debates/debates2025-05-22a conversation_27
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-05-22)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-05-22a conversation_27

Diane Abbott:Whether the commissioners have made an estimate of the proportion of the Church’s assets that may have a link to historical involvement with slavery. \p Marsha de Cordova: The forensic accounting research published in 2023 revealed that Queen Anne’s Bounty was linked with African chattel enslavement in two main ways: significant investments in the South Sea Company; and benefactions received from individuals whose income may have derived from slavery. The fund for healing, repair and justice is the Church Commissioners’ response to these findings. \p Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a lot of interest in the relationship between the Church and the slave trade. Is she able to say over what period the   Church made profits from the slave trade? Is she able to specify the names of the companies that the Church invested in, or even the names of the slave plantations? Is she able to quantify exactly how much money the Church made over the period when it was involved in the slave trade? And is she able to say whether the Church’s profit from the slave trade is still part of its income today? \p Marsha de Cordova: I thank the Mother of the House for the seven or eight questions that she has asked—she will forgive me if I write to her in response to many of those points. To reiterate, the Church received benefaction from individuals who profited from enslavement and invested in the South Sea Company, which was deeply linked with the slave trade. The Church Commissioners have been investigating the Church’s historical links in this area since 2019, and published a full and transparent report in January 2023. I am happy for that document to be shared with my right hon. Friend and it can be placed in the House of Commons Library, if that is helpful. I will write to her, but I am also very happy to meet her, because she shows a keen interest in this area. \p Laura Trott: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on whether the Government will be accepting the school teachers’ review body’s pay recommendation for 2025-26. \p Catherine McKinnell: May I start by thanking our teachers, school leaders and school staff for all they are doing right now to ensure a successful exam season for students, and indeed for all their hard work throughout the year?

Rather than scaremongering with fantasy statistics, the Government are getting on and delivering. We are already seeing positive signs that our plan for change is working. Teacher recruitment is up, with 2,000 more people in training than last year. Teacher retention is up, with thousands more teachers forecast to stay in the profession over the next three years. This Labour Government are getting on and delivering. Unlike the Opposition, who last year sat on the STRB report, hid from their responsibility and left it to Labour to sort out, this afternoon we will announce the teachers’ pay award, which will be the earliest announcement for a decade.

We understand the importance of giving schools certainty, giving them time to plan their budgets, and ensuring that they can recruit and retain the expert teachers our children need. The Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement will be coming out this afternoon—[Interruption.] It will show once again that this Labour Government— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have granted the urgent question, so please will Members on the Opposition Front Bench wait for the Minister to finish her answer. I do not want you, Ms Trott and Mr O’Brien, to be a bad example of this school class. \p Catherine McKinnell: The written ministerial statement is laid before the House and will be coming out this afternoon, showing once again that this Labour Government are getting on and delivering on our plan for change. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Laura Trott: Mr Speaker, this is absolutely outrageous. It is astonishing that we have had to summon the Government to the House today, but the Minister cannot even tell us what pay rise teachers will get and whether it is going to be funded. That does not allow us to scrutinise the matter in this House.

The Government said that they would tax private schools to fund 6,500 more teachers, but the reality is that state schools have not got any of that money. Instead, we have had broken promises on compensating schools for the jobs tax, confirmation from the Department for Education itself that there will be a shortfall in teacher pay funding, which we are not allowed to discuss here today in this urgent question, and uncertainty as to what the actual pay rise for teachers will be. That is a disgrace, and it is the opposite of what people who voted for Labour expected.

All that is in the final two weeks when headteachers up and down the country have to decide whether to make teachers redundant in time for September—in fact, sadly, many schools will already have made the difficult decision to let good teachers go. These are job losses on the Minister’s watch, due to her inability to provide schools with the clarity that they need. Do not just take my word for it. Dan Moynihan, from the Harris Federation, says that it proposes to make 40 to 45 teachers redundant. Jon Coles, the chief executive of United Learning, which runs 90 state sector academies, said that the trust has been left with £10.5 million a year of unfunded costs. He said:

“It’s no good Treasury waving their hands and saying ‘efficiency’—that would be 400 job losses. Sector wide, that would extrapolate to ruinous harm in the one well-functioning public service: tens of thousands of redundancies.”

Simon Pink, the finance director at the Elliot Foundation, which has 36 primaries, said:

“This is the toughest budget…in a generation.”

One secondary school headteacher has already had to cut two teaching assistant posts and a teacher role due to rising national insurance and anticipated wage rises.

What is the pay rise that the Government recommend for teachers? The Prime Minister’s spokesman said on 28 April:

“There’ll be no additional funding for pay.”

Yesterday, the Government started to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. Will the Minister now fully U-turn and fund the national insurance rise and agree to fully fund the pay increases, whatever they are? \p Catherine McKinnell: Neither I nor any Minister in this Government will take lessons from Conservative Members, who, after 14 long years in power, had still not restored real-terms spending in our schools to the level that they inherited. The brass neck of the Opposition is quite extraordinary. Conservative Members would also do well to remember the difficult decisions that this Government have had to take because of the utter mess that they left behind. The right hon. Lady was in the Treasury, creating the mess—she knows very well what happened.

Recruiting, retaining and supporting expert teachers is central to our vision for delivering high and rising standards in our schools. Despite the challenging financial context and years of missed recruitment targets under the previous Government, this Administration are prioritising education and ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality teacher. We are working at pace to ensure excellence for every child. That is why we remain committed to our manifesto pledge for 6,500 teachers and to ensuring that it responds to the demand in secondary schools, special schools and further education.

We know that high-quality teaching is the in-school factor that has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcomes, breaking down barriers to opportunity for every child, so recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers is clearly absolutely central to our vision for delivering high and rising standards. That is why, despite the challenging financial context and years of missed recruitment targets, we are getting on and delivering on our plan for change. The right hon. Lady will have to wait, like everybody else, for the statement that she knows is coming this afternoon. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Education Committee. \p Helen Hayes: Teacher pay is absolutely vital for the status of the profession, for the quality of life of teachers and for recruitment and retention of the vital skilled and qualified staff who are the backbone of our education system. It is really important that the Government’s response this afternoon begins the work of restoring teacher pay after the last 14 years, when we saw, by any objective measure, a shocking erosion in teacher pay under the previous Government. That has affected recruitment and retention and had a devastating impact on teacher morale. Those on the Conservative Benches should take note of that, because we would all benefit from a little more humility in the context of the legacy that they left behind.

Can I press the Minister on the extent to which the pay award will be funded? We know that there are already extensive pressures on school budgets, and schools are very anxious about that matter. Also, will this afternoon’s statement include support staff pay, and will it begin the process of restoring that pay? We know how vital our teaching assistants and other support staff in our schools are. \p Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful contribution. I find it somewhat disconcerting that she is being barracked by Conservative Members, when she performs a really important function for this House and is very assiduous in holding the Government to account—rightly so, as that is her role. She was right to reflect on the degradation of teachers’ pay over the past 14 years; indeed, the first thing this Government did was get last year’s STRB recommendation out of the drawer and process it—a recommendation that the last Government hid and, frankly, ran away from.

We implemented the 5.5% pay award. We absolutely recognise that pay is a really important part of ensuring we have the high-quality teachers that we need. The starting salary for teachers is now at least £31,650 outside of London and at least £38,766 in inner London. We are making progress; we are seeing the green shoots of more teachers joining the profession and staying in it, and we will continue to support that trajectory in any way we can. My hon. Friend has also rightly highlighted the vital work of support staff in schools. The Government’s approach in that regard will be confirmed in this afternoon’s written ministerial statement, as will all the details that my hon. Friend so keenly anticipates. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: Each and every week, I hear from teachers and school leaders in my constituency and across the country. In my time in this place, never has their outlook been as gloomy as it is right now. After years of underfunding and neglect from the Conservatives, schools now face a double blow of underfunded national insurance increases and unfunded teacher pay rises, if the reports are to be believed. Together, these represent massive cuts to school budgets. Frankly, schools expected better from Labour.

School governors in my constituency recently told me that they are all setting deficit budgets, which one described as “beyond imagining”. That is why teachers are so desperately worried. Parents are, too, because  ultimately it is our children who will suffer—and the most vulnerable, at that. The Government’s claim that schools can find the money through efficiencies simply does not stack up; budgets are already cut to the bone, with schools relying on parents to buy them the basics, such as glue sticks, through Amazon wish lists. They are already cutting back subjects, cancelling trips and cutting back on teaching assistants—meaning that children with special educational needs and disabilities will suffer the most—and now they are planning redundancies. Budget decisions for next year are already being made. We need urgent clarity about whether the pay rise will be funded, so will the Minister tell schools across the country where exactly they are expected to find this money? \p Catherine McKinnell: There was an awful lot of imagining in the hon. Lady’s question, and understandably so—less understandable, though, in relation to some of her comments. The statement is due today, and the hon. Lady will have to await it, as will all Members of this House and those who are keenly looking at their schools’ budgets to ensure they can provide the best education possible. I know that is what schools are rightly focused on doing, and we are focused on supporting them to do that.

