Each person’s experience is unique and heart- breaking, and the Government recognise that there are some exceptional cases where the level of compensation offered through the core route does not sufficiently address a person’s individual circumstances. For that reason, the Government have provided for higher levels of compensation for specific awards through the supplementary route, where people can demonstrate their eligibility. The regulations I have laid before Parliament set out the details of that supplementary route.

Once in force, the regulations will allow IBCA to make payments to eligible people through both the core and supplementary routes. All applicants will need to go through their initial core route assessment before applying to the supplementary route, but doing so will not delay payment of that initial core compensation offer. The regulations I have laid propose to restate and consolidate the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, which were approved by Parliament in October last year. We have done that primarily for reasons of simplicity. Having a single set of regulations that consolidates the provisions means that it has been possible to cover all compensation routes for all eligible people in a single place.

Alongside the draft regulations, yesterday we published an accompanying explanatory memorandum and equalities impact assessment. We also updated the compensation scheme explainer on gov.uk. I have heard from the community the importance of a simpler document, so I commit today to the publishing of a wider, simpler document. I have already engaged with several hon. and right hon. Members across the House in recent days, and I will continue to do so on the substance of these regulations in the coming weeks.

I would also like to welcome the progress being made in delivering compensation. In addition to the over £1 billion of interim compensation payments that have been paid so far, IBCA has now invited 113 people to claim compensation. So far, 23 offers have been made, totalling over £34 million, and 14 offers have been accepted and paid, totalling over £13 million. IBCA remains on track to invite 250 people to apply by the end of March, and it will continue to publish its monthly statistics on its website. However, this is only the beginning, and there is much more work to do.

This week, IBCA set out its plans to open the compensation service in stages to make sure it is effective and secure for all those claiming. This decision was taken independently of the Government by the IBCA board. The groups that IBCA will work through as it builds the claim service will be as follows. The first will be people who are living infected and are already registered with a support scheme. IBCA already has the details of those people through the infected blood support schemes, and it began making payments to this group in 2024. IBCA intends to accelerate the number of claims it is processing from April.

The second stage will be people making supplementary claims. The regulations I am laying provide IBCA with the ability to process these claims. As IBCA develops its service, this will it to process the different types of evidence needed for supplementary claims and allow people to settle their claims in full as quickly as possible. People who have registered estates are in the third group IBCA has set out. This is where an estate has already been verified as eligible for compensation through the interim payment scheme that I announced in October last year. This will ensure that significant compensation can reach multiple people, who could include both those who are infected and those who are affected.

People who are affected and linked to a registered infected person or a registered estate will be in the fourth group. If an infected person or an estate is registered, this will allow IBCA to progress an affected person’s claim more quickly. The fifth group that the service will be developed for is people who are infected, but not registered with a support scheme. The sixth group will be people who are either applying on behalf of an infected person who has not previously been registered with an infected blood support scheme, or people who are affected and not linked to a registered claim. IBCA expects that it may take slightly longer to work through the claims of people who have not previously been registered for compensation.

The IBCA board assures me that this is in no way intended as a prioritisation of different claimants, but is the best way of building the service so that IBCA can get to the point where it can progress all claims as quickly as possible. Crucially, it does not mean that all claims in each group need to be finished before developing and opening the service for the next group.

IBCA has communicated its decision on its website and through the regular community update, and it has written to members of the infected blood community and right hon. and hon. Members with whom it has previously engaged to inform them of its plans. Determining these groupings is a heavy responsibility, and I am pleased that IBCA sought feedback from the infected blood community in reaching this decision. The community must, after all, be kept at the centre of all this work.

While the roll-out of the scheme is an operational decision for IBCA as an independent body, I fully support its commitment to moving forward as swiftly as possible, and I was encouraged to see the dedication of its staff and leadership in my visit to the organisation last month. As compensation applications increase, I know that IBCA is determined to ensure payments are made to people as soon as possible. I will set out more detail on this in due course, but it will include key performance indicators that IBCA will be working towards to make sure that compensation claims are dealt with effectively and efficiently. Of course, decisions on the parameters of and eligibility for the scheme remain ones for the Government, subject to parliamentary approval, as is set out in the regulations I have laid, and are not impacted by IBCA’s decisions.

Let me conclude by saying that in laying these regulations, we are one step closer to having the entire infected blood compensation scheme fully established in law. I understand the importance of providing an opportunity for everyone across the House to debate this matter. This will be another significant moment for all those who have waited too long. On 30 January, I was able to  meet a number of representatives from the community to update them on the Government’s plans. As ever, I found it an invaluable experience, and I am hugely grateful to those who shared their thoughts and experiences.

On my appointment to this role in July, I was determined to meet the first statutory deadline of 24 August for the first set of regulations. Over the past seven months, I have been insistent to my officials and the community on the importance of making sure that, after 40 years of injustice, justice is now finally being delivered and compensation rightly being paid. The Budget announced £11.8 billion of funding for this compensation scheme, showing the scale of this Government’s commitment to concrete action. I hope parliamentarians across both Houses will support the regulations, so we can finally focus solely on delivering compensation to those who have waited for justice for far too long. I commend this statement to this House. \p Judith Cummins: I remind the Minister that statements should be limited to 10 minutes and that it is courteous to let the Speaker’s Office know if a statement will exceed this time. The Opposition will of course be allocated additional time. I call the shadow Minister. \p Mike Wood: I thank the Minister for his very thorough statement and for advance sight of it.

I want to start by thanking the campaigners and victims who have spent years pushing for justice for this terrible tragedy that occurred over a number of decades. The previous Conservative Government took the first steps towards recognising the horrific wrong inflicted on so many patients and their loved ones in opening and concluding the inquiry into the infected blood scandal, but particular acknowledgement must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) who worked so hard when he was Paymaster General to make sure that victims and their families could at last receive some degree of justice.

I welcome the progress the Government have made since the election. Parliamentary politics inevitably focuses on division and there is plenty on which we profoundly disagree with the Government, but on this matter we speak as one. There is nothing of substance that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are doing that is meaningfully different from what we would have done if we had still been in government. We will of course review the legislation on the next stage of the infected blood compensation scheme, but the Minister and all who are campaigning for justice can be assured that we will support the Government in their efforts.

We welcome the start of compensation payments by IBCA, but we know that victims have raised concerns about the pace of processing applications for compensation. I hope the Minister can confirm what measures he is putting in place to ensure that the processing capacity within the authority is adequate and that application processing can be sped up, because the next phase of the compensation framework will mean that applications to the authority could increase by tens of thousands. All victims and their families need to know what is being done to ensure that those claims can be processed at pace.

I am concerned by reports that only a very small fraction of those who may be eligible to claim compensation have been contacted so far; one estimate puts it as low as 0.2% of possible claimants, although I recognise that such estimates can sometimes be out of date. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the percentage of those believed to be eligible who have been contacted so far. I know that the Minister will understand the need for the Government to communicate clearly to all who may be eligible to encourage them to apply.

That reinforces the importance that must be placed on processing claims quickly. Those who are eligible must have confidence that their claims will be accurately and quickly processed so that they receive the payment they are entitled to as soon as possible. I appreciate, of course, the staged manner in which the authority is taking claims and the need to prioritise certain claims, but I hope the Government can reiterate clearly that no one needs to worry about the capacity within the authority and the system, particularly in relation to claims that will be processed in the later stages.

I ask the Minister to offer some clarity on his assessment of whether the funding allocated so far will cover all the expected claims. We know that up to 140,000 relatives could apply for compensation as a result of the planned expansion of claim eligibility. While the Government understandably cannot provide an exact estimate of the total funding required, that would go some way to offering reassurance to victims and their families that the funding for the authority to compensate in full all who suffered harm or loss and for all the operational requirements of the authority is properly provided for.

All of us in this House understand the scale and damage of this scandal and recognise the immense efforts of victims and their families in pushing for justice, and we welcome the laying of the regulations. I conclude by repeating my assurance on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we will work with the Government to ensure that everyone who is eligible is aware and that they receive the compensation that they need and deserve as quickly as possible. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will make sure that your stricture about time is properly communicated across Government, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I start by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) about my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who did so much in government to push this forward? Just as I offered cross-party support when shadowing him, the continued cross-party support today is very important in respect of the speed at which we are able to push forward with the legal framework we are putting in place.

On the issue of speed, I am restless for progress. While IBCA is of course an arm’s length body and has operational independence, I will none the less have more to say in due course about key performance indicators, as the House will want to continue to raise the speed of payments being made to constituents.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about clarity of communication. I am forever emphasising the need for simple explainer documents on what are complex regulations. Finally, the Government have already  allocated £11.8 billion in funding for the operation of IBCA and for compensation, and we are committed to compensate all the victims of this terrible scandal. \p Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the progress he has made in seven months, not least on the £11.8 billion he secured in the Budget; he deserves credit for that. It is regrettable that we lost a year from Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report in which he gave his final recommendations on compensation, stating that the Government had no reason to delay setting up the compensation process. I know my right hon. Friend is aware that there are still concerns about the tariff, particularly among those infected with hepatitis C and those who endured unethical testing. Does he agree that, while we must move ahead with all haste to get people the justice they deserve, IBCA must have flexibility in its decisions when dealing with those who feel that the tariff does not recognise the suffering they have endured? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Obviously the tariffs were set on the basis of the expert group chaired by Sir Jonathan Montgomery and I compliment him on the work he did in that regard. However, the tariffs and the scheme also recognise particular individual circumstances and cases that are more complex. That is why the supplemental route is being put in place. I would add that I saw when I visited IBCA—I understand that my hon. Friend will be visiting shortly—the sympathetic, compassionate approach being taken with regard to evidence, given how long ago so much of this happened. \p Judith Cummins: I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation and the extension of the infected blood compensation scheme. This scandal is a chilling story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them but by the NHS that should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented the scandal from ever taking place.

We are glad that the new regulations will move the victims, both those infected and those affected, closer to long overdue justice. However, we are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims have been receiving compensation, with only 25 people having been invited to claim by December last year. It is right that the Government are now widening the scheme so that compensation reaches many more people as soon as possible.

It is also crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of the charities, organisations and affected individuals are heard. To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, will the Minister outline a timeline for when all victims can expect to have received their long overdue compensation?  Furthermore, will the Government introduce a duty of candour on public officials so that such a scandal is never repeated? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this scandal goes across decades and across Governments. While compensation is obviously one of the crucial recommendations, there are a total of 12 recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff, on which I will be updating the House in due course. At present, IBCA will meet its target of 250 people by the end of next month. The approach it is taking is one of test and learn. That enables IBCA to scale up more quickly to be able to do what we all want it to do, which is to get compensation as quickly as reasonably possible to those who need it. I would expect the first payments to the affected to begin before the end of this year. Finally, on the duty of candour, which is another of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, I expect to be introducing legislation to this House on that before 15 April, which, of course, is the Hillsborough anniversary. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I want to focus on what he said about the progress being made in delivering compensation for victims and their families. I recently met a constituent of mine, Sue Sparkes, who lost her husband Les owing to infected blood in 1990. She is concerned that it will take many, many years to make all these payments. I do not doubt my right hon. Friend’s commitment and passion on this issue to tackle injustice and deliver the culture change that is needed, but will he assure Sue and me that every lever of government is being pulled to ensure that all payments to infected and affected individuals are made as a matter of urgency? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I can certainly give that assurance both to my hon. Friend and to his constituent, Sue. The Government will continue to push this forward as quickly as is reasonably possible. I am conscious of the strength of feeling, and I am also conscious that victims have waited decades for justice, and that need for speed is recognised across Government. \p John Hayes: Every Member of this House should welcome this statement, as I certainly do, as there is no greater horror imaginable than becoming chronically sick as a result of what ought to be a routine medical procedure—a blood transfusion. Will the right hon. Gentleman, following on from the previous question, ensure that these matters are dealt with promptly? Will he reflect on what the report into these matters describes as institutional failures? The National Audit Office looked at compensation for a range of scandals and concluded:

“There is no central coordinated approach when government sets up new compensation schemes resulting in a relatively slow, ad-hoc approach.”

The report recommended that the Cabinet Office reviews its arrangements to

“allow compensation schemes to begin and operate in a more timely…and effective manner”.

