debates/debates2025-02-11b conversation_23
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-02-11)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-02-11b conversation_23

Vikki Slade:Some 44,066 children—one in six—are waiting more than a year for medical treatment, compared with one in 100 adults. Waits are at their worst in community medicine. In Dorset, there are waits of up to two years in child development, and delays of a year are normal for child and adolescent mental health services. Fifty-three per cent of all community health referrals take more than a year. Will the Minister confirm whether the 18-week target will apply to community referrals and not just hospitals? If not, when can we expect a target, so that children are not badly affected? \p Wes Streeting: The hon. Member is absolutely right to put the spotlight on paediatric health. Mental health is important for children and young people, but physical health is too. This Government are committed to dramatically reducing waiting lists and returning to the 18-week standard by the end of this Parliament, but we should aim to go even harder after those childhood waiting lists, because many children waiting in pain and agony are losing valuable years of their childhood that they will never get back. \p Tonia Antoniazzi: The Government know how hard I have worked as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for medical cannabis on or under prescription. I am pleased to hear that there is a trial, but I urge the Minister and her team to make sure that it actually goes ahead, as others have not because of Brexit, covid and elections. Can she please meet me to ensure that the APPG and I are kept up to date on the work of the NHS? \p Karin Smyth: My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner on this issue on behalf of her constituents, and I congratulate her on that work. We are confident that the randomised trial will go forward, and we have invested over £8.5 million in it. I am very happy to meet her, and I urge people to come forward and support the trial. That is the way forward on this issue. \p Lee Anderson: The new Health Minister has stated that it is okay for a human being to present as a llama. If I have a family member who presents as a llama and suddenly becomes ill in the middle of the night, should I send for a doctor, a vet or a straitjacket? \p Wes Streeting: I can say to the hon. Member that my hon. Friend the Minister believes in treating every human being with the dignity and respect they deserve—even the hon. Gentleman. \p Josh MacAlister: Shortly after the election, the new Government announced £4.3 million for a new community mental health hub in Whitehaven. Unfortunately, the local mental health trust  followed that decision by announcing the closure of the Yewdale ward for acute mental health services. Does the Minister agree that we need to get early intervention right before we close acute services, and will he bring together a meeting to scrutinise that decision? \p Stephen Kinnock: Integrated care boards are responsible for providing mental health services to meet the needs of their local populations. As part of our plan for change, we will reduce delays and provide faster treatment. We are working with NHS England to transform mental health services, shift care from hospitals to local communities, and increase access to support for people across the country, including in rural areas. \p Robbie Moore: Insomnia affects many patients, including my constituents, who are being advised by their GPs to try cognitive behavioural therapy as an alternative to medication. However, digital CBT programmes are not available on the NHS, leaving many without access to drug-free treatment. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that patients have access to digital therapies, so that more people can get access to evidence-based, drug-free support? \p Wes Streeting: The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the importance of evidence-based treatment. As part of the Government’s shift from hospital to the community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention, the NHS absolutely should be in this space, and we are considering those issues as we develop our 10-year plan for health. \p Daniel Francis: The NHS South East London integrated care board provides services to my constituents, and I have discussed some ways in which we could better deliver services by redeveloping the Erith community hospital site in Northumberland Heath. Is the Minister able to provide an outline of the Government’s plan to provide capital funding for expanding community services like those at Erith hospital? \p Stephen Kinnock: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend so that we can get into a bit more detail about what is happening in his constituency, but he is absolutely right to point to the need for more and better community health services. That will be at the heart of our shift from hospital to community in the 10-year plan that we are delivering. \p Steve Darling: Health authorities in Devon are set to trial the relocation of a vital coronary service from Torbay to Exeter, which is 24 miles away. Will the Minister meet me and fellow south Devon MPs who have grave concerns about the impact on patient safety? \p Wes Streeting: It is important that people are able to get the right care in the right place at the right time, and I recognise the challenges, particularly in geographies such as Devon and Cornwall, which have more rural and remote communities. In the first instance, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take this issue up with local health leaders and his integrated care board, but Ministers are always open to receiving representations beyond that if he needs further reassurance. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) to ask his urgent question, I must remind hon. Members of the House’s rule relating to matters sub judice: Members should not refer to any matter that is currently before the courts.

On 19 November, I granted a waiver in respect of the case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, given the issues of national importance raised by that case. The waiver is ongoing, and Members may refer to the case in the House. Given that the coroner’s verdicts and findings in relation to the Clonoe inquest have been published, I am content for that case to be discussed in the House. However, Members should take care to avoid referring to any other active civil or criminal cases. \p David Davis: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the coroner’s ruling in the Clonoe inquest. \p Hilary Benn: On 16 February 1992, a heavily armed unit of the Provisional IRA carried out an attack on Coalisland police station armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun and three AKM rifles. Approximately 60 rounds were fired, but thankfully no one was injured. Following the attack, the IRA unit proceeding to a car park where they were engaged by soldiers of the Army’s specialist military unit. This resulted in four men, Patrick Vincent, Sean O’Farrell, Peter Paul Clancy and Kevin O’Donnell, being shot and killed by the soldiers.

On 6 February, Mr Justice Humphreys, sitting as a coroner in the inquest into the circumstances of those deaths at Clonoe chapel, found that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified and that

“the operation was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”

The coroner further found that the soldiers did not hold

“an honest and genuinely held belief”

that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves or others.

These are clearly very significant matters that require careful consideration. I know that the Ministry of Defence is considering the coroner’s finding. Therefore there is, unfortunately, a limit to what I am able to say in relation to the findings themselves, particularly given that there is also an ongoing civil case relating to these events. However, it is clear the Government must take such findings very seriously. We owe a great debt to our armed forces— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There is no sub judice to the case that you have just mentioned. We must be clear on that. So please let us not try to use that as a barrier. I just want to be clear on that. \p Hilary Benn: I accept that entirely, Mr Speaker. I was merely pointing out, as I think your statement alluded to, that there is an ongoing civil case.

We owe a great debt to our armed forces. The vast majority of those who served in Operation Banner during the troubles did so with distinction. They operated in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom. During the troubles, over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives in that endeavour. It is right that we hold our armed forces to the highest standards. We must also recognise the extreme circumstances that they faced. That is what sets them apart from the terrorist organisations who indiscriminately murdered over 3,000 people during the troubles. \p David Davis: I thank the Secretary of State for taking this statement personally. I know that he did not have to, so I thank him for that. The Government gave notice at the election that they intended to remove the element of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that protects soldiers and police who served during the troubles from prosecution. Last week’s frankly speculative judgment from the Northern Ireland coroner into the Clonoe shootings now exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now mostly in their 60s and 70s and no doubt hoping for a well-earned peaceful retirement. In his statement in December, the Secretary of State of spoke of

“recognising the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers, members of the armed forces and the security services who did so much to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe during the troubles.”[Official Report, 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 419.]

So precisely what are the Government going to do to stop the vengeful pursuit of decent patriotic people? If the Government leave them open to persecution, it will frankly be shameful and serve only to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland. \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question. As he will be aware, this inquest was part of the five-year plan established by the former Lord Chief Justice, and because the hearings were held prior to the legacy Act 1 May cut-off, the inquest was able to be concluded. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not the result of anything that this Government have done.

The Government set out in our election manifesto and the King’s Speech our commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, because it did something quite remarkable in uniting the political parties and communities of Northern Ireland in opposition to it. It is a fatally flawed piece of legislation that has been found, in a number of respects, to be incompatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] This Government believe in upholding our commitment to the European convention on human rights, even if other Members do not share that view.

I set out in my statement to the House of Commons in December the approach that we are taking, and I will bring forward further proposals in due course. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the service of our armed forces, the police and security services during those terribly dark, difficult and bloody days of the troubles. \p Adam Jogee: I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for his urgent question and the Secretary of State for his answer. I have a simple question: what does the Secretary of State think this ruling will mean for peace and reconciliation and for bringing communities together in Northern Ireland? \p Hilary Benn: That is a judgment that individuals and communities will have to make, having regard to what the coroner had to say. There have been a very large number of inquest findings in relation to the troubles, and the Government and I understand the concerns that have been raised by the coroner’s findings in this case.

The fundamental problem in Northern Ireland remains the legacy of the troubles and the fact that so many people still do not have an answer to the question of what happened to their loved one. I am afraid the previous Government made, in my view, a terrible mistake in deciding that civil cases and inquests would be closed off.

I also have to point out that the legacy Act did not prevent the possibility of future prosecutions, because it is possible, even under the law as it stands today, for prosecutions to be undertaken if the independent commission finds evidence that it thinks should be passed to the independent prosecution bodies. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Alex Burghart: Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker.

On a February night in 1992, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards had already attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were planning further attacks. These terrorists called themselves an army, they carried weapons of war, they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law. Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it.

What if this had not been on the streets of Tyrone? What if it had been on the streets of Birmingham? What if it had been in Parliament Square? Would we be asking why those men had not been arrested? Would we find it acceptable that the courts subsequently sought to punish those forces that had risked their lives for ours?

The consequences of this ruling are potentially very severe: military morale weakened, military recruitment reduced, military effectiveness diminished, and more retired servicemen in their declining years dragged before the courts for trying to protect their countrymen from terrorists. For the record, there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench to hear this urgent question.

The last Government took steps to ensure that a line was drawn under court actions like the one handed down last week. This Government have said they will repeal that Act, but seven months into their tenure, they have brought forward no plans. When will the House see that legislation? When we do see it, will the Secretary of State ensure that it includes provisions to protect servicemen, such as those affected by the ruling, from prosecution?

The Secretary of State will have seen this morning the excellent report by Policy Exchange, which puts the costs of repealing the legacy Act at hundreds of millions of pounds. The return to inquests and civil cases will severely hit the budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without funding, that will inevitably reduce policing and affect national security. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to underwriting that liability?

I will end by saying that if we in this House think the law is not fit for purpose, it is our job, and ours alone, to change it. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means. \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely understand the concerns, which he has expressed with such passion, about our armed services personnel, including in relation to this case. He has just said, “If this is the law, the law needs to be changed.” Is he suggesting that the arrangements for inquests and the way in which they are conducted—coroners sitting, hearing the evidence and coming to a finding—ought to be changed? [Interruption.] That is a very interesting observation from His Majesty’s Opposition.

The legislation passed by the last Government would have given the very terrorists who were killed in the exchange of fire, if they had survived, the ability to secure immunity from prosecution. That is what the last Government’s legacy Act did. It would have given anyone—soldiers, but also terrorists—immunity from prosecution. I am afraid that this Government take the view that that was wrong and the courts have determined that that was wrong. That is why we will repeal and replace the legacy Act. \p Claire Hanna: Throughout the troubles, both state and non-state actors committed unlawful killings that have created harm and scarred families across both our islands. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government, working with the Northern Irish parties, must find and build bodies that honour the Stormont House obligations of articles 2 and 3-compliant investigations and ensure that no victim-maker—nobody who carries out an unlawful killing, whether UK state forces, IRA or UDA—has the right to suppress truth from families? \p Hilary Benn: As I have previously indicated to the House, I am committed in all my discussions with many of those affected, including veterans, to finding a way forward that can command a degree of consensus in a way that the last Government’s legacy Act failed to do. I understand the strength of feeling being expressed in the House today—I really do—but there needs to be some reflection on how a piece of legislation came to be passed that engendered almost universal opposition in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, who, after all, lived through the troubles, did not feel that that was the right way to proceed, and time and again it has been found to be unlawful. In other words, we were left with a mess and we are doing our best to try to fix it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Al Pinkerton: I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for bringing this issue to the House. The Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to the principles of truth, justice and accountability. The violence carried  out by the IRA during the troubles was abhorrent and inflicted deep suffering on communities across Northern Ireland. At the same time, upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle that applies to all, including the actions of state forces.

The findings of the Clonoe inquest highlight the importance of due process and transparency in dealing with legacy issues. It is vital that families seeking answers about the past are able to access justice and that all events are subject to rigorous legal scrutiny. That is the only way to build trust and support a lasting reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

There has been immense progress in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement and that progress was built on the principles of justice, democracy and accountability. We—all of us—must continue to uphold those principles if we are to secure a lasting and peaceful future for all communities.

The Secretary of State recently said that legislation to revoke the deeply flawed legacy Act, which does not command confidence across Northern Ireland, will be introduced when time allows. Will he offer details on when that might be? \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. The answer to his last question is: when parliamentary time allows. As soon as I am in a position to indicate when that will be, I will tell the House.

I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the violence inflicted by terrorists being abhorrent. It is important that in this House we make it quite clear that there was always an alternative to violence: pursuing the path of peace. When people finally decided that that was the course of action that they should take, we saw a transformation in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The tragedy is that so many people were killed and murdered before we got to the point of the Good Friday agreement. \p Gavin Robinson: The Secretary of State asked rhetorically whether the law around inquests needs to change. The coroner had to answer four questions: where, when, who and how. He had no role in trying to answer why, but we know why: four depraved terrorists for the IRA and their warped ideology tried to destroy society and kill in our country.

Yesterday, the Defence Secretary was clear when he said that those who served in the SAS that day,

“deserve, and they will receive, our fullest support.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 21.]

I will not stand for a rewriting of the past. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Defence Secretary? \p Hilary Benn: I do not support a rewriting of the past either. Of course we should stand with our armed service veterans, which is what the Ministry of Defence does. I will say, however, that the coroner—a judge—considered the facts of the case and came to an independent judgment about them. We are all of course perfectly free to express a view about the findings but, to come back to my point in answer to the Opposition spokesperson’s earlier comment: if Members argue that the coronial system applying to inquests right across the country  should—[Interruption.] If I may just finish the point: if they argue that the system should be changed because there is a great deal of feeling about particular findings that the coroner reached, the House should give that careful consideration before going down that road. \p Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 continues to apply? That means that no soldier and no terrorist, convicted of even the most heinous murders, can serve more than two years in jail. Those are the sort of compromises that have been necessary. When the Secretary of State accepts that the legacy Act would have given immunity to terrorists and soldiers alike, does he not recognise the principle of a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitations, as exemplified by what happened in South Africa? Is what was good enough for Nelson Mandela not good enough for Northern Ireland? \p Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Societies around the world that have faced terrible conflict have each taken their own path to try to find a way forward. The release of 400 prisoners in the two years after the Good Friday agreement was a very bitter pill to swallow for many in Northern Ireland, but I support that step—it was nothing to do with me at the time—because it was the right one to take to enable the Good Friday agreement to be reached. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have met people, including the family of a member of our armed forces who was murdered by the IRA, who expressed to me their bitter opposition to the immunity provisions of the legacy Act. \p Jim Shannon: The sharpened tension in Northern Ireland is palpable after the ruling. The day after the shooting, the Provisional IRA issued a statement boasting that the men were in the East Tyrone brigade and on active service. Mr Speaker, you and I know the Bible, and it is very clear: live by the sword, die by the sword. If you live by a machine gun that you use to shoot a police station, you die by a machine gun—that is the way that I see it. For right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, and indeed throughout this United Kingdom, to be told that the use of lethal force was not justified flies in the face of common justice, and feeds the feeling that the judiciary are not just complicit but active in their rewriting of history. What can the Secretary of State do to rectify that situation? \p Hilary Benn: The findings of the coroner in this case stand for themselves and are on the record, and all of us are able to read them. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s direct question about what the Government are doing, as I indicated to the House in my answer to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Ministry of Defence is, of course, giving very serious consideration to what the coroner had to say. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am astonished by the coroner’s findings. He was not asked to contemplate the question about why—getting inside the head of a soldier who is worried about whether they are going to be shot dead is very difficult. I served in Northern Ireland and some of the decisions that we had to take were instantaneous. There was no time to mull them over—it was either life or death. I lost a very good friend, Captain Robert Nairac.  The Secretary of State says that the trouble with the last legacy Act was that it gave immunity to IRA members, but they already had immunity, not just through the letters of comfort but because they kept no records, so they cannot be prosecuted. The only group that will be prosecuted will be soldiers, like myself, who never asked to go to Northern Ireland, but went because we were told to protect civilians, and who served their country. They will be dragged in front of the courts because the Government seem not to care about them. \p Hilary Benn: I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who himself gave distinguished service, that I absolutely understand and recognise the point he forcefully makes about the circumstances in which our soldiers found themselves as part of Operation Banner. They had seen their comrades killed and they did not know what they were going to face; as he rightly says, in those circumstances soldiers had to make very hard split-second decisions.