I gently remind Opposition Members that this is the earliest STRB announcement in a decade, because we recognise how important budgeting is for schools and how important it is that they have this information in a timely way. That was not respected under the previous Government. We want to provider this information in good time and give notice as early as possible, so that schools can plan the excellent outcomes for children that I know they are striving for. We will also support them to use their funding as efficiently as possible. The Department has worked on a whole suite of productivity initiatives, as well as support for schools to manage energy costs and banking costs and to minimise any expenditure that is not on the frontline, supporting children. That is what we will continue to do. \p Mark Sewards: I reiterate what the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), said: teaching assistants are the glue that keep our classrooms together and they should be paid adequately. I am pleased to hear the Minister state that retention is up, with 2,000 more teachers in training. As a former teacher, I understand that workload is often cited as a reason that we do not retain teachers. Marking, lesson planning, admin and data entry all keep teachers away from spending time with their students. Can the Minister update us on what work her Department is doing with respect to artificial intelligence and its roll-out in our classrooms to reduce teacher workload and get them in front of students? \p Catherine McKinnell: I welcome the constructive nature of my hon. Friend’s question, because regardless of any announcement this afternoon, we know that schools are working hard to deliver for children. As a Government, we need to work our hardest—and we are—to support them to do so. That means a whole range of productivity measures to support teachers with their workload, to support schools with their costs, and to ensure we grab the opportunity of technological developments so that  any teacher’s time is maximised with children in the classroom, helping them with their learning and being supported with technology to maximise children’s outcomes. We will continue to work; we are very much looking forward, and unfortunately those on the Opposition Benches seem constantly to be looking back. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: For the Government to come here today, fulling knowing their pay rise intentions but refusing to say so until this afternoon to avoid scrutiny, is disrespectful to this House, to every Member, to every constituent and to every teacher. If I may say so, it is somewhat cowardly. Schools across my constituency find themselves short of money to cover national insurance bills. Five schools in my constituency that have approached me are £176,000 short between them. Does the Minister know how many schools are short of money to pay their national insurance bills? \p Catherine McKinnell: On the hon. Lady’s initial comments, let me say that there are processes and procedures in this House that we respect. We respect this House, and we will continue to do so. There is a process by which this statement and these announcements will be made. She will have to wait, alongside everybody, for the process that we adhere to in this House to be administered.

In response to the hon. Lady’s second question, as she should know, our funding system is not designed so that every school and college receives funding that necessarily fully matches their precise spending, as that—including NIC costs—varies from institution to institution because of the decisions that each school makes on staffing. We are providing schools and high-need settings with more than £930 million in 2025-26 to support them with their increased national insurance costs. That is in addition to the £2.3 billion increase to core schools funding announced at the autumn Budget in 2024. That means that the core schools budget, which includes the core revenue funding for schools and high-need settings, will total more than £64.8 billion in 2025-26. We will continue to support schools to spend that money in the most effective and productive way possible to maximise outcomes for children, which are our priority. \p Meg Hillier: I spent most of the last Government’s time in office scrutinising public spending, and grew weary of promises of pay or other Government decisions not being matched with budgets for schools, hospitals and so on. When things like changes to national insurance and pay increases are made, I hope that this Government will be very honest about the impact on school budgets, and not have headlines that are not balanced with funding. I therefore hope the Minister is making good arguments in the spending review. Could she make sure that she really leans into the issue of falling rolls in London’s schools? Any hoped-for pay rise, which is much deserved by teachers, will be a double whammy for schools in London, because rolls are falling and their income is therefore much lower; that will have an extra impact on staffing decisions. \p Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for the work that she has done in this House over many years in scrutinising Government budgets and holding Governments to account. We have  the highest respect for schools, for school leaders, and for the teachers and support staff who work in schools. We recognise the challenges faced across the public sector to make sure that every penny of public money is spent in the most efficient way possible and maximises the public benefit. We are working incredibly hard in the Department, as I know we are across Government, to get maximum output for public money. Frankly, the public sector was neglected by the previous Government over 14 years. We are picking up the pieces of that, and we will continue to work hard to do so. \p Oliver Dowden: I do have some sympathy for the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but surely she must feel embarrassed to come before this House knowing all the answers to these questions and not giving them, simply because No. 10 will not let her. In my constituency, schools are already facing a double whammy from an increase in costs from the national insurance rise, which is not fully funded, and the pressure on places. If the teachers’ pay settlement is not funded in full, surely she will admit that it amounts to a cut. Whenever this happened when we were in government, the first thing Labour Members would say was, “Are you matching it with funding?” If we were not, they would scream blue murder that it amounted to a cut. Will she just admit that if it is not funded, it is a cut to schools? \p Catherine McKinnell: The right hon. Gentleman is rather getting ahead of himself. He was in the last Government, and we were left with an appalling inheritance. We are taking tough decisions to fix the foundations and to bring back stability, because education is a priority for this Government. That is why we are rebuilding the crumbling schools that the Conservatives left. [Interruption.] Fiction? Crumbling schools? I suggest Opposition Members speak to the schools that are dealing with the consequences. We are rolling out free breakfast clubs, opening up school-based nurseries and, yes, providing £8 billion to give every child the best start in life through the high-quality early years and family services that the previous Government promised but provided no money to deliver. While those on the Conservative Benches continue to try to work out what they think, we are getting on with delivering real, positive change in our country. \p James Naish: As the Minister says, we inherited a recruitment and retention crisis in the teaching industry. Data from the National Association of Head Teachers shows that one in three teachers leaves within five years, and that around one in three headteachers no longer continues as a head within five years. That is the situation we have inherited, not created. What is the Minister doing to turn the tide on the recruitment and retention crisis? \p Catherine McKinnell: We did inherit a dire situation. Children were not being taught by the expert teachers they should have been taught by, and teachers were stretched to the limit. That is why the first thing we did was to reset the relationship between the Government and schools, which for years had resembled some sort of combat.

We want to work with schools. We recognise how hard they are working to deliver for children, and we want to work with them to support them in any way  we can. That means having high-quality teachers and good-quality teacher training. It means supporting every teacher to be trained to meet the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities. It means maximising every pound so that it can get to the frontline—to the children—by reducing other costs in schools. We will continue to work with schools to do that, so that we can ensure that every child has the expert teacher they deserve and will not be let down any more, as they have been for the last 14 years. \p Caroline Voaden: I think we would all agree that education is the best investment that any Government can make; it raises people out of poverty, improves social mobility and improves health outcomes. Sadly, it was not a priority for the last Government, and I welcome the change in tone from the new Government, although I think it will take more than breakfast clubs to fix the problem.

The Devon branch of the National Association of Head Teachers has said, “We’re on our knees.” Primary schools are consolidating classes because they are having to cut spending, and one secondary school in my patch will have to pay £95,000 extra for every 1 percentage point rise in pay that is not funded. If the pay award is not fully funded, can the Minister explain exactly where schools are supposed to find this extra money? \p Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Lady is—understandably so, given the calling of this urgent question despite a statement being due imminently—getting ahead of herself, and we are doing an awful lot more than breakfast clubs. I have listed just some of what we are doing, but we are working incredibly hard across the board.

Schools will work very hard to make sure that their budgets maximise the outcomes for children, and we will continue to support them to do that. That means having a Department that steps up. It does not stand back and criticise; it steps up. It means supporting the buying that schools do, and making sure they are getting the best value for money in all the purchasing they do. It means supporting them with their maintenance and management. It means supporting them with energy costs. We know that expenditure on energy is a big cost for schools, and the Department can provide support with good contracts that get much better value for money. It is similar with banking and with teacher vacancies. Schools can save a significant amount of money using the products available from the Department for Education, which we are continuing to provide, and they can use the tools available to see how they are doing and also what other schools are doing well. We will continue to support schools to maximise— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is like having a second statement. The answers are getting longer and longer, but I have to get through this urgent question as we have a lot of other business. It is important that questions are answered quickly, but also that the rest of the questions are asked. We will now have a good example of a brief question from Laurence Turner. \p Laurence Turner: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There has clearly been some learning loss among the Conservatives, because they were late in  submitting evidence for seven years in a row, causing chaos in schools’ budgets; they announced the outcome of the School Teachers Review Body process through written statements to this House; and, shamefully, they scrapped the school support staff negotiating body. Does the Minister agree that the protestations from the Opposition will come across to teachers as false and hypocritical, because they are? \p Catherine McKinnell: I think my hon. Friend has put it very well. \p Thomas Tugendhat: One of the things I think we should be proudest of in England is the success of English schools over the last 10 to 14 years. Frankly, the differences in outcomes in England from those in Labour-run Wales or SNP-run Scotland have been very striking, demonstrating that, while for sure there are brilliant teachers across the United Kingdom, the different system in England has enabled its schools to flourish.

While I welcome the fact that the Minister is bringing the statement out early and I appreciate the work the Government have done on it, I am afraid that I do share the frustration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is no longer in her place. The Minister must appreciate that frustration, given that she was sitting on the Opposition Benches only a few months ago, as no doubt she will be again in only a few years’ time.

The reality is that it is very difficult to represent those who send us here if we are not given information. I was sent a letter by Simon Beamish, who runs the Leigh Academies Trust, and he told me that schools in my area of west Kent are already going to have redundancies or are going to make choices based on the unfunded pledges that have been given. Will the Minister make a commitment that the next pledges will be funded? \p Lindsay Hoyle: That was a very long question. \p Catherine McKinnell: It was a very long statement that managed almost entirely to look backwards, while fantasising about the future. The right hon. Member will receive the information, as will everybody else, when the statement is published at the announced time this afternoon. \p Peter Swallow: I declare an interest, as I was a primary school governor right up until the election and I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment. It is quite shocking to hear Opposition Members’ protestations about school funding, given the absolutely dire state in which they left school funding after 14 years of Conservative government. When I speak to school leaders in my constituency, they tell me about their real and lasting struggles to balance their budgets. I understand that the Minister cannot speak today about the outcome of the review until the statement, but can she give us information more broadly about conversations she has had as part of the spending review, so that we can get the funding we need to invest in schools and turn around the dire situation we inherited? \p Catherine McKinnell: I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to school governors. My hon. Friend mentions that he was a governor up until  the election. We really are grateful to school governors for everything they do on a voluntary basis to support schools to be as good as they can be. As a Government, we will always work with them and schools to support improving outcomes for children.