When the Minister returns to the House, will he reflect on that recommendation and perhaps say to the House what the Government will do in response? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and what is crucial, whether it is this compensation scheme or others that have been run by Government, is that we learn the lessons between the different compensation schemes and we learn best practice. I absolutely agree with him that that is crucial with this compensation scheme, too. \p Jonathan Pearce: I thank the Minister for his statement. Brian Heatlie, a haemophiliac, was given infected blood products in 1982 at the age of five. As a result, he died in 1996 at the age of 18. His devoted parents, Lynda and James, from New Mills in my constituency of High Peak, have been waiting 28 years for compensation, and they are now in their 70s. Can the Minister confirm that the new regulations will mean that it may be possible for victims who have lost loved ones in this scandal, such as Lynda and James, to receive both their own compensation and compensation for the estate of their loved ones? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think I speak for the whole House in sending our sympathies to Lynda and James for the indescribable sense of loss and the experience that they have been through over so many years. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. These consolidated regulations are for the estates of infected people, but also for the affected, too. But I know, and the whole House would agree, that no amount of money can make up for that awful experience. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister most sincerely for his statement. Nobody in the House is not reassured by what he has said. He also referred to the regional Administrations and how this will affect them, and he has had those discussions with them. There are reports today that only 0.2% of eligible family members have been contacted about the scheme, and there are concerns that the scheme does not have the capacity to cope with the numbers of potential applicants. Can the Minister outline how he will ensure that there is capacity for all those families to have a sense of recognition and to be definite about a form of restitution? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: First, in terms of numbers, as I indicated, IBCA is operating a test and learn approach that then allows it to scale up. It will scale up its capacity alongside that, to ensure that it has the capacity it requires to process the claims. As I indicated, I visited IBCA last month. I can already see that scaling up starting to take place, and the hon. Member can certainly give assurance to his constituents that the Government will continue to do all we can to ensure the swift delivery of compensation. \p Douglas McAllister: I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s update. My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Fiona, was infected with hepatitis B following blood transfusions in 1954 and 1985. Fiona is apparently not entitled to any form of support or compensation payment because of missing medical records and because of receiving a transfusion both before and after the 1972 cut-off relating to screening for hepatitis B. Will the Minister agree to meet my constituent and me to discuss this matter and ensure that she and others affected in similar circumstances—apparently a small number—can receive compensation and justice under this Labour Government? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Generally, with regard to evidence, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has said that when an individual is invited to make their claim, it will aim to gather some of the information, including medical records and information about an applicant’s condition and severity, from organisations that already have it. That should mean that those claiming will be asked for the least amount of information possible. I know that IBCA is currently considering what guidance can be provided for people ahead of making a claim. On the specific case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Fiona, if he sends me the details, I am more than happy to look into it. \p Julian Lewis: May I thank the Minister for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness with which he has made his statement? I think he would agree that there are still issues around speed, quantum, flexibility and care. Am I right in thinking that IBCA does not have any flexibility about the amount of damages paid? If so, can he give a rough indication of what sort of compensation is paid when someone has lost their life as a result of being poisoned by the NHS? Is it the case that people have to make an individual settlement and agreement on what they will accept? If so, is there any professional support that someone, who might be quite ill, can get before signing on the dotted line and possibly signing away their rights to more compensation than they might otherwise receive? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about tariffs, they have been set out and published. There are then assessments to be made about severity within the tariff bands. There is also, as I have indicated, the supplementary route for more complex cases. I cannot give him a single figure across these cases as they obviously vary, but the House will gradually see the overall amount being published by IBCA.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, a victim making an application to the IBCA will be given a particular claim manager—I met the first claim managers only in recent weeks—to speak to and guide them through the process, which is crucial. I know that the culture imbued by Sir Robert Francis is an enabling one about helping victims, particularly with evidence. I have also signed off both legal support and financial support, because it is about receiving what are, in many cases, life-changing sums of money. \p Ian Lavery: May I first thank my right hon. Friend for the update? Despite his sterling efforts—I really mean that—the process has taken far too long. Victims are dying at the rate of two per week, never having seen the compensation they deserve. Victims are very much unaware of, and desperate to understand, what and how much compensation they might even be due under the process.

Can the Minister say how many of the 5,000 infected victims will be invited to apply to the scheme during 2025? Has he considered, or is there potential to consider, allowing victims to take support scheme payments as a lump sum without any reductions? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: On people’s having a sense of the amount of money they will get, the Government published explainer documents in August last year—and  in recent days—that are on the Government website. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is intending to publish a compensation calculator for the infected core award by the end of March.

On my hon. Friend’s other points, the number of victims paid will be regularly published by the IBCA during the course of the year. The payments to the infected have started, and I expect payments to the affected to begin before the end of the year. As regards the support schemes, one change that the Government made was to allow both a lump sum payment and the continuation of the support schemes. That came through from the consultation that Sir Robert Francis undertook during the general election campaign. I have made that change to the scheme, and how that works precisely is set out in the explainer document. \p Wendy Chamberlain: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for the update; indeed, I am grateful that he has given several updates to the House. My North East Fife constituent was infected a number of years ago and involved in the campaign for a long time. He has shared concerns about the evidential standard expected of claimants, particularly in relation to medical records. Indeed, his lawyers have told me that they have concerns that case managers are not correctly interpreting the initial date of infection because medical records are not available to substantiate that. They also have concerns that the Australia antigen has not been properly understood as an indicator of HBV. Is the Paymaster General aware of those concerns? Can he comment on them? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the issue of evidence. There is the specific issue that she referred to, but there is also a far more general problem about incidents often being from a long time ago. We also know that in some cases there was deliberate destruction of records. The level of evidence is therefore clearly a significant issue. As I have indicated, when I visited the IBCA, I heard from claim managers about the approach they are taking and the culture that is being imbued—an enabling culture—and about how the IBCA will aim to gather some of the information to assist victims, which I think will be a vital part of the process. \p Johanna Baxter: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his commitment to this issue. Will he say a little more about how he is working with colleagues in Scotland to drive forward the final compensation scheme? I share the concerns already expressed by hon. Members across the House about the need for speed in ensuring that victims receive the compensation that they so rightly deserve. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I assure my hon. Friend that I work closely with the devolved Administrations on the issue of compensation. There is a broader point as well: events that took place in the 1970s, 1980s and beyond occurred in the pre-devolution age. Over the next few months, as we look to implement the rest of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, partnership work with the devolved Administrations will become even more important. \p Seamus Logan: I thank the Paymaster General for an advance copy of his statement. I recognise his sincerity, and the hard work that he and his colleagues are putting into progressing this vital compensation scheme. I also understand the need for him and his colleagues to take small initial steps to test their systems and processes, but as others have said, legal representatives fear that many will die while they wait, and justice delayed is justice denied. Does he really think that is good enough, given the numbers involved? Will he consider strengthening the authority’s teams who are processing these claims, so that the pace can be rapidly accelerated, and so that they can meet the forthcoming key performance indicators to which he referred? Finally, the last time we spoke about the scheme in the Chamber, he undertook to look at the role of voluntary organisations that provide vital support to claimants, and to consider putting funding for them on a statutory basis. Will he comment on that as well, please? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he mentioned me and my colleagues, but of course IBCA is an arm’s length body—it is operationally independent—so it takes operationally independent decisions on how best to pay out the money to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. As I said, it has decided to adopt a test-and-learn approach to make that possible.

One of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations is that we look at support for voluntary organisations. That will be covered in an update that I will give to the House in due course on all 12 recommendations. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the general assurance that I am, and will continue to be, restless for progress. On his point about IBCA scaling up and having more staff and claims managers, that is precisely what it is doing at the moment. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank the Minister for his statement and update. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I have a constituent, Janet, who is in her 80s. She tragically lost her first and second husband to infected blood, and she is due to receive compensation as their next of kin. She would like to ensure that she can pass the payments on to their children, who, as the Minister rightly said, are victims, too. However, she has been advised that if that happened, it would constitute a secondary transfer and be subject to inheritance tax. We are talking about people who lost their father and stepfather to this issue. Will he meet me to explore whether a solution can be found in these cases? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: First, I should say for clarity that all IBCA payments made to those in the UK will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Anyone who is in direct receipt of compensation from IBCA, or is a beneficiary of an estate to which compensation was paid on behalf of the deceased, does not need to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax on the amount that they receive. I am aware of the concern that my hon. Friend is talking about; that is a slightly different situation. If she writes to me with the details of the case, I will be more than happy to look into it. \p Christine Jardine: I thank the Paymaster General not only for his statement, but for the clarity and commitment in his answers. As he may  remember from previous occasions in the Chamber, I have the personal experience of having lost a very close family friend in the 1990s who was a victim of this. His widow died without compensation, and his children are now among those waiting to hear what will happen. I thank the Minister for his application and commitment, but as others have mentioned, there remains the issue of speed and best practice going forward. He mentioned that he will simplify the process. Can we have updates from him in future on what the Government are doing to examine best practice, and how can future victims of such scandals be assured that they will not have to wait as long as 40 years? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: As on the last occasion, I express my sympathies to the hon. Lady for the loss of her family friend back in the 1990s. Of course, I am always looking to share best practice, as I said a moment ago to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place. That is vital. I can also give the hon. Lady the undertaking that I will continue to update this House, as I hope right hon. and hon. Members have seen me do over the past seven months. There will also be a debate on the regulations. I will have to give an update on the 12 recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff by the May deadline, but IBCA will also provide regular updates via our newsletter, and I refer her to those as well. \p Navendu Mishra: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling a written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on 24 April 2024, and then when tabling a written parliamentary question to the Deputy Foreign Secretary on 13 May 2024. When I tabled these questions, I inadvertently failed to declare two interests: a reception at the Labour party conference that was sponsored by the high commission of India, and a visit to India that was funded by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. This was in breach of the rules, and I apologise to the House for this error. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on that issue. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Pat McFadden, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Angela Rayner, Secretary Ian Murray, Secretary Bridget Phillipson and Nick Thomas-Symonds, presented a Bill to make provision for persons of the Roman Catholic faith to be eligible to hold the office of His Majesty’s High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 24 February, and to be printed (Bill 185) with explanatory notes (Bill 185-EN). \p Nia Griffith: I beg to move,

That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month.

For most people under the age of 40, it is almost impossible to imagine a society in which LGBT+ people were not visible and integrated. Most, if not all, of us have LGBT+ family, friends and colleagues; in this Chamber, one in 10 Members identifies as LGBT+, a world record for any Parliament, as far as we know. Yet it was not long ago that LGBT+ people were either invisible or villainised. If an LGBT+ person was hospitalised, their partner was not recognised as next of kin. Trans people on TV were confined to clichés and offensive stereotypes. According to the papers, LGBT+ people were deviants to be feared.

That British society is now largely a welcoming place for LGBT+ people is due to the tireless and patient efforts of countless individuals and groups, from the early efforts of campaigners in the 1950s, quietly seeking the recommendations of Lord Wolfenden and seeing them made into law, to the loud protests against section 28 in the 1980s and the moving fight for marriage equality in the 2010s. These people have not only driven change, but enriched our society.

The Stonewall riots in America were a landmark moment in the global fight for LGBT+ equality. From then on, unapologetic visibility and authenticity would be the banner under which LGBT+ people would organise. Those lessons were learned, and were adapted to the UK, where we have our own history of struggle for LGBT+ equality. Our first Pride march was held in 1972, when a few hundred brave souls wound their way from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square. The trepidation those individuals must have experienced may be hard for many of us today to imagine; yet alongside their trepidation, there must also have been a strong sense of action, achievement and community.

It was undoubtedly that sense of community that played a part in one of the more colourful moments in our history. Some 37 years ago, in this very building, in an inverse of “It’s Raining Men”, a number of lesbians abseiled their way from the Public Gallery on to the Benches of the other place in protest against the passing of section 28. Back in Wales, in the area my family is from, the traditional mining communities of the Neath, Swansea and Dulais valleys were perhaps somewhat bemused to be supported financially and morally during the miners’ strike of 1984 by Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners; in turn, they were repaid by the legendary friendship and loyalty of many of those in the mining communities in 1985, when the miners showed their support by joining the Pride marches in Cardiff and London. \p Dawn Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for her incredible speech and for her commitment to this House. I know of my hon. Friend’s journey when she was a teacher. Does she agree that it is important for allies to stick together and fight for other people’s rights, as well as our own, if we are truly to move forward with recognising and appreciating people and allowing them to be their authentic selves? \p Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to stick together in the fight for rights. I know she has been a fantastic ally of the LGBT+ community.

I am proud to say that the history of LGBT+ rights in this country is intertwined with the history of Labour in government. It was a Labour Government who decriminalised homosexuality in 1967, and a Labour Government who equalised the age of consent in 2000 and repealed the hateful section 28 in 2003. It was a Labour Government who lifted the ban on LGBT+ people serving in the armed forces; created the Gender Recognition Act 2004; pioneered civil partnerships; introduced laws to allow unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to apply for adoption; and laid down the landmark Equality Act 2010. With each milestone, consensus emerged across the political spectrum that LGBT+ people deserve protection, recognition and opportunity. LGBT+ people were finally viewed as just that: people.

Even the Conservative party, long opposed to much of what I have just outlined, began to change its view. It was, after all, a Conservative Prime Minister, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who introduced same-sex marriage into law, albeit heavily dependent on Labour votes. On that point, I give a special thanks to Baroness Featherstone, the then Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister who pushed through the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 with tireless effort.

However, in recent years, that consensus has begun to fray. Increasingly, voices across society and this Chamber are pushing division, anxiety and apprehension. While the tone of debate on LGBT+ rights has always been contentious, the level of toxicity has perhaps never been so intense. Our answer to this must be to lead by example and conduct ourselves in measured, considered and respectful language. It is vital that we—regardless of party or position—promote a tone and quality of debate that, while at times may provoke impassioned disagreement, refuses to lower itself to the politics of division and anxiety.

For decades, Labour in government has sought to advance the rights, protections and opportunities of LGBT+ people, and this Government are no different. Take, for example, conversion practices. We know that they are abuse, that they do not work and that they leave a legacy of painful memories and lasting mental health problems. The previous Government did nothing to ban this abhorrent practice—this Government will be different. That is why we committed to publishing draft legislation in the King’s Speech, detailing our plan to introduce a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Of course, while it is important that we protect people from these abusive practices, the Government have been clear that any ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment or non-directive counselling. It must also respect the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can play in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In our manifesto, we also committed to modernising, simplifying and reforming gender recognition law while upholding the Equality Act and its provisions on single-sex exceptions. We will remove indignities for trans people, who deserve support and acceptance, while retaining  the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor. We will set out our next steps on this work in due course.

I want to touch on the important work this Government are undertaking around sexual health. Everyone in this House today is aware of the terrible toll that HIV and AIDS took upon the LGBT+ community during the 1980s and ’90s. During this time, thousands of young gay and bisexual men and trans people lost their lives. Since then, attitudes have changed through the work of so many courageous individuals. Many of us remember the courage of the then MP for Islington and South Finsbury, Chris, now Lord, Smith. Already the first openly gay MP, in 2005 he announced his HIV-positive status, becoming the first Member of this House to acknowledge their diagnosis.