The coroner had a job to do. He expressed his findings, Members of the House are expressing what they feel about those findings, and the Ministry of Defence is considering them. It is right and proper that we stand by our armed forces, which is why the Government and the Ministry of Defence give support to veterans in those circumstances. However, I would point out that many, many members of the Provisional IRA and the loyalist terrorist organisations were prosecuted, tried and convicted. \p Richard Tice: Based on the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, is it not now clear that the Secretary of State believes the Government cannot stand behind our brave soldiers in this instance because of our membership of the European convention on human rights? Therefore, surely that is a perfect reason why we must leave the ECHR. \p Hilary Benn: That is not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is indeed to stand behind our brave armed services personnel— \p Mark Francois: By repealing the Bill. \p Hilary Benn: By repealing the Bill, indeed, which has been found repeatedly to be unlawful. I make no apology for saying to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and to the House that this is a Government who uphold the European convention on human rights. I recognise that some people say we should leave, which would put us in the same position as some other countries around the world with which I would not want the United Kingdom to find itself associated. The point about the European convention is that its rights are for every single citizen: those rights may accord people with a decision that Members of the House disagree with today, but tomorrow they may protect the rights of every single one of us. That is why we are committed to the ECHR. \p Ashley Fox: How will the Secretary of State ensure that veterans who served their country with distinction will not be hounded through the courts over events that may or may not have happened decades before? \p Hilary Benn: As history shows, decisions about potential prosecutions are taken by independent prosecutors. Such decisions are not determined by the Government; independent prosecutors have to take decisions on the basis of the evidence and then courts have to decide whether they are going to convict or not. That is called the rule of law. A distinguished former Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, set out very clearly that the British Army believes in the rule of law and is held to the highest standards, and I agree with him. I also agree with what the newly appointed veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland had to say about that in the comments that were reported over the weekend. \p Jim Allister: There is tangible anger in Northern Ireland over this preposterous verdict, and the Secretary of State’s limp response today will not assuage that anger. This is a Secretary of State who wants to see IRA godfather Gerry Adams paid compensation because the wrong Minister signed his detention order 50 years ago. This is a Secretary of State who has today defended the retention of a coronary system that, time without number, puts the security forces in the dock, but never the terrorists. Little wonder that confidence in the Secretary of State is haemorrhaging in Northern Ireland, and this response only underscores why. \p Hilary Benn: As I made clear at Northern Ireland questions recently, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on the interim custody orders relating to internment in 2020. The previous Government knew there was a problem and, for quite a long period of time, was unable to find a solution. In the end, the solution—sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act—has been found to be unlawful, but I have given an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that we are looking at all lawful means to prevent compensation from being paid in those circumstances. I believe that we are taking the right approach to the legacy Act.

On coroners, I say for, I think, the third time that if we have an inquest system that we support and that applies right across the piece, it is not possible to write legislation that says, “We will have the verdicts, judgments and findings that we like, but we will not have the findings that we do not like.” That is a decision—[Interruption.] Independent coroners make those decisions in respect of individual cases. I feel the anger of many Members of the House—[Interruption.] Will the hon. and learned Gentleman let me finish answering the question that he put? I feel the anger that is being expressed in the House, but we have an independent legal system in this country, which is one of the foundations of our freedom. \p Carla Lockhart: The IRA itself claimed the terrorists shot by the security forces at Clonoe, describing their actions that night as being “active service”. They had just launched a cowardly attack on Coalisland RUC station, no doubt with murderous intent, but they met real soldiers and they lost. No doubt many innocent lives were saved by the security forces as a result of that evening: these were not innocent people, but hardened terrorists. Does the Secretary of State agree that this was a justified and necessary operation, within the guidelines of military interception, and will he condemn judicial rulings that seek to rewrite  history, undermine our security forces and embolden bloodthirsty terrorists who wage war against innocent people? \p Hilary Benn: I accept the characterisation that the hon. Member has ascribed to the individuals. Clearly, in firing 60 rounds at the police station, we know what their intent was. That was what the Provisional IRA and terrorists on the loyalist side did during the course of the troubles, and we have to speak of that as well. The coroner’s findings are there on the record. Members and public society are perfectly entitled to express a view, and I acknowledge the concerns that Members have raised today. It is a very serious issue, and that is why it falls to the Ministry of Defence to consider the findings and what may follow. \p John Cooper: It is a great pity that no one from the Defence Front-Bench team is here with us because I am sure that if they were, they could confirm that the DShK machine gun that these men had is a weapon of incredible power. If we were to look around the average city block, there would be nothing that a DShK could not hit and put a bullet right through. We now sit here warm and safe and consider the actions of, as we have heard, brave men who had to take an instantaneous decision to stand up and face that weapon and the people who had already demonstrated that they were prepared to use it. It sticks in the craw that we hear the IRA described here as a “unit”—as though they were some sort of army. They style themselves as an army, but they are not an army—they are a murder gang, simple as that. Is it not the case that the ECHR now skews the balance in their favour, and that we are hide-bound by the idea that there is an equivalence between the IRA and the brave soldiers of the SAS who stood up and did what they had to do to protect innocent lives? \p Hilary Benn: There is no equivalence at all—none whatsoever—for the reasons that have been set out by Members in this exchange, following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington. There is nothing in the European convention on human rights that says there must be equivalence. Our armed services personnel, the RUC, security services and others were doing their best to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland from the murderous onslaught that they were subjected to over the years of the troubles. That is why there is no equivalence between them and those who chose in those circumstances to use violence to try to advance their cause. In the end, the terrible violence that we are discussing was brought to an end by the Good Friday agreement—by people finally recognising that that is not the way to proceed.

Going back to the question asked about the cost by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), there was an alternative cost, which is what we would have faced if the Good Friday agreement had not been successful in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We should recognise what a significant moment it was, but we should stand with our soldiers. \p Robin Swann: Much has been made in recognising the service of our armed forces, including the members of the RUC and the PSNI,  because not only did they defend our communities, they lived among them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the soldiers acted inside the rules of engagement in that they believed their lives were in danger from heavily armed terrorists, who were intent on murder, and that decisions taken in a split second by the military commander were, in his view, justified? \p Hilary Benn: In all honesty, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I was not present at the time; I am not the coroner; I have not looked into the circumstances of the case; and therefore I am not in any position to answer the question that he has put to me. But I have read the summary of the coroner’s findings. They of course raise serious matters, which is why the Ministry of Defence is considering them. \p Sammy Wilson: As has been said, people in Northern Ireland are appalled at this decision by a coroner who, incidentally, would have had police officers protecting him during the troubles. I guarantee that had he been faced with armed terrorists and those officers had asked them to put their hands up and surrender, he would have been appalled. He would have expected them to be shot. People will be equally appalled by the measly mouthed response from the Secretary of State. Let me quote some of the things he has said: “I can’t comment on this”, “We have to take seriously the judgment of the coroner” and “I will defend the ECHR, even though it has been abused by terrorists.” When will the Secretary of State take the side of the soldiers who fought in Northern Ireland and not be afraid that whatever he says here might offend Sinn Féin, the IRA and their supporters? \p Hilary Benn: I will only say to the right hon. Gentleman that the characterisation of the views that he attempts to attribute to me is incorrect, but I make no apology for telling the House about this Government’s support for the European convention, because this set of findings by the coroner has nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. The coroner was faced with a set of circumstances. He considered them and produced his findings, as inquests do all the time. People are entitled to criticise the outcome, but it is an independent coronial process. \p Gregory Campbell: Compounding the problems that the coroner has created with his comments is the fact that in the past whenever innocent people were killed, the judiciary has commented that attention should be drawn to those behind the scenes who send young men out to carry out the killing. These young men were sent out to kill; they had murder in their minds. It is a pity that the coroner did not mention who was behind that—why are their names not being brought to public light? Does the Secretary of State agree that something like that might have helped a little to minimise the compounding problem created by the coroner’s comments at the time? \p Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we come to tell the truth about what happened; to give the families answers—I have met many of them, as have my predecessors—about what really happened. Although we will repeal and replace the legacy Act, I decided to keep and reform the independent commission because I believe it offers the best means of trying to provide those answers in the round. The  problem with the inquest system in certain cases is that it has no capacity to deal with sensitive information; the independent commission does. That is why I urge families in Northern Ireland who are still seeking answers to talk to Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, because he is able to produce reports that can range as widely as he thinks appropriate. \p Gavin Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would have intended to mislead the House, but I suspect that he may have misunderstood the point being made, and it has filtered into a number of his subsequent responses. In relation to the coroner and his powers, the point being made was that there are aspects of the judgment released on Thursday that are outwith the coronial law in Northern Ireland and outwith what would be expected of a judicial officer. I give the Secretary of State an opportunity to say not that the coronial law needs to change, but that the judgment does not sit within the remit and powers of the coronial system. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State wish to reply to that? \p Hilary Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a judgment for others to make, if that is the view they take. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, but it would be for others to consider it, and it may be a factor that the Ministry of Defence considers when it is looking at this set of rules. \p Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out how the divisiveness of the exchanges that we have just had illustrates what happens when a line is not drawn under bitter historical conflicts? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I think the right hon. Gentleman has just done that for us, and I think I have heard enough—let us move on. \p Harriett Baldwin: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on US steel import tariffs. \p Douglas Alexander: We have seen the proclamation issued by President Trump overnight, which enforces a full return to 25% tariffs on US steel imports on 12 March 2025. The US has so far published details only on steel, not on aluminium. The intended effect of the proclamation is to revoke existing arrangements that have avoided those tariffs, such as the UK-US resolution, as well as any separately agreed product exclusions from the tariffs.

What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest, based on a full assessment of all the implications of US actions. The Minister of State for Industry is meeting representatives of the steel industry and trade unions this very afternoon, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is in touch with representatives of the British steel industry and will meet them in the next 24 hours. Since July, we have engaged in a systematic way with the UK steel sector, and we will continue to engage with UK industries impacted by potential tariffs.

Historically, we have benefited from a strong and balanced trade relationship with the United States—worth around £300 billion and supporting millions of jobs. In trade policy, we stand ready to work with President Trump to find solutions that work for both the United Kingdom and the United States. \p Harriett Baldwin: The United States is our greatest ally and our greatest single trading partner. The UK and the United States are the biggest investors in each other’s economies. Yet this is a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry, because the Government have failed to engage with gusto with the new US Administration. The Prime Minister has not, despite his many air miles, got on a flight to the States at the first possible opportunity, and years of student politics-style insults hurled at the President by Government Front Benchers has put our relationship in jeopardy. And that was before the embarrassment of the Chagos islands situation showed that we have terrible negotiators running the country.

Can the Minister confirm what conversations he or the Secretary of State have had with their counterparts in the United States about steel tariffs? How many times has the Minister spoken with US trade representatives about this matter since Sunday? Will he confirm that the first 500,000 tonnes of steel to the US will be tariff-free, as they were under President Trump’s previous Administration? What economic analysis has the Department produced on the impact of the tariffs on jobs and on the wider UK economy, and what plans do the Government have to reciprocate with tariffs on US steel and aluminium, or on any other US goods? What are the Minister’s plans for the safeguarding measures against steel dumping, which expire in June?

We on the Conservative Benches have been calling on the Government to strain every sinew for a trade deal with the United States. Much work was done by the Department last time President Trump was in the White House. Will the Minister finally set out what plans the Government have to obtain a big, beautiful free-trade agreement with the United States? \p Douglas Alexander: Well, well—let me try to answer the various questions that the shadow Minister asks. First, on the big, beautiful deal that the Conservatives contemplated, I simply observe that that was one of a whole number of trade deals that they boast about but abjectly failed to deliver.

The hon. Lady described this as a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry. Frankly, we saw the UK steel industry suffer from a degree of neglect for many years under the previous Government. That is why we are the first Government in many years to set out a comprehensive steel strategy, including a commitment of £2.5 billion towards the future of the steel industry. We will take no lectures from Conservative Front Benchers on the UK steel industry.

On the hon. Lady’s substantive question about the degree of contact that we have had with the US trade representative, it may have eluded her attention that we do not yet have a confirmed US trade representative. We anticipate that Jamieson Greer will be confirmed by the US Senate in the next couple of weeks. Similarly, she might suggest that it is important for the Secretary of State to meet Howard Lutnick, the US Secretary of Commerce, but, alas, I must inform her that Howard Lutnick has not yet been confirmed. We stand ready to engage with the incoming Administration—be that with the USTR or the Secretary of Commerce—once we are in a position to do so.

In terms of the economic analysis, I hope the hon. Lady will understand, given how sensitive these issues are as we anticipate the further steps to be taken by the Trump Administration, that it would not be an altogether wise negotiating strategy to share the detail of the internal UK analysis of the potential effects of tariffs, which, I remind the House, are not due to be imposed until 12 March. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. \p Liam Byrne: What is essential now is that this does not escalate. Widespread duties on UK exports to the US would be devastating for economic growth, bad for inflation and bad for interest rates. The whole House ought to wish His Majesty’s new ambassador, Lord Mandelson, the very best of luck in the conduct of his new tasks in Washington. What flexibility will the Minister allow on increasing funding to UK steelmakers through the steel strategy if they confirm that that is essential to maintain a sovereign capability in this country? \p Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous words about the incoming UK ambassador to Washington, who—notwithstanding his commitment at the weekend to fly under the radar—is already in post and is making necessary calls. He is but one of the key  interlocutors we have established with the incoming Administration, and—reflecting the earlier questions that we were asked—we are already actively engaged with the US Administration.

More broadly on the approach to the UK steel industry, my friend and colleague the Minister of State for Industry is this afternoon meeting representatives of the steelmaking trade unions and representatives of the principal steel companies in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State will further that dialogue in the next 24 hours. There has already been outreach to the UK Steel trade body. In relation to the commitment for the steel strategy that we are due to unveil in the spring, I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is already a very active dialogue that will incorporate issues related not just to potential tariffs but to the risks of trade diversion, and to the substantive issues that he raises. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Clive Jones: Donald Trump’s tariffs will cause much uncertainty across the world, not least for those working in our great British steel industry. Tariffs are not just bad news for UK steel producers; they would have a tangible effect on people’s lives, from lower economic growth to higher inflation. It is not likely to end with steel, so we may well be caught up in America’s economic vandalism. Will the Minister set out how US tariffs may affect the UK economy and what preparations are being made as a result, and does he agree that British jobs are on the line and that businesses and workers want to see the Government stand up for them? \p Douglas Alexander: To give a sense of quantum to the House, about £400 million-worth of UK steel exports go to the United States. That represents, if I recollect accurately, about 10% of UK production, so the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to recognise that this is a significant moment.[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 6WC.] (Correction) We take that very seriously, which is why we are engaging in dialogue with both the workforce and the owners of the various steel producers here in the United Kingdom. More broadly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) alluded to, we want to avoid a significant escalation. We saw retaliatory measures taken under the first Trump Administration. It feels to me that this is an opportunity for the UK to exercise a cool head and a clear-eyed sense of where the national interest lies. These tariffs will not be imposed until 12 March, which gives us time to undertake the dialogue that is already under way, to reach a judgment on the basis of the analysis that we have already done, and to ensure that our interlocuters in Washington and elsewhere are engaged in a constructive and mature dialogue. \p Patrick Hurley: It is quite evident that tariffs will have a negative impact on the UK economy. Among all the palaver in the imposition of tariffs, the impact on workers—on their jobs and livelihoods—is often forgotten. In formulating a response to the proposed tariffs, I ask that we work closely with trade union representatives to ensure that the workers are not forgotten in all of this. \p Douglas Alexander: I am happy to give that assurance. I should probably declare an interest as a member of the Community trade union. I can assure the House that trade unions—whether Community, the GMB,   Unite or the other representatives of steelworkers—have been a central part of the dialogue that we started in July. Frankly, we inherited a situation in which there had been significant under-investment in steel capability in the United Kingdom for many years. We are backing up that commitment to dialogue with an act of commitment to public funds, and we are doing so in dialogue with the workforce as well as with the companies themselves. \p Martin Vickers: The Minister is quite right that we do not want a knee-jerk reaction, but I gently point out to him that this announcement should not have come as a surprise, bearing in mind the President’s comments both before and after the inauguration. Many of my constituents who work at the Scunthorpe steelworks already face an uncertain future, and this will just increase their concerns. Can the Minister give an assurance that he will report back to the House as soon as possible about the meetings that will take place over the next day or two? \p Douglas Alexander: There are plenty of opportunities for Ministers to be held accountable in relation to the dialogue that we have started, and that we continue, with steel producers in the United Kingdom.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s initial point about whether this announcement has come as a surprise, candidly, it has not. However, it is also fair to recognise that the new President has a speciality in generating uncertainty—part of his style of negotiations is creating uncertainty as to what will happen next. As I sought to suggest in my opening answers, we have answers on steel today, but the proclamation that emerged overnight did not give us answers on aluminium. In those circumstances, it is right and reasonable to be mindful of the statements that have been made, which I can assure the House that we were, and to undertake analysis, which I can assure the House we are also continuing to review and reach a judgment on.