The Department will do everything it can within the incredibly tight fiscal constraints we inherited. As a Government, we are committed to our public services, which we know will transform the lives of children and everybody in this country. We will continue to do that. \p Marie Goldman: The Minister, in her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), referred to imaginings, but I do not think it is an imagining to suggest that the Secretary of State, in her response to the STRB, said that some efficiency savings would have to be found in schools to meet the additional costs. Earlier this week, I had a roundtable with headteachers from my constituency and beyond. The Minister also talked just now about “fantasising about the future”. Is she really telling me that those headteachers were fantasising about the future when they told me that they were already having to make cuts to staffing numbers for next September? One headteacher told me that just one or two more things need to go wrong and that they are on the brink of collapse. Is the Minister saying that they are fantasising about the future? \p Catherine McKinnell: No. We recognise how important it is for schools to plan their budgets and we know that they are keenly awaiting the announcement this afternoon. That is why we have made the announcement as quickly as possible, and much quicker than at any point over the past 10 years. We will continue to work with schools to help them deliver for the children in their care. We know that that is their priority and it is our priority, too. \p Christopher Vince: For 14 years, I saw my profession treated like dirt by the Conservative party: undervalued, underpaid and undermined at every single turn. Does the Minister agree that not only should we be paying our teachers fairly, but we should be treating them with respect, and that the only decent teacher recruitment the Conservative party did was to recruit former teachers to the Labour Benches? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend rightly remarks on his service as a teacher. It is incredibly valued. The one message we want to send to the school system is about the extent to which we value the teachers and the headteachers who support their schools to thrive, and the extent to which we support the support staff who are the beating heart of schools in every community. We will continue to do so. \p Andrew Murrison: The schools in my constituency tell me that any efficiencies they could possibly make have already been made. Therefore, the result of what the Minister is announcing—the national insurance increase that is underfunded and this welcome but unfunded increase in teacher pay—can only be that teacher numbers are cut. As the father of a primary school teacher who works really hard and is absolutely committed, that impacts on me personally, and it will impact on every child and every parent in my  constituency. Is that not the reality, and should the Government not be up front and admit that this will mean that teachers will lose their jobs? \p Catherine McKinnell: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the statement this afternoon for the details of what the Government are proposing. He really should have more awareness of the situation that teachers and schools, and indeed our entire public sector, have faced over the past 14 years. We are working hard to clean up that mess, and we will continue to do so. \p Bayo Alaba: I declare that I am also a school governor. I have spent many months in my constituency meeting teachers, governors and stakeholders within the community, so I welcome the Government’s announcement of 2,000 additional teachers. Can the Minister tell us how the Government are turning the tide in the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, which reached unprecedented levels over the past decade? \p Catherine McKinnell: This is a key priority for us. We want to ensure that we have the teaching workforce that children deserve, but that teachers deserve, too—they deserve to have a full fleet of teachers teaching the specialist subjects that they love, are committed to and are trained to teach. We know that key to unlocking the outcomes for children is having good, qualified teachers in every classroom, which is what we are legislating to achieve. It is also key for children with additional learning needs or disabilities that we ensure that every teacher is a teacher for special educational needs and disabilities, so that more children can be educated in their local school with their peers and get the outcomes they deserve. \p Calum Miller: I was a school governor for 13 years and served as a finance governor, so I know these issues well. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the plight of small, rural primary schools. There are many such schools in my constituency, and they are really up against it with the costs that they face. In the school that I served, 86% of the budget was spent on staffing, so a significant unfunded increase in staffing costs, whether through national insurance or salary contributions, has a huge impact. Will the Minister meet me to discuss sparsity funding and the equalisation of per capita funding so that primary schools in small, rural areas are not so serially disadvantaged? \p Catherine McKinnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful question and for his years of service as a governor. I cannot reiterate enough how much we value the work that governors do in schools, and we need more people to step up and take the rewarding opportunity to support schools in that capacity. He rightly raises the challenges, which we know differ across schools, and that is why school funding is not uniform across schools; it varies according to circumstances. We are looking at the funding formula to ensure that it does allocate resource where it is most needed and where it can give the greatest outcome and the greatest benefit. \p Rachael Maskell: Rather than the synthetic outrage from the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who served in a Government that brought  cuts to schools, I really welcome that the Government are serious about addressing the regression teachers faced in their pay, as well as the fact that support staff were pushed on to the minimum wage. I trust that in the statement there will be sufficiency in the funding for schools, but will the Minister also get a grip of escalating chief executive pay, which is doubling, meaning they have six-figure salaries? It is really important that they are not taking more out of the funds that should be invested in children’s education. \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend speaks with great insight; I know she cares passionately about maximising outcomes for children. I know that every school leader—indeed, those at any level within a school, but particularly those at the senior level—will want to ensure that in any decisions they make on pay, they are prioritising outcomes for children. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Schools in my constituency tell me they are struggling. Serious pressure is being put on their staffing budgets by the national insurance contributions increase, and that is exacerbated by the appallingly slow approval rate of special educational needs inclusion funding and education, health and care plans by the now Lib Dem-run Cambridgeshire county council. What is the Minister doing to address that extra strain on staffing costs and to ensure that schools are properly resourced for the right level of staff in order to allow teachers to give all children the best education, rather than forcing efficiency savings on them that will make the job even harder, and possibly even ultimately put children at risk? \p Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter and does so thoughtfully and constructively. Although there is synthetic outrage from some Members on the Conservative Benches, we recognise that schools are grappling with the challenge of ensuring that they achieve the greatest outcomes from their budgets. That is a challenge that they rise to year on year, and a challenge that we will continue to set, because we will not shy away from ensuring that every penny of public money that is spent delivers on the frontline for children and teachers. We need to ensure that we have the right teaching capacity in schools, and that teachers are trained to support children with special educational needs. We are determined to ensure that more children are educated with their peers, but we recognise that schools need support to deliver that, and we are working on reforms at pace. We are also getting on with delivering a whole range of interventions to support schools in making progress. \p Luke Myer: I had not planned to ask a question, but I have to say that I was pretty surprised by the tone that the Opposition struck. I did a postgraduate degree in education, and I will never forget finding one of my professional mentors, who had been a teacher for years, crying at her desk because of the pressure that the then Government had put on her and other teachers. Is it not the case that the Conservatives left our teachers overstretched and undervalued, and this Government are taking a different approach? \p Catherine McKinnell: I could not have put it better myself. \p Claire Young: The Minister has admitted that not all schools will be fully funded, but blames that on the choices that schools have made about their staff. Does she accept that schools cannot fully control the profile of their staff, and that in some cases—I make this point in a letter to the Minister—schools choose to pay people in higher bands because of the increasingly high needs that they are expected to support? Will she meet me to discuss how she will protect schools with particularly high staffing budgets from having to make excessive cuts? \p Catherine McKinnell: I am not really sure about the premise of the hon. Lady’s question, or what she thinks may or may not have been said ahead of publication of the written ministerial statement, which is due at 1 pm today. I have made it clear that schools are funded not in a uniform manner, but according to a whole range of requirements that they may have within their school population and their area. It is a complex formula that is intended to ensure fairness across the school funding system. Indeed, we are looking at the system to ensure that it is as fair as it can be, but it is not without its complexities, so we are taking the time to get this right. We will continue to do so, because we recognise that schools need the autonomy to decide how they spend their budget, how they best deploy their resources, and how they maximise the outcomes for children, using the resources allocated by the Government. We also recognise that schools need support to do that, and we will continue to ensure that they have the tools to maximise the outcomes for children. \p Andy McDonald: May I declare my interest as the very proud father of Rosie, a foundation stage teacher? This Government showed what Labour is about when they came in and immediately awarded an above-inflation 5.5% pay rise to teachers, to start clawing back after the demeaning and disrespectful public sector cuts of around 20% in real terms delivered by the Tories. The Government’s 2.8% submission to the pay review body is below inflation, and that increase would not be funded through additional finance; it would come at the expense of other provision. It has been reported that the School Teachers’ Review Body is recommending close to 4%, so will the Government commit to a long-term plan of restoring teachers’ pay in real terms, and to addressing the recruitment and retention crisis in education? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend tempts me down all sorts of paths, in ways that would anticipate the statement that is due later today, but he rightly states the importance of ensuring that teachers are recognised, valued and rewarded, that we have sufficient teachers, and that we have an attractive profession that bright people like Rosie want to join and contribute to. We will continue to work to deliver that for the children and schools in this country. \p John Glen: One of the biggest drivers of satisfaction in any profession is settlements in line with inflation and expectations of inflation. Will the Minister assure the House that the settlement to be  announced later today will take account of the fact that inflation is vastly higher than was anticipated when the settlement was reached? \p Catherine McKinnell: I am afraid that the right hon. Member will have to wait for the statement this afternoon. I appreciate that it is keenly anticipated. We are committed to ensuring that schools can deliver for children. That is our top priority. \p John Slinger: I am proud to declare an interest as the son of a teacher. While the Tories often wax lyrical about how business adds value to our economy, which of course it does, they often omit to say that it is our teachers who educate those who go on to work in business. Teachers add huge value, and teaching should be the most esteemed of professions. Can the Minister explain how Labour is overturning the teacher recruitment and retention crisis that we inherited from the Tories? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend is right to say that we inherited a teaching profession in crisis. Immediately on entering Government, we instituted a 5.5% pay award. We continue to help schools to find ways to support teachers in managing their workload and wellbeing, and in making teaching the attractive profession that it should be. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, teaching is the springboard to so many bright futures for children. We want to ensure excellence for every child, not just some children, as we saw over the last 14 years. \p Richard Holden: In Education questions, I raised the concerns of headteachers in Basildon and Billericay about school funding, and I directly asked about school support staff, who are already being told that they are being made redundant because of the national insurance jobs tax. Can the Minister explain to those staff and me why the Government have gone back on their promise to cover all the costs of the jobs tax? \p Catherine McKinnell: As I have already set out, the Government have given a significant settlement in recognition of the national insurance costs. We will continue to work with schools to ensure that they can deliver for children in their areas, and we will continue to listen to the sector to ensure that we work in partnership to deliver for children—a partnership that was sadly lacking in the last 14 years. The right hon. Gentleman was very much part of the Government who delivered the desperate situation in which we found schools and teachers, and that we are working very hard to turn around. \p John Milne: Over the last six months, I have visited most of the schools in my constituency, and the message I am getting loud and clear is that they are on the brink, especially over special educational needs and disabilities provision. That threatens to throw into sharp reverse any progress on educational standards. I ask the Government to be honest about the real state of funding, and not to make statements that are not fully funded. That applies to statements on existing services, such as SEND provision, and on the cost of school dinners. I hold the new Government to a higher standard, and I ask the Minister to be completely honest about the real state of affairs. \p Catherine McKinnell: I recognise the challenges that the hon. Gentleman sees in the school system. We did, without doubt, inherit a SEND crisis. It was described by the previous Secretary of State for Education as “lose, lose, lose”, and she was not wrong. We are working at pace to fix it, and we recognise that schools are grappling with many challenges. We will continue to work at pace, because that is how we deliver for children in this country, which we are committed to doing. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has just walked right across the Floor of the House while the Minister was answering. I cannot believe it. [Interruption.] We are not going to have an argument. I would have hoped that you, as a member of the Panel of Chairs, would respect the rules of the House better. \p Greg Smith: I am full of admiration for all the hard-working teachers across my constituency, and indeed the whole country, and my sister-in-law is a secondary-school English teacher, but I have no doubt that every teacher and headteacher watching our proceedings, either live or later, will have had their jaw on the floor when they heard the Minister say that she wants to give them time to plan, but will not tell them what funding they will get to pay for this. It is inconceivable that she does not know the answer to that question, given that a statement on the issue will be published at 1 o’clock. Is she not giving the answer because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) said, No. 10 has told her not to? Better still, is it because the Department is in a live negotiation—some might say a row—with the Treasury to get that settlement for our teachers? \p Catherine McKinnell: What a ridiculous question. As the hon. Member has a family member who is a teacher, he should have more respect for the profession and the work that teachers do. He should acknowledge that the time we give schools to plan their budget is way beyond anything that his Government delivered in the last 10 years. \p Charlie Maynard: The Minister and many hon. Members have mentioned teaching support staff, who make up half the school workforce but have no statutory pay body to represent them. Many support staff are left without a voice in discussions on their pay, terms and working conditions; I hear that time and again in schools throughout my constituency. Will the Minister give assurances, through the written ministerial statement, that school support staff will get a fair pay deal? \p Catherine McKinnell: Pay negotiations for support staff are done through the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. We recognise the challenge that the hon. Member identified, and the strong role that support staff play in our schools. We have legislated for the school support staff negotiating body, which the last Government abolished, to be re-established, to ensure that they have a strong voice in these conversations. \p Shockat Adam: May I raise concerns about our further education college teachers? There is a real shortage of skilled workers in this  country, and one of the reasons for that is that we have undervalued and under-invested in our FE college teachers, who are paid £9,000 less than their peers. No wonder 50% of them leave within the first three years of employment. Does the Minister recognise the vital role of FE college teachers in our education system? Will they be in the Government’s plans for a fairer and better future for everybody? \p Catherine McKinnell: We absolutely recognise, respect and value the vital role of all those who work with 16 to 19-year-olds and people of all ages, whether in a school, college or FE setting; they provide that springboard to launch people into their future careers. We will continue to recognise and support the sector. \p Richard Foord: The Minister mentioned maintenance contracts and Department for Education support. Schools have seen steep increases in the cost of sustaining themselves. One school leader in Devon whom I spoke with said that the cost of maintaining grounds, bins and toilets grew by 69% over the last four years. Given that schools’ budgets have barely grown over that period, does she really expect that staff pay rises will come out of existing school budgets? \p Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into issues that may well be addressed in the statement that is due very shortly. He recognises that schools have a whole range of costs to manage. As a Department, we want to maximise every penny that schools have, and to minimise outlays that do not reach children or the frontline—those who work with children. We will continue to do that. There is a whole range of tools available at the Department. We really encourage schools to use those tools in any way they can in the management of their budgets, and to support really smart accounting to maximise the impact of their budgets for their children. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her answers to the urgent question. Nobody can doubt her commitment to the change that is necessary to keep schools working and teachers in place. I always   try to be helpful in the Chamber. Northern Ireland has come through a period of teacher strike action, which led to years of no school inspections, and to altered classroom practices, so there is a need to re-engage with teachers. The Minister knows well that engaging with teachers at all stages is essential, or the losers will undoubtedly be the parents and, of course, the pupils. How will she ensure a spirit of co-operation to ensure in-depth education? We all hope that co-operation will be reciprocated by unions and senior leadership teams in all schools. \p Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman is always helpful and thoughtful in his contributions. As a Department, we inherited a school system that was in crisis: school buildings crumbling, teachers leaving in their droves and children not getting the start in life that they deserve. We are working on a number of fronts, but we recognise that the outcomes are not ones that the Government alone can deliver; we need to deliver them in partnership with schools, teachers and those who represent them. We speak and work regularly right across the board to maximise those outcomes for children, and I know the hon. Gentleman shares our determination to see that across the country. \p Neil O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Is it relevant to this UQ? \p Neil O'Brien: It is, Mr Speaker. Earlier, the Minister said that funding had remained below 2010 levels. I am sure that was an innocent verbal slip. However, according to the widely respected Institute for Fiscal Studies,