As set out in our manifesto, HIV is a key priority for the Government, and we have commissioned a new plan to end HIV transmissions in England by 2030. We have shown our commitment to that. Just this week, the Prime Minister showed us all how easy and quick an HIV test can be. Back in November, the Prime Minister confirmed £27 million of additional funding to expand the highly successful NHS emergency department opt-out HIV testing programme. In regard to opt-out testing, we know it works well and is able to reach those who are less likely to engage with sexual health services. During the past 27 months, over 2 million HIV tests have been conducted through the programme. \p Christopher Vince: I was not going to intervene on that point, but I was reminded of my Uncle Stephen who sadly passed away in the ’90s following a positive HIV diagnosis and I wanted to take this opportunity to mention him in this place. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. Does the Minister agree that it is so important that we end the stigma around HIV to support more people, so that people like my Uncle Stephen do not have their lives ended prematurely? \p Nia Griffith: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning a very, very personal experience of the terrible losses we saw in the 1980s and 1990s. He is absolutely right. From those very first moments, when we were perhaps fearful to be the first person to wear the red ribbon on 1 December, we can now hopefully combat that stigma. But we know there is still a lot to do worldwide to combat stigma and ensure people get the treatments that are available.

Last week, I had the privilege to visit Fast Track Cymru in Cardiff and hear about the innovative work it is doing to eradicate the transmission of HIV, including the test and post service now available in Wales.

Before I move on to issues relating to trans and gender-questioning youth, I am sure I do not need to remind Members of my earlier words urging measured, considered and respectful debate. I am pleased to confirm that NHS England has opened three children and young people’s gender services, in the north-west, London and Bristol. The services operate under an innovative model and embed multidisciplinary teams in specialist children’s hospitals. The services have begun seeing patients from the national waiting list. A fourth service will open in the east of England in spring. NHS England remains on schedule to deliver a gender clinic in each region of England by 2026.

On puberty blockers, I am aware of the views of many on the subject and how sensitive it can be. In March last year, NHS England took the decision not to commission the routine use of puberty blockers for the treatment of gender incongruence, informed by an evidence review conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The findings were echoed in the Cass review and in accompanying systematic reviews conducted by the University of York, which found insufficient evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty blockers for adolescents. There is a clear time for this order to be reviewed in 2027. Better-quality evidence is critical if the NHS is to provide reliable transparent information and advice to support children and young people, and their parents and carers, in making potentially life-changing decisions. That is why we are supporting NHS England to set up a study into the impacts of puberty-suppressing hormones as a treatment option for children and young people with gender incongruence. The trial aims to begin recruiting participants in spring 2025.

On education, as many are aware, before venturing into politics I was, by profession, a comprehensive school teacher. Back in the ’80s, section 28, introduced into law by the then Conservative Government, banned the “promotion of homosexuality” or

“the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

In the classroom, if a pupil was verbally being hateful or discriminatory towards one of their peers, I did not want it to go unchallenged but found myself just telling them not to use such language or risk upsetting someone. Anything more explicit could have been potentially promoting homosexuality and breaking the law, and risked me losing my job. I did not protect those pupils who were the object of such comments in the way that they should have been protected. I should have done more. Today, the notion that an LGBT+ family is pretend is absurd to most. Nowadays, it is not uncommon to find same-sex parents picking up their children from school. \p Sarah Owen: I appreciate the Minister’s apology, but to have taken such a stance would have meant her losing her job. Although we can always reflect and do better in hindsight, we have to be kind to ourselves and give ourselves the space to be able to see the grace in ourselves as well. \p Nia Griffith: I thank my hon. Friend for her very kind comments on the issue.

Even today, it does not mean that there are no challenges. Coming out, particularly to family or classmates, is still challenging and scary, with all the worry of how it might be perceived and the fear of bullying.

In 2018, the previous Government introduced LGBT+ people into the relationships, sex and health education curriculum. The reality of diverse family types would, in stark contrast to section 28, be taught as a fact of life in modern Britain. As the House is aware, the RSHE and gender-questioning pupil guidance is currently under review. The Government are engaging with stakeholders, including parents, teachers and pupils. The Government are also drawing from the available evidence, including the Cass review, to finalise the guidance. As the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson),  said in her first month in office, children’s wellbeing must be at the heart of any decisions on RSHE and gender-questioning guidance.

Another area I wish to touch on today is LGBT+ veterans and personnel in the armed forces. In 2021, Falklands veteran Major General Alastair Bruce married his husband in full military regalia. It was celebrated in regional and national media, yet when he joined the Army in 1979 it was illegal to be both LGBT+ and a member of our armed forces. As a result, the general was forced to hide part of himself for decades just to be afforded the right to serve his country. It was not until 2000 that that harmful policy was rectified, so that ability, not identity, determines if one is able to serve their country. In 2023, Lord Etherton delivered the results and recommendations of his independent review into the period of the ban on LGBT+ personnel. Just this week, at an event to mark 25 years since its lifting, I heard some of the harrowing stories of those affected by that ban.

The Government are committed to delivering in full the recommendations of Lord Etherton’s review. Only last month, the winning design for a new LGBT+ memorial for armed forces personnel was unveiled, soon to be housed at the National Arboretum. In December, the Ministry of Defence detailed to the House a financial redress scheme that seeks to acknowledge the consequences of the ban. The Government have increased the financial redress scheme from the original £50 million allocated by the previous Government to £75 million, an increase of 50%. I strongly urge any eligible veterans from that time to contact the scheme as soon as they are able.

More widely, 10 years ago the United Kingdom was ranked as the No. 1 nation in Europe for LGBT+ rights, protections and safety. The UK was a global example not only of acceptance but opportunity. But 10 years of subsequent Conservative Governments has undermined that achievement. From shelving their own LGBT action plan to the embarrassing boycott of their own international LGBT conference and the flip-flopping and delays on banning conversion practices, the Conservative party slid backwards towards the politics of division. This Government aim to reverse that trend. The UK is proud to defend the human rights of LGBT+ people at home and around the world. We are proud members of the Equal Rights Coalition, which is an intergovernmental organisation dedicated to the protection of rights for LGBT+ people. The UK believes that human rights are universal and apply equally to all people. That includes those who are LGBT+, who are some of the most systematically persecuted individuals in the world. Currently, 63 countries criminalise consensual same-sex acts, 13 can impose the death penalty, and at least 49 use legislation to criminalise or harass transgender and gender-diverse people.

The criminalisation of LGBT+ people often stems from colonial-era legislation, much of it imposed by the UK itself. These laws uphold outdated views that undermine the rights of LGBT+ people. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Our network of more than 280 diplomatic missions works to tackle discrimination and end the violence and persecution that persist today. Our £40 million programme is helping to improve political, social and economic empowerment by addressing outdated, discriminatory laws, promoting protective legislation, enabling civil society organisations, and supporting the most vulnerable LGBT+ people in conflict and crisis.

Today I have shared the Government’s commitments in detail. This Government stand ready to deliver for LGBT+ people, ending the dithering of recent years and lowering the temperature of toxic debate. Let me end by saying, as part of the LGBT+ community myself and as the Minister for Equalities, that it is a privilege to open this debate, and I look forward to the contributions of Members on both sides of the House. \p Mims Davies: It is always a pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box on behalf of his Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but I particularly welcome the chance to take part in this debate during LGBT+ History Month, which was first celebrated in 2005 and has been celebrated every February since then—I wish it a very happy 20th birthday. I welcomed the Minister’s opening speech, and, in particular, her updates on the Cass review of how we support young people and their parents and carers.

The theme of this year’s LGBT+ History Month is activism and social change, and it is very pleasing that some Members are currently in Westminster Hall debating National HIV Testing Week. As we have heard, in the last few decades some truly remarkable men and women have fought successfully for social change and, more substantially, a complete sea change in social attitudes to LGBT+ people—such a change, indeed, that in 2019, under the Conservatives, Alan Turing was pictured on the £50 note. What progress! The fact that we are now rightly, properly and joyfully able to celebrate gay marriage is another huge step forward, and, as we heard from the Minister, as a country we have apologised and worked to compensate our LGBT+ veterans, who have been treated abominably in the service of our country. The fact we can celebrate those individuals in history properly, rather than seeing what they saw—the shameful treatment that they received—and the fact that Alan Turing has been rightly celebrated show just how much we have moved on. Like, I am sure, many other Members who are present today, I have met constituents who have been affected by that ban, and we welcome both the memorial and the redress scheme.

Nowhere have we seen more change in the past 40 years than in the battle on HIV and AIDS. When I was first appointed to my role as shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, one of my first meetings was with representatives of the wonderful Terrence Higgins Trust. Terry Higgins was one of the first people in the UK to die of an AIDS-related illness, and the trust that bears his name was set up with the intention of preventing others from having to suffer in the way in which he had. It focused on raising funds for research and awareness of the illness which at the time was called gay-related immune deficiency, or GRID—the name itself was a marker of prejudice at the time. The trust was the first charity in the UK to be set up in response to the HIV epidemic, and has been at the forefront of the fight against HIV and AIDS ever since. As we heard from the Minister, this charity is just one of the groups that have driven real, positive change. We are proud and thankful to them all for the work that they have done, then and now. \p Dawn Butler: I am reminded of my first experience of training with the Terrence Higgins Trust, learning about HIV and how it could be contracted. What stuck in my  mind the most was people saying that it could be caught from saliva. I remember those at the trust saying that to catch it someone would need 2 litres of saliva, like a big bottle of fizzy drink; that is one hell of a sloppy kiss. Does the hon. Member agree that education is key, and that the trust does an amazing job? \p Mims Davies: Absolutely. I thank the hon. Lady, with whom I have the pleasure of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. These stigmas, these mindsets, these myths have divided people and made life more difficult because of a lack of understanding and the promotion of fear, and I am very pleased that we have been able to tackle them through the work of that wonderful charity and many others. It was a pleasure to meet representatives of the Terrence Higgins Trust recently.

The Minister mentioned wider sexual health, and, as a mum of two young daughters, I know of the continuing need to meet the wider sexual health challenges facing our young people. We also need to meet the target of ending new HIV cases by 2030. I was honoured to be asked to speak at the Terrence Higgins Trust event during last year’s Conservative party conference, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). We all spoke about the progress being made and the commitment to doing what still needs to be done to deliver the ambition of ending HIV cases by 2030 and tackling the stigma. We in the Opposition will work stridently with the Government to achieve that aim, because this truly is a cross-party, cross-community issue.

The last Conservative Government legalised self-testing kits for HIV in 2014, self-testing was rolled out in England in 2015, and the trial of pre-exposure prophylaxis in England began in 2017. This is National HIV Testing Week, and I am proud to say that, in 2012, it was the Conservatives who funded the first one ever. I have three kits in my office to do exactly what we should all be doing: I shall be handing them out and doing a test myself to show how easy it is.

Any Member who, like me, represents a rural area will know that gaining access to healthcare can involve challenges—for instance, getting the message out about safe sex, access to contraception and regular testing, and the additional logistics involved in being a young person living in a rural area. Those challenges need to be understood. Many of my constituents in East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages have to travel many miles to Brighton or Crawley to get a test. For my younger constituents, the problems may relate to a lack of transport or connectivity, isolation or loneliness, or simply not having anyone to talk to. I would encourage people to sign up for a test online and have a kit delivered to their door, as that may be easier and more appropriate. I say to my young constituents: “As your MP, I am a champion for you, and I hope that you are feeling supported by me. I am here to listen to you and stand up for your equality.” I am sure that all Members will feel the same.

Over the last few years, both in the civil service when I served as the Minister and in Parliament, I have enjoyed and often learned a lot from working with my friends and colleagues who are LGBT+, and I have been humbled by their bravery. It is often still too hard for people to speak up about the person they are and to be their true, authentic self. I will champion the right of my staff and my friends, as I am sure all of us in this  House will, to have the opportunity to be their true, authentic self, because the truest conservative beliefs are those of freedom, equality, liberty and opportunity for all.

In October, at Women and Equalities questions, I asked the Minister for Women and Equalities whether the previous Government’s £20 million commitment to rolling out the successful HIV and hepatitis testing programme will remain. I was pleased when she responded by saying that officials are working up plans. If there is anything further that can be shared with the House today, I would welcome that. I also welcomed the update on the RHSE guidance, which is under review. It is important that parents and loved ones know what is being discussed at school, so that they can discuss and support that at home. Given the discussion this afternoon, that is all the more important.

Public health commissioners are responsible for local sexual health services, including the 2.3% cash increase last year. I hope the Minister will agree that we must ensure we see the delivery of progress and outcomes for those who need that support in our communities, not least because there are worrying statistics from the UK Health Security Agency showing an increase in HIV infections among heterosexual men and that, all too often, there is unsafe sex taking place, which we know puts some people at risk. Having the ability to ask people to test, so that they can have safe sex, is vital—as much as consent.

In the best traditions of this House, one Government builds on the legacy of the previous one. I am very proud of the work we did to ensure that anti-bullying schemes were rolled out for students in 2012, to support LGBT+ students. I welcome what the Minister said—bravery comes in every shape and form, and I thank her for sharing her challenges with us. We are all learning together, and I am delighted to support this debate.

In 2017, the first ever LGBT+ survey of the population was undertaken under the Conservatives. There were many other steps forward, and we must continue in the tradition of challenging and tackling stigma, to reach further important goals. As a responsible Opposition, we must scrutinise and encourage, to make sure we are all moving positively in the right direction.