At the same time, we should recognise that the date on which these tariffs come into effect is 12 March. As a consequence, there is a window of opportunity to not only engage with the workforce and the companies to ensure that we better understand exactly what they are looking for in light of these specific measures, but critically, to engage directly with the Trump Administration. That is work to which our ambassador is already turning his mind. \p Luke Myer: Let us not forget that steel is a strategically important industry, both for our economy and our national security, and if other countries are going to be protecting their steel industry, our Government must not be afraid to make the big fiscal choices required to protect our own. Will the Minister assure the House that responding to these tariffs will be a priority for this Government, as will putting the industry on a sure footing in the years ahead? \p Douglas Alexander: In terms of being willing to make the big fiscal choices, we have committed £2.5 billion of public money since July to support the steel industry, with resources being funnelled in part through the national wealth fund. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have already been willing to put money, as well as commitment, behind the steel industry. He is absolutely right to recognise the strategic significance of this industry,  not just on its own terms but much more broadly to the manufacturing capability of the United Kingdom. He has alluded to the risk of trade diversion, given the potential remedial action taken by other trading blocs, so I also want to assure him that we have protections that will remain in place until 2026. There are safeguards in place in relation to trade diversion, as well as the UK’s ability to act independently. \p Chris Law: I have listened very carefully to what has been said this morning. We have known since November that this was coming, even though the press were saying that we would somehow get a special relationship. What is clear today is that Trump shows strength towards countries that are in a position of weakness, which is where the UK currently is. Is it not now time for this Government to think very seriously about being back in the EU, where there is strength against strength through the customs union and the single market? We do not know what else is coming down the line, and Scottish businesses need to know the future—it could be whisky, it could be fish or it could be manufacturing. Can the Minister give us some assurance about how he will stand up to the strength of global protectionism? \p Douglas Alexander: In terms of an understanding of Scottish business, again I should probably declare an interest, given that the Glenkinchie distillery is in the Lothian East constituency. Only this morning, I met with Chivas Regal and Diageo, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware. Certainly, no one party should claim to speak for Scotland, or for Scotland’s businesses.

As for the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, it is no secret that I was a remain campaigner and wanted the United Kingdom to stay within the European Union in 2016. I would gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that had his party been successful in its endeavour to break up the United Kingdom in 2014, the direct and immediate consequence of that choice would have been Scotland’s departure from the European Union. \p Chris McDonald: In his response, the Minister mentioned the previous Conservative Government’s neglect of the steel industry—it was allowed to decline to a size smaller than the industry in Belgium. Does he agree that the UK’s market presents a great commercial opportunity for investment in steel, and that through this Government’s steel strategy, we have the opportunity to attract that investment to the UK? \p Douglas Alexander: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We have a comprehensive plan for steel, which, sadly, we have not had in this country for a number of years. That plan is backed up by significant public resources, which again were not available under the previous Government, and we look forward to publishing a comprehensive strategy for steel in the spring of this year. \p Julian Lewis: If President Trump offered to cancel the tariff on steel imports in return for the UK throwing the appalling Chagos giveaway deal in the dustbin, would the Government agree? \p Douglas Alexander: Tempting though it is to indulge in the hypothetical negotiating strategy ventriloquised through the right hon. Gentleman, consistent with the approach  that we need to take a considered view of what is emerging—and is still emerging, in the case of aluminium—the responsible thing to do is leave those matters with the good offices of the UK’s ambassador to the United States and the Foreign Secretary. \p Jonathan Brash: The reality is that countries across the globe are moving towards a protectionist model, while at the same time we are still importing 68% of the steel we need. There is clearly an opportunity here for the UK. Next year, our steel safeguards come to an end, at the same time as the EU introduces its carbon border adjustment mechanism tariff protections. Does the Minister agree that we have to move at pace to replace those protections and back our steel industry in the same way that other countries are choosing to? \p Douglas Alexander: I can assure the House that we are determined to back our steel sector. The Minister for Industry will be at Sheffield Forgemasters tomorrow; as I say, she is meeting representatives of the steel industry today, and the Secretary of State will be meeting representatives over the next 24 hours. We have established a steel council and a comprehensive plan for steel, we have committed significant public resources, and we will publish a comprehensive strategy in the spring of this year. We take steel seriously, which, sadly, was not the case for our predecessors. \p James Wild: It is no secret that President Trump loves tariffs and intended to use them, and the Minister is coming across as a little complacent in his approach. Can he clarify whether any discussions have taken place with the Administration about continuing tariff-free quotas for British steel since the inauguration? Presumably, the Prime Minister did not raise that matter during his call. Does the Minister also concur that agreeing such protections is made harder by this Government’s failure to commit to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence? \p Douglas Alexander: It is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister has had a couple of warm exchanges with the incoming President-elect of the United States, which I think is entirely right and appropriate. We now have a new UK ambassador, and I pay due tribute to the work of Karen Pierce, his predecessor, who did an exemplary job on behalf of the United Kingdom during the period of transition. It remains an indisputable fact, however, that Howard Lutnick is not yet in office as the US Commerce Secretary, and that Jamieson Greer is not in place as the US trade representative. Those are the individuals through whom these dialogues are normally conducted. \p Stella Creasy: I echo Labour Members’ support for steel as a nationally important infrastructure industry that we must protect in this country. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee—who is no longer in the Chamber—I also agree that we must try to avoid escalation. Part of that is about our relationship with  Europe, which is our largest market for exported steel after America, so can the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with his European counterparts? This issue of CBAM is absolutely critical to the British steel industry, which is on its knees after 15 years of a Conservative Government who failed to see its value. Will he also reassure us that the resolution of the emissions trading scheme is still on the agenda for the May talks with Europe? \p Douglas Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working on that EU reset, and continue to work on it, through the good offices of my new colleagues in the Cabinet Office. One element of that reset is looking at those linkages and how they can work effectively, and the level of engagement in relation to that reset is significantly ramping up. Again, frankly, there had to be almost confidence-building measures established after the deep betrayal of trust that was felt by our European friends, neighbours and allies—let us remember that a previous Conservative Prime Minister could not even bring herself to acknowledge President Macron as a friend and ally of the United Kingdom. In that sense, we have built the relationships, we have established trust, and we are looking forward with a clear-headed sense of national interest to the reset talks that are getting under way this year. \p Richard Tice: The threat to the UK steel industry is not tariffs from the US, but the cost of our electricity. The Business Secretary has previously agreed with me that that is what makes our steel industry uncompetitive, and it is why imports have grown from 55% to some 70% in the last couple of years. So will the new steel strategy, due in the next few weeks, confirm how we will get down the electricity price in this country to make our industry competitive? \p Douglas Alexander: I think the difficulty with the point the hon. Gentleman makes—and I appreciate his constituency interest and the broader interests of Lincolnshire in this—is that other factors need to be recognised and addressed in the steel strategy. There is again, for example, the indisputable fact that we inherited blast furnaces that were increasingly out of date relative to technologies being used elsewhere. There had also been years of neglect in a number of plants in which there is a significant need for both public and private investment. So I respectfully hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about electricity prices and general power generation prices in the United Kingdom. The challenge of energy prices is not unique to the United Kingdom, but is felt across the whole of the continent of Europe. However, there are other factors that we are going to have to address as part of a comprehensive plan for steel. \p Andrew Pakes: I commend the Minister and the Government for their work on the steel strategy so far, but these are anxious times. British steel is a byword for British pride in our communities, jobs and the products we produce. I am worried not just about the exports, but about some of the steel dumping, on which we have had conversations, given our need to get growing as an economy. Does the Minister recognise not just that this is an issue for the communities that many hon. Members represent, but that it is an issue of national pride in places such as Peterborough and the country as a whole that we get this right? \p Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend is a doughty defender of the interests of Peterborough and of his constituents, and he is right to recognise that pride in steel making extends beyond Port Talbot, Scunthorpe, historically Motherwell and other locations of significant steel capability. On the specific point he raises, of course there remains a residual power available to individual companies under the Trade Remedies Authority to take action on dumping perceived to be happening. However, I reassure the House that the UK’s steel safeguards do and will remain in place until the end of June 2026, and I hope that offers him some comfort. \p Nick Timothy: The attacks on the last Conservative Government might carry more weight if this Government were not planning to equalise our carbon price with the European carbon price, but that is by the by.

Given the conduct of China over the years, measures to hold down production costs in other countries and now President Trump’s tariffs, will the Minister accept that, if international free trade was not always a myth, it certainly is dead today, and will he commit to abandoning the theories and policies that follow his logic? Comparative advantage is used as intellectual cover for outsourcing production jobs and prosperity to countries that cheat the system. So can we see some trade realism and a strategy—a real strategy—to cut industrial energy costs, keep us making virgin steel, and get us manufacturing and exporting more? \p Douglas Alexander: If the hon. Gentleman has an appetite for trade realism, let us get real: the Prime Minister for whom he worked failed to do a US-UK trade deal. Let us also get real about the fact that the central underpinnings of the party of which he is a member at the time of the Brexit referendum—that we were in a less protectionist world, that we would have a functioning World Trade Organisation system and, indeed, that we would have major trading blocs seeking to take barriers down rather than put barriers up—have all been misplaced. His leader, the now Leader of the Opposition, generously conceded a couple of weeks ago that there was no growth plan following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. It is for this Government to clean up the mess that his Government left. \p Barry Gardiner: Under WTO rules, any country can impose tariffs when it believes there is unfair subsidy of the exports presented by the other country, but so far I have not heard America put forward any argument that there is unfair subsidy of our steel industry. What discussions is the Minister having with the WTO about this? \p Douglas Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are in regular dialogue with the WTO. I was in touch only this morning with Simon Manley, our exemplary  British ambassador in Geneva. We were also very clear at an early stage—since July—that we were backing Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as the next director general of the WTO. I had the great privilege of working with Ngozi when I was the UK governor of the World Bank during a previous era of Labour Government. The UK is committed to standing behind her exemplary leadership of the WTO at an admittedly very challenging time for global trade. \p Sammy Wilson: To use football parlance, President Trump is playing a blinder with his tariffs strategy. Canada, Mexico and Colombia all fell into line when he threatened tariffs. Only the EU is foolishly saying that it wants to go toe to toe with him. Can the Minister assure us that our Government, using our Brexit freedoms, will put Britain first when it comes to this issue, and that we will not side with the EU, but will work with the American Administration to protect British jobs and British industry? \p Douglas Alexander: While I may not agree with that characterisation of the efficacy of the US President’s actions in recent weeks, it is a matter of record that we stand ready to work with the United States to broaden and deepen our trading and economic relationship. We are significant investors in each other’s countries, and that trading relationship matters. The previous Government abjectly failed to secure the trade deal that they promised—the big promise at the time of the Brexit referendum—but with a clear sense of the national interest, and a willingness to engage with open minds, we are ready to have this conversation with the United States. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his answers. The time is coming, and I hope we will have better news for the future. President Trump has been very clear that he wishes to work with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and to build on the friendship that already exists, but he is also clear that America comes first. He is a businessman, and we have to acknowledge that. What consideration has been given to addressing the tariff issue with him, and to securing a deal for our businesses? He has made it clear that he is prepared to give and take, and we have much to offer in this very special relationship that we both savour. \p Douglas Alexander: If one observes the comments made by the Chancellor last night, or by the incoming British ambassador in Washington, it is clear that we are ready to engage in a thoughtful, pragmatic way with the new Administration in Washington, and we want to broaden and deepen the trading relationship. I observe that under the first Trump presidency, bilateral trade between the United States and the United Kingdom increased, and we have ambitions to see that continue. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for his responses. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Dawn Butler: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the use of the title of nurse; and for connected purposes.

I thank the Minister for Secondary Care for being here for this debate. I thank the incredible #ProtectNurse campaign, led by Professor Alison Leary MBE and Paul Trevatt, as well as nursing organisations, such as the Queen’s Nursing Institute and the Institute of Health Visiting, and charities. I also thank Unison Health, Unite, the Royal College of Nursing’s professional nursing committee, and the many other people and groups who are supporting this change.

I am honoured to have worked on this for many years. My Bill is about protecting the public and respecting the training, qualifications and experience of registered nurses. I am sure it will come as a shock to many people here and watching this that anyone can call themselves a nurse. They can print out a business card and start work, and it would be fine—that is currently legal. Even those who have been struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council register for serious misconduct or those who have a criminal conviction can continue calling themselves a nurse. That is unacceptable, and actually quite dangerous.

When we hear “nurse”, we automatically think of somebody who is qualified. I am sure we have all done it: somebody says they are a nurse, and we say, “Can you look at this rash for me?”, or “I’m feeling a bit of pain in my left side,” and we start giving personal information. We trust them because we trust the title of nurse. It is about time that we showed the nursing community just how much we value and appreciate their qualifications, because we know how important nurses are in society. We clapped for them during covid. They were on the frontline, and they saved many people’s lives, so this change is well overdue. When I think about nurses, I also think about my cancer nurse, Aimee, and how amazing and special she is. This Bill and this campaign are also a tribute to her.

In 2021, I tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill that received the support of 240 MPs—an enormous number. We thought we would get the amendment over the line, but it was a shame that the last Conservative Government used their majority to vote it down. Now that we have a Labour Government, I am hopeful and confident that we can amend the law to protect the title of nurse. At the end of the day, the first role of a Government is to protect their citizens, and my Bill would go some way to doing that.

A freedom of information request by Nursing Standard found that across 93% of all NHS trusts, there were more than 8,000 people with the term “nurse” in their job title who in fact had no registered nursing qualifications. That is worrying, and the numbers are incredible. We know the problem, so what is the solution? It is clear: the simplest way to rectify this issue is to amend the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 by adding “nurse” to “registered nurse”, a term that is already regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, so this would not need to be part of regulatory reform. That is all we have to do. We have done a lot of work and research with lots  of professionals, and importantly my Bill will recognise existing and protected titles, such as veterinary nurse and dental nurse, which would not be affected.

The Royal College of Nursing passed a resolution in favour of protecting the “nurse” title at its congress in 2022. Those in the profession know exactly what must be done, and we cannot wait any longer to do it, because we know how dangerous the current situation can be for patients. Cassandra Grant, 39, is a dangerous fantasist who posed as a nurse at the Blenheim Palace horse trials. She was jailed for four years. She was involved in injecting an injured rider. She repeatedly lied about having medical and mental health qualifications, and the judge said it made his “blood run cold” to think of Grant

“getting her hands on a patient”.

Kate Shemirani was a nurse who claimed that 5G caused covid symptoms and spread vaccine misinformation. She was struck off, but she was still legally able to call herself a nurse. Lee Woods, a 28-year-old man, was arrested and charged in connection with impersonating a member of the nursing staff at Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow. Unfortunately, I could go on listing cases where the title of nurse has been exploited in this way, so it is important that we legislate. Building on the hard work of the #ProtectNurse campaign, I hope that the Labour Government can improve the legislation.

Since taking office, the Labour Government have made great strides on rebuilding our NHS, after 14 years of consistent neglect. I urge the Government to support my Bill as part of their vital package of reforms, and to help bring about this simple, common-sense and long-overdue change for nurses and patients. It is overwhelmingly backed by those in the profession. Given the growing public concern, now is the time for this change.

I was first elected to this House in 2005—it seems like a lifetime ago—and I am here to represent my constituents of Brent East. Thanks to all the boundary changes, it was Brent South, then Brent Central, and is now Brent East. This is a most important piece of legislation. It can change everybody’s lives. It lets nurses know that we appreciate them, and allows patients to have confidence in people who call themselves a nurse. It is a simple and easy step.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Dawn Butler, Paulette Hamilton, Tulip Siddiq, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Barry Gardiner, Juliet Campbell and Clive Lewis present the Bill.

Dawn Butler accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed (Bill 182). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 December 2024 (Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] (Programme):

Consideration of Lords Message

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jeff Smith.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Caroline Nokes: I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. \p Emma Hardy: I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 1 to which the Lords have disagreed, disagrees to Lords Amendment 1B, to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords’ disagreement to Commons Amendment 1, and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the words left out by Commons Amendment 1. \p Caroline Nokes: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes Amendment (a) in lieu of the words so left out. \p Emma Hardy: I am delighted to have another opportunity to debate this transformative Bill in this Chamber. I thank all Members for continuing to take an interest in this important piece of legislation, which demonstrates our shared commitment to improving the water sector. Today, this House will consider amendments made in the other place.

I recognise that there is huge interest across this House in wider issues relating to water. Though our debate today is solely focused on the changes made to the Water (Special Measures) Bill in the other place during the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments on 5 February, I look forward to future opportunities to discuss wider concerns and actions, for example through work relating to the independent commission.

I turn first to the changes made in the other place that would require water companies to regularly report to Ofwat on their financial structure, and to ensure that that information could be readily accessed and understood by the public. It is important to highlight that water companies are already required under their licences to publish by a set date financial performance metrics within their annual performance reports. That includes the interest on their borrowings, their financial flows and an analysis of their debt. If water companies do not comply with these licence conditions, Ofwat can take enforcement action, including issuing fines.

However, the Government recognise that there is an opportunity to make financial data more accessible for members of the public. The Government have therefore worked at pace with Lord Cromwell and Ofwat to develop a way to achieve our shared objective of improving the transparency and accessibility of reporting on key financial metrics. The insertion of a new section 35E into the Water Industry Act 1991 will make it clear that water companies should provide an intelligible overview of their financial position at least once a year. That overview should include a summary of the significant changes that have taken place over the past 12 months, and will cover key aspects of water companies’ financial position, such as their share capital and debt. \p Barry Gardiner: Ofwat has said that it believes that the right level of debt should be 60%, yet it has taken no action against those companies whose level of debt has risen to as much as 80%. Can the Minister assure us that under the Bill, Ofwat will not only have the power to act when companies’ debt levels are too high, but will use it? \p Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know how much he cares about this and many environmental issues. Amendment (a) refers only to the reporting arrangements for levels of debt rather than specifying the levels of debt that would be acceptable. It is about increased transparency, whereas his points fall more into the remit of the water commission, which is looking at all those issues as part of its wider work. I stress that the amendment is just about how information is reported and transparency.