“Coming on the back of an 11% real-terms increase in spending per pupil between 2019–20 and 2024–25, this allows spending per pupil to return to, and exceed, its previous high point in 2010.”

How can we encourage the rapid correction of the record when innocent mistakes are made? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I think you have just corrected the record; that is not a point of order. We can leave it at that, unless the Minister wants to come in. \p Catherine McKinnell: indicated dissent. \p Shabana Mahmood: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, the independent sentencing review was published today. It was chaired by David Gauke and his panel comprised experts, including a former Lord Chief Justice, and representatives from the police, prisons, probation and victims’ rights organisations. The Government are grateful for the review’s recommendations, and I will ensure that a copy is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Today, I will set out our in-principle response.

First, however, it is essential that we set the review in its proper context. A year ago today, the Conservative party called an election. They did so because they were confronted by the prospect of prisons about to collapse. Rather than confront their failure, they chose to hide it and hoodwink the public into re-electing them. It did not work, but their legacy lives on.

Our prisons are, once again, running out of space and it is vital that the implications are understood. If our prisons collapse, courts are forced to suspend trials, the police must halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished, criminals run amok and chaos reigns. We face the breakdown of law and order in this country. It is shameful that, in this day and age, we are confronted by this crisis once more. The reasons are clear. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate, while at the same time, sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and we are heading back towards zero capacity. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis. That starts by building prisons.

Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 places. Last week, I announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031, in the largest expansion since the Victorian era. That investment is necessary, but not sufficient. We cannot build our way out of this crisis. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for places will outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028, and that is why I commissioned the sentencing review. Its task was clear: this country must never run out of prison places again. There must always be space for dangerous offenders.

At the same time, the review was tasked with addressing the fact that our prisons too often create better criminals, not better citizens. Instead of cutting crime, they are breeding grounds for it. The reviewers have followed the evidence and example of countries across the world. Today I present an initial response, with further detail to follow once legislation is placed before the House.

Let me start with the report’s central recommendation: the move to a three-part sentence called the earned progression model, which the Government accept in principle. Under the model, an offender will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. That echoes the model I witnessed in Texas earlier this year, which cut crime and brought their prison population under control.

Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release will be one third, with additional days added for bad behaviour. The review suggests a new maximum of 50%, but for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit. For those currently serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release will be 50%. Again, for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit.

David Gauke also suggests that those serving extended determinate sentences should also earn an earlier release. This we will not accept. Judges give extended sentences to those they consider dangerous, with no Parole Board hearing until two thirds of time served, and I will not change that. I can also confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences will be eligible for earlier release from prison.

In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and close management from probation. The Government will therefore significantly increase funding: by the final year of the spending review period, an annual £1.6 billion will rise by up to £700 million, allowing us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders. If offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, the sentencing review has suggested that recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle, though the precise details will be placed before the House when we legislate. In the final stage of the three-part sentence, offenders could still be recalled if a new offence is committed, and I will also ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be subject to strict conditions.