I look forward to hearing contributions from other Members today, as we continue to stand up for all our constituents, to challenge prejudice, to deliver true equality of opportunity, to celebrate love for all in the memory of and on behalf of those who have led the way, and to continue to deliver for all our constituents whose happiness, success and rights matter to us all. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. \p Sarah Owen: It is always an honour to take part in this annual debate commemorating, celebrating and protesting for LGBT+ History Month. I will start by saying that I am incredibly disappointed that there are not more Members of the House present to hear what I know will be a really informative, heartfelt, genuine debate.

The theme for LGBT+ History Month this year is activism and social change, but given what the LGBTQIA+ community is facing at the moment in the media and in  political rhetoric, perhaps a more appropriate theme would be survival and existence. We see powerful people—rich people—at home and abroad punching down, referring to the LGBT community as woke, snowflake, weak and fragile. Any of us know that the LGBTQIA+ community is far from all those things, because fighting for who you are and to love who you want to love in the face of hatred, humiliation and persecution is one of the bravest things any of us could ever do. The trans community have to live every day in a body that does not reflect who they truly are—that is courage, and all against a backdrop of conversations about them, without them, particularly for trans men.

Some of the strongest, least snowflake people I could ever have in my life are from the LGBT community. I am so proud to call them my friends. They are basically my extended family; they are the family I chose. They fight to be who they are, and they fight to exist now. I am going to give some personal examples from when I was perhaps at my weakest. As a straight woman, I relied on that community and my friends to hold me up, because they had the strength when I did not.

When I was in my 20s, I used to go out out—as Miley Cyrus says, I used to be young. On one night, I was out out with one of my gay best friends and my non-binary friend. We had gone to a gay club because, unsurprisingly, and for a reason that I cannot possibly put my finger on, I felt safer and able to have more fun in gay nightclubs than I did in straight clubs as a 20-year-old single woman of that time. I cannot think why that might be. We were on our way home, and we wanted chips and a kebab—standard, right? In the queue was a group of lads. They start giving me abuse, with sexual connotations, and me being myself, I did not shut up; I did not take that lying down. I gave as good as I was getting.

They went ahead, and all of a sudden, when we came out with our chips and kebabs, I could feel things hitting my head. They were throwing chips at us. Those chips suddenly became punches to my face, and they pushed me to the ground. Who stood up and fought for me? My gay best friends and my non-binary friend took on five blokes for me—I did not stop fighting either, but they were there when I needed them.

I have worked across different communities on various campaigns, particularly human rights campaigns, and when I have lost those campaigns, my dearest friend Paul has been there to pick me up when I was crying and broken and thought I could not carry on. He showed me the importance of that, because of his experiences of fighting for equality throughout the ’80s and the ’90s and, unfortunately, in 2025.

My dearest friend Helgi was one of the first out LGBT council members of the Royal College of Anaesthetists. I have spoken quite often in this place about the multiple miscarriages I have experienced. I could not have found myself at a darker time than I did then. He was there in the surgery to hold my hand and help me through one of the most difficult procedures, to remove two of the babies that did not make it out. He was my friend and was there when I woke up.

That is the strength of the community. That is the strength of allyship. Right now, they are the ones being attacked. They are the ones feeling isolated. They are  the ones feeling without hope. So I make a plea to every ally and to everybody to use their voice to stand up for the many who have used their voices to stand up for our rights, our dignity and our future.

We had an election last year, and I am so proud that my first official engagement was Pride in Luton. Every year it gets bigger and better, and there are more supporters, more attendees and more fun. I took my family with me, and my then four-year-old asked me, “What’s Pride, mummy?” I said, “Pride is a celebration, but it’s also a protest. She said, “Okay.” I said, “Pride is a protest and a celebration of people loving who they want to love and being who they are.” Her reaction was, “Okay,” and she shrugged. We had the best time ever, and I hope that Pride long continues.

But we did not get here without a fight. Over a decade ago, the previous Labour Government introduced some fantastic measures: they removed the terrible section 28 from the statute book; passed a law allowing trans people to legally change their gender; and introduced the Equality Act to protect LGBT+ people from discrimination. Labour also lifted the ban on lesbians, gay men and bi people serving in the armed forces; introduced civil partnerships, which—I give credit to the previous Conservative Government—paved the way for same-sex marriage; and brought in laws to allow unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to apply for joint adoption. I am pleased that we have that legacy and foundation to build on, but build on it we must.

The plan proposed in the Labour manifesto was to deliver a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. I am pleased that the Minister confirmed at the Women and Equalities Committee yesterday that the ban will be trans inclusive. She gave her commitment on that.

We need to ensure that LGBT+ hate crime constitutes an aggravated offence in the same way as other hate crime offences. We need to bring forward a new HIV action plan, and I am glad that many hon. Members have spoken about that already. We need to right the wrongs endured by LGBT+ veterans, which I know this Government are taking aim at; modernise the law on gender recognition; fix the NHS; and recruit 8,500 more mental health workers. All those are brave and laudable aims, but one thing that has been missing is a timeframe—a schedule for when all these fantastic plans will be put into place. When will the LGBTQI+ community be able to feel the benefits of these laudable and beneficial aims? We have seen many members of that community feeling scared. It is not just about looking across the pond and seeing that their existence has been completely wiped out by President Trump and the richest man in the world; there is also a feeling that there is a rowing back in the UK. I want us to address some of the issues, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain, perhaps in writing, where we are on some of these points.

The indefinite ban on puberty blockers for young trans people has been mentioned. The Women and Equalities Committee held an inquiry, and I am proud to say that although there were diverse opinions among Committee members—I am pleased to see some of them here—and the witnesses themselves, the debate was conducted with dignity and respect, with evidence and with a willingness to try to understand, which has all too long been missing. I cannot yet say what recommendations will come out, because I will get into trouble, but we need to be part of a solution. It is not just about pointing out what the problems are.

Although the Minister said that the use of puberty blockers poses unclear risks of harm, we need to look at the unclear risks of harm from not being able to provide healthcare for trans people when they need it. What can be done to mitigate some of those harms? We have talked about vitamin D, calcium, healthy diets and all the things that would address some of the concerns about puberty blockers. Why is it that the ban is explicitly only for their use in treating people with gender dysphoria? Why is it safe for people with endometriosis, prostate cancer or precocious prepubescence to take puberty blockers, but not for those experiencing gender dysphoria? The Women and Equalities Committee heard evidence from endocrinologists with brains the size of small planets, which was incredibly informative. There is much work to be done, but we need to ensure that it is done fairly, inclusively and with the community, not against it.

There is also a plan to reform the Gender Recognition Act, to make it easier for trans people to change their legal gender. I know that the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) called the process “intrusive, outdated and humiliating” in 2022. That is just as true today as it was then, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on when the GRA will be reviewed.

While we all debate this issue, LGBTQ+ people are being isolated further. They are being targeted and talked about, which is coming through clear in the statistics. The number of hate crimes against LGBT+ people increased from 4,345 in 2011-12 to 22,339 in 2023-24. That increase is huge, and it affects real people’s lives. There is also a huge amount of under-reporting, because we know that only one in eight victims report homophobic or transphobic hate crimes to the police. We need to build up society’s trust in the Government to protect the most vulnerable from such crimes. We have a lot of work to do.

Banning conversion therapy has received cross-party support, and I look forward to finding out when we will see a timeline for the ban to come into force. As we heard in the Women and Equalities Committee yesterday, we need to commit to making it trans inclusive, and I would be grateful if that commitment could be reiterated from the Dispatch Box today. When will Ministers commit to a timeline for bringing forward the plan to make anti-LGBT hate crime an aggravated offence?

We have spoken about the new HIV action plan and building on the work of the previous Government, and I am really pleased that we have that. It was wonderful to see the Prime Minister casually taking an HIV test, which is not something that we would have seen in the past. The Minister and the shadow Minister spoke eloquently about the stigma around HIV, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Tackling that stigma is so important, but it is really difficult to break it down when those in power continue to punch down. We have seen that with President Trump’s devastating cuts to USAID, which have left millions across the world without access to lifesaving antiretrovirals. What will the UK do to fill the gap? As we have seen in the US, progress is never inevitable.

I hope this Government can address the concerns of the LGBTQI community, and of those who want to live in a society free from persecution and barriers to healthcare services and safety. We must stay united in the fight, because an attack on one of us is an attack on all, and hatred never stays in one lane for long. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Christine Jardine: It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I concur with everything she said about the work being done by the Women and Equalities Committee.

It is important to recognise where we stand in history, because when we talk about LGBTQ rights, women’s rights or racial equality in this place, we often talk about the journey that we have been on and what we have achieved. Yes, we have achieved a lot, but we face enormous challenges at this moment in our history. Our country’s LGBTQ community need to look at us today and know that we will stand up for them and that we will fight for their rights, including their right simply to be who they are.

But we have faced challenges before, and we have overcome them. I think of Scotland, particularly my home city of Glasgow, where I was brought up. In the 1970s, and when I was a student in the 1980s, it had unfortunately garnered for itself the unenviable reputation of being one of the worst places in Europe to grow up gay. Attitudes were somehow more polarised in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. In 1957, a poll showed that more than 80% of Scots did not want homosexuality to be decriminalised; the figure was 51% in England.

In preparing for this debate, I found an article in a 1982 student newspaper from the University of Liverpool, whose student union disaffiliated with the University of Glasgow because it refused to allow a gay society to form. According to the union president, that refusal was on the ground that the age of consent for homosexual sex was 21 and, given that most students were younger than 21, the union did not want to

“give the impression that the Union in some way bestows an unofficial blessing on their activities… many members of the Gay Society are not interested in a constructive approach to changing the membership’s attitude…but using this as a ploy to gain momentum to destroy the character of the Union as we know it.”

We hear an echo of that language today, but imagine how young LGBT people must have felt hearing and reading it. That was the kind of attitude they faced on a daily basis.

And imagine if we had been able to tell them that, 40 years later, Glasgow would be in the top five places in Europe for LGBT people to visit and enjoy and that, despite those attitudes, a long, rich history has developed of the community across Scotland coming together to support each other. We have improved so much, as those figures show.

Edinburgh Befrienders, later known as the Lothian Gay and Lesbian Switchboard, opened in 1974 and was the UK’s first bespoke helpline for gay and lesbian people—beating Switchboard, which still exists, by just one day. Edinburgh was also home to Scotland’s first LGBT bookshop, Lavender Menace, and in 1995 welcomed 3,000 people to Scotland’s first Pride march. It is now huge, the event of the year, and I have been privileged to speak at it twice.

Of course, much of this change has been possible only because of public figures, including: former MPs such as Robin Cook, who equalised Scots law and English law on homosexuality; Val McDermid, whose  1987 novel “Report for Murder” featured Lindsay Gordon, Britain’s first fictional lesbian detective; and award-winning author Jackie Kay, the second woman and first lesbian to hold the post of Makar, Scotland’s national poet, and whose work has dealt with race, gender, transgender identities and her own sexuality. Thanks to such people and places, so many attitudes, laws and the understanding of LGBT+ people have changed for the better.

The age of consent was finally equalised for gay and straight people in England, Scotland and Wales in 2000. Same-sex couples were recognised for the first time in 2004 with civil partnerships. In the same year, trans people gained formal recognition in law for the first time with the Gender Recognition Act. And 20 years ago, same-sex couples gained the right to adopt. My party, its politicians and activists played a key role in that fight. As for me, the fight for LGBT+ rights is not just another political issue but, like the fight for all human rights, is part of who I am, what I believe and what my party stands for.

As has already been mentioned, it was thanks to the allyship and hard work of my noble Friend Baroness Featherstone that, in 2013, hundreds of thousands of campaigners and activists across the country finally had their voices heard with the achievement of marriage equality for same-sex couples. However, I sometimes think that focusing on the successes of the LGBT rights movement in the UK leads us to think that everything has been easy, that progress came without any great effort, and that it was quick and natural. We forget the negatives. We forget the fights we had to go through, and our country’s moments of shame. Shame is the only word for the treatment of gay men like Alan Turing, who was imprisoned, chemically castrated and shamed for his sexuality. Shame is the only word for the fact that, before 2000, anyone could be dismissed from the armed forces simply for being gay. Shame is the only word for the public distrust—indeed, hatred—that many gay men faced during the AIDS crisis. I grew up during that crisis, and the fear and stigma was sometimes palpable and, despite the public solidarity and support from many lesbian groups, it continued. And, of course, shame is the only word to describe the lasting impact of section 28 on a whole generation of young LGBT people who were not allowed to see themselves represented in schools or have appropriate protection from homophobic bullying.

We may think that these negatives are all in the past, but in recent years we have seen horrible debates on LGBT rights, particularly trans rights, and they have become increasingly toxic. Many trans people see their identities denigrated, their experiences ignored and their lives sidelined in debates about their own rights and their own lives. Too many people forget that at the centre of these culture wars are real people who simply want to live their life and be left alone to be who they are. It is time that we moved the debate forward. It is time that we thought about the people and not the politics, by focusing on the solutions to the issues that the LGBTQ community still faces. We must tackle the growth in hate crime, the misogyny and objectification faced by lesbians, and the intersectional issues faced by black and minority ethnic or disabled LGBTQ people. I am delighted that we will hear about the Government’s draft conversion practices ban Bill soon.

How can we support schools and businesses in eradicating homophobic and transphobic bullying and harassment? We have to think about how we can support trans people in accessing better support, and how we can help non- binary people to gain recognition in law. I hope that the Government will address all these points, and today I am more confident that they will.