The information must be made available in a prominent place on the water company’s website, ensuring accessibility for members of the public. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 35E also provides Ofwat with the power to determine the information that a water company must publish, as well as the ability to review requirements on financial reporting from time to time. That addition will ensure that reporting requirements keep pace with changes in the expectations and needs of bill payers. I would like to be clear, however, that the Government expect the power to be used to ensure that reporting requirements remain relevant, rather than to dilute or diminish the ambition of reporting requirements.

Financial reporting will also continue to be underpinned by pre-existing statutory obligations and licence conditions. In line with other requirements brought forward in clause 1, this new requirement will commence on Royal Assent. These amendments will help to rebuild public trust in the sector and provide the public with the levels of openness and transparency that they deserve.

I turn to the other Government amendment, which relates to the requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed by way of affirmative statutory instrument, as reintroduced by the motion tabled by Lord Blencathra in the other place. While the Government recognise that there were calls in the other place for increased parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules, we have significant concerns that a requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be finalised through an affirmative statutory instrument would delay the rules being implemented.

We are clear that Ofwat’s rules should be brought forward as soon as possible. That will ensure swift and meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of water companies as they begin to deliver on the largest investment package in the history of the water sector. Requiring the rules to be confirmed by statutory instrument would risk delay to the rules coming into force. We also maintain concerns that the Lords amendments would compromise the independence of Ofwat, because they would require Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed through legislation prepared by the Government. That independence must be protected if we are to ensure investor confidence in the water sector.

The Government are confident that the Bill already provides for sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules as it is required to conduct a statutory consultation on the rules before they are finalised. Separately, Ofwat has already concluded an initial policy consultation on a  draft of the rules and how they will apply. It received 11,700 responses on the rules through its consultation, which it is actively considering. As such, the Government are seeking to reverse the requirement and to introduce provisions in its place that will require Ofwat to provide its first set of rules in draft to the Secretary of State at least seven days before they are issued. I hope that hon. Members across the House will support that change, which will ensure that Ofwat’s rules are put into place as soon as possible following Royal Assent, in addition to the Government’s amendments to introduce new financial reporting requirements. \p Neil Hudson: It is a great pleasure to speak in this final stage of the Bill. Before I start my remarks, I will respond to the pertinent question about levels of borrowing for water companies asked by my friend and former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The Minister is right that Government amendment (a) is about reporting rather than the levels of borrowing. It is regrettable that the Government chose to reject the Conservative amendment in Committee that would have allowed the Secretary of State to set the amounts of borrowing for water companies. I hope that, as we move towards Cunliffe review, the Government may look at that again so that we can have tighter control on the water companies and their levels of debt.

Before I make my remarks on the Lords messages, I will say that getting to the Bill to this stage has been the result of much hard work across this House and the other place. I thank everyone, both front of house and behind the scenes, who has worked hard to get us here. That includes: the Minister for her willingness to listen to those across the House throughout the Bill’s passage; similarly, her counterpart in the other place, Baroness Hayman; those who have worked to draft the Bill and amendments; the Bill Committee; parliamentary staff from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and campaign groups and stakeholders who provided their insights to the Committee to help make the Bill even stronger, not least the Conservative Environment Network, the Angling Trust, and the Wildlife and Countryside Link.

Sadly, however, as the Opposition have stressed throughout the Bill’s passage in this House and the other place, this final stage of the Bill risks being yet another missed opportunity to act holistically on this important issue. It is unfortunate that the Government have been unwilling to go much further than their copy-and-paste approach, rebooting measures that the Conservatives took in government to address this issue.

We heard in previous stages how the bans on bonuses for water company chief executives and ensuring that 100% of storm overflows are monitored—up from 7% under Labour—were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. None the less, ever the optimist, I came to the Chamber hoping that the Government might be willing to reconsider their position on the issues of the amendments and the reasoning from the other place, which cover familiar ground. We debated these issues in the previous stages, not only in this House but in the other place.

At the heart of the Lords amendments is a theme that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have emphasised throughout the Bill’s passage: accountability. The previous  lack of accountability for water companies created many of the issues that the water industry has faced. The Conservatives in government and now this Government have attempted to try and address that. This is another chance for the Government to go even further and inject some of what is really needed into their approach.

I turn to Lords amendment 1B, which reverses the Government’s decision to remove measures from the Bill that would require financial reporting to be collected by Ofwat for its remuneration guidance. We know that one of the most worrying aspects of our water industry has been its financial resilience, as Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report back in November made clear, with 10 companies at need of increased monitoring and three in the highest category of risk, with closer monitoring required at a more senior level with Ofwat.

We all know, too, the cases involving specific water companies and the real risk that financial mismanagement brings for the survival of those companies and the water provision that their consumers rely on. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government have been unwilling throughout the Bill’s passage to accept Conservative amendments, or Cross-Bench amendments such as this one by Lord Cromwell, offered in a constructive spirit, which may have gone some way to address the issue. None the less, the Opposition truly want to see better financial resilience. Therefore, on financial reporting in particular, we want the Government to accept this as a reasonable step to regain accountability on financial resilience.

The Lords amendment to clause 1 would quite simply mean that, when it comes to financial reporting, there would be nowhere to hide for water companies and the decisions they make in this area. I note that, following the Lords’ rejection of Commons amendment 1, the Government have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1B, which will go some way to improving the financial transparency of water companies, as a formal concession to Lords amendment 1B.

Subsection (4) of Government amendment (a) states that what water companies must publish should be decided “from time to time”. I hope the Minister can see that such vagueness might be a problem moving forward, as “from time to time” could allow the regulator not to review when the need arises, because it had done so a few years prior or even longer ago, and justify that by arguing that it was doing so “from time to time”, as the law outlines. Even if nothing or little would need changing from year to year, or every few years, surely it would be better to require this at least to be reviewed at precise regular intervals so that the most valuable information is provided in the best possible format.

That aside, however, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition acknowledge the Government’s concession on financial transparency, and indeed public access, including characteristics of capital and debt. We are pleased to see that addition to the Bill.

In the same spirit, I move on to Lords reason 2A to disagree with Commons amendment 2, which urges this House to consider again the requirement that any rules under clause 1 be brought into force by means of a statutory instrument from the Secretary of State. Again, this amendment is familiar territory that we have debated at many stages, having been a measure consistently called for by His Majesty’s Opposition in the other place and in this House, both in the Chamber and in  Committee. We have maintained throughout that accountability is needed to deliver and enforce change in the water industry, but that must include the Government of the day, no matter which party they are.

It is odd that, on the one hand, this Government have claimed that they want a tight grip on water companies, while on the other, they consistently oppose a measure that would allow them to do exactly that. It is odd, too, that in Committee, the Liberal Democrats sought to amend the same part of the Bill that would have that effect. Their intentions were to bring in guidance as soon as possible, but there is a distinction between intent and effect. Removing some of the same lines would have had the same exact effect in ridding the Bill of the statutory instrument requirement that this amendment seeks to maintain.

The Government have argued—as the Minister has again today—that they fear that Ofwat’s flexibility to adapt their rules as necessary could be impeded in some way. But statutory instruments remain a timely measure to introduce any changes if needed. So once again, the Government’s argument does not stack up. It is only right that we, as parliamentarians elected by the British public to represent their interests with our voices and votes, are able to look at the proposed rules and exercise our ability to voice concerns if they risk falling short of protecting the public’s interests. Why deny the public and Members of this House the ability to uphold accountability of the water industry, which has been missing for too long? As such, once again we have urged the Government to accept what we believe is a reasonable set of amendments in the name of accountability.

Now, at the 11th hour, the Government have tabled Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords reason 2A that disagrees with Commons amendment 2, the amendments tabled and argued for by my Conservative friends in the other place the noble Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and add that the remuneration and governance rules may not be not be enacted until they have been provided in draft to the Secretary of State. There is a move towards some Government accountability, but sadly, not what the Opposition had wanted: a statutory instrument laid by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses.

None the less, I am grateful that the Government have listened to Lord Roborough, me and the other Conservative colleagues who have argued for more accountability, and that they have moved a little towards us with this amendment. However, I am still unclear why the Government appear scared of full accountability. Sadly, I fear that some of these last-minute concessions, which we would like to go further, look like the Government trying to avoid double insistence and the Bill failing. We do not wish the Bill to fail, as we all want the same thing: to see our waters improve and for the Government to continue with the measures that the Conservatives set in train in the last Parliament. In that spirit, we will not stand in the way of the Government’s amendments.

There has been many a chance for the Government to grab opportunities to bolster the Bill with both hands. Many chances have been missed throughout its passage, not least by the Government continually rejecting our water restoration fund to ringfence fines to restore local waterways, rather than to balance the Treasury’s books. They did not accept our sensible proposals to go further with nature-based solutions to flood risk. They rejected  our proposals for fines on water companies to result in equivalent reductions in customers’ bills, and our sensible proposals to allow the Secretary of State to place limits on the amount that water companies can borrow. They blocked our proposals to protect consumers in different parts of the country from paying for failing water companies that do not supply them.

As the Bill progresses and the Cunliffe review begins, I again urge the Government, for the sake of our water, environment, constituents, communities and, indeed, fairness, not to let political pride and dogma stand in the way of doing the right thing and making water legislation the best it can be. We wish the Bill well as it ends its journey in this House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Tim Farron: It is a pleasure to be back talking about the Bill again. In Committee and on Report, the Liberal Democrats put down a grand total of 56 amendments. What is two more? We believe, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, that this Bill is a good thing, and we wish to see it on the statute book, but we do not feel it goes far enough, and the two amendments before us today give us the opportunity to consider it a little more.

Through amendment (a) the Government want to introduce financial reporting requirements for water companies. The report, to be required once a year, should be a concise, intelligible and up-to-date overview of the financial position of each undertaker—a water company—including information on share capital and debt, and any significant changes that may have happened in the past 12 months or expected changes in the 12 months to come. We very much welcome the amendment. We tabled many similar amendments that contained aspects of those proposals, both in Committee and on Report. We are bound to say that they were better amendments—more ambitious and far reaching—but as with much of this Bill, these proposals are a decent start and we do not want to stand in their way.

To clarify, we have proposed a variety of amendments to the Bill up to this point, including calling for Ofwat to be made responsible for the financial stability duty on water companies. We called for the banning of bonuses for water company bosses whose companies were performing poorly, and not just on environmental duties but on financial stability and water quality. On the Floor of the House we pushed to a vote, with the permission of the Chair, a ban on water companies making customers pay for their debt at the point of bankruptcy, and instead for investors, who have taken risks, to pay for them. That was right, and we were disappointed that the Government voted against it and the Conservatives sat on their hands and did not support bill payers. This is an important and live issue. In Westmorland in the north-west of England, 11% of bills paid only service the debt of United Utilities, yet in other parts of the country such as the areas served by Thames Water, that figure is around 35% or potentially even more.

We have called for scrutiny not just of the finances of water companies but of other areas. The Bill has moved things in the right direction, but not radically enough. In Committee, we sought to encourage and persuade Labour and Conservative Front Benchers—without success—that it would be wise to have environmental experts on the boards of water companies.

On the Government’s laudable and positive move towards a live database that citizen scientists can scrutinise, we asked that it also be a historical database that is searchable in retrospect. Wonderful organisations in my constituency, which are replicated around the country, such as the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, the Clean River Kent campaign and Save Windermere, would monitor that database, but unless they look at it 24/7 and do nothing else in their lives, some things may get past them. For example, between 2021 and 2023, 120 million litres of sewage were pumped into Windermere lake without United Utilities reporting it. We are reliant on citizen scientists knowing about this stuff, and a great database will do the job only if it is searchable in retrospect. Scrutiny and transparency on finances and environmental matters are vital. We are satisfied that amendment (a) provides increased transparency on water company finances, and therefore we will not make a nuisance of ourselves today.

I turn to the second of the amendments in front of us. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) rightly highlights and reminds Members of my distaste for not having stuff in the Bill, and how statutory instruments are not the best way of doing things. Despite that, I am even more of a fan of ensuring that we in this place can properly scrutinise those who are meant to be scrutinising our water companies, namely Ofwat.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, Liberal Democrats have made good, radical, environmentally minded proposals that are in the interests of our constituents and our waterways. Although the Government have understandably stuck to their guns and voted against us, the official Opposition have, oddly enough, abstained on pretty much everything—including, it would appear, on their own amendment today, for which we want to vote, notwithstanding all our reticence about not having important matters in the Bill.

This amendment was proposed in the other place by my former neighbour but one—not the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who is also my former neighbour—the right hon. Lord Blencathra, a former Member for Penrith and the Border, and a very accomplished parliamentarian. In this amendment, he is seeking to require increased parliamentary scrutiny of Ofwat when signing off on water company bonuses. That issue is of huge concern to me, and, I think, to most people around this country—certainly in my constituency—because record bonuses are being paid to senior executives around the country. \p Catherine Fookes: The hon. Gentleman put forward a veritable smorgasbord of amendments in the Bill Committee, and all those issues were discussed. It is so important that Ofwat retains its independence. It is extremely relevant to point out, however, that during the coalition years and the 14 years the Conservatives were in government, no Bills were passed to ban water company bonuses, and this Bill will do just that. \p Tim Farron: The hon. Lady is right. Previous Governments of all parties have not tackled these issues as they should have done—including, of course, the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. There is no doubt whatsoever, however, that we are now looking at a massively changed situation. Why do the public care so much more about this issue than five or six years ago? It is because—I say this neutrally—we were in the European Union before then, and we had different levels of scrutiny. It is also because this House went through the process of basically lifting the bonnet to see what was already acceptable, at which point people in this place and around the country became utterly outraged at what was permissible. Yes, parties of all sides bear a responsibility, and not least the party that privatised the industry in the first place and let the cat out of the bag.

Ofwat does need to be scrutinised; that is what I find most frustrating. Now that the UK is not in the European Union, our own regulations are not scrutinised from outside—so if we do not do it, who will? We have heard many times of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise properly and hold to account the water companies; we heard on more than one occasion in Committee, as well as in this Chamber, of the £164 million in fines that Ofwat has levied against three water companies, of which, four years on, it has collected precisely zero pounds and zero pence. Our argument throughout this process has been that Ofwat, despite containing many very good and valuable people who are working their hardest, is nevertheless a regulator not fit for purpose. The amendment seeks to force Ofwat to give six months’ notice of bonuses it has signed off, rather than the seven days that the Government want, which is inadequate. \p Neil Hudson: I am slightly curious as to why, at the eleventh hour, the third party is now changing its position. In the other place, when this amendment was pushed to a vote, the Liberal Democrats abstained on two occasions, but now they are playing political games and actually risking the progress of the Bill. The amendment, as it stated, was to introduce a statutory instrument to increase parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The Government have moved some way—although not as far as we would like—but the third party is now playing political games, and risks the progress of a Bill that is trying to improve the state of our waters. \p Tim Farron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I can do maths, so I know there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the progress of this Bill—I know what the numbers will be, roughly, when and if we divide on this matter.

I am not a late convert but an early convert—a convert long before the hon. Gentleman—to the importance of scrutiny. It is therefore important that we make this case: imperfect though this proposal is, it is far better for this House to be given six months’ notice of Ofwat’s intention to allow bonuses than seven days. That is surely better, and that is why we insist as we do. This is Parliament scrutinising Ofwat because of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise the water companies.

That is our simple point. It is why we have proposed much more radical reform throughout this process, including the abolition of Ofwat altogether. It is not the fault of the people who work for the organisation  specifically. When regulation of the water industry is fragmented across parts of Ofwat and other agencies, which do not have the necessary powers and resources, the water companies will, of course, run rings around the regulators, and it is our constituents and our waterways—our lakes, rivers and coastal areas—that bear the brunt and suffer. \p Neil Hudson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He talks about a number of fantastic amendments the third party made in Committee, many of which were so poorly worded that they were not actually worth voting on. His particular amendment about abolishing Ofwat actually contained no suggestion as to what the third party would replace it with, or how much it would cost— \p Tim Farron: It did. \p Neil Hudson: It did not. It did not set out how much it would cost or how long it would take. While we want Ofwat to have the teeth to hold water companies to account, the third party proposes getting rid of it. Again, is it the party of protest that is not offering any credible solutions. \p Tim Farron: Well, first of all, if the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention, he would know that we proposed a clean water authority, which would gather up all the powers of Ofwat and the environmental and water regulatory powers of the Environment Agency.

I say this gently, but, again, there is a pattern here. Both in opposition and in government, the Conservative party shows greater levels of fury and anger over Liberal Democrats campaigning to clean up our waterways than over the fact that our waterways are full of poop in the first place. \p Neil Hudson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Tim Farron: I have already taken two interventions from the hon. Gentleman, so I will not.