The review also recommends a reduction in short prison sentences. A compelling case for doing so has been proposed in this House many times. In the most recent data, nearly 60% of those receiving a 12-month sentence reoffended within a year. With reoffending rates for community punishment consistently lower, we must ask ourselves whether alternative forms of punishment would make the public safer. It is important, however, to note that the review recommends a reduction in short sentences, not abolition. It is right that judges retain the discretion to hand them down in exceptional circumstances. In considering exceptional circumstances, we will continue to ensure that courts have access to thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and stalking cases, and breaches of protective orders linked to violence against women and girls will be excluded.

The review also recommends an extension of suspended sentences from two to three years. In this period, the prospect of prison time hangs over an offender should they break any conditions imposed upon them, and we accept that recommendation.

The recommendations set out above will see more community punishment. For that reason, it is essential that it works. The review recommends a series of measures to make community punishment tougher and force offenders to pay back to those they have harmed. We will consider new financial penalties, which could see offenders’ assets seized, even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expanded use of punishments such as travel and driving bans that would curtail offenders’ liberty.

We accept a recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. Those impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, that tackle the root causes of prolific offending. Offenders are brought before a judge regularly to monitor compliance, and the prospect of prison hangs over them like the sword of Damocles.

However, I believe community punishment must be tougher still. Unpaid work must pay back, so I will shortly bring together business leaders to explore a model whereby offenders work for them, and the salary is paid not to the offender but towards the good of victims. I will also work with local authorities to determine how unpaid work teams could give back to their communities, whether by filling potholes or cleaning up rubbish.

I invited David Gauke to consider cohorts of offenders who this Government believe require particular focus. I welcome his recommendations on female offenders. Approximately two thirds of female offenders receive short sentences. Around the same number are victims of domestic abusers. I am pleased to say that the review’s recommendation on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison.

I asked David Gauke to consider how we tackle foreign national offenders. Today, our deportation rate is ahead of the last Government’s. I welcome the recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. Under the existing scheme, they are sent back to their country of origin after serving 50% of the custodial sentence. We will bring that down to 30%. We will also conduct further work with the Home Office on how we can deport foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after their sentencing.

I also asked the review to consider how we manage sex offenders. The review has recommended we continue a pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. I will go further, with a national roll-out beginning in two regions, covering 20 prisons. I am exploring whether mandating the approach is possible. Of course, it is vital that this approach is taken alongside psychological interventions that target other causes of offending, such as asserting power and control.

When discussing sentencing, it is too easy to focus on how we punish offenders when we should talk more about victims. Everything I am announcing today is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. By cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future, but there is more we must do to support victims today. The review recommends a number of important measures, including better identifying domestic abusers at sentencing, so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff support victims. To improve transparency in the system, we will extend a pilot of free sentencing transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences.

I want to go further than the review recommends to better support victims. Exclusion zones are an important tool, preventing offenders from entering areas their  victims might be in, but these place greater limits on victims than on offenders. I want to change that, locking offenders down to specific locations so that victims know they are safe wherever else they want to go.

This review sets out major reform. I know its recommendations will not be welcomed by all. By appointing David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, I hoped to show that two politicians from different traditions can agree on the reforms our justice system requires. I do not expect Conservative Members to join me to solve this crisis. In fact, I can hear their soundbites already. “Just build faster,” they will say. Well, we are building faster than they did: we have already added 2,400 places, and we are now investing £4.7 billion more. “Just deport more foreign criminals,” they will say. Well, we are ahead of where they were, and today we have accepted major reform to go further and faster. “Clear the courts backlog,” they will say despite having created it themselves. Well, we are investing more in our courts than they ever did, and we are ready to embrace once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims.

While we are doing more on each of these areas than they ever did, these are not solutions that rise to the scale of the crisis that they left behind. We must build prisons on an historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever, and speed up our courts; and yet still, despite all that, we must reform sentencing too. So, more in hope than expectation, and despite, not because of, experience, by appealing to the better angels of their nature—if they have any—I end by inviting those opposite to help us fix the crisis that they left behind. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Lord Chancellor. \p Robert Jenrick: Today is about one question: should violent and prolific criminals be on the streets or behind bars? I think they should be behind bars. For all the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric, the substance of her statement could not be clearer: she is okay and her party is okay with criminals terrorising our streets and tormenting our country. The truth is this: any Government—[Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I thought people had come to listen to the statement and I expect them to listen. I expected the Opposition Front Bench to be quiet; I certainly expect better from the Government Front Bench. \p Robert Jenrick: Mr Speaker, the truth is this: any Government serious about keeping violent criminals behind bars, any Government willing to do whatever it took, could obviously find and build the prison cells required to negate the need for these disastrous changes. What do the changes amount to? [Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Swallow, you are getting very excited. You were telling me how good a schoolteacher you were; this is a very bad example of that. \p Robert Jenrick: What do these changes amount to? They are a “get out of jail free” card for dangerous criminals. Has the Justice Secretary even gone through  a court listing recently? Pick one from anywhere in our country: those currently going to jail for 12 months or less are not angels. They are Adam Gregory in Calne, who got 12 months for sexually assaulting his partner; Vinnie Nolan, who got 12 months for breaking someone’s jaw; Shaun Yardley, 10 months for beating his partner; or Paul Morris, who got six and a half months for shoplifting 36 times. Her plan is to let precisely these criminals loose. It is a recipe for a crime wave.

What about the Justice Secretary’s plan for most criminals going to jail to serve just one third of their prison sentence there and for her slashing of sentences across the board—discounts so big they would make Aldi and Lidl blush? I would call it a joke if the consequences for the public were not so terrifying. In fact it gets worse, because criminals who plead guilty—and most do—already get a third cut in their sentence, so under her scheme a burglar who pleads guilty to an 18-month headline term would spend just one fifth of that term in jail—barely 11 weeks. Eleven weeks for smashing through a family’s door and storming through a child’s bedroom looking for valuables, leaving them traumatised for life. Is that the Justice Secretary’s idea of justice for victims? The least she could do is here and now guarantee that violent criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers and sexual assaulters will not be eligible for any discount in their sentence. Will she commit to that?

If not prison, what is the plan to punish these criminals and to keep the public safe? Well, the Justice Secretary says it is digital prisons—as she puts it, prison outside of prison, words that lead most people in this country to conclude that the Justice Secretary is out of her mind. I am all for technology but tags are not iron bars—they cannot stop your child being stabbed on their walk home from school, or a shop being ransacked time and again, or a domestic abuser returning to their victim’s front door. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think that “out of her mind” is language that should be used. I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would like to reflect on that. \p Robert Jenrick: Of course, Mr Speaker.

The Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme found that 71% of tagged offenders breached their curfew. When it comes to stopping reoffending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, “I’m sorry—we are looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell.” Her reforms are a recipe for carnage.

I urge the Justice Secretary to change course and to make different choices—yes, choices—from the ones that we knew the Government would make from the day that the Prime Minister hand-picked Lord Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, a man who is on record as saying that

“a lot of people in prison…shouldn’t be there”—

two thirds of them in fact, he said—

“and they are there for far too long”.

The Labour party is clearly ideologically opposed to prison and that is why the Government are letting criminals off with a “get out of jail free” card, rather  than deporting the 10,800 foreign national offenders in our prisons—one in every eight cells—a figure that is rising under the Justice Secretary’s watch. If she is actually serious about keeping violent criminals off our streets and finding the cells that are needed, will she bring forward legislation, tomorrow, and disapply the Human Rights Act 1998, which is stopping us from swiftly deporting foreign national offenders?

Some 17,800 prisoners are on remand awaiting trial—another figure that has risen under the Justice Secretary. In fact, her own Department’s figures forecast that it could rise to as many as 23,600. If she is serious, will she commit to taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s request for extra court sitting days to hear those cases and free up prison spaces? Will she commit, here and now, to building more than the meagre 250 rapid deployment cells her prison capacity strategy says she is planning to build this year? They have been built in seven months before, and they can be built even faster.

If the Justice Secretary were serious, she would commit to striking deals with the 14 European countries with spare prison capacity, renting their cells from them at an affordable price, as Denmark is doing with Kosovo. Between 1993 and 1996, her beloved Texas, the state on which she modelled these reforms—a state that, by the way, has an incarceration rate five times higher than that of the United Kingdom—built 75,000 extra cells. If the Government were serious, why can they not build 10,000 over a similar time period?

Labour is not serious about keeping hyper-prolific offenders behind bars. In fact, there is nothing in the Justice Secretary’s statement on locking them up or cutting crime, because the Labour party does not believe in punishing criminals and it does not really believe in prison. The radical, terrible changes made today are cloaked in necessity, but their root is Labour’s ideology. It is the public who will be paying the price for her weakness. \p Shabana Mahmood: The shadow Secretary of State talks about serious Government—if the Government that he was a part of had ever been serious, they would have built more than 500 prison places in 14 years in office—[Interruption.] He is a new convert to the prison-building cause. He and his party have never stood up in this Chamber and apologised for adding only 500 places— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want the same respect from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Do we understand each other? \p Robert Jenrick: indicated assent. \p Shabana Mahmood: Mr Speaker, if I were waiting for respect from Opposition Members, I would be waiting for a long time, so it is a good job that I do not need it.