The hon. Member for Luton North mentioned her daughter as hope for the future. My daughter is considerably older—in her 20s. A couple of years ago, we went to Edinburgh to see a play, “Everybody’s Talking About Jamie”, about a young cross-dressing guy who wants to wear a dress to the prom, which causes all sorts of hassle. We went because I had seen the film and loved it. About halfway through the play, I began to find the audience more interesting. I realised that everybody under the age of about 35 or 40 was totally engaged in what was happening, cheering for Jamie and booing his opponents. It was great. Everybody over the age of about 60 looked stunned. They were looking round, thinking, “What’s going on?”. My daughter Mhairi and I came out and, as we walked along the road, I said, “Your generation really don’t care, do they?” . She said, “No, we don’t get it. We don’t know why it’s a problem, and we don’t know why politicians don’t see that.” I thought to myself, “This toxic argument, which we all want to end, will end, because the younger generation will not allow their peers to be punished for being who they are in the way that mine were.”

I thank the Government for having this debate, and I thank everyone who is here. Please let us send the positive message that we will stand up and make sure that acceptance comes sooner. \p Kate Osborne: It is an honour to speak in the main Chamber in this Parliament, which, as Mr Speaker told us the other night at his reception, is the gayest Parliament in the world. LGBT History Month has never been more needed, as politicians of all political stripes, here in the UK, in Europe and, of course, in America, try to tear down the few protections that LBGTQ+ people have, attack our rights and rewrite history.

Our history and our activism need to be shouted about. We will not be silenced. We will not be erased. We will not be pushed back into the closet, and our history will be celebrated and remembered. We need people to continue to be brave enough to shout, “I am here.” I am a lesbian, and I am saying that in the mother of all Parliaments—and I will not stop shouting about it. Our diversity is what makes us wonderful; it gives us strength. “Dyke” is no longer an insult, but a badge that I wear with pride, just like my “she/her” pronoun badge.

It has been 40 years since I came out. At the time, I would never have imagined that I would be an out lesbian Member of Parliament 40 years on. In those years, we have seen huge improvements, but we also still have a really long way to go. I would not have imagined that I would still be having the same slurs chucked at me now as I did then, in arguments that try to make out that LGBTQ+ people are a threat to kids. That is why LGBT History Month is so important, why our activism is so important, and why I always say that I am an activist first and a politician second.

We must celebrate our history and remind people that we have always been here, and that trans people have always existed. We also have to remember the lessons of our activism. We have to remember and listen to those who lived those fights, and we have to learn from them in order to defend ourselves and our community from the latest wave of attacks. Over the last few years, I have repeatedly heard, “Why do we need LGBT History Month?”, “Surely Pride is not needed any more,” and “Hasn’t equality gone too far?”, but people are starting to understand why we still need those events. The fight to protect our rights never ends. Even this week, there are far too many people still making those types of comments, and too many people are woefully uneducated about LGBT history.

On 28 June 1970, on the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, the first Pride marches were held in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Pride will always be a protest. Pride events are where our community, in all our diversity, make ourselves visible and stand up for our rights, our identities and our very existence. It is where we use our voices, and where allies show up in solidarity. Pride events are needed for LGBTQ+ visibility and solidarity, to celebrate the milestones achieved in the fight for equality and to remind us of the struggles that remain.

Last year, the town I live in, Hebburn, held its first ever local Pride, thanks to Peter Darrant from Out North East, who also runs the wonderful Pride Radio, which broadcasts nationally from my constituency of Jarrow and Gateshead East, and local business leaders such as Wendy Stead and many others. They faced a barrage of abuse. They had the flags ripped down, and the local paper removed the article about the event because of the thousands of abusive comments, and both Peter and I received horrific homophobic and lesbophobic abuse, online and in real life. I am proud to say that Peter, Wendy and the team are ensuring that the local Pride goes ahead again this year, and I will be there, but we need to see more solidarity from people in the face of such hatred, and we need to ensure that there are Pride events in every town and city.

We must tackle the rise in LGBTQ+ hate crime and, in particular, the huge explosion in transphobic hate crime over the last few years. Those attacks reflect an increasingly hostile environment, exacerbated by negative media and political rhetoric, not just in the US, but in Europe and here in the UK. Just last week, a GB News host linked LGBTQ+ people to paedophilia. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to trans people as an epidemic, and as I have reminded her, the definition of that is a

“widespread occurrence of an infectious disease”.

It is no wonder, with language like that, that under the last Conservative Government, the number of hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation increased from around 4,000 in 2011-12 to nearly 23,000 in 2023-24. That is a disgrace, and I am pleased that our Government have promised to tackle LGBTQ+ hate crime by ensuring that it constitutes an aggravated offence.

I must echo the words of the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen): it is so disappointing to see not one Conservative MP on the Back Benches. Previous Labour Governments ensured that equality was at their heart, and I am so pleased that our first ever out lesbian Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for  Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), continues that work as a Minister in this Government. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Equalities, who is leading today’s debate, for making sure that we had this debate in Government time, and for everything that she is doing to deliver a fully inclusive ban on so-called conversion practices. I am proud that our Government have been clear that such conversion practices are abuse. They are acts that aim to change people’s—mostly LGBT+ people’s—sexual orientation or gender identity, and we will ban them.

I am proud that it was Labour that lifted the ban on lesbians, gay men and bi people serving in the armed forces, and introduced civil partnerships and laws to allow unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to apply for joint adoption. I am proud that we are bringing forward a new HIV action plan. I was pleased to speak at an event jointly sponsored by the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Elton John AIDS Foundation in Parliament earlier this week. I am also proud that, despite media reports to the contrary, we will bring forward action on our manifesto commitment to modernise, simplify and reform the intrusive and outdated Gender Recognition Act 2004 and remove indignities for trans people, as well as ensuring that all discrimination and financial barriers are removed when it comes to same-sex in-vitro fertilisation.

However, I once again add a note of caution about our Government’s policy and rhetoric on puberty blockers. I believe that their decision is putting people’s health at risk. I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has released a report that notes that the total withdrawal of access to puberty blockers outside a research trial in the UK may breach

“the fundamental ethical principles governing research”.

I urge Ministers to consider the report in detail.

I thank Sue Sanders, the founder of LGBT History Month. We must remember our history, but also acknowledge those who continue to fight, such as Lord Cashman and Baroness Barker, Linda Riley from DIVA, Simon Blake from Stonewall, Shiv, who is organising the London Dyke March, Marty Davies, who does so much to ensure that trans history is recognised, and those who make things happen behind the scenes, such as Marshajane Thompson, who has done so much work in this space for decades. You are pushing for our history to be remembered, and for our rights to be defended, and it is you who will be remembered in future history books.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank you for being such a great ally, for co-hosting the first all-trans panel with me in the previous Parliament, which gave trans people a voice, and for also co-hosting events with me during lesbian visibility week. Our collective efforts can, do, and will continue to make a difference. By standing together, advocating for change and supporting organisations that champion LGBTQ+ rights, we can create a more inclusive and just world for all. \p Tracy Gilbert: It is a privilege to speak in this debate—although in writing my speech ahead of today, I could not help but feel old. We are here to debate LGBT+ History Month, and, as a woman of a certain age, I have had the stark and daunting realisation that I am so old that I am part of history.

We are all aware of the stories of now famous LGBT+ people who were remarkable in their own field, but who lived too early to enjoy the progress that we have now achieved. Alan Turing, who was mentioned earlier, springs to mind. In many senses his story is now legend. The understanding of the role that he played in protecting this country is universal. That he happened to be gay should not have mattered. Despite his service, he was chemically castrated and suffered for the rest of his life. It was absolutely correct that the last Labour Government apologised, and that Turing was pardoned in August 2014.

LGBT+ History Month is often marked and reflected through stories, and today I want to share just some of my story. I grew up in a mining town in the ’80s. The difference in the rights that I have now compared with then is striking. As a lesbian woman, I have spent my adult life fighting for LGBT+ rights. It was when fighting for those rights that I first visited this place. After many years of debate and setbacks, in June 1998, this House voted to equalise the age of consent between heterosexual and gay men. As an active member of the Unison City of Edinburgh lesbian and gay self-organised group, we had been campaigning for many years to end this discrimination. The Unison archive reminded me that our branch wrote letters to all Scottish MPs and MPs who had a link with our union—it was 320 in total. On the day of the vote, two of us came to this place to lobby MPs in person to vote for this historic change.

The next big fight for our rights in which I was actively involved was the repeal of section 28, or section 2A in Scotland. As someone who worked in local government and who had a same sex partner with children, I saw the damage that section 2A did every single day. The Act meant that teachers and youth workers could not provide support to children of same sex partners, or LGBT+ young people. It resulted in many public sector workers, particularly those in educational settings, feeling that they could not come out in their own workplace. Essentially, the law said that households, such as the one in which I was living, were just wrong.

When the Scottish Executive announced that they would repeal section 2A, there was a considerable and, at times, vile campaign against its removal, much of it financed by Brian Souter. Souter wanted to bankroll a private referendum and campaign for people to vote no. There were billboards across Scotland opposing the repeal. One billboard was on Ferry Road, one of the main bus routes through my home in the Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. I will never forget having to take David and Zoe to school on a bus and passing a sign that said that our family was not a real family. I cannot put into words the anger that I felt because of the worry that it created for me, the kids and their mum. Thankfully the people of Scotland rejected the buying of democracy by Brian Souter and the referendum never happened.

A few years ago the Scottish Trades Union Congress commissioned a book celebrating 125 years of trade union successes in Scotland, and, as a contributor, I wrote about this struggle. In the book I said:

“An overarching worry for the general public was that Souter was trying to bankroll this referendum and campaign. People did not want private, rich people to be able to buy democracy.”

I know that my constituents still hold this view.

The following decade and a half brought significant improvements to the rights of LGBT+ people in Scotland and across the UK. I look forward to reflecting on one of those rights in a few weeks’ time when I celebrate my first wedding anniversary with my wife.

In closing, the struggle for LGBT rights has been fought in workplaces, in our communities, in our families and across this House for decades. We have had many successes but, sadly, some people still live in fear of their lives because they love someone of the same sex.

In this place, we must continue to fight to ensure that everyone is able to love who they wish regardless of where they are born. My hope is that, very soon, people across the world will have the freedoms that I enjoy here in the UK today. \p David Burton-Sampson: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) must have been thinking the same way as me when she wrote her speech, because, for me, LGBT History Month is always a time to reflect on the past and, at 47, I have a fair bit of past on which I can reflect.

Growing up in the ’80s and ’90s, I was all too aware of the challenges of HIV and AIDS. Many will remember that terrifying TV advert, the public health campaign, that was regularly played out on television. The reality was that it was a terrifying time, as there was no cure and no real treatment. AIDS was a death sentence. This in itself led to a stigmatised perception of the gay community in particular, because, as we all know, they were disproportionately affected by the disease.

Dr Nick Phillips, my lecturer at performing arts school, was the first person I met who had AIDS, and this was in 1996. Nick had been well known in the ’70s and ’80s for his performances with the famous Bloolips cabaret troupe, and he had performed extensively both here in the UK and in the US. It was his stint in the US that tragically saw him become one of the first people to catch HIV, as, unfortunately, did many of his friends. About eight years ago, I saw Nick do a touching solo performance, in which he portrayed the heartbreak of this period for him, losing so many friends while dealing with his own potential mortality.

Despite there being no treatment, Nick miraculously survived when many did not, and he is still around today to tell the tale. When I first met Nick and became a close friend of his, I had to overcome my own prejudice—touching him, hugging him, or giving him a peck on the cheek. I was one of many in the 1990s who were still absolutely petrified of this uncurable illness. But Nick helped me see that it did not have to be a death sentence. It also meant that I could not catch it by just giving him a hug.

I remember Nick getting really ill in 1997 and ending up in hospital. He was one of the first to receive the experimental treatment of combination therapy, and it worked. Nick went on to compose the touching “Red Ribbon Requiem”, which was performed by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. Today, he has demonstrated just how far treatment has come, living a normal, healthy life and having naturally fathered two lovely twin boys.

Fast forward to 2020 and a really close friend of mine sat me down to tell me that he had HIV. My immediate reaction was despair. I thought that I was going to lose him, that he had that death sentence. But he laughed at me and said, “Don’t worry, my levels are already now undetectable.” This was because of the wonderful medication that he was taking. As long as he keeps taking it, he will go on to live a normal life.

Today, more than 30 HIV medications are available. Many people are able to control their HIV with just a single pill a day. Early treatment can prevent HIV-positive people from getting AIDS, and the diseases that it causes, such as cancer. HIV drugs also stop people who have the virus passing it on during sex. We still do not have a cure for AIDS, but with the right treatment, people who are HIV-positive can have a normal lifespan, but we must remember that HIV and AIDS does not just affect the LGBTQ+ community. It does not discriminate, like those who have been victims of the virus have been discriminated against in the past.

While most people have caught the disease from unprotected sex, regardless of their sexuality, others have contracted it from infected blood, from their parents during pregnancy, from sharing needles or from being horribly raped. I fully support the Labour Government’s new HIV action plan to end all new HIV cases in England by 2030. I am pleased that there is a cross-party consensus on that. The powerful image just this week of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom publicly taking an HIV test on camera was wonderful. I took my test too, and I encourage everybody to do the same.

As we look to the future, with this Labour Government introducing greater protections for the LGBTQ+ community, such as the trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and righting the wrongs done to LGBT veterans, we would think that we would have reason to celebrate, but as others have said, we must be aware that, among some, the narrative is shifting. We have seen our trans community under attack, being made to feel non-existent. Around the world, we have seen those in power in countries that we normally consider progressive rowing back on LGBTQ+ rights.

We sadly even hear such rhetoric coming out of this place. This week, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe)—I have given him notice—stated that he would sack every DEI officer in the NHS. Just this weekend, he told them on social media how much he detests their work. Let us look at this. D stands for diversity: diverse people, and people from a diverse background. E stands for equality: helping those diverse people to gain equality and feel equal. I stands for inclusion: making them feel they are included in society. How dare somebody say that they want to ban that.