My simple comment is that this Bill will do good, and we are supportive of it. We wish only to trouble the House a short time to ensure greater scrutiny is brought in. We have accepted throughout this process, with some reluctance, the Government’s position that this is part 1, and that part 2 is to come, and that the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe will potentially consider more radical action. We hope that is the case, and we shall engage with things on that basis. I have in my hand some pieces of paper that I propose to send to Jon Cunliffe, which tighten up some of the smorgasbord of amendments, as they have been called.

We care deeply about our waterways. I am honoured to represent the bulk of the English Lake district, with so many lakes and rivers, as well as our coastal areas in Morecambe bay. The quality of our waterways is deeply personal to me and to my communities. We shall continue to campaign unashamedly for something far better for our constituents, and indeed for our water right across the United Kingdom. \p Emma Hardy: With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and valuable contributions to today’s debate. Without stepping into the territory of a Second Reading debate, I suggest gently to the House that we are here today debating the  Water (Special Measures) Bill precisely because of the public outrage caused by previous lack of investment, and the fact that every single river, lake and sea in our country has been polluted. Had the previous Government, as stated by the now official Opposition, done the marvellous, wonderful job that they seem to want to suggest they did, there would not be the need for this Bill in the first place—neither would there be the need for all the campaigns that have taken place up and down the country. However, I will go no further into that.

I have respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as he knows. However, I say gently that it is dishonest to suggest that legislation is needed for the water restoration fund, because, in fact, the Conservatives created the fund without legislation. To imply that legislation is required to have the fund would, therefore, be inadvertently dishonest. It was created without legislation, and therefore it does not need legislation to be held. \p Neil Hudson: I am slightly concerned that the Minister is raising questions about my honesty. The water restoration fund exists, but where is it now? What has happened to it? Are the Government going to use it again? That is why we wanted to push, at every stage of the Bill, the point that the water restoration fund needs to be used to ringfence money so that fines on water companies can be ploughed back into restoring local waterways. I will be very happy if the Minister says today that the water restoration fund is carrying on, and then my honesty will be intact. \p Emma Hardy: I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I have said throughout, he will have to wait and see, but to imply that legislation is required for the fund would be dishonest. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want his honesty to be questioned. The implication that legislation is required for the water restoration fund is simply not true.

As I outlined in my opening speech, I recognise that there remains a strong interest in issues wider than the scope of today’s debate. I reiterate that the Bill is not the limit of our ambition. The Government will continue to work with hon. Members across the House to discuss and make progress in addressing the fundamental issues facing our water sector.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the words “time to time”. The wording has been specifically designed to allow Ofwat to review requirements as and when appropriate, and adapt quickly where needed. We do not want to pre-empt how often this kind of review might need to take place. To reassure him, that was discussed at length in the other place.

On parliamentary scrutiny, the Government worked with Ofwat to offer peers and MPs an opportunity to raise questions on Ofwat’s rules in a parliamentary drop-in session, providing further insight on the rules. However, that proposal was not accepted by hon. Members’ colleagues in the other place, which feels like a shame.

It has always been our intention to bring about, through the Bill, meaningful change in the performance and culture of the water sector. The amendments tabled by the Government are in keeping with that objective. I hope the House will support the Government  amendments, which will ensure that the public can easily access an overview of water company financial information, and will give Ofwat a duty to issue rules on financial transparency that will commence on Royal Assent. Together, the amendments will enable the Government to take another positive step forward in restoring public trust in the water sector, which has sadly been destroyed over the past 14 years.

Similarly, I hope the House will support the Government in bringing forward amendments to ensure that Ofwat’s rules are brought forward promptly and that its independence is protected. The Government acknowledge the intention behind the changes made in the other place, but we cannot accept the risk that they create in delaying the introduction of Ofwat’s rules. I therefore hope that Members across the House will also support the Government in ensuring that these vital rules are brought forward without delay. \p Caroline Nokes: I am sure the Minister did not meant to imply that the shadow Minister was in any way dishonest, and she might perhaps seek to correct the record to say she felt that he was mistaken or incorrect. \p Emma Hardy: I am very happy to issue that correction.

Question put.

A Division was called. \p Caroline Nokes: Division off.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 1 to which the Lords have disagreed, disagrees to Lords Amendment 1B to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords’ disagreement to Commons Amendment 1, and proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the words left out by Commons Amendment 1.

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes amendment (a) in lieu of the words so left out.—(Keir Mather.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 65.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Considered in Committee

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair] \p UNKNOWN: Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 18 stand part.

May I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker? Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable. \p Nicholas Dakin: It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.

On account of the Bill’s 18 clauses being grouped together, I will speak to them in numerical order. I begin with clause 1, which contains one of the Bill’s key reforms: provision for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement. This is important because different governing laws may give different answers to important questions such as who is party to the agreement and whether the type of dispute is capable of being arbitrated.

Clause 1 will determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement by replacing the common law approach established in Enka v. Chubb with a new statutory rule. The law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law expressly chosen by the parties. Otherwise, it will be the law of the seat. By way of simple illustration, if someone arbitrates in London, by default the applicable law would be English law.

Whereas the common law approach is complex and uncertain, the new approach in clause 1 is simple and predictable. It reduces the prospect of satellite litigation to determine governing law, which can be slow and costly. Where the arbitration takes place in London, as is the choice in so many international arbitrations, by default the arbitration will be fully supported by English law.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to add that an express choice of law to govern the main contract rather than the arbitration agreement is not enough. Clause 1 will not apply where the agreement is derived from standing offers of arbitration contained in treaties or foreign domestic legislation, as with investor-state arbitration, for example, as these are better underpinned by international law and foreign domestic law respectively.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 make provision in relation to the arbitral tribunal. Clause 2 requires an arbitrator to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. It will apply prior to the arbitrator’s appointment, when they are being approached with a view to appointment. It will be a continuing duty that also applies after their appointment. This codifies the duty of disclosure recognised by the Supreme Court in its decision in Halliburton v. Chubb and will enhance trust in arbitration.

Clauses 3 and 4 will reassure arbitrators that they can take the right decisions in their proceedings without fear of reprisal from a disappointed party. Clause 3 provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for the costs of an application to court for their removal unless the arbitrator has acted in bad faith. Clause 4 provides that an arbitrator’s resignation does not give rise to any liability unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable.

Clauses 5 and 6 both concern jurisdiction. There are two ways for a party to question the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. One way is to wait until the tribunal has issued a ruling and then challenge that ruling under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows a challenge to an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The other is is by invoking section 32 of that Act, which allows the court to decide whether the tribunal has jurisdiction as a preliminary point.

Clause 5 makes clear that if the tribunal has already ruled on its jurisdiction, any challenge must be brought through section 67. Clause 6 provides that where the arbitral tribunal or court rules that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, that tribunal can nevertheless award the costs of the arbitration proceedings up until that point. This will ensure that if a party wrongly starts arbitration, they can still be held responsible for the wasted costs incurred.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 deal with arbitral proceedings and the powers of the court. Clause 7 will confer an express power on arbitrators to make an award on a summary basis—that is, adopting an expedited procedure—to dispose of an issue where an arbitrating party has no real prospect of succeeding on that issue. This aligns with the summary judgments available in court proceedings and will deliver more efficient arbitrations. This power can be exercised on application by any of the parties. The procedure to be adopted is not prescribed. It will instead be a matter for the arbitrator to decide on a case by case basis after consulting with the arbitrating parties.

Clause 8 concerns emergency arbitrators. Arbitral rules sometimes provide a regime for the appointment of emergency arbitrators on an interim basis. Such arbitrators can make orders on urgent matters, such as the preservation of evidence, pending the constitution of the full arbitral tribunal. Emergency arbitrators were not commonplace when the 1996 Act was drafted, so it is important that we now expressly empower them. Clause 8 will provide that failing to comply with an order made by the emergency arbitrator will have the same consequences as those for a normal arbitrator.

Clause 9 concerns interim court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings. Under section 44 of the 1996 Act, the court can make orders in support of arbitration proceedings on certain matters—for example, the taking of witness evidence, the preservation of evidence, sales of goods and interim injunctions. Clause 9 will amend section 44 to make it clear that such court orders are also available against third parties. For example, the court will be able to make an order preserving assets against a third party such as a bank. This will mirror the position in court proceedings.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 concern powers of the court in relation to an arbitral award. An arbitral tribunal can issue an award on whether it has jurisdiction, and it can issue an award on the merits of the dispute. Either type of award can be challenged under section 67 of the  Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Clause 10 will equip the courts with the full suite of remedies for section 67 challenges. When the court has a jurisdiction challenge in front of it, it will have two new options: to declare the arbitral award to be of no effect, or to return the matter to the arbitral tribunal for consideration so that a revised award can be made. These remedies already exist for other challenges, for serious irregularities and for appeals on points of law, so this provision fixes something of an inconsistency in the 1996 Act.

Clause 11 also amends section 67 of the 1996 Act. It will confer a power for rules of court to provide that, unless necessary in the interests of justice, there should be no new grounds of objection and no new evidence put before the court unless it was not reasonably possible to put them before the tribunal. The amendments made to section 67 by clause 11 also provide that evidence taken by an arbitral tribunal should not be reheard by the court. This will avoid these challenges from becoming full re-hearings, departing from the precedent set in the case of Dallah v. Pakistan. Re-hearings can involve duplication of time and costs, and it can be unfair to allow a party who lost before the tribunal a complete rerun.

Clause 12 amends section 70 of the 1996 Act, which governs how arbitral awards can be challenged before the courts. It will clarify that the 28-day time limit for such a challenge will start running only after any arbitral process of appeal or correction has concluded.

Clause 13 concerns appeals from High Court decisions and corrects a rare drafting error in the 1996 Act. Section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and section 35 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 were amended by the 1996 Act. When read at face value, those sections currently suggest that High Court decisions made under the 1996 Act can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only if expressly permitted in the 1996 Act. \p Christopher Vince: It is clear from what my hon. Friend is saying that the Bill is welcomed by the legal sector. What engagement has he had with the legal sector and relevant stakeholders? \p Nicholas Dakin: There has been massive engagement with parties interested in this Bill. The Bill began in the last Parliament, to which I am grateful for the work already done. It began in the Lords, who engaged fully with parties at that stage. The Lords have had to restart the Bill in the new Parliament, so they have had two bites at the cherry, and all the feedback from stakeholders has been very positive. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that out in this debate.

When read at face value, section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and section 35 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 currently suggest that High Court decisions made under the 1996 Act can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only if expressly permitted under that Act. However, the House of Lords judgment in Inco Europe v. First Choice Distribution deemed this to be an error. In that case, it was established that appeals to the Court of Appeal under the 1996 Act are permitted by default unless there is explicit provision to the contrary in that Act. Clause 13 rectifies the original drafting mistake to reflect the position established in this case law.

I turn now to clauses 14 and 15. The Bill refers to these as “Miscellaneous minor amendments”. Be that as it may, they offer a few important points of clarification and efficiency. Clause 14 amends sections 32 and 45 of the 1996 Act, which allow arbitrating parties to apply for a preliminary court ruling on jurisdiction or a point of law. Under clause 14, such an application will require either the agreement of the parties or the permission of the tribunal. It removes the further requirement to satisfy the court on a list of matters—in other words, it streamlines the process. Clause 15 will repeal sections 85 and 97 of the Arbitration Act 1996. These both relate to domestic arbitration provisions, but neither was ever brought into force.

Clauses 16 to 18 cover the administrative aspects of the Bill. Clause 16 gives the provisions in the Bill the same extent as they have in the Arbitration Act 1996, which means that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland so that all three jurisdictions benefit from a modernised arbitral framework. Civil justice is not devolved in Wales, but it is now a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. The requisite legislative consent motion was agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly on 9 December 2024. We are grateful to the Northern Ireland Executive’s Department of Justice for its support in this matter. For completeness, I note that Scotland has its own arbitration legislation, namely the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010, which is not affected by this Bill.

Clause 17 makes commencement provisions so that the substantive provisions of the Bill, namely clauses 1 to 15, will come into force

“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”

Finally, clauses 18 establishes the Bill’s title once in force. \p Kieran Mullan: I rise to contribute to the Committee stage debate on the Arbitration Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Lord Bellamy, the previous Conservative Minister who originally introduced the Bill in the Lords in the previous Parliament, and I recognise the work of the Law Commission. Much of this Bill is based on the excellent work that the Law Commission did in considering the original legal framework for arbitration.

We fully support this Bill’s objective of modernising and strengthening the UK’s arbitration framework. Arbitration is a vital pillar of our legal system, supporting businesses, individuals and international commerce while reinforcing London’s position as a world-leading hub for dispute resolution. It is important that this legislation is as robust, effective and fair as possible. The Committee stage presents an opportunity to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise, and we welcome the improvement that it introduces. I do not intend to go through all the Bill’s clauses, but I reassure the House that the necessary scrutiny that one would expect from the Opposition in Committee is taking place. I will just touch on some of the key clauses.

First, clause 1 provides welcome clarity on the governing law of arbitration agreements, particularly in light of the Enka v. Chubb case in 2020. Defaulting to the law of the arbitration seat where no choice is specified increases certainty for businesses.

Secondly, clauses 3 and 4 extend arbitrator immunity to protect them from liability unless bad faith is proven. This is an important step to ensure that arbitrators can act independently without undue fear of litigation. We must retain an effective safeguard to challenge an unreasonable resignation, and we welcome the Minister’s reassurance that parties affected by an arbitration resignation are not unfairly disadvantaged.

Thirdly, clauses 5 and 6 streamline the process for jurisdictional challenges. Parties will either need to seek a preliminary ruling from the court under section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996, or wait to challenge jurisdiction under section 67.

Fourthly, on the procedural innovations covered in clauses 7 to 9, the introduction of summary disposal of claims is an important step towards greater efficiency, though we would welcome reassurances from the Government that they will monitor its use so that we can be sure that it is applied carefully and fairly, and does not have any unintended consequences. We believe that the recognition of emergency arbitrators is a positive step that enhances the availability of urgent relief, aligning the UK with international best practice.

Also of note is the right of appeal in clause 13. As the Minister stated, there was an unusual previous drafting issue that suggested that appeals to the Court of Appeal were permitted only if expressly allowed under the 1996 Act. That was incorrect. Clause 13 corrects the error, ensuring that appeals are permitted unless specifically restricted. This is a vital change to uphold fairness and legal certainty.

I want to acknowledge an important issue that was raised in the other place by Lord Hacking, whose contributions to the discussion on arbitration have been incredibly valuable. I know that other Members have also pressed for greater scrutiny of how confidential arbitration could be misused to conceal corruption. We welcome the Minister’s assurances that arbitral institutions are taking steps to mitigate those risks, and we believe that the Government must remain actively engaged in monitoring and addressing potential abuses, and not rule out taking further action at an appropriate time if it becomes necessary.

Beyond the issue of corruption, other crucial areas were mentioned in the other place; these are important and warrant further Government attention. They include the need for expedited hearings to prevent undue delays in arbitration proceedings, the role of third-party funding, and ensuring transparency and accountability in funding arrangements, as well as the authority to mandate mediation between parties, where appropriate, to encourage resolution outside of arbitration. The Minister’s attention to these issues is essential, so I would welcome confirmation that they will be addressed in due course.

In conclusion, the Arbitration Bill is a necessary and welcome step in ensuring that the UK remains a pre-eminent jurisdiction for arbitration. However, as with any legislation, its success depends on the details. The Opposition remain committed to ensuring that the Bill delivers legal clarity, procedural efficiency and fairness while upholding the integrity of our arbitration framework. I commend this Bill to the Committee and look forward to seeing its rapid progress through the House. \p Josh Babarinde: I rise in support of this Bill, which introduces important measures to modernise our arbitration framework. We Liberal  Democrats welcome the approach that the Government have taken in refining the Bill’s provisions to ensure clarity and effectiveness.

Clause 1 is a key part of this new Bill, and we are fond of the changes made following the recommendations from the Special Public Bill Committee in the previous Parliament. For example, the Committee proposed removing two words to prevent undue confusion, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that recommendation. In addition, the Government have further clarified that investor state arbitration agreements derived from treaties or non-UK legislation will not be subject to the default rule, which is a welcome and sensible step that is necessary to bring greater legal clarity to the process.

I also welcome the five amendments to clause 11, which enable procedural reforms under section 67 of the 1996 Act. These changes respond directly to concerns raised in the last Committee, and strike the right balance between efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings.

Further improvements were made in the other place, where the Government tabled amendments to clause 13 to correct drafting issues, which have been mentioned, and to ensure that access to the Court of Appeal aligns with established case law. These amendments received cross-party support and I am pleased to reinforce the Liberal Democrats’ support for them today.

This Bill strengthens the UK’s arbitration framework by improving clarity, ensuring fairness and refining procedures. We support its passage and urge the House to do the same. We do not expect any problems with that. \p Nicholas Dakin: I give my sincere thanks to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions today to what has been a succinct and precise debate. We are all agreed that this is an important step forward, and I am particularly grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for welcoming the improvements to the Bill and recognising that they have been the work of many people in the Lords and the Commons as well as of contributors from outside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) reminded us earlier.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised the important issue of corruption. As I mentioned during the Bill’s Second Reading debate, arbitral corruption is not the result of our domestic framework, which provides several effective remedies to quash corrupt practices. We support sector initiatives to enhance anti-corruption practices such as the International Chamber of Commerce’s anti-corruption taskforce, and we will push for the adoption of best practices as they are developed.