The shadow Secretary of State talks about “iron bars”, but he was part of a Government that did not build the prison places that this country needs. Unlike him, I take responsibility, and it has fallen to me to clean up the mess that he and his party left behind. In case there is any confusion, let me spell out what happens when he and his party leave our prison system on the brink of collapse, which is exactly what they did, and set out the prospect that faced me on day one, when I walked into the Justice Department. When prisons are  on the verge of collapse, we basically have only two choices left at our disposal: either we shut the front door, or we have to open the back door. The right hon. Gentleman’s party knew that that was the situation it was confronted with, but did it make any decisions? No, it just decided to call an election instead and did a runner.

The public put the Conservatives in their current position. If they ever want to get out of that position, I suggest that they start by reckoning with the reality of their own track record in office. In any other reality, they should have started already with an apology. Conservative Members have had many chances to apologise to the country for leaving our prisons on the point of absolute collapse, but they have never taken them. Frankly, that tells us everything that anyone needs to know about the modern Conservative party. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: I welcome the report and the Government’s response. It is a comprehensive and measured response to the prisons crisis, as one would expect from David Gauke, in contrast with the hysterical nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition today. I particularly welcome the additional resources for probation and electronic monitoring to enable robust punishment and control in the community as an alternative to custody, but even the aggregate effect of the measures in the report will only stabilise the prison population over the longer term. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also need effective rehabilitation to end the cycle of reoffending if we are to see a fall in historically high prison numbers? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me be clear: we will be adding prison places to the estate, and we will be filling them up. The prison population will rise year on year by the end of this Parliament, but my hon. Friend is right that the measures we have announced today stabilise the prison population. As a whole country, we will have to do better at ensuring that our prisons are churning out better citizens, rather than better criminals. When we know that 80% of offenders are reoffenders, there is clearly much work to be done in this area. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Josh Babarinde: I start by saying that it is an absolute honour to be able to share with my mum, who is a survivor of domestic abuse at the hands of a former partner, that campaigning fuelled by our harrowing experiences at home all those years ago, and the experiences of many other survivors across the country, has contributed to the Government heeding our calls to better identify domestic abuse in the criminal justice system. The increased visibility and the interventions that it will inform to patch up what was an outrageous gap in the system stand to protect victims and survivors across the country, and I sincerely thank the Government for listening to us.

My party and I will hold the Government to account on the implementation, and we would like to get clarity on the record that the new identifier will mean that the Government can be empowered to exclude domestic  abusers from, for example, an SDS40 early release scheme, and that partners using Clare’s law will see offences flagged as domestic abuse in the light of the report.

It must be said that it is absolutely appalling that the shadow Justice Secretary has just tried to play politics with domestic abusers. \p Robert Jenrick: I do not want to let criminals out early—you do. \p Josh Babarinde: The right hon. Gentleman says that this Government want to let domestic abusers out early. He fails to remember that the end-of-custody supervised licence scheme under the Conservative Government from October to June last year released 10,083 offenders early, with no exclusions for domestic abusers. Does the Secretary of State agree it is critical that this Government provide more support for domestic abuse victims from the likes of their abusers in a way that the last Government failed to do on their watch? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. I would accept nothing less than holding us fully to account for these changes, and I look forward to working collaboratively where possible on these measures as we move forward. I pay tribute to him, his family and his mum for the campaigning that they have done on the identification of cases arising from domestic abuse being flagged properly within our justice system.

The new identifier will develop over time, and I am sure that it will inform future policy decisions made by Governments of all stripes, but it is an important starting point. We are very happy to accept the recommendation, and we will move at pace to ensure that we deliver it.

Cases under Clare’s law will be covered by the new measure. As for more support for victims of domestic abuse, we are very keen to take forward the review’s recommendation on the specialist courts, because we think they will have a particularly important role to play. As I said in my statement, we will ensure that the measures relating to the presumption against short sentences contain an exclusion for breaches of orders, which we know is a matter of particular concern for victims of domestic abuse. I will engage with Members across the House on where we can make further progress. \p Sarah Owen: Before I put my question to my right hon. Friend, may I give the shadow Justice Secretary a reality check? Under the previous Government, 98% of reported rape cases went completely unpunished. Under the Conservative Government, rape was effectively legalised, so a little bit of humility would not go amiss.

One in five adults in this country will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. Could my right hon. Friend please explain how domestic abuse victims will be protected under these new measures? \p Shabana Mahmood: I will repeat the point I have made to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). We know that there is a particular concern about what the presumption against short sentences might have meant for breaches of protective orders, and we know that issue is of real concern for domestic abuse victims. We want to ensure that those orders are not rendered useless because those who breach them are not seeing  any prison time at all. The specific circumstances surrounding this type of violence against women need a very specific response, which is why we have already said that we will make that exclusion, and I will work with Members across the House to identify where we can make further progress. \p Caroline Dinenage: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about female offenders, but I would like to know a little bit more. Hope Street in Hampshire, which offers residential alternatives to custody for women, has seen remarkable results, and of course it prevents those women from being separated from their children, which would otherwise drive the intergenerational cycle of offending behaviour, trauma and cost to society. Do these proposals include any plans to set up more such facilities across the rest of the country? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Lady raises an important point. The combination of the measures that we are accepting from the review will mean that we will see a huge reduction in the number of women going to prison. Approximately two thirds go in for sentences of less than one year and, as the hon. Lady knows, many of those women are themselves victims of domestic abuse. In future, we expect the numbers to drop very significantly, and I know we will make progress in that regard. I have set out an ambition to see fewer women prisoners and, ultimately, to have fewer women’s prisons.

Turning to residential alternatives to custody, the hon. Lady will know that I have set up the Women’s Justice Board. It is well represented, including by those who have personal experience of Hope Street, and we will work with the Women’s Justice Board as we roll out further changes to the female estate. \p Emily Darlington: Despite what the shadow Justice Secretary has said about this scheme putting domestic abusers and rapists out on the streets, can the Justice Secretary cut through the rhetoric and fearmongering from the Opposition and be clear that she has put the victims of sexual and domestic abuse at the heart of these measures? Can she confirm that they will be protected, and that those abusers and perpetrators will not benefit from the early release scheme? \p Shabana Mahmood: All dangerous offenders—those who receive an extended determinate sentence, including some of the serious offenders to which my hon. Friend has referred—will be excluded from this scheme. All other offenders receiving a standard determinate sentence will be within the earned progression model, but they will have to earn an early release. That is why we are ensuring that there is an uplift in probation funding, to ensure that all those individuals are intensively supervised in the middle stage of their sentence. The worst thing that could happen for every type of victim in this country, and in fact for every citizen, would be for us to run out of prison places altogether. We are in this position because of the mess that the previous Government left behind, and it falls to us to fix it. \p Paul Kohler: Notwithstanding the predictable nonsense from the shadow Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Newark  (Robert Jenrick), it is critical that we focus on the needs of the victim. I welcome the Lord Chancellor making that point in her statement, but we need more than fine words. Can she please commit to giving all victims of crime proper access to restorative justice? \p Shabana Mahmood: Restorative justice has an important role to play in our justice system, so where it is appropriate and where it can make a difference, we will ensure that it is available. But I want to ensure that victims of crime have other confidence-inducing measures at their disposal, which is why I want to look at exclusion zones in particular, and it is why we want to do the domestic abuse identifier, so that we can track systems, learn from the cases that are going through and make better policy for victims. \p Sarah Coombes: I am amazed by the gall of the Conservatives, who left our prisons in utter crisis, failing victims. I thank the Lord Chancellor for her work. Five years ago, my constituent Diane had her world changed when her husband was killed by a driver who was on her phone. Not only did the driver do that, but the first call the driver made was not to 999, but to her sister. When the driver is released from prison, she will have a four-year driving ban, but Diane and her family have had their lives devastated forever. Can the Minister set out that, as we take this necessary action to fix our bursting prison system, we will make use of lengthy restrictions and lifetime driving bans for those who cause death by dangerous driving? \p Shabana Mahmood: I am sorry to hear of the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent; those are truly horrible circumstances for any family to find themselves in. I can assure her that we will be rigorously pursuing the recommendations in the Gauke review relating to ancillary orders, which are other orders that we can make that curtail an offender’s liberty, including lengthier driving bans, which I am considering bringing forward. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Public confidence in the criminal justice system—and, importantly, the confidence of victims—is paramount. Since 2010, the use of community-based orders has decreased by 61%. That is in no small part because of concerns about offender engagement in the process. If the Government are going to pursue this route, what steps has the Lord Chancellor taken to model how many will reoffend and, more importantly, that they will be rigorously reinforced? \p Shabana Mahmood: That issue is why already today I have announced measures to toughen up community punishment, and we will be going further in some areas than even the review recommends. I absolutely agree that community punishment has to maintain the confidence of the public. Like all other Members, I am a constituency Member of Parliament, and I want my constituents to be able to see community punishment as real punishment. It is on us to make sure that it is worthy of that name. That is why I am considering going further on unpaid work, working with businesses to see whether salaries could be paid into a victims fund. That might be one model. I want to see offenders filling potholes and cleaning our streets, and I will be working with local authorities to ensure that we go as far as we can, but  I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government are committed to toughening up community punishment and making sure that it maintains the confidence of the public. \p Warinder Juss: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for her statement and for commissioning the sentencing review. Does she agree that this Government are now taking action, whereas this time last year, rather than sorting out the prison crisis—when we had fewer than 90 spaces, with a prison population of 90,000—the Conservatives called a general election instead? Does she also agree that the present proposals will ensure that dangerous offenders will be locked up and will enable us to rehabilitate others and stop reoffending, which costs us £22 billion a year? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is right. This time last year, the Conservatives had a chance to put the country first. Instead, they called an election and tried to put themselves first. They did a runner on the job, and it falls to us to clean up their mess. This Government will clean up their mess, and we will get our prison system on to a sustainable footing so that there is always a prison place. There will be more prison places under this Government, and we will make sure that there is always a prison place for the most dangerous offenders. That is why we are taking all the other measures that we need to take to ensure that we never run out of prison places again. \p Desmond Swayne: Respect for justice is diminished by the fiction of the judge announcing a sentence and those in the know then calculating on the back of a fag packet the fraction that it actually represents. Has this statement not reinforced that system with bells on? \p Shabana Mahmood: I am sorry to have to break it to the right hon. Gentleman, but he will be horrified to discover that he agrees with David Gauke on this one. The independent reviewer has pointed out that transparency will be paramount to maintaining confidence in the justice system, and we will make sure that we take the transparency measures forward. \p Charlotte Nichols: With the National Police Chiefs’ Council having declared violence against women and girls a national emergency, it is right that we explore radical methods to bring down the scale of offending in our communities. We know that most sexual offending is not about sex at all, but about power. However, for the subset of convicts whose offending is driven by sexual compulsion, chemical castration could be an option. Is there estimate data on how many future offences that could prevent? By definition, it would only be for those who have already offended. As I am not aware of a method of permanent chemical castration, is there capacity in the Probation Service to monitor ongoing compliance with treatment? \p Shabana Mahmood: Studies show a 60% reduction in offending. My hon. Friend is right to say that, for one subset of offenders, offending relates to power. For another subset of offenders, we believe that a combination  of chemical suppressants and psychological interventions can have a big and positive impact. A pilot has been trundling along for many years, and nobody has shown much interest in it, including any of my predecessors—Tory Justice Secretaries just let it carry on. I am not willing to do that, and I am not squeamish about taking further measures. We are going to have a national roll-out of this programme, and I will ensure that is what happens. I am expanding it to two further regions, including for prisoners in 20 further prisons, so that we can build the evidence base and make sure that we are using every tool at our disposal to cut reoffending. \p Sarah Olney: I welcome the Government’s commitment to extending the pilot scheme to give free sentencing transcripts for rape and serious sexual offences—something for which I have long campaigned. I am sorry that the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), has just left the Chamber, because I wanted to pay tribute to her for all her work on this issue. I also pay tribute to the victims, survivors and campaigners, and particularly my own constituent Juliana Terlizzi, for their bravery and advocacy on this issue. I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister on this issue. Can the Lord Chancellor tell us what measures will be taken to ensure that victims know about the scheme, and that they understand their right to request a transcript of the sentencing remarks? I know that the pilot has shown how much that contributes to their recovery and their welfare after sentencing. \p Shabana Mahmood: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work in this area, and I will pass on her remarks to the Victims Minister. I also pay tribute to her constituent. It is very difficult to raise these issues and talk about them openly, and her constituent has shown real bravery in coming forward and explaining why the scheme would have made a difference to her own recovery.