We need to call these people out—those who are looking to push us back and take away our rights, making diversity irrelevant as opposed to embracing it. We are a diverse country and should embrace everybody, whoever they are. We have made huge strides forward, so please, let us not go back. I pay tribute to all the pride organisations across the country, many of which are run by volunteers, for their wonderful work in raising awareness, and creating visibility and safe spaces for the LGBTQ+ community. I particularly call attention to Basildon Pride, where I am still the chair of trustees, and the wonderful Southend Pride, which offers so much to the community. Long may it continue to do so. \p Nadia Whittome: I pay tribute to the Minister, who bravely spoke about the realities of teaching under section 28 and how she did her best to protect LGBT children in her class. I am so glad that she is now able to do so in Government. I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who has always been a staunch and fearless ally, and speaks about these issues with warmth, compassion, humanity and empathy.

Today, we have seen some of the best of all parties represented in the Chamber. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), has always been a voice on these issues within the Conservative party. The Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), has long been ahead of many in this House when it comes to equalities issues, including being outspoken in support of the rights of sex workers, who must never be excluded from conversations on feminism and LGBTQ equality.

I am thrilled that we have the opportunity to discuss LGBT History Month in the Chamber for many reasons, not least because it gives me the opportunity to put on record just how gay Nottingham is and has long been. I was overjoyed to learn that Mansfield Road, where my constituency office is based, was home to queer-friendly cafés in the 1960s, and that just down the road in St Ann’s there was a flourishing lesbian pub scene. Nottingham also had a trans meet-up group all the way back in the 1970s—again, disproving the lie that trans people have only existed more recently—and people in our city were active in the section 28 protests, in fighting the AIDS crisis, and in running life-saving phone support lines. I was privileged to meet some of them at Silver Pride, a social group for older gay and bi men in Nottingham.

It is thanks to CJ DeBarra that much of that history and more is being uncovered. They have interviewed more than 150 members of our community, and delved deep into archives around the country to ensure that the history of Nottingham’s LGBTQ+ community is preserved, highlighted and celebrated. I also pay tribute to many of the groups that support and advocate for LGBTQ+ people in Nottingham today: Notts LGBT+ network, Notts Pride, the Pastel Project, Nottingham Against Transphobia, Silver Pride, the Nottingham Centre for Transgender Health, Notts Trans Hub and more. Those involved are unsung heroes—often volunteers who work tirelessly to improve the lives of people in our community. They deserve huge thanks and recognition.

As well as marking LGBT History Month, this debate coincides with HIV Testing Week. I commend the Prime Minister for being the first to take a public HIV test. At the height of the AIDS crisis, that would have been unthinkable. It demonstrates just how far we have come in this regard. It is thanks to activists who have fought so hard for proper treatment and funding for research, and against ignorance and stigma, that we are where we are today. HIV is no longer a death sentence—far from it—and ending the epidemic is possible. UNAIDS has set a goal of 2030, and it is vital that our Government play their part in helping to achieve that. I welcome our commitments in this area.

Although it is right that progress is celebrated, it cannot come at the expense of recognising where we are continuing to fall short and even going backwards in some areas. Many of the struggles of the past are also struggles of the present. The LGBTQ+ community continues to face huge inequality, with trans people at the sharpest end, including higher levels of homelessness, discrimination at work and school, an increased likelihood of experiencing verbal and physical abuse, and, yes, disproportionate rates of suicide. This is not hyperbole, and recognising that sad reality is not in some way irresponsible. Life for may LGBTQ+ people is still immensely difficult.

We are living in an era of rising hate, both here and around the world, which is putting more people at risk. The state of politics on LGBTQ+ issues is appalling. Trans people have been made a political football, with their suffering almost considered a price worth paying to score political points. That makes some people feel tempted, I think, just to ignore the reality that trans people face, or to try to find some kind of so-called middle ground, but when the conversation has been dragged so far to the extreme right by anti-trans activists, the middle ground is far from moderate. History shows us that the answer is not to cede ground to the right’s framing; it is to fight back. Generations of queer activists held fast in demanding their rights, and they won them eventually.

I want to make clear, as a feminist and as a woman who is not trans, that I am proud to stand with my trans siblings. Those who claim that standing up for my rights as a woman requires rolling back the rights of trans people do not speak for me. When people with very loud voices and newspaper columns tell us that there is a conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, and that they are standing up for women, they are just not being honest. From the abuse towards women of colour competing in sport to cisgender lesbians being harassed in bathrooms, attacks on trans people endanger all women who do not fit within anti-trans activists’ ever-narrowing heteronormative and Eurocentric parameters of womanhood. Far from advocating for women’s rights, they are putting them under threat. Whether or not they realise it, they are helping to usher in the far right, who want to restrict women’s freedom and reinforce traditional gender roles.

We see time and again, for example, campaigns against trans rights and abortion rights working hand in hand, because they are part and parcel of a politics being dragged ever rightwards. Entire Conservative leadership contests have been fought on the basis of who can talk the toughest when it comes to an extremely marginalised group. The Conservative party has gone from supporting gender recognition reform under the May Government and promising to outlaw conversion therapy, to outright opposing the first and coming up with excuses to allow the second to continue.

I am extremely sad to say that my party, too, has been dragged in the wrong direction. Our policy on trans issues is worse now than it was in previous years. That is the wrong approach. Our party must completely reject the tired narrative that trans people are a threat, which underpins so much of this moral panic. It was not true about gay men in the ’80s and it is not true about the trans community now. Our approach must centre on  trans people themselves and their humanity. We must stand against bigotry and for human rights, and deliver material change, such as a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban; the reform that we have promised in the gender recognition process; proper access to gender-affirming healthcare to trans people of all ages, including by ensuring that everybody who needs puberty blockers has access to them; the creation of inclusive schools; and the expansion of affordable housing.

LGBT history is not just in the past; it is being made every day. Labour is now in government, and we must decide what role we want to play. Thanks to years of campaigning by LGBTQ+ people, previous Labour Governments took important strides in equalising the age of consent, repealing section 28, and legislating for civil partnerships, adoption rights and gender recognition. The future of the next generation of LGBTQ+ people will be shaped, in part at least, by our party. That generation will judge us on our record. We still have time to make it one to be proud of.

I want to speak directly to them—to LGBTQ+ youth. I know that for so many of you, life is really hard and your future feels uncertain. There is no doubt that this chapter of history, and the direction in which the world is moving, often feels dark, but you are not alone. There are so many people who love and not just accept you but celebrate you for who you are, both within our LGBTQ+ community and outside it. Our history is one of struggle, but not every chapter has been bleak. We have faced down bigotry and won rights. Throughout it all, queer joy has always co-existed. A better world is possible, and I hope that one day the need for struggle and the feelings of darkness will have gone and that our joy is all that remains. Until then, we will keep fighting. \p Alison Hume: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate marking LGBT+ History Month. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome).

One of my predecessors as MP for Scarborough and Whitby, Paul Latham, who was the MP from 1931 to 1941, was imprisoned for two years after being arrested for “improper behaviour” while serving in the Royal Artillery during the second world war. His story is a case study of how so often LGBT+ people have been hidden from history as they faced prejudice, persecution and, in the case of men who were gay, prosecution. Paul Latham’s arrest drove him to try to end his life, which resulted only in a charge of attempted suicide being added to that of indecent conduct—a very sad story, but hardly exceptional.

The post-war period saw a sharp rise in the number of prosecutions in Britain for homosexual acts, with the fine for a first offence being the equivalent of £700 today and second offences punishable by a sentence of one to five years on average. Thankfully, in 1967, the then Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins provided parliamentary time for Leo Abse’s ten-minute rule Bill to decriminalise homosexuality through the Sexual Offences Act 1967. Of course, there was still a long way to go to full equality.

Even as fairly recently as 1980, Scarborough town council refused permission for the Campaign for Homosexual Equality to hold a conference in the town—something  that damaged not only Scarborough’s reputation at the time, but its tourist trade. The success of today’s Scarborough Pride is therefore all the more welcome and is cause for celebration. Of course, there are other Pride events in nearby York and Leeds, but it is important for the community in Scarborough to be visible, which it is at Pride, with over 3,000 people taking part since it restarted in 2023.

I have taken part in both joyous parades, joining the Scarborough and Whitby Labour party carrying its splendid LGBTQ+ banner, along with my dog Tarka, resplendent in her rainbow neckerchief. The parade winds its way cheerfully through the town centre and along Foreshore Road towards Scarborough Spa where the festivities continue with fabulous performances, stalls and delicious food—of course, Tarka particularly appreciates the latter. Local businesses along the route decorate their shops and windows, putting pride flags out to show their support, with the whole town getting into the spirit of the event. It is a fun day, but it also helps combat the feelings of isolation that LGBT+ residents feel, and it has an educational value, breaking down barriers through family-friendly entertainment, so that future generations of the community will not have to experience the prejudice that older members have. McCain Foods, a major local employer, has gone above and beyond to support the event, but—as is the case for so many other charities—funding has been a struggle for the organisers, who all give their time for free. I pay tribute to those wonderful volunteers. I know that Scarborough Pride would welcome offers of support for this year’s Pride, which takes place on 13 September, celebrating inclusivity, diversity and love on the Yorkshire coast. Of course, further up the coast in Whitby, we enjoy a massive outpouring of love and acceptance twice a year as hordes of splendidly costumed goths visit the town in April and October.

However, as we have heard in the House today and as we know from our own experiences, the LGBT+ community continue to suffer from abuse and discrimination. A brilliant exhibition of photos from last year’s Scarborough Pride is running at Scarborough Art Gallery as part of LGBT+ History Month, but sadly, the comments section of a Yorkshire Post article about that exhibition has had to be switched off because of the vile nature of many of the posts. We have seen so much progress, including legislation to introduce civil partnerships and allow same-sex couples to adopt children, the equalisation of the age of consent and the repeal of section 28, all under the last Labour Government. That was followed by the right of same-sex couples to marry under the coalition Government, and I am so pleased to see this Government taking action to right a historic wrong and compensate LGBT+ veterans who were dismissed from the armed services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Defence Secretary has called this

“a moral stain on our nation.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1103.]

An honest look at history means confronting the prejudice and often brutal treatment that LGBT+ people have suffered in the past and continue to experience. It means facing the fact that progress has not been smoothly linear, but a case of stops and starts, in which each step forward has had to be fought for bravely so that people can be who they really are without fear. As the Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby and a proud   ally of the LGBT+ community, I am committed to playing my part in the push towards progress—towards a future in which our children can live their lives free from judgment and discrimination, and can be their best, brightest and authentic selves. \p Olivia Bailey: It is a huge privilege to speak in this afternoon’s debate. There have been so many wonderful contributions, and I thank all colleagues for them.

The question that I think I have been asked the most since I became an MP is, “Why did you want to get into politics? Why did you decide to become an MP?” I am often asked that by groups of A-level students or by kids in schools, and the honest answer is, “Because I know that politics changes lives, because it has changed my life.” I grew up under section 28, feeling like who I was, was something to be ashamed of. When I was 16, people in this place scrapped section 28 so that my school could no longer deny my existence. When I was 17, they passed a law to allow civil partnerships and give me belief that I could have a relationship that was viewed as equal. When I was at university, they passed the Equality Act 2010, which outlawed discrimination against me, and then when I was 26, I embraced my now wife in Parliament Square as equal marriage became law. It is because of all those things that today, my wife and I have two wonderful children and the love and respect of our families, and I am able to stand here today as a proud lesbian MP.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate for LGBT+ History Month. The debate is an important chance for us to reflect on our history and the brave pioneers who have come before us, and it has been wonderful to hear many of their stories today. However, I want to use my speech to celebrate not those who have achieved prominence, but everyday people who have persisted—who, in living their lives and having the courage to be themselves, are the reason we have made the progress we have. The real challenge for every LGBT+ person is not a battle with their career or their personal ambitions; the real battle each and every one of us faces is a battle with shame. When you are told that you are disgusting or when you are told that there is something wrong with you, it eats at you—it eats at your very sense of self.

Every time in our history that an LGBT person has steeled their nerves and held hands in the street, every time they chose to tell a colleague or friend the pronoun of their partner or chose to express their gender, and every time they chose love over fear, they showed an almighty act of strength. It is the most powerful political act there can be—an individual act of defiance, of courage —and today we stand here because of each and every one of them.

We have achieved so much as a community, but I want to conclude by reflecting on the work still to do, and the importance that this Government place on advancing LGBT+ rights, because our journey is not complete when there is still so much hate towards gay and trans people, while conversion practices still take place and while our gender recognition laws remain out of date. That is why I am so proud that this Government will deliver a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, make LGBT+ hate crime an aggravated offence and modernise the law on gender recognition.

The best way to honour the LGBT+ people who have, throughout history, fought for our rights, often at great personal cost, is to never be complacent, to link arms as a community and to make it our solemn mission to ensure that Pride is not just our protest against the pernicious effects of shame, but something felt freely by every LGBT person finally allowed to just be who they are. \p Deirdre Costigan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak, as a lesbian MP and as co-chair of the now very large parliamentary Labour party LGBT+ group, on what is the 20th anniversary of LGBT+ History Month.

LGBT+ History Month was first celebrated in 2005, but I first came to this country well before that—in the early 1990s—and for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, it was a very different place from what it is now. We were a community ravaged by the HIV epidemic that killed so many people and so many young people, but in a cruel twist, LGBT+ people were blamed for the very epidemic that was killing us. This led to section 28 —that pernicious Conservative law that put teachers in fear of being sacked if they even acknowledged our existence, and left many LGBT+ kids alone and often bullied mercilessly at school.