The hon. Member also raised third party litigation and funding issues. The Government have carefully considered the impact of the UK Supreme Court judgment in Paccar, and have decided to wait for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council review before deciding whether to legislate. A comprehensive review of the market will allow us to take a wider range of factors into account. Following the Paccar judgment, concerns have been raised about the need for greater regulation of litigation funding agreements and greater safeguards for claimants.  This is therefore an opportune moment to review the status of the market. The review is being undertaken by the Civil Justice Council, supported by a wider consultation group of experts across this area. The final report and recommendations will be published in the summer of 2025, after which the Government will consider the way forward.

The hon. Member also mentioned mandated mediation, and I will try to pick that up as well. The Government agree that dispute resolution, such as mediation, has a key role to play in ending disputes more quickly and cheaply. This is why all parties to a small money claim in the county court are now required to attend a free one-hour mediation appointment with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s small claims mediation service as an integrated step in the litigation journey. This reform will help thousands of people and businesses each year to resolve their legal disputes without the need for a court battle. We will continue to work to drive the uptake of dispute resolution throughout the justice system to allow parties to resolve their disputes more consensually and at an earlier stage.

That concludes my responses to the points raised during the Committee of the whole House. I once again thank all those who have contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading \p Nicholas Dakin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me first thank all Members of this House and the other place who have spoken in support of this important Bill and the reforms within it. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) has added his approval today as well. I am also grateful to all the hon. and right hon. Members who contributed to this afternoon’s Committee proceedings. It is encouraging to see enthusiasm on both sides of the House for further improving our already world-leading arbitral framework, and for the business that those changes will generate.

I also thank the many noble Lords who have given this Bill and its predecessor in the last Parliament such thoughtful consideration. Without their input and expertise, the Bill would not be so finely tuned. I pay tribute to the former special Public Bill Committee, which marshalled expert evidence from the sector, the judiciary and the world of academia. That Committee was ably and expertly led by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am also grateful to all the other noble and learned Lords who have contributed to the passage of both Arbitration Bills in the other place, particularly Lord Hacking, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, Lord Verdirame, Lord Beith, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mance. I wish to give special mention to Lord Bellamy, who first introduced these important reforms to Parliament as a Justice Minister under the previous Government.

Of course, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Law Commission for its exceptional work reviewing the Arbitration Act 1996 and recommending the reforms that are being taken forward in the Bill. Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission have led what can only be described as a masterclass in public consultation and law reform. I particularly thank Dr Nathan Tamblyn for his work leading the commission’s review, and for the support he gave the Ministry of Justice in taking forward this legislation. It is fair to say that no one knows the Arbitration Bill better than Nathan. His contributions to this area of the law will, no doubt, have a long-lasting and positive effect.

This Bill has greatly benefited from the input of experts and practitioners from across the arbitration community. Their contributions were made both through the Law Commission consultations and during evidence-taking by the former Arbitration Bill’s special Public Bill Committee. As has been recognised by both Houses, it is vital that our modernised arbitral law works effectively in practice. This has been made possible by the involvement of those who will use this legislation once it comes into force.

Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked on this Bill since it was introduced in the last Parliament. I thank the policy lead, Lee Pedder, the Bill manager, Iona Bonaventura, and Helen Hall from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my excellent private secretary, Gillian Atkinson.

I conclude by highlighting again the importance of this Bill for the arbitration sector and for UK economic growth more generally. We have a proud history of arbitration on these shores—a point that I covered in some detail on Second Reading. Since the 1996 Act came into force almost 30 years ago, the UK has been the chosen arbitral location for many thousands of disputes from across the world. This House can be confident that the modernisation in the Bill will enable our jurisdiction to continue playing that vital role for many years. This is very much a growth Bill—a growth Bill from a growth Government. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. \p Kieran Mullan: I join the Minister in his extensive and accurate list of thanks, and particularly in his thanks to Lord Bellamy, who introduced the original Bill, and to the Law Commission for its excellent work. The Minister also mentioned Lord Thomas, Lord Hacking and Lord Wolfson. I echo his comments on the effective role of the arbitration sector, and on the wealth that it brings to our economy because of its world-leading status and the certainty and confidence that it gives businesses that they will get an excellent service on which they can rely.

Finally, like most Members, I have had conversations with constituents who have said, “Why can’t you lot agree with each other more often? When I turn on the TV, it seems that all you ever do is argue,” but we work together quite effectively on Delegated Legislation Committees and in other forums. This debate is an excellent example of us working collaboratively in the national interest in the main Chamber—an example that Members might point their constituents towards. \p Josh Babarinde: I thank everyone to whom the Minister rightly gave recognition, particularly the behind-the-scenes officials whose work we do not often see, but without whom such landmark legislation would not be possible.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Arbitration Bill, inasmuch as it represents a significant step forward in modernising and enhancing the arbitration process in the UK. With over 5,000 arbitrations a year in England and Wales, worth about £2.5 billion a year to the economy in fees alone, arbitration has long been a critical alternative to traditional court proceedings, providing a more efficient, cost-effective and flexible way to resolve disputes.

One of the Bill’s key merits is its effort to streamline the arbitration process, which can be complex and protracted. By introducing these clearer guidelines and enhancing the powers of arbitrators, the Bill will help us to secure quicker resolutions, reducing delays and backlogs in the justice system. This is crucial for businesses that seek fast and decisive outcomes to disputes.

Of course, arbitration is part of a wider family of alternative dispute resolutions that help to take pressure off our courts. Recognising this, I pay tribute to legal professionals and firms in Eastbourne that work day in, day out, to facilitate many of these alternative dispute resolutions, including Heringtons, Cramp & Mullaney, Hart Reade, Gaby Hardwicke, Stephen Rimmer, SO Legal, Hobson & Latham, Mayo Wynne Baxter, Lawson Lewis Blakers, Cornfield Law, McCarthy Webb—whose services I have used—and many more.

We are pleased to support this Bill for the reasons that I and many other Members have discussed. It will ultimately help to position the UK as an attractive destination for global arbitration, reinforcing its status as a leading centre for business and legal expertise, whether we are talking about the financial capital of the UK or the sunshine capital of the UK, Eastbourne, with its legal expertise, to which I have just alluded.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased to back this Bill, and I am proud to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting—

(a) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment not later than two hours after the start of proceedings on the Motion for this Order;

(b) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Lucy Powell relating to Scrutiny of European Statutory Instruments not later than one hour after the start of proceedings on that Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;

proceedings on these motions may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Anna Turley.) \p Justin Madders: I beg to move,

That the draft Neonatal Care Leave and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the draft Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved. \p Justin Madders: I am delighted to move regulations under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which originated as a private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament. I therefore pay tribute to Stuart McDonald, the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and Baroness Wyld for successfully steering the legislation through both Houses, so that it could secure Royal Assent in 2023.

The Act established new statutory entitlements to neonatal care leave and neonatal care pay for employed parents if their child starts to receive neonatal care within 28 days of birth and goes on to spend seven or more continuous days in care. These regulations are another step towards implementing neonatal care leave and pay in April 2025, and they are the first to be brought before the House under the Act.

There is currently no statutory entitlement to such rights for parents of children who require neonatal care. Parents in this difficult situation have had to rely on existing rights, such as maternity leave or annual leave, to be there to care for their baby and to support their partner. This approach has understandably caused additional stress for parents. Some mothers report that they had to leave work because they were not ready to return at the end of their maternity leave. As paternity leave is limited to two weeks, some fathers and partners have had to rely on statutory unpaid parental leave or the compassion of their employers to take time off work.

Around 40,000 babies a year spend more than a week in neonatal care. Once provisions on neonatal care leave and pay come into force in April, we estimate that around 60,000 parents will be eligible, and that around 34,000 parents will take up paid leave each year. Neonatal care leave will enable eligible parents to take a minimum of one week’s leave and a maximum of 12 weeks’ leave, depending on how long their baby receives neonatal care, on top of their other parental leave entitlements. It will be a day one right for employees.

Statutory neonatal care pay, like other family-related pay rights, will be available to employees who also meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests. Eligible employees must have worked for their employer for at least 26 weeks, ending with the relevant week, and earn on average at least £125 a week before tax. If eligible, a parent will be able to claim a flat rate of £187.18 a week in 2025-26, or 90% of their average earnings, whichever amount is lower.

Employers will administer the statutory payments on behalf of the Government. Small employers will be able to recover 103% of the statutory payment from the Exchequer, while larger employers can recover 92% of payments and will therefore incur wage-like costs equivalent to 8% of the statutory payments they make. This is a similar arrangement to that in place for other parental payments.

Together, these regulations will provide protection and support for parents at an incredibly challenging time. These entitlements provide a floor, and employers can and should go further if they are able. \p Christopher Vince: Does the Minister agree that these changes will not only support parents who are going through a really difficult time but will also be good for employers? By showing that they are supporting their employees to return to work with these additional rights, this will be good for employers in the long term, too. \p Justin Madders: My hon. Friend is right. The impact assessment refers to evidence showing that family-friendly policies are good for employers as well as for individuals. That is certainly the Government’s approach towards employment rights.

We have extensively consulted stakeholders, including charities and business representative organisations, to ensure that these regulations balance the needs of parents and businesses. These groups agree that the proposed reforms will provide substantial benefits to businesses, including the retention of their employees’ skills and knowledge, as my hon. Friend has just said. I will explain in detail a few points in the regulations, which have been developed through consultation with relevant Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care.

We have a definition of neonatal care that encapsulates the different ways in which babies receive it, including beyond the walls of a hospital and through outreach care. This could include care that takes place in the family home, provided it meets the relevant criteria. We have included outreach care in the eligibility criteria to capture the many ways in which babies receive care, and to prevent a postcode lottery in which parents of children who receive the same clinical treatment may qualify in one area because they receive their treatment in hospital, but not in another area because they receive their treatment at home through an outreach care programme.

To ensure that as many parents as possible are eligible, the definition of “parent” in the regulations encompasses adoptive parents, foster-to-adopt parents and intended parents in surrogacy arrangements. Those who meet this definition will also be required to have caring responsibility for the child.

Having a baby in neonatal care is a difficult experience for any parent, whether the baby is admitted for one day or for many months. However, this entitlement will focus on parents of babies who experience prolonged stays in neonatal care as they will be in most need of additional support. A qualifying period of neonatal care will therefore be a minimum of seven continuous days, beginning on the day after the one on which the care starts. Starting the clock at one minute past midnight of the day after the child is admitted creates a consistent approach that does not vary from baby to baby.

The total amount of statutory neonatal care leave and pay available to parents will be capped at a maximum of 12 weeks, which balances the needs of businesses with the needs of parents. It is also worth noting that the entitlement will be in addition to other entitlements to parental leave and pay that parents may also be eligible for.

The leave and pay can be taken in two tiers. Tier 1 leave can be taken when the baby is receiving neonatal care and for one week after they stop receiving care. That leave can be taken at short notice, allowing parents to act flexibly in an emergency. Tier 2 leave can be taken after the baby has left neonatal care and therefore requires more prescription to ensure the needs of employers are balanced against the needs of employees. That approach provides flexibility for parents and crucially allows them to work around existing leave entitlements, such as maternity or paternity leave.

Employees will need to give notice to take leave and pay, and provide their employer with the information set out in the regulations. The method depends on which tier of leave they take and, as Members will expect, the stipulations in tier 1 are less stringent than those in tier 2. When the employee wants to take leave in tier 1, they will need to notify their employer before they start work on the first day of absence or as soon as possible thereafter. For pay, notice must be given within 28 days, beginning with the first day of the week in which pay is being claimed. When the employee wants to take leave in tier 2, they will need to give notice 15 days in advance for one week of leave and 28 days in advance for two or more weeks of leave. That is because leave in tier 2 can be more easily planned. The same notice requirements will also apply for pay. Furthermore, parents are not required to provide proof of their child receiving neonatal care. To make a claim in respect of pay, the employee may need to provide a signed self-declaration.

Parents who are out of the workforce on family leave for extended periods may be at more risk from redundancy when they first return to work. We have therefore ensured that parents on neonatal care leave will be protected from redundancy, and those who have taken six continuous weeks of neonatal care leave will also be protected until their child turns 18 months.

We anticipate that there will be some impact on businesses regarding familiarisation with the policy and managing the impact of employee absences. Like other family-related pay entitlements, employers will be responsible for administering the statutory payment on behalf of the Government. Overall, we estimate that the net annual recurring cost to businesses will be around £22.5 million. We also anticipate there will be a one-off familiarisation cost to businesses, which we estimate to be £4.7 million.

Despite those costs, we anticipate that there will be further benefits to businesses, as there is evidence that shows, as has already been mentioned, that workplaces offering a range of extensive family-related policies are more likely to have above-average performance relative to workplaces without such practices. My officials are working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure there is clear guidance on gov.uk to support employers in implementing this policy, and with Bliss,  to which I pay tribute for its work in this area, to ensure that parents can access the information they need to understand their entitlement as easily as possible.

I thank all those who have been involved in the development of neonatal care leave, including the premature and sick babies charities, for their tireless campaigns and support. I hope they are proud that we have got this on the statute book and that the regulation will be introduced today. It will make a real difference to hard-working families, who need the support at such a critical time. I commend the regulations to the House. \p Greg Smith: I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I welcome the introduction of these two statutory instruments, which have been a long time coming. In 2019, the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment to introduce neonatal care leave. It was a shame that in that election, and in the most recent, no such commitment was made by the Labour party, now in government. That is no surprise, however; just like with all their good ideas, it usually turns out that they were ours.

Our commitment to introducing neonatal care leave led to our support of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which was stewarded by the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Stuart C McDonald and Baroness Wyld. That Act is the reason why the Government are introducing these statutory instruments today.

I am pleased that, with reservations, we will support the measures, so that we can continue to build on the sensible improvements to workers’ rights that we, as Conservatives, introduced in government. We introduced shared parental leave, giving more choice and flexibility to families, and carers leave, giving employees more time off to give or arrange care for their families. We supported flexible working, giving employers and employees more flexibility over working practices, and we achieved all that while increasing employment and wages, a thing that the Government are now realising is no easy feat.

The result of our reforms to workers’ rights is that Britain has some of the most generous maternity and paternity leave globally, meaning families are able to spend more time with their newborns. Those achievements were reached by working with businesses and employees. We worked with businesses not just out of courtesy, but because we know that without consulting businesses and taking on board their concerns, no progress will be made, no matter how good the intention. That is not something this Government have done, which is why their Employment Rights Bill is driving up unemployment before it has even been passed.

In the plan to make work pay, the Government committed to rights from an employee’s first day, but for neonatal care pay, that is not the case. Will the Minister confirm whether this is the first step in rolling back on day one rights? Under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, the right to neonatal care leave and pay will come into force in less than two months. Why have the Government waited to introduce the instruments until now, leaving businesses less than eight weeks to prepare and plan? We have heard that the Prime Minister has requested a growth test on all policies. Has the Minister conducted a growth test on this policy? If not, why not?

More generally, this Government’s record on health, in particular women’s health, has been disappointing. At the end of last month, the Health Secretary dropped women’s health targets and those for women’s health hubs. That decision will impact 600,000 women on waiting lists, lead to preventable disease progression and lead to more women attending A&E, unable to work, care or live a fulfilled life. The Labour manifesto made a commitment to prioritise women’s health, but this Government are making a habit of taking with one hand to give with the other. Will the Minister confirm whether he raised his concerns over the cancellation of health targets, which have an impact on these measures, with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care? \p Christopher Vince: The shadow Minister talks about targets, but was it not his own Government that got rid of the targets for A&E waiting times, and then failed to meet their lowered targets? \p Greg Smith: It is a brave Labour politician who talks about health targets when, for so long, the NHS in Wales was performing, and continues to perform, worse than in England when it was run by the Conservatives.

To conclude, we will support these statutory instruments because they will support the 40,000 families who faced the incredibly difficult and worrisome experience of having a child in neonatal care. The instruments will build on our achievements that made the UK one of the best places in the world to be the parents of a newborn, and I hope the Government can continue to make progress.

I end by again thanking the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and Baroness Wyld. I also thank Bliss and the Smallest Things for their consistent work that has kept neonatal care pay and leave at the top of all of our agendas. \p Jennifer Craft: I commend the Minister for bringing the statutory instruments before the House. They introduce much-needed and long-overdue support for new families, which I am sure will be welcomed by Members across the House.

As every parent will know, the time after childbirth is a time like no other. It is both incredibly special and incomparably difficult, with lasting effects on the wellbeing of parents, carers and their babies. I pay tribute to my constituent Ashley Wiseman. In 2018, she gave birth prematurely to twins at 24 weeks. Her first child Esme was sadly born sleeping. Her second child Isla was born 50 minutes later. Isla was admitted to neonatal care at Basildon hospital before being transferred to the Royal London hospital.