I am very pleased to extend the pilot scheme. We will learn the lessons about how the first pilot scheme worked in the first year, and if we need to do more on publicising what the scheme can do and its availability, we will do so. The hon. Lady will know that I want to make further progress on using AI technology to make transcripts more widely available, because I believe in a transparent justice system. I do not believe that we are very far away from having tech that is accurate enough to be a matter of court record, but we are not quite there yet. It is something we continue to work on. \p Linsey Farnsworth: In my 21 years as a Crown prosecutor, I prosecuted many, many cases, but I prosecuted far fewer individuals. That is because 80% of offenders are reoffenders, so I saw the same defendants time and again. The current system does not work. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the new approach will reduce reoffending, cut crime and lead to fewer victims? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House that 80% of offenders in our country are reoffenders, which tells us that our system is broken. It tells us that our prisons are creating better criminals, not better citizens, and this is something we absolutely have to turn around if we are to protect victims and cut crime. \p John Hayes: The Lord Chancellor will know that for a very long time in this country, the prejudices of the establishment, poisoned by liberal thinking, have been at odds with the preoccupations of the vast majority of law-abiding people. Will she acknowledge now that the principal purpose of prison is retributive? It has other purposes, too, but its principal purpose is punishment. In that spirit, will she confirm when she will bring forward the further legislation on sentencing that she promised? Given what she has announced today, will she also confirm that violent sexual offenders will be excluded from early release? \p Shabana Mahmood: I have no truck with anyone else’s prejudices and they certainly do not decide what I do in office. I believe in prison. This Government are going to build more prison places, and we will fill them. I believe in prison for the reasons of punishment, primarily; I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. I will not let this country run out of prison places, because I know what will happen if we do. I am not willing to put anyone through the breakdown of law and order in our country—I am not willing to take that risk. It means that harder choices are in front of me and this House as we get ourselves out of this crisis, and I am making those choices today.

I will work at pace to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity, so that the House can consider the proposals in full. Those on extended determinate sentences —the most dangerous offenders, as judged by a judge in a court—will be excluded from these measures. For all other offenders, earlier release will have to be earned, and there will be intensive supervision afterwards. That is the earned progression model, and I am sure we will debate it at length in the weeks and months ahead. \p Mike Tapp: There is no place in our country for foreign offenders who pose a serious risk to the public. This Government are already returning more foreign national offenders than the Conservatives did when they were in power. Does the Minister agree that the Tories are clearly all talk and no action? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend puts it very well, and he is absolutely right. We have made more progress on the deportation of foreign national offenders than the previous Government and we will go further. We accept the review’s recommendations on reducing the threshold for early removal from 50% to 30%. For offenders who get less than three years in prison, we will work with the Home Office on proposals to move to immediate deportation. \p Caroline Voaden: The national average reoffending rate for people who have done a short-term sentence is 54%. Among those who graduate from a prisoner rehabilitation programme in my constituency, the average reoffending rate is just 6%—and the programme is still in touch with every single graduate, after operating for 10 years. In the spirit of trying to reduce the prison population, does the Lord Chancellor agree that such rehabilitation programmes are absolutely crucial and that investing in rehabilitation not only keeps people safe in the community because it reduces  the reoffending rate, but helps the mission to free up prison places for the dangerous criminals who absolutely need to be there? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I pay tribute to the work that is going on in her constituency. As I have said before, 80% of offenders in this country are reoffenders. That tells us how broken our system is, and how imperative it is that we sort it out. \p Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Reoffending is costing us £22 billion a year, and 80% of offenders are reoffenders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to bring that figure down? What is she intending to do to prevent people from reoffending at such high rates? \p Shabana Mahmood: One of the problems of running a prison system at absolutely boiling hot—where it is permanently on the point of collapse, as has been the case in our prison system for far too long now—is that we are not able to make much progress in the prison estate on the programmes that offenders need to access to begin a rehabilitation journey. Part of our proposals, which are designed to relieve the stress in our prison system, will help with rehabilitation within the prison estate.

We are also absolutely determined to make more progress on rehabilitation outside the prison estate, which is why we are toughening up community punishment. We know that that works, and we know that the country can have confidence in such punishment. We will be working with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to think about the availability of drug and alcohol treatment. We will expand the use of sobriety tags, which are already helping offenders to come off the drink that often fuels their offending. I have asked some tech companies to look at further technological innovation that can help us in this space. The holy grail would be a drugs tag, which could make a huge difference in reducing reoffending in our country. We will continue to press ahead and work as quickly as we can to find further technological solutions. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: Crimes against children are among the worst crimes humanity can commit. There is relatively little, if anything at all, about offences against children in this review. Could the Lord Chancellor confirm that those who have abused children will not be allowed out early? \p Shabana Mahmood: All those who have received an extended determinate sentence—and that includes many of the offenders mentioned by the hon. Lady—are excluded from these measures. All other offenders would have to earn an earlier release by proving that they have behaved properly in prison and not broken prison rules; the minimum for them is set at one third of the sentence, but it can be higher. As I have said, for those who egregiously offend, we will set no upper limit. \p James Naish: We heard this morning that probation services in Nottinghamshire have been rated inadequate following visits by inspectors. They have been judged as understaffed, with urgent improvements needed. I therefore welcome the £700 million increase  for probation services, but can I ask the Lord Chancellor what other steps can be taken to drive up probation standards in constituencies like mine? \p Shabana Mahmood: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising issues relating to the Probation Service. We have already expanded the number of staff. Last year, we recruited 1,000 extra, and this year we are on track to hit our target of 1,300 extra staff. Increasing resource—first and foremost with more staff—is a clear priority for us. We are investing in technology to help the Probation Service to be more productive. We have already funded programmes and pilots on AI tech designed to decrease the amount of file work that probation officers have to do to allow them to have more time to do the things that only a human can do: to spend time with the offender in front of them, to come up with a proper plan to reduce their reoffending and therefore to keep the public safe. \p Calum Miller: I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement, and I know that victims and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence in my constituency will do so as well. I thank her and her ministerial colleagues for their cross-party working, including with my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

On the domestic abuse recommendations and the application of domestic abuse at sentencing, will the Lord Chancellor consider whether it is possible to tag those offences retrospectively, as well as at sentencing? Also, I welcome her remarks about transcripts and transparency. In the light of the pilot on transcripts for sexual violence and rape cases, will she consider including in that pilot the entire transcript, not just the transcript of sentencing? \p Shabana Mahmood: On tagging retrospectively, I will certainly go away and have a look at that point. I suspect, although I do not want to mislead the hon. Member or the House, that a retrospective trawl of all cases—including common assault, which is where we see most domestic abuse cases land for a charge and a criminal case—may be beyond where we can get with the data available to us and the time it would take. However, going forward we will try to capture exactly those cases—not only domestic abuse-connected offences, but other offences such as common assault, which we know have taken place in a domestic abuse context—so that they are all flagged and proper data is kept.