On the streets, LGBT+ people were in fear of their lives. In 1990, in my own constituency of Ealing Southall, Michael Boothe was kicked to death by six men in Elthorne park in Hanwell simply because he was gay. Both the stigma of HIV and the chilling effect of section 28 kept so many people in the closet, living lives they could not be honest about for fear of the consequences. They were unable to be open to their own families, and always fearful of being outed, of being beaten up and of losing their ability to earn a living. In the 1990s, people could be sacked from their job just because of who they loved. As unreal as it now seems, you could even be refused service by a shop, a hotel or a restaurant because you were gay. There was no law against it.

How life has changed since then! The last Labour Government transformed LGBT+ people’s lives. We repealed section 28, we lifted the ban on LGB people in the military and we equalised the age of consent. We outlawed discrimination against LGBT+ people in society and in the workplace. We gave LGBT+ people the right to adopt and to access NHS fertility treatment. We brought in tougher sentences for anti-LGBT+ hate crimes, with the first ever conviction for homophobic murder in the case of Jody Dobrowski on Clapham common. We introduced civil partnerships, giving same-sex partners the same rights as married couples. We changed the law to finally acknowledge trans people’s rights to live their lives, and one of Labour’s final acts in government was the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010.

Labour built a more equal society but since then progress on LGBT+ equality has been painfully slow or has gone backwards in many respects. Anti-LGBT+ hate crime soared to record levels under the last Conservative Government, which comes as no surprise given that they demolished neighbourhood policing in this country. They slashed funding to local councils so that life-saving services for young LGBT+ people—like  youth clubs and libraries, and specialist housing and sexual health workers—were cut, and they fanned the flames of a toxic debate about trans people’s right to exist.

It has taken a new Labour Government to pick up where we left off and restart the work that is still needed to ensure equality for LGBT+ people. We are righting the wrongs of the past by paying compensation to those sacked from the armed forces for being LGBT+. We are rolling out opt-out HIV testing, with the Prime Minister himself taking a test on camera this week. And we have opened the first of six new trans healthcare hubs.

It is still too easy for employers to sack an LGBT+ worker but pretend it was nothing to do with discrimination. So Labour’s Employment Rights Bill introduces a new day one protection against any unfair dismissal, which should make it harder for employers to get away with discriminating. Our plan to end zero-hours contracts will help stop young and low paid LGBT+ workers being denied work because of who they are. LGBT+ workers often have to come out to their employer when asking for time off, but the Employment Rights Bill introduces a new day one right to bereavement leave and a default right to flexible working, both of which will make it easier for LGBT+ workers to get what they are entitled to without having to tell their life story to their employer.

The Minister has confirmed she will reform outdated gender recognition laws and will soon be coming forward with inclusive plans to outlaw conversion practices, a promise repeatedly made by the last Conservative Government but which they again and again failed to deliver. Labour will finally stop this licensed abuse of LGBT+ people.

As part of our plan for change we will be modernising healthcare for trans people and we will be putting a specialist mental health professional in every school. We are also rolling out Young Futures hubs in every community, bringing back those youth services. This Labour Government will also put neighbourhood police back on our streets and make LGBT+ hate crime an aggravated offence.

LGBT+ History Month is a time to celebrate everything that has been achieved but also to acknowledge the work still to do to win true equality. This new Labour Government will transform LGBT+ people’s lives again, just as we did before, and our plan for change will rebuild the NHS, the police and the education system that we all need, whether we are LGBT+ or not. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Mims Davies. \p Mims Davies: It is a privilege to close the debate for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I thank the many Members who have contributed this afternoon, I thank Mr Speaker for his recent reception celebrating LGBT+ History Month, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for all you do in this space.

We have had an important and wide-ranging debate, and I apologise because many of my colleagues have been attending the debate in Westminster Hall so there are not as many of us here as before. That is slightly troubling, but I am sure some people are pleased about it.

In last year’s debate I was particularly struck by the words of my former colleague and dear friend, the former Member for Carshalton and Wallington, Elliot Colburn.

He said:

“LGBT+ people have always existed; we did not just pop out of the ground in the 1960s and 1970s and start marching through the streets of London and other cities.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 393WH.]

That has struck me strongly this year. I say to him and Jed that their engagement was the best night ever. The former Member for Sutton and Cheam, Paul Scully and I had a brilliant evening, and we are still waiting for that wedding.

I agree with the Minister that under-40s do not see or feel any difference. That has been roundly celebrated in the Chamber this afternoon. In rejecting and, frankly, moving on from the culture wars, we must all keep compassion, safety, fairness and equality for all at the heart of this debate. If we do that this LGBT+ History Month, we will do the debate justice. It is a pleasure, as I have said, to speak on my party’s behalf.

The hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) spoke about the importance of allies, and that is extremely important. The Minister talked about Fast Track Cymru and welcomed that work. There has been lots of huge and ongoing work that, if we all put every sinew to it, makes such a big difference. The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) highlighted that it is far from weak for someone to show who they really are and to be visible, and that the friendship that our LGBT+ trans community friends give us is wonderful. They are heroes to us, and the best nights out are with our LGBT+ friends. As a heterosexual woman of a certain age in the gayest Parliament in the world, I think it probably explains my ongoing single status and why I have such a good time.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke about the work of the many individuals who continue to stand up and help those friends, constituents and colleagues to come forward. The difference that allies make will never change. I absolutely agree with the point she made that furthering causes by putting individual safety at risk is extremely unhelpful, and rights are not a zero-sum game. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) spoke about the work that she has long done in this area and the importance of recognising that families come in all shapes, sizes and forms. As a single parent for not far off the last decade, I think there is still much stigma around what a family looks and feels like. We all need to keep working to tackle that.

The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) spoke about the incredible Nick, and I think we would all love to meet him. The hon. Member reflected on those living with HIV and AIDS losing friends and facing their own mortality, which was extremely powerful, but he also mentioned the power of hugs, and hugs for all do make everybody feel better. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) spoke about bravery, and she absolutely is a brave Member. She is always happy to speak on what she truly believes in, and that is all we can ask for in this House. All power to her.

The hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) talked about linking arms, and I love that. That is such a powerful image for us. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) spoke about Pride events and the opportunity to feel  part of something bigger and to tackle isolation and loneliness. I am proud that our party brought forward the first Minister for loneliness. I, alongside the wonderful former Member of this House, Tracey Crouch, had that role. What a brilliant, amazing, globally recognised role it was. Those Pride marches are a great opportunity to break down isolation and loneliness.

I have a couple of points for the Minister. On the Conservatives’ amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we think it is important, as I highlighted earlier, that parents, loved ones and carers can view what is going on in the classroom in RSHE. The Minister shared her challenges in the classroom. I wonder whether, had she had parental support back then and been able to share those materials, life would have been easier. I reiterate to parents, carers and loved ones that if we want to have true understanding, true discussions and conversations at home matter equally.

I urge the Minister to work with me to help stand up for women on the women’s health strategy. It is right that we are focused on equality and fairness for all. I hope that she, in her position on behalf of all women—whatever their sexual orientation—can be clear that we should have that focus, because women’s health needs are different. We can be fair, promote equality for all, protect our children and focus on liberty, but we must ensure that women’s health is at the heart of that. As I said earlier, some of the strongest and truest Conservative beliefs are freedom and opportunities for liberty and equality. They should always be at the heart of the discussion.

I mentioned some of my party’s milestones. Back in 2013, the Conservatives funded the first ever HIV testing campaign for black, Asian and minority ethnic people, which was extremely important. In 2019, our party elected the most openly LGBT+ MPs of any party—that might have been superseded in these last few months—and this legislature was recognised as having the most LGBT+ Members in the world, which is quite amazing, really.

Under the Conservatives we saw a reduction in HIV diagnoses of 73% by 2021. In the same year, the number of people with HIV living beyond the age of 50 hit an all-time high, and one of the highest figures in the world. In 2021, we introduced the HIV action plan, which needs to be updated by 2030, to end new HIV infections. In 2022, people with HIV but no detectable virus were rightly able to join the military and fully deploy on operations. In 2023, barriers to accessing IVF were removed for lesbian couples, as they were in 2024 for those living with HIV.

I say to young people listening and watching that this debate is an important reminder of why months of celebration like LGBT+ History Month are really important. An awareness of history assists us all in our understanding while all communities in this country and those around the world look to us. I tell young people not to be afraid to be themselves. They should know that they will thrive when they are themselves. I say as their Member of Parliament, or as an ally to them: we are here for you to reach out to and to listen to you.

As we Conservatives believe that love is love, I am proud to stand up for women’s rights and for all equal rights. We can all continue to do that positively in this place and elsewhere in the spirit in which the debate has rightly been held. All our constituents need that. \p Nia Griffith: I thank all hon. Members for the constructive debate that we have had. I thank in particular the spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), for her excellent contributions. She reminded us that the theme for this LGBT+ History Month is activism and social change. She paid tribute to Alan Turing, as other hon. Members did, and reminded us of her party’s achievements in government and the progress made there. She—very helpfully—gave her full commitment to ending the transmission of HIV infections by 2030. We welcome that cross-party support.

The hon. Lady asked about the relationships, sex and health education guidance. The Government are engaging with stakeholders including parents, teachers and pupils to discuss the draft guidance on RSHE and gender questioning in schools and colleges, and drawing from available evidence, including the Cass review, to finalise the guidance. We are taking the time to get this right and considering all available evidence alongside the consultation responses before setting out the next steps. It is absolutely good practice for schools and governing bodies to share their RSHE policies with parents. \p Siân Berry: I thank the Minister for chairing an excellent roundtable yesterday through the all-party parliamentary human rights group. The key message we heard from human rights campaigners from east Africa and global organisations was that we are experiencing LGBT history right now in the cuts to US Government funding being forced out by insidious transnational anti-rights campaigns. The call for the UK to step in and fill the gap left by the US Government was very clear, and I hope the Minister will be taking that forward. \p Nia Griffith: Absolutely. We have committed £40 million to those very aims. We will be stepping up to the mark with both our financial commitment and our leadership on the international stage.

We also heard from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I thank her for her excellent work, and particularly for undertaking some very difficult discussions. I will certainly refer the discussions and evidence sessions on puberty blockers that she has enabled to my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.

Like many other Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North also mentioned Labour’s proud achievements. However, I know she also wants to ensure that we keep to our manifesto commitments, and I know she will not allow any backsliding on this. I can give her that assurance—in the same way that my colleague, the Minister for Women and Equalities, did yesterday—that we are absolutely on track to bring forward a draft Bill on conversion practices, delivering a fully trans-inclusive ban that will provide safety for LGBT+ people subject to those practices. That draft Bill will then have the opportunity to go through pre-legislative scrutiny.

The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), told us about LGBT history in Scotland and the progress from a very hostile environment to a much more accepting environment now. She also reminded us that in this recent toxic  debate, especially in respect of trans people, it is very important that we stick together. This is an important fight for us all, and we must take it very seriously. She particularly mentioned helping schools and businesses to tackle bullying, which is a fight we can never, ever stop fighting—no matter how much we do, there is always a danger of backsliding on such things, and we all need to be aware of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) was quick to remind us how proud she is of her diversity and of the importance of activism in stopping attitudes backsliding. I was sorry to hear of the unfortunate happenings after the Pride march in her home town last year, and I very much hope that this year things will be better. I am glad to hear that people are fighting back and facing down that hostility. She also mentioned tackling the increase in hate crime, especially transphobic hate, and the pride she has in the fact that we are introducing the conversion practices ban and our HIV action plan. She mentioned her work at the Council of Europe. I pay tribute to her huge efforts there and to the work she is now doing on puberty blockers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) told us of her activism, particularly in Unison, in respect of equalising the age of consent and the impact of section 2A in Scotland, the section 28 equivalent in England and Wales. She mentioned the many successes of her campaigns, but said that people are still living in fear and that there is still much to do, particularly internationally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) gave some very difficult reflections on the early ’80s and the fear and stigma of HIV. He talked about the progress made on a range of treatments, reminded us that HIV is much wider than just the LGBT+ community, and said how much he supports our HIV action plan. Again, he was worried about rowing back on LGBT rights and the attacks on diversity, equality and inclusion. As he says, we should all embrace diversity—he is so right—to make the most of our talents, and to do the most good socially and economically. Of course, we have now named the office in government taking care of these responsibilities as the Office for Equality and Opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) talked about how far we have come, but that there are still huge difficulties, especially for trans people. She talked about homelessness, suicide rates and how trans people have been used as a political football. She very clearly stated that as a woman she sees no conflict between standing up for women’s rights and standing up for trans people. She rightly pointed out that attacks on trans people are from some of the very same sources that very happily attack women’s rights, so we should not think that there is a conflict between standing up for women and standing up for trans people. Again, she made a very strong call for action and said a better world is possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) made reference to the very sad story of her predecessor Paul Latham. She mentioned the historic achievements we have made since then, and I also loved her description of her dog in its rainbow outfit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) told us about the power of Parliament in increasing LGBT+ rights, but also about the power of ordinary LGBT+ people living out their lives, confronting the shame that very often they had to face down, and standing up and being visible. Again, she said that we should never, ever be complacent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) contrasted the London she came to many years ago—I will not say how many—with the Labour achievements since, but mentioned the slowdown in progress, and the worry about progress going forward and the need to stand up for LGBT+ people. She mentioned the Employment Rights Bill, which does so much for the rights of all our workers.

I draw the attention of the House not just to the achievements of the past, but to the opportunities of the future. As I said very clearly, we will publish draft legislation outlining a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are committed to changing hate crime legislation to bring parity of protection for LGBT+ people and we are determined to regain our place in the international arena as an example of progress, not decline. As history shows us, progress is not static. New challenges will always emerge and hard-won rights must not only be cherished but guarded. That is why the Government are committed to upholding Britain’s long-standing record of protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that the Equality Act protects everyone. But there are others who would gladly reverse that, returning us to a time when discrimination was permissible, even empowered, under the law. We must be ever mindful of such intentions and remember from our history why we do not wish to revisit such times. Lawful discrimination, section 28, vilification and rejection by wider society are history, and they must remain such.