Ashley met me and told me about the fear and uncertainty that she felt at that time, the impossible choice that her family faced between returning to work or being beside their sick child, and the financial burden of travelling to visit Isla once she moved to the Royal London hospital. Ashley described what we would all find impossible to imagine: long stays on the ward, some of her darkest days, and Isla being given just a 2% chance of survival. After seven months in a neonatal intensive care unit, Isla was discharged, and last month she celebrated her seventh birthday.

Out of such a traumatic and stressful time, Ashley created Isla’s Journey, a charity offering support to families of babies in neonatal wards. The charity provides care packs for new parents at over 80 NICU wards across the UK. That simple support makes a huge difference to families by allowing parents to spend as much time as possible beside their baby, and the changes brought forward today will achieve the same thing. By providing a statutory right to paid leave for working families with babies in neonatal care, the regulations will remove the unimaginable and impossible choice for new parents of either returning to work to pay their bills or staying beside their desperately ill child.

It is difficult enough to have a child in the neonatal intensive care unit. Parents being with their new baby in the early days is vital for their mental and emotional wellbeing, as well as for the early life chances of the baby. The benefits of things like skin-to-skin contact and those early bonding experiences cannot be overstated, and that sometimes feels like an impossible task for parents whose baby is in the NICU. This legislative change removes one of those barriers to these early experiences being a joyful time for parents whose babies have an extra way to go when they are first born.

As Ashley and other parents can attest, there is still more to be done. For example, Isla’s Journey advocates for a travel support fund for parents, because when a child is admitted to a neonatal ward miles from home, parents have to make long and costly journeys to spend time with their baby. While the new regulations will take away the compounding financial burden of a loss of income, the travel still comes at a significant cost. Unless they are an in-patient, mothers and other parents are not provided with basic amenities, such as a meal, on the ward. When Isla was transferred to the Royal London hospital, Ashley said that it became near impossible to give her body the correct nutrition she needed to breastfeed. When her child’s life was so fragile, she often did not want to leave her side for a moment, even to find something to eat. Other parents have chosen not to eat to pay for their travel to the hospital.

While I welcome the measures the Government are taking in the statutory instruments to remove worries around leave and pay for parents at an unimaginably difficult time, I ask that the Minister takes away those suggestions for how the Government can go further and perhaps meet me and the team at Isla’s Journey to discuss measures that can make parents’ lives that little bit easier. Making those changes would improve the wellbeing of families with babies in the NICU and the life chances of those babies so that parents could focus on what truly matters most to them: the care of their child. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I remind the House that it is courteous for Members who wish to speak to be present for all the opening speeches. \p Steve Darling: Please accept my sincere apologies for being late, Madam Deputy Speaker. Things moved on at pace this afternoon. I will take what you said seriously into account.

The Liberal Democrats had such proposals in our manifesto, so we welcome the regulations. Some 34,000 people—equivalent to the population of Yate—are   set to benefit from the regulations in the first year after they come into force. I note that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), said that the Conservatives promised to deliver such proposals, but—a bit like their hospitals programme—they failed to do so. One needs to bear that in mind.

I pay tribute to Stuart McDonald, a former MP whose private Member’s Bill—the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill—addressed this issue. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for sponsoring that Bill, which gave these proposals legs in the Chamber. I am delighted that they are coming to fruition today.

In my Torbay constituency, developing an attachment between parents and children is often a challenge, particularly for those who face serious difficulties in their lives. Many prematurely born youngsters are from more deprived backgrounds—there is twice the chance of that. We Liberal Democrats truly welcome the proposals, because they will drive strong attachment between parents and their babies, and that can only bear fruit for communities across the United Kingdom. \p Liz Jarvis: I pay tribute to all parents who have campaigned for change, and I commend the Smallest Things charity for its work on this issue. Co-founders Catriona and Sarah have put their heart and soul into the campaign, laying bare their own experiences to shine a light on the realities of neonatal intensive care and trauma faced by families.

These statutory instruments are a welcome and necessary step in ensuring that parents who find themselves in one of the most distressing and uncertain experiences of their lives have the right to neonatal leave and pay. Under the current system, parents have been left to rely on maternity, paternity or shared parental leave to care for their child in hospital. Neonatal care can often bring additional, unforeseen expenses, including travel costs. For many parents, statutory maternity or paternity pay simply does not stretch far enough.

Although the legislation is a step forward, we must recognise that more can be done. There is a wider picture of maternity and neonatal services that are under growing strain. The NHS workforce is overstretched, and maternity services have been repeatedly flagged as needing urgent attention. We need more midwives, more neonatal nurses and more support for families experiencing traumatic births and baby loss. Will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with colleagues to ensure that maternity and neonatal care services are properly resourced and funded?

Additionally, we must recognise that support for parents should not cease once they leave hospital. The impact of neonatal care does not go away when a baby is discharged, as many children and parents will have long-term health complications. According to Smallest Things, the incidence of mental health difficulties such as post-traumatic stress disorder are thought to be as high as 70%. We should have expanded access to NHS mental health support for all parents who experience a neonatal stay, rather than requiring them to wait until they are at breaking point.

The Government must do much more, alongside the welcome introduction of paid neonatal leave, to tackle and end the unacceptable maternal and neonatal health disparities. This legislation is long overdue, but there is still lots more to do to support families after neonatal care. The Liberal Democrats committed to the introduction of paid neonatal leave in our manifesto. I hope that the Government will continue down that route and consider what more they can do to improve maternity services, including with a national maternity safety ambition beyond 2025, with clear baselines to measure progress. We need real investment in the NHS workforce to ensure that every baby and every parent gets the care they deserve.

No parent should be sitting by their baby’s cot worrying about pay or work. It is the Government’s duty to provide families with the stability, care and support they need during such a critical and challenging time. \p Justin Madders: I thank all Members for participating in today’s debate—there have been some very thoughtful and moving contributions. I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who spoke movingly about Isla and her experiences in neonatal care. It was truly wonderful to hear that, having been given a 2% chance of survival, she recently celebrated her seventh birthday. That is a testament to the great work that many neonatal units do up and down the country, nurturing that very precious life and allowing it to flourish and grow. Of course, I would be happy to meet those from Isla’s Journey, but I will talk to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care first about whether it might be more appropriate for them to conduct that meeting.

I welcome the support from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). He spoke about the importance of parental attachment, something that we are beginning to understand is vital to a child’s development—the more we can do in that area, the better. I also understand the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) made, and I recently visited the Countess of Chester, which is building a new children and mother unit. That is absolutely fantastic to see, and clearly, we want to build on investment in this area over coming years.

I felt that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was a little churlish in his support for these regulations. I do not understand the criticism on the basis that these measures were in the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto, since they did not actually implement them. Given that their Government undertook a consultation six years ago, criticising us for bringing these regulations forward within six months seems a little rich.

Of course, the shadow Minister is already blaming the Employment Rights Bill before it is passed for any rise in unemployment. It is completely nonsensical to argue that legislation that is unlikely to be enacted until next year could be responsible for job losses now. It is the kind of talk that we heard when the minimum wage was introduced—it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. To address the shadow Minister’s point about why this day one right is not in line with pay, that is consistent with all other parental leave entitlements. Pay comes in  after 26 weeks, because a baseline of information about a person’s pay is needed in order to implement such a right.

In conclusion, it is welcome to see support for these measures across the House. The first few weeks after a baby is born are precious, and for a child in neonatal care, that time is even more important. As we have heard, the lack of options for parents who find themselves in that truly challenging situation serves only to worsen what, for many parents, is the most traumatic period of their lives. We hope that giving parents the additional rights and flexibility they need through these regulations will provide some much-needed support, reassurance and stability. Parents dealing with a very ill newborn should not have to worry about whether they can get the time off work that they need, or indeed whether they will have a job to go back to at all. As a nation, we can all understand that, and of course the best employers do these things already. However, by legislating, we send a clear message that all parents in that situation—according to some estimates, there could be up to 60,000—will be able to put all their focus on their child, which is as it should be.

On that note, I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That the draft Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.—(Justin Madders.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the following Standing Order shall be made:

1. For the purposes of paragraph 17 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 the committee charged with considering draft instruments and related documents shall be the committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department laying the draft instrument or, in respect of an instrument or document laid by a Minister in the Cabinet Office, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

2. A committee considering such a draft instrument or related document shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.

3. In its consideration of an instrument referred to in paragraph (1) the committee shall consider, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether the draft instrument—

(a) contains any provision of the type specified in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to which the Act requires that a draft of the instrument must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament (the affirmative procedure);

(b) contains any provision of the type specified in paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 5 to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 in relation to which the Act requires that a draft of the instrument must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament (the affirmative procedure);

(c) otherwise appears to make an inappropriate use of the negative procedure;

and shall report to the House if it is of the opinion that the negative procedure should not apply.

4. This Standing Order shall lapse—

(a) in so far as it relates to documents laid in accordance with paragraph 17(3)(b) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (and matters arising from the consideration of such documents), at the end of the period after which no more regulations may be made under section 23(1) of that Act;

(b) in so far as it relates to documents laid in accordance with paragraph 6(3)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (and matters arising from the consideration of such documents), at the end of the period after which no more regulations may be made under Sections 11, 12, or 14 of that Act.—(Lucy Powell.) \p Jim Allister: Scrutiny of the laws that we make and that bind us is very important, and it is exceedingly important when the origins of the laws are not within our own parliamentary framework. Of course, in the part of the United Kingdom from which I come, Northern Ireland, in over 300 areas the laws are made not by this House or the Stormont Assembly, but by a foreign Parliament that we do not elect—the European Parliament. That underscores the huge importance of effective scrutiny.

In so far as this motion slightly improves the situation, it is welcome, but I need to make three or four points. Is the inference of this motion that there has been no scrutiny of these matters since the demise of the European Scrutiny Committee in or about April of last year? If so, a vast swathe of laws have obviously gone unscrutinised.  The former Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee told this House in March 2023 that, in the two years from 2021 to 2023, 640 EU laws had been imposed on Northern Ireland. How many have been imposed since, and how many of them have been scrutinised?

Since Northern Ireland is the region most affected by many of these laws, I have to register my disappointment that not a single Member from Northern Ireland was proposed for the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That is a huge failure to give those I represent some confidence that scrutiny is taking place and is effective. \p Greg Smith: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me, as someone who sat on the European Scrutiny Committee in the last Parliament, that it is no surprise that the Labour Government do not want to scrutinise this legislation coming from the European Union, because for much of the last Parliament, with the exception of the former Member for Dagenham and Rainham, Jon Cruddas, the Labour Members on the then European Scrutiny Committee never turned up? \p Jim Allister: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I do not gainsay it. If that is so, it is a very poor reflection on the interest in scrutiny.

Not only do we have this lacuna in scrutiny of a year or more; we have the very unsatisfactory position of there being no transparency—there is no public list of all the imposed EU laws. It does not exist, from what I am told. How can it be right for citizens in any part of this United Kingdom to be governed by laws when there is not even a list of all those laws? I look to the Government for a commitment that there will at least be the transparency of publishing a list of all relevant regulations that are imposed—and “imposed” is the correct word—on Northern Ireland from a foreign Parliament.

Some may say, “Oh, but doesn’t the Stormont Assembly have a Democratic Scrutiny Committee?”, and, of sorts, it does, but on 2 February the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly informing him of the types of laws that will be reported to the Assembly, and it does not include all laws. We have the so-called Stormont brake, which applies only to any law amending an existing EU law. We have applicability motions, which can apply to any new law, but we do not have any right of scrutiny within the Northern Ireland Assembly of what we would call statutory instruments. There simply is no capacity to scrutinise them.

We recently had a troubling example of such a statutory instrument. Commission implementing regulation 2025/89 creates a situation where, for the first time in any part of this United Kingdom, and with no consultation with our consumers or our elected representatives, we now have an authorised EU law whereby mealworms and insects can be included in food products. That EU law has been imposed upon Northern Ireland without any scrutiny in Stormont or in this place. Would that type of EU implementing regulation be on the agenda of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, or would it just pass under the radar, as has been happening for so long?

Vast swathes of important law are not classified as devolved under the protocol arrangements, so they are never scrutinised in the Northern Ireland Assembly, nor can they ever be scrutinised. Nothing that arises under the EU’s customs code, under its VAT regime or under state aid is devolved. Those matters are reserved to this place. Regulations are made from time to time on the customs code, which is the most offensive of all the protocol arrangements, because it is the one that says, “Northern Ireland is to be treated as EU territory. GB is to be treated as a third or foreign country, and thus the goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland—coming from a third country—have to be subject to the rigours of an international customs border.” All that arises under the EU’s customs code, and none of that can be scrutinised in Northern Ireland. None of it has been scrutinised in this House, either. \p Gregory Campbell: On the lack of scrutiny, does the hon. and learned Member agree that as time goes on and the American Administration begin to look at what they may or may not do vis-à-vis trading arrangements with the EU, it is all the more important—it was important anyway—that we have close scrutiny, because of the deals that may come about between the American Administration, the UK and possibly the EU? \p Jim Allister: Yes, and there is much talk about tariffs. Think of the conundrum that would be created if President Trump imposed tariffs on the EU. Northern Ireland, treated as EU territory, would, I presume, be subject to those tariffs, yet we are told that we are part of the United Kingdom. That is all because of the application to Northern Ireland of the customs code. If there were corresponding responses from the EU in that scenario, those would, under adjustments to matters arising under its customs code, apply to Northern Ireland it seems, and all without scrutiny.

While the establishment of this Committee, belated as it is, is welcome, it is important that we are able to understand that it will seriously address the scrutiny issues, as the previous Committee under Sir Bill Cash did. I pay tribute to him for the work that he did, but there has been this great gap in the meantime with effectively no scrutiny whatever. Now that scrutiny will be done by a Committee without, as I have said, a Northern Ireland representative even on it. \p Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. and learned Member accept that even when we had the European Scrutiny Committee, which was able to deal exclusively with such issues, there were many EU regulations that it did not have the opportunity to discuss? Given the importance of such regulations not just to Northern Ireland but, as he pointed out, to the whole of the United Kingdom, does he agree that this leaves us vulnerable to detrimental changes in law that will not get enough examination in the House? \p Jim Allister: Absolutely. There is a sheer volume of EU law that still applies in Northern Ireland. In annex 2 to the protocol, there are 287 such areas of law, and many have been added to it since. That breeds further regulation of a huge quantity, yet there is a lack of scrutiny.

The speed with which regulation is applied and the lack of opportunity for scrutiny is important. One of the complaints I hear from the Democratic Scrutiny Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly is that it is not given the time or notice to deal with issues, even if there were the inclination among some to do so. \p Sammy Wilson: It is even worse than that. On occasions, regulations have gone through and been adopted before the Committee knew they were there. \p Jim Allister: Yes. The Cabinet Office undertakes to notify on a weekly basis, but I think that is honoured more in default than anything else.

From a scrutiny point of view, we are in a perilous position. I do hope that the Committee will grasp the issue and take it seriously. My only regret is there is not a Member from Northern Ireland on the Committee to hold feet to the fire. That goes to the heart of what should affect and concern us all as representatives.

I ask Members of the House who come from other parts of the United Kingdom how they would feel if there were 300 areas of law that they could not make or change and regulations—with votes on them—were not even being properly scrutinised. I think we know how others would feel. Frankly, we ask for nothing that others do not have for themselves. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for that contribution, which I am sure the House has heard. May I first explain to hon. Members that the motion on the Order Paper is not anything to do with European Scrutiny Committee? We dealt with that previously. The motion is about the European Statutory Instruments Committee, a specific Committee whose role was to consider whether certain proposed negative instruments in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU should instead follow the affirmative procedure. In the Committee’s absence, all measures have proceeded through the affirmative procedure instead.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the numbers, which, in fact, are quite low. I think that previously the Committee looked at about 50 instruments per parliamentary Session, but by the year of the final Session of the last Parliament it was down to just 11, and it has been lower since then as well. We are talking about a tiny number of instruments being considered for the affirmative procedure. \p Robin Swann: rose— \p Lucy Powell: I will give way if the intervention is on that point. \p Robin Swann: In regard to that, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked, if there is such a low number of instruments and the Committee is not to meet so regularly, why not give Northern Ireland a place on it? \p Lucy Powell: The proposal is that the Committee will not meet and that measures will be considered by the relevant Select Committee. So, were measures to relate to Northern Ireland, they would be considered by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is what the motion relates to, and not the European Scrutiny Committee, which a number of hon. Members mentioned.

The European Statutory Instruments Committee did specific work, and we now feel that it would not be value for money for the House to pay for a Chair and to facilitate a Committee that would need to meet only on rare occasions to consider whether a statutory instrument should go through the affirmative route, As I said, in the absence of the Committee, all such instruments have gone through the affirmative route, and in future they will be considered by the relevant Select Committee of this House, which I am sure in many instances will be the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

I hope that that reassures Members. I take these matters extremely seriously. It is very important that this House scrutinises measures, whether statutory instruments generated by the Government, other legislation or the rolling on of measures from the European Union or elsewhere. I am happy to keep under consideration how best we can consider these matters should the context change. If Members in the Chamber today have other ideas, they can let me know and I will happily consider them.