Whenever LGBT+ people have faced ingrained hostility or a rising tide of persecution and vilification, we have met it with bravery and resolve. We must remember these lessons, and apply them to the times. Progress is not inevitable—it must be fought for—and that struggle continues, one in which we must all play our part to ensure that we move forward and never back.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month. \p Bambos Charalambous: People with respiratory illnesses, such as my constituent Jane Wessman, benefit greatly from receiving the free respiratory syncytial virus vaccine and also the shingles vaccine. The arbitrary decision to end eligibility for these vaccines at the age of 80 has a profound effect on those who need it the most. Accordingly, my constituent and others would like to see the age barrier lifted and the vaccines continuing to be available after the age of 80.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the Government take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to seek a reallocation of funds to ensure that the provision of the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine dose and Shingles vaccine dose is extended to those individuals who are 80 years of age or older.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that extending the eligibility criteria for the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine and the Shingles vaccine dose to individuals who are 80 years of age or older would bring considerable health benefits; notes that the former illness can cause acute respiratory infection, influenza-like illness, community-acquired pneumonia and lead to death and the latter illness can caused decreased vision or permanent blindness; and notes that vaccine doses for the Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Shingles virus are recommended to all individuals 80 years of age and over in the United States of America and in the European Union.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to seek a reallocation of funds to ensure that the provision of the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine dose and Shingles vaccine dose is extended to those individuals who are 80 years of age or older.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003045] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeff Smith.) \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: It is a sad reality of life that marriages fail. It can happen for a variety of reasons, and I do not seek to provide a critique on the underlying causes in today’s debate. However, one of the tragic consequences of divorce is the disruption and pain that it causes to children.

It is evident that an amicable relationship between parents would enable arrangements in respect of where a child resides following a divorce to be made without the intervention of the courts, avoiding much additional heartache and the adversarial nature of contested hearings; but such contested hearings cannot be avoided in each and every case. While it may be the intention of the system to protect the privacy of individuals and families during these hearings, the reality is an increasingly inefficient and, at times, unresponsive system that fails to place the emotional and psychological needs of the parties at its centre. The flaws in the present system are regrettably clear for all to see, and in failing to address them, parties are left with a system that undermines the very values that it seeks to uphold—values such as fairness and natural justice, with the wellbeing of children at their core.

This is such a vast topic that it would be inconceivable to address all the issues in the course of an Adjournment debate, and I will therefore focus on the constitution of those on the bench who hear child arrangement order cases. The reason is simple: the anchor point in all family law cases involving a child should always be that child’s best interests, and the creation of an outcome that supports and promotes the child’s safety and emotional and psychological wellbeing and protects his or her future prospects.

It is almost inevitable that each and every Member of this House will have had experience of child arrangement orders in some way, shape or form, whether through constituency casework, personal experience or family and friends, because such cases are sadly far from rare.

If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tell the story of one such case, which I suspect will resonate with many up and down the country, because it is sadly an all-too-familiar experience. This is the story of a young child who, by virtue of their age, cannot fully articulate their wants or desires, whose loyalty is split in two, who does not want to be seen to betray either parent, who is already dealing with their world being turned upside down and whose future is decided in a sterile magistrates court, often as a mere timetabling exercise. That child now faces birthdays, Christmas and Easter all split in half, with weeks cut in two and weekends alternating between one household and another, leaving them with no sense of oikophilia—the love of home. This is a child who feels different from their classmates because they are forced to go to school with their overnight bag; a child who constantly lives with the anxiety of turning up to school without their sports kit because it is at the other parent’s house; a child who feels nomadic, often confused and invariably distressed.

The scale of the problem can be seen starkly in the figures from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. As of 31 August last year, there  were 16,671 open private law children’s cases involving 25,670 children. In the first quarter of 2024, the average time for such cases to reach a final order was some 44 weeks. During that period, children are left with uncertainty.

Magistrates have formed an integral element of the England and Wales legal system since the 12th century and the reign of Richard I, who appointed the first keepers of the peace. Almost 200 years later, pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, the term “justice of the peace” was formally introduced. I do not propose reform of the role of magistrates lightly. However, I have reached the view that there is an overwhelming policy argument for doing so.

I am not for one moment suggesting that magistrates do not have an important role to play in the justice system; self-evidently, that would be a fallacy. However, I am increasingly convinced that the nature and focus of their work should be reconsidered, and in the case of child arrangement orders, it is my overwhelming view that the magistrates court should no longer play a role. The reason for mounting this argument is simple: there is an inequality in our legal system when it comes to private law family cases. These are cases that decide the nature and degree of contact a child has with each parent, determine the long-term future of a child and, by their very nature, have a significant, lasting impact upon any child.

Presently in this country, private law children’s cases can be heard before a bench of three magistrates or a district judge with a family ticket. Magistrates are a lay bench who, well-meaning as they may be, are not required to hold any formal legal qualification. While magistrates undergo some specific training following their appointment, it is not more than a handful of days a year. In comparison, a district judge hearing such cases undergoes much more rigorous training and must have a law qualification as a prerequisite. The stakes in cases such as these could not be higher. This singular, most important decision, if misjudged, can set in motion a truly devastating series of events, thereby irreversibly damaging a child and their life chances.

Let us contrast that with the role of magistrates in the criminal courts. The maximum sentence that magistrates can hand down is 12 months. Sentences beyond that are remitted to the Crown court to be heard by a circuit judge. In comparison, a decision about a child’s domestic arrangements until adulthood are frequently made by individuals with no specialist knowledge or training in family law. Furthermore, in the absence of formal legal training, subconscious bias is likely to run higher among magistrates than among members of the judiciary.

We can also take note of the approach taken by other courts in England and Wales. Specialist judges preside over employment, immigration, business and property, and social entitlement cases. Even in cases where a panel of three hears the case, it is a legally qualified, specialist judge who sits in the chair.

Given the importance of such decisions to a child’s long-term prospects, the outdated practice of magistrates hearing private law children’s cases should, in my humble opinion, be abolished. It is an inefficient and unreliable system of dispensing justice in the modern world, and it runs the risk of reaching inconsistent decisions of varying and questionable quality. Far too often, one hears of cases simply being decided as a timetabling exercise, and of a child’s weekly diary being carved up without  proper thought or consideration of the impact on that child. Removing the role of magistrates in private law family cases, and ensuring that all such cases are heard by a specialist family judge, would ensure greater consistency of decision making, applying a more judicious and impartial approach.

On this most consequential of issues, we should ensure that those who preside over family cases are not only appropriately legally trained but well versed in the emotional, psychological and social factors at play. There should be much greater focus on ensuring that decision makers are trained in childhood development, domestic abuse dynamics and trauma-informed practices. The system in England and Wales is virtually unique in permitting lay magistrates to determine such matters, with most jurisdictions across the world entrusting the decision to a suitably qualified judge. In more complex cases, we should consider the use of specialised panels, as deployed in other tribunals. Such panels could have a judge as chair and suitably qualified wing members, who may include experts in child psychology. By adopting this model, the panel can take a more holistic approach to decision making.

My ask of the Minister is very simple. If we aim to create a better future for our children, if we truly believe in progress and not merely maintaining the status quo, and if we are to be believed when we talk of improving life chances for generations to come, the Minister should commit to reforming this outdated and harmful system, and ensure that all child arrangement cases are appropriately considered by a qualified judge. \p Nicholas Dakin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) on securing this important debate, and I applaud the thoughtful and considered way that he has approached a very challenging area. I think we all want to mitigate the disruption and pain that family law hearings cause to children, and he is correct to say that we all want to have children’s best interests as the anchor point in everything we do. I applaud the way that he set out his concerns.

It is well known that family breakdowns are almost always challenging. At times, disputes are unavoidable and often intense, with children caught in the middle. The family court plays a crucial role in resolving such disputes. I want to clarify that magistrates who sit in the family court are formally referred to as “lay justices”. However, for the purposes of today’s debate, I will use the term “family magistrates”, as it is more widely recognised.

The hon. Member is well aware that the family justice system in England and Wales relies on the work that family magistrates do to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society, particularly children, are protected and that their best interests are prioritised. I welcome his words about the importance of magistrates in our justice system, even though he has concerns about the role that they play in this particular area.

Although family magistrates do not have formal legal qualifications, they undergo a rigorous selection and a comprehensive training process that is provided by the Judicial College, and it is worth noting that family magistrates were involved in family proceedings long before the inception of the family court in 2014. Before that, family magistrates in the civil and county courts  would sit on family proceedings and make decisions about arrangements for children. There is a long history of that in our law.

Family magistrates are recruited from the community and bring a diverse range of impartial perspectives and experiences to the court. This diversity helps to ensure decisions are fair. It is crucial that we recognise and preserve their contribution to the family justice system for several compelling reasons, especially in the light of the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman in both his recent article and this debate, suggesting that family magistrates should no longer be able to make child arrangement orders. The House will know that these are family court orders that detail arrangements for a child, including where the child will live and how they will spend time with each parent. The hon. Gentleman has clearly spelled out some of the implications.

The Government appreciate the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman regarding the training of magistrates. However, we believe the existing system has safeguards in place, which I will outline to offer reassurance not only to him but to everyone listening to this debate. I am talking about the training that magistrates receive, the role of the justices’ legal adviser, and the robust protocols the family court has for allocating and reallocating cases.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the quality of training provided to magistrates is of a high standard. To safeguard their independence from Government, the statutory responsibility for training family magistrates rests with the Lady Chief Justice, as set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. These responsibilities are exercised through the Judicial College, which offers a comprehensive training programme to equip family magistrates with the necessary skills and knowledge to handle the intricacies of private law children’s cases effectively. This training ensures that family magistrates are prepared to make informed decisions that prioritise the welfare of the children involved. Further information on the college’s training programme can be found on the judiciary’s website.

When sitting in the family court, family magistrates are supported by the justices’ legal advisers, who are qualified to provide advice on the law and procedures that family magistrates must follow, and who are also subject to an ongoing family training requirement. All judges, including family magistrates who hear applications for child arrangement orders, are obligated by the Children Act 1989 to have the child’s welfare as their paramount consideration and must undergo extensive training. To be appointed as a family magistrate, each individual must undertake training on determining the best interests of the child, navigating the welfare checklists, and ways of communicating with people in court, particularly where there is high conflict.

Let me emphasise and underline the role of justices’ legal advisers in assisting family magistrates in these cases. A panel of family magistrates decides cases with the presence and involvement of the justices’ legal adviser. The recent case law, Derbyshire County Council v. Marsden, confirms that these advisers play

“an integral, and legally required, part of the decision making process.”

Justices’ legal advisers provide essential guidance and support to family magistrates, ensuring that decisions  are made with a thorough understanding of the complexities of family law, and always prioritising the best interests of the children involved.

Nor are family magistrates operating in a vacuum. They rely on assessments carried out by trained professionals for arrangement orders, prohibited steps orders and other key rulings when making arrangements for children. This collaborative approach enhances the quality of the family court’s decisions in these very sensitive cases.

Family magistrates do not deal with the most complex cases in the family court. Established rules and guidance determine the appropriate level of judiciary based on a number of factors, including the complexity of the case. Cases involving certain complexities will be immediately allocated to other tiers of the judiciary—district judges, circuit judges and, at the most serious level, High Court judges—in accordance with the issued guidance. It is like a lift that the judiciary enter at the appropriate level.

The judiciary, including family magistrates, have an ongoing duty to keep allocation decisions under review, particularly if further information is received from the parties and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The case can then be reallocated to a more appropriate level of judge depending on the complexity and the issues in the case, and that can happen in the course of proceedings. The system ensures that magistrates handle appropriate cases for which they are trained, while more complex cases are managed at a different level of the judiciary, depending on the issues in the case. The mechanism not only maintains the efficiency of the legal process, but ensures that justice is served appropriately.

Family magistrates also play an essential role in the effective functioning of our family justice system. The number of outstanding cases in the system has grown since 2018, and the average time taken for cases reached a high of 47 weeks in 2023 under the previous Government,  which is similar to the data the hon. Member shared earlier. While we have taken steps to address the underlying issues, which means we are on track to reduce the outstanding caseload by more than 10%, there are still significant challenges facing the system. Family magistrates routinely deal with a number of cases about children. Removing that capacity from the system would fundamentally undermine the effective administration of justice, but more than that, the resultant delays in resolving cases would have a profound impact on the wellbeing of the children involved and on parents seeking to resolve their issues.

Furthermore, the Government remain committed to reforming private family law processes where appropriate. Just last week, the Government announced that our new pathfinder model of private family law proceedings will be extended to mid and west Wales in March and to West Yorkshire in June. It is a significant reimagining of private law proceedings, with dedicated support for domestic abuse survivors, up-front multi-agency information sharing and a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the production of a child impact report. Those proceedings allow our judges, including family magistrates, to have a much richer understanding of a family’s circumstances from the outset and ensure that parties are fully supported by professionals.

It is clear that family magistrates are indispensable in hearing private law children’s cases. Their collaboration with justices’ legal advisers, the quality of their training, the mechanisms for allocating and reallocating difficult cases and their contribution in alleviating the burden on all our judges are all critical factors that contribute to a more efficient and effective legal system. By maintaining the involvement of family magistrates in those cases, we can ensure that the best interests of our children, which are what we are all focused on, are upheld and that justice is delivered in a timely and compassionate manner.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.