Question put and agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2024, be approved. —(Anna Turley.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 6 January, be approved.—(Anna Turley.)

Question agreed to. \p Andrew Rosindell: I present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are devastated by the decision of the local council, the London borough of Havering, to close the Gidea Park library based in the Squirrels Heath ward, which serves a large part of Romford and is used by local children, students and older people. It is a community hub and a cherished local facility, which I campaigned to save in 2001, the year I became a Member of Parliament. Sadly, it is now under threat of closure again by the local council, as proposed by the Labour and Havering Residents Association administration that was in office last year, and opposed by the Conservatives.

Local people and Councillors Christine Vickery, Keith Prince and Michael White, led by me, have collected hundreds if not thousands of signatures across the area, to try to persuade Havering council to change its decision and keep our cherished local library open for local people to use and enjoy.

The petition, on behalf of the people of Gidea Park, the wider community of Romford and the London Borough of Havering, in the historic county of Essex, states:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Notes that the Gidea Park library provides essential services to local communities; declares that their closure would have an adverse impact upon the local people, specifically the young and elderly; further declares that this library ought not to be closed by the London Borough of Havering; and further declares that community libraries should be protected and enhanced as vital centres of culture, learning, and local service provision by national and local government.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Gidea Park library in the parliamentary constituency of Romford is not closed, but rather protected and enhanced as a centre of culture, learning, and local service provision for the people of Gidea Park.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003042] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anna Turley.) \p Danny Chambers: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a matter of urgent importance: the shifting landscape of global health policy, and the direct threat that shift poses to public health security in the UK and worldwide. In recent weeks, the United States has announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and is significantly scaling back its support for major global health initiatives. It has also curtailed the activities of key institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, while pausing vital lifesaving programmes run by the US Agency for International Development.

These decisions sent shockwaves across the world. For decades, the US has played a crucial role in some of the greatest health achievements in history: eradicating smallpox and nearly eliminating polio; tackling childhood malnutrition; tackling some of the biggest killers in the form of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria; and responding rapidly to emerging diseases with pandemic potential. Now, with this one decision, it has undermined global health security, weakened its own defences and placed millions of lives at risk.

The UK and our Commonwealth partners have long benefited from strong global health systems. When the world is healthier and more stable, we are, too. However, as a recent study in public health challenges warned, the breakdown of global collaboration is as great a threat as any infectious disease, and the US retreat forces us to confront that head-on. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I cannot imagine that any Member on either side of this Chamber will not be concerned about the prospect that we face, but we have to live with the reality. Given the withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organisation, it is essential that lines of communication on global health issues remain open and consistent. Does he agree that we must be proactive in establishing a new method of co-operation and information sharing as a matter of urgency? I think that is what he is looking for. If we can meet somewhere in between, that might be the way forward. \p Danny Chambers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a hugely important point.

Economic pressures demand efficiency, but let there be no doubt: withdrawing support from the World Health Organisation is a false and dangerous economy. By stepping away instead of seeking reforms from within, the US has thrown global health security into turmoil. This is about not just principles, but consequences. A withdrawal on this scale damages health diplomacy and erodes trust. It allows adversarial states to step in and use disinformation and strategic influence to reshape the global health landscape to their advantage. If the World Health Organisation is weakened, its ability to track, contain and fight disease is also weakened, and that makes us all more vulnerable. Other nations are already considering following suit; Argentina is voicing  similar intentions. If more countries withdraw, we risk a domino effect that could collapse the framework we rely on to monitor and respond to health threats. \p Chris Coghlan: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that one lesson from the pandemic is that the last thing countries should do is withdraw from organisations such as the World Health Organisation and reduce international co-operation, given the risk of a future pandemic at some point? \p Danny Chambers: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is completely right. The World Health Organisation is at the heart of international disease surveillance, co-ordinating early responses to outbreaks of deadly diseases such as Ebola and highly pathogenic avian influenza, both of which have been in the news in the last couple of weeks. In today’s interconnected world, speed is everything. Without robust early warning systems, outbreaks that might have been contained could spiral into pandemics, just as my hon. Friend said.

We also cannot ignore the worsening impact of climate change on global health. Due to changing temperatures, diseases that were classed as tropical when I was at university are now being seen in other parts of the world. The US withdrawal from the Paris agreement has already slowed efforts to tackle climate-driven diseases; now, its retreat from global health co-operation leaves us even less well prepared to handle the consequences. The UK must remain firm in supporting the WHO’s role in pandemic preparedness, not only because it is morally right, but because it is in our national interest.

This crisis affects more than just emergency outbreaks; it threatens our ability to manage persistent health threats here at home. Take seasonal flu. Every winter, the NHS faces immense pressure from influenza. Our ability to develop effective vaccines depends on international collaboration, including data from US research centres. If those partnerships are disrupted, how will we prepare for the 2025 flu season? The same applies to broader scientific research. The UK and US have worked closely on the One Health Initiative, studying how animal, human and environmental health intersect. Hundreds of these projects have now stalled, cutting off vital knowledge that could have helped us understand future pandemics. We must explore ways to sustain these collaborations. That includes securing funding for key research programmes and ensuring that our world-class universities remain engaged in global health security efforts. If we do not do those things, we risk falling behind in disease surveillance, vaccine development and pandemic preparedness.

I have spoken in this House before about the urgent threat of antibiotic-resistant infections to the NHS. Alongside the UK, the US has been a strong supporter of WHO-led efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance, which experts warn is one of the greatest global health challenges of our time. Antibiotic resistance does not respect borders. Drug-resistant bacteria and fungi travel with people and goods across the world. Without global surveillance, the consequences will be dire. More people will die in NHS hospitals from infections that we can no longer treat. This is not a distant problem; it is happening now. The UK has been helping Ukraine tackle antimicrobial resistance worsened by war. Despite severe funding challenges, collaborations between Chelsea and Westminster  hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital, University College London and Ukrainian institutions have made progress. This proves that even in difficult circumstances, proactive partnerships can make a difference. We must apply these lessons to protect our own health security. I pay tribute to the laboratory team and Professor Inada-Kim in our hospital in Winchester, who are helping to lead the national effort to tackle AMR in our NHS.

The UK has a proud history of leading on global health. It was here that Sir Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, revolutionising modern medicine. Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine laid the foundation for immunisation efforts that have saved hundreds of millions of lives. British researchers helped eradicate rinderpest in cattle, the only other disease besides smallpox to be wiped out completely. Today, smallpox is gone. Rinderpest is gone. One day, we hope to say the same about polio, but that vision is now at risk. I recently visited the rotary club in Winchester and learned about the long involvement of rotary clubs worldwide in supporting polio eradication over a period of many years. The US withdrawal forces us to consider how we reaffirm our leadership in global health. \p Monica Harding: Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela stood in Trafalgar Square waging a war on poverty. As my hon. Friend will know, he was also the first chair of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has inoculated more than 1 billion children and saved 18 million lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government must fulfil their commitment to Gavi, and not fall behind? Even the Conservative Government said that they would fund Gavi properly. Mandela’s life reminds us, does it not, that the great victories are often in times of darkness, like today? \p Danny Chambers: You are completely right about that very important organisation, which I shall come on to shortly. We cannot highlight enough to the impact that Gavi has had.

The World Health Organisation must adapt. This crisis highlights the need for a more resilient system, one that does not depend so heavily on any single nation. The UK must lead efforts to strengthen the World Health Organisation by broadening its funding base and encouraging greater collective responsibility among member states. At the same time, we must invest in our own global health capabilities, which means strengthening research funding, protecting key collaborations, and engaging with middle-income nations to forge new partnerships. Global health security is not just about pandemics; it is about economic stability, national security, and the long-term wellbeing of our people—and let us be absolutely clear: disease does not respect national borders. A threat anywhere in the world is a threat to the UK. If polio still exists anywhere, it is still our problem. If antibiotic resistance is surging in one part of the world, it will reach our hospitals. If a new pandemic emerges in a distant country, it will be on our doorstep faster than ever before.

When it comes to global public health,

“nobody wins unless everybody wins.”

Those are the words of Bruce Springsteen, but they apply as much to public health as they do to any other struggle. If we allow global health systems to weaken, if we turn our backs on international collaboration, we are not just failing others; we are failing ourselves.  However, this is also an opportunity. The UK has a chance to lead the world in global health innovation while strengthening our economy. We have significant human capital available through our universities, businesses, learned societies and research institutions, and if we invest now we can become a global hub for public health expertise, vaccine development, artificial intelligence and cutting-edge medical research. We should also remember the power of our capacity to offer education and training as cost-effective interventions. We can export solutions, shape international policy, and create high-skilled jobs right here at home. The last Government saw universities as a battleground for culture wars. We must see them as engines of innovation, global collaboration and economic growth. They should not be political footballs; they should be powerhouses of discovery, opportunity, and progress. If we get this right, we will not just be protecting global public health, but securing Britain’s place as a leader in the industries of the future.

The US has made itself and the world weaker. The UK now has a choice: we can watch as global health security unravels, or we can take decisive action to lead, collaborate, and strengthen the systems that keep us safe. With the UK’s aid budget being stretched thin, not least by the diversion of funds to cover domestic asylum costs, there is growing concern that our leading contributions to the work of Gavi, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), could be significantly reduced. That work has vaccinated over a billion children—over half the world’s children—and supports cutting-edge efforts to tackle major causes of death such as malaria. Let me ask the Minister two questions: how can we justify cutting support for an organisation that has saved over 18 million lives, and will the Government commit to restoring overseas development aid to 0.7% of GDP, to ensure that lifesaving initiatives such as Gavi and other key World Health Organisation initiatives can remain viable?

This is not charity. This is global health security, preventing outbreaks before they spread, reducing suffering, and strengthening healthcare systems in some of the world’s most fragile regions. This is a question of national security, moral responsibility and economic opportunity. I urge the House to ensure that the UK does not waver in its commitment to a healthier, safer, and more prosperous and secure world. \p Judith Cummins: Order. Before I call the Minister, may I remind Members that when they use the word “you”, they are addressing the Chair? \p Anneliese Dodds: I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for securing this debate on such an important topic, and I am grateful to the other Members who are in the Chamber.

This Government are aware of the implications of the US Government’s initial decision to pause their overseas financial assistance while they undertake a review, including where that is accompanied by stop-work orders. We are monitoring those impacts closely through our diplomatic missions overseas and with other international partners. Of course, decisions on US policy  are a matter for the US Government; I know the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. We welcome the news that emergency food aid and lifesaving humanitarian assistance should be exempt from the pause during the review period.

I point out that these are early days for the new Administration, and it would not be appropriate—I know Members would not expect us to do this—for us to give a running commentary on each announcement and executive order issued by the US Government. Members will know that the US has a strong track record in global health and international development, and we have enjoyed close bilateral co-operation with it in pursuit of our shared objectives in this area. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Winchester rightly refer to that collaboration. Naturally, we are very keen for that to continue.

For our part, this Government are committed to working with others through genuine, respectful partnerships with donors, multilateral organisations and countries across the global south, so that we maximise our impact at home and overseas. This is an important part of how we fulfil every Government’s first responsibility: to keep people safe—the hon. Member for Winchester was right to refer to security in the context of this debate. It is also important for pursuing this Government’s guiding mission, which is to grow the economy and bring opportunity to people in our country, and to make progress towards our shared global goals for sustainable development during this decade.

Our work on global health is crucial. Since I took up my role over six months ago, I have making been the case for action right around the world, on my visits to some of the countries most affected by the diseases that the hon. Member for Winchester talked about, and at major global summits. He will be aware that we are in the middle of a spending round process, so I am not in a position to outline specific investment plans—I know he would not seek to encourage me to do that—but I want to reassure Members that this Government will be at the forefront of international work on improving global health as a priority for our country.

It is the right thing to do, as the hon. Member for Winchester articulated, and it is the smart thing to do. No country can thrive if its people cannot thrive. In today’s interconnected world, we have all seen the impact of shocks in healthcare and communicable disease ripple right around the world. We saw that with the covid-19 pandemic above all, which harmed our health in the UK and all our global economies. To use the phrase that he rightly kept repeating, deadly diseases do not respect borders, nor does antimicrobial resistance, which he pointed to as another major challenge for us in global health terms. They threaten us all, and it takes a concerted international effort to tackle them, so we are working with countries around the world to help them develop the systems they need to tackle the health threats they face. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who set the scene very well. In my constituency of Strangford, I think of the Church groups, and in particular of the Elim Missions, which has a very constructive and positive strategy for Zimbabwe and Swaziland. In Swaziland, the number of people who have AIDS is at almost epidemic levels, but one of the  things the west—the USA, the UK and others—can do is provide medications that can preserve life and help people to live longer than they ever have. That happens because of what the Government do but also because of what the Churches do. The Minister is always very helpful in her responses. Could the Government look at working more closely with the churches to make lives better? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that really important point and for his kind words. He is right to pay tribute to the incredible civil society that we have working on these issues right across the United Kingdom. He refers to the important work that church groups do with communities affected by HIV/AIDS and other diseases.

I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member for Winchester talk about the role of the Rotary group in seeking to combat polio, and I have been absolutely delighted to be working as a polio champion with some of the organisations campaigning on this issue, particularly the global programme to eliminate polio. It is really important that we seek to work together on these issues, and the Government are reviewing our strategy on civil society. I will make sure that the issue of health activism is fed into that process, because it is really important. We need to make sure that we face up to the ongoing threats together.

The hon. Member talked about the threats from communicable disease being intensified by the climate crisis and environmental degradation. He was right to do so, but we also see non-communicable disease becoming more frequent in many countries in the global south, and there is still a potential threat from pandemics too. We are also working with others to champion sexual and reproductive health rights and freedoms for all, including as a key part of our work to empower women and girls.

We are investing in global health work that we know provides excellent value for money, reaching millions of people and maximising the impact of every single pound that we put in. I was really pleased to hear Gavi mentioned by the hon. Members for Winchester and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who has so much international expertise. Our support to Gavi, the global vaccines alliance, is enabling it to immunise 300 million children and save up to 8 million lives from vaccine-preventable diseases over four years. That support for Gavi’s multilateral and engaged action internationally is clear, as I set out to the International Development Committee. I will not repeat that here, for reasons of time.

Similarly, the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria has saved over 65 million lives since 2002 and reduced the combined death rate of the three diseases by 61%. The UK has played a significant role in that success. In addition, the UK’s support for the child wasting innovation programme has helped it to raise financing from others, enabling treatment for 850,000 children. The multilateral architecture is critical here, and I was really pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman underline the importance of the World Health Organisation. The UK will remain a strong supporter of the World Health Organisation. He hopefully saw that we recently announced new funding for the WHO in support of its delivery and transformation agenda. We will continue   to work closely with the WHO and its member states to strengthen the organisation, so that it can help countries to meet the health challenges of our times.

The UK’s national risk register estimates that there is up to a 25% probability of another pandemic in the next five years. That is one of the reasons why we remain committed to securing a pandemic accord at the WHO. Getting better at preventing and preparing for pandemics matters immensely for global health security, but also for UK health security and for this Government’s mission to build a national health service that is fit for the future.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the same applies to the threat of antimicrobial resistance. The UK is already seeing thousands of deaths that are attributed to antimicrobial resistance, and I was pleased to hear about the work of Dr Matthew Inada-Kim at Winchester University. I am also extremely proud of the work of Sally Davies, who has been working on these issues with the UK Government and Lord Darzi. The UK Government worked really hard to agree an ambitious global set of actions against AMR at last September’s high-level meeting, which was dedicated to that subject, and we will keep driving that work forward.

Before I wrap up, I want to shine a light on the wider work of the UK’s world-class scientists and public health and medical institutions. Harnessing the huge wealth of talent and expertise here in the UK is fundamental to the new approach to development that this Government are adopting. The UK’s scientists do a huge amount to address global health and development challenges by advancing our understanding of disease, pioneering work in genomic medicine and developing novel vaccines. I was really delighted to hear the passion with which the hon. Gentleman talked about this issue, and I have seen for myself the immense ambition of labs here in the UK, such as the Jenner Institute. Please forgive me if I smile, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am very proud to represent the constituency where the Jenner Institute is based, and I visited it recently.

British scientists have helped to develop two malaria vaccines that have the potential to save millions of lives. Thanks to the expertise and brilliance of British scientists, the dream of eradicating malaria looks increasingly possible. The hon. Member for Winchester quoted Bruce Springsteen, and I hope that the “glory days” for those scientists will come when we finally globally eradicate malaria. If we manage to do that, it will be because of those incredible efforts. We talked about Gavi earlier, and with the UK’s support, it plans to roll out these new vaccines to 25 countries this year.

Our health, life sciences and pharma sector is second only in value to that of the US. It has an annual turnover of £50 billion, with £25 billion a year in exports, and it supports 115,000 high-value jobs, which the hon. Member rightly referred to. I will finish by saying how proud we can all be of the work that our country does on global health. It is good for us here in the UK and for people across the globe, and it is a key part of how we make sure that as many of us as possible can keep working together in partnership towards the safer, healthier and more prosperous world that people everywhere want and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.