On transcripts, sentencing remarks are currently available for other victims, such as in murder cases and so on, and that will be extended to victims of rape and serious sexual violence. To repeat a point I made earlier, I believe in a transparent justice system. I would like to be in the position of using AI technology to make not just sentencing remarks available. We are thinking about making broadly what happens in courts and such transcripts more widely available. What inhibits us is cost, and we are trying to take out that cost by looking at AI models, but we cannot proceed with anything unless we are absolutely certain about its accuracy because, as I am sure the hon. Member appreciates, a document purporting to be a record of what was said in court needs to be bang on. \p Douglas McAllister: I welcome the fact that this Government are getting on with building the largest prison expansion programme since the Victorians. That is a Labour Government in action, fixing the Tory prison crisis once and for all. Can I ask the Secretary of State to learn from the SNP Scottish Government’s abject failure with the new Barlinnie prison project in Glasgow? It has been delayed again, and now will not be ready until 2028, which is nine years late. The cost has soared from £100 million to a staggering £1 billion for one prison. Will we learn lessons from the SNP failure? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Let me tell him that we have already learned the lessons of the Tory party’s failure, and I am very sorry to hear about the situation he describes in Scotland. The Conservatives’ failure on prison building stemmed from two things: they could not get it past their own Back Benchers, so the planning delays added billions to the cost of prison place expansion; and they did not make certain and available the amount needed to stimulate funding at the rate required. We have reversed both those things: we have made £4.7 billion available and we have made it very clear that planning will not get in the way of prison building. \p John Glen: Several years ago, when I was a magistrate in Westminster and my father was a magistrate in north Wiltshire, we lamented a great deal about the fact that when we put people in prison, we found that there was a whole list of antecedents every time and that this recurred all the time. Could the Secretary of State tell the House what assurances she can give us about prison education, rehabilitation programmes and regular work programmes so that we avoid the pattern of prescribing—with good intentions—solutions that do not work, cost a lot of money and leave the public pretty dissatisfied with the justice system? \p Shabana Mahmood: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member, his father and magistrates all over our country. They do an incredibly valuable job of keeping our justice system going. In fact, magistrates deal with 90% of all criminal cases.

The right hon. Member is referring to prolific offending: the people who keep coming back, cycling in and out of the system. The review recommends that we switch to a model of intensive supervision courts, where a judge is in charge of making sure that a treatment programme is adhered to. We will take that forward, and I will set out more proposals when we bring forward the legislation. The early pilots—which, in fairness, were started under the previous Government—have shown very positive progress in helping those offenders to turn their lives around and break the cycle of addiction or mental health problems that often leads to prolific offending. We will build on that work. \p Polly Billington: What does the Secretary of State make of the extraordinary admission by the former Lord Chancellor last year that the previous Government chose not to take action on the prison crisis because

“you have to win votes”?

Fortunately, the Conservatives did not win any votes in Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate, which is why I stand here today to say that neighbourhoods in East Thanet are blighted by drug dealing, theft, burglary, sex trafficking and antisocial behaviour, which ebbs and flows according to whether the main criminals, organisers, pimps, co-ordinators and dealers are in or out of prison, causing mayhem. Does she agree with me that the shortage of prison cells, because of the Conservative party, and the lack of alternative punishments, because of the Conservative party, have contributed to that situation, which blights the lives of those in our communities? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point and she is absolutely right. When we have a prison system on the point of collapse, it is not as if the criminals do not know that that is happening. That is why it is imperative that we get our system under control and ensure there is always a prison place available for those who have to be locked up to keep the public safe. Her point about winning votes shows the approach taken by the previous Government: they put themselves first, not the country first. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: On behalf of the justice unions parliamentary group, I welcome the independent review’s recognition of probation officers and join the call from the National Association of Probation Officers for extra direct investment in staff now. Stable accommodation on release is also key to offender rehabilitation. There are presently no approved premises for women in Wales and women centres struggle for funding, so how will the Justice Secretary improve rehabilitation and life chances for Welsh women in the criminal justice system? \p Shabana Mahmood: I very much hope that the position for Welsh women will be the same as for women in England, which is that we see a huge reduction in the number of women in Wales and England entering the female prison estate. That is because the combination of the measures David Gauke recommends, in particular on short sentences, will mean that fewer women go to prison. I will, of course, work with colleagues across Wales to look at what more we can do on accommodation provision. I know that there is no specific centre in Wales—the right hon. Lady and I have discussed that previously. It was a promise made by the previous Government without any funding attached to it, so I was not able to make decisions when I first came into office that could reverse that, but we will work with the Women’s Justice Board and others to ensure that the offer for women who are now no longer going to prison is still strong and helps them on their rehabilitation journey. \p Jonathan Hinder: This is a day of shame for the Conservative party. One of their own has laid bare the scale of its failure, leaving us with nowhere to put the prisoners. Conservatives used to call themselves the party of law and order. Take it from this former police inspector: they lost that label long ago and they are never getting it back. Moving forward, the criminal justice system is just that—a system. Decisions taken on policing, courts, probation and prisons all affect one another, so will the Lord Chancellor assure me that the implications for policing and the enforcement of sentences are being taken into account when we roll out the changes? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a day of shame for the Conservative party. I am sorry to see that the attitude of Conservative Members today is shameless. He makes a very important point on policing. I have had a good conversation with police leaders. I am determined to use the national Criminal Justice Board to ensure that every part of the criminal justice system is aligned and that we take into account all the interactions—based on this review, and on the upcoming criminal courts review—and think about the impact they have not just on the bit of the justice system I am directly responsible for, but on the wider criminal justice system, including policing as a whole. \p Mark Pritchard: May I first say to the Lord Chancellor that I have huge personal respect for her? I may disagree with some—some, by the way, not all—of what she has announced today, but I would like to put that on the record. She mentions female offending. She will know that there are six mother and baby units in female prisons in England. There were 90 applications for the last period we know about, up to March 2024, with 64 places for mothers and 70 places for babies, allowing for twins. Clearly, there are not enough places. Has she considered as part of this review, when there is not serious and violent offending by female prisoners, getting more of those mothers and babies into the community, rather than having them in prison? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks of personal respect, which are shared across this House. I thank him for that and for the important issue he raises. I hope to move to a position where the combined impact of the changes in the review and the work we are doing with the Women’s Justice Board mean that we see a huge drop in the number of female prisoners. I am particularly keen to ensure that pregnant women and mothers of young children are not anywhere near our female prison estate in future. Of course, for serious offenders we will always need to make sure that prison is an option, but the vast majority of women go to prison on short sentences for much less serious offences and we need to turn that around. \p Chris Webb: Under the last Conservative Government, the number of foreign criminals in our prisons rose to the tens of thousands, shamefully. Will the Lord Chancellor outline for my constituents what we are doing to deport those foreign criminals from our prisons as quickly as possible to free up vital prison spaces? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are deporting at a faster rate than the previous Government. We have accepted the review’s recommendation to drop the threshold for early removal from this country from 50% of the custodial sentence to 30%. We will urgently work up a plan, with the Home Office, for those who are sentenced to less than three years to be deported as quickly as possible after sentencing. \p James Wild: In her statement, the Lord Chancellor said that under her earned progression plans, if offenders follow prison rules they will win earlier release. The review says that thousands of offenders will benefit from that. Can she  explain to my constituents why simply following the rules means that serious offenders will serve only a third of their sentence? Where is the punishment and where are victims’ interests in that approach? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Gentleman will know that the track record of his party in government was to run prisons boiling hot, with violence off the charts. The shadow Justice Secretary has been showing a huge amount of concern for prison officers and the violence they face in our prisons. I would have hoped that the Conservative party might welcome some incentivisation in our prison system to make sure we can run safer prisons and keep our prison officers safe. Making sure that people follow the rules, and that that is how they can earn an earlier release, means that those who break the rules will serve longer in prison. \p Andrew Pakes: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and her razor-like focus on fixing the broken justice and prison system this Government inherited. May I welcome the £700 million to help rebuild probation services and ask a question on rehabilitation and making community punishment pay? I think many people in my constituency will welcome a focus on community punishment being used to do jobs such as fixing potholes and rebuilding services that are needed locally. Equally, I want community punishment to pay by breaking the cycle of reoffending. Can she tell us more about how this programme will get businesses and apprenticeships into prisons, and give young offenders a way out of that cycle, so that we stop them being in prison for a second and third time? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend raises a really important point. This is why the Government have already rolled out employment work councils, where prisons link up with employers in their region and try to make sure that there are jobs and training available for offenders on leaving prison. We know that the ability to work is a really important part of driving down reoffending. That is a priority for this Government. Of course, unpaid work is a very visible way for offenders to make reparations to the communities they have harmed. In our eyes, that is the primary focus of it, but the discipline of doing that work can help offenders who are far away from the world of work to get closer to it. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The Government’s plans lay out an expectation that they will be able to manage ex-offenders in the community under intensive supervision. A probation officer in my constituency recently told me that she was told off by her bosses for spending too long with offenders when she was booking just 15-minute appointments. Can the Lord Chancellor tell me when the promised investment will actually reach frontline probation services, and can she guarantee it will be enough to ensure public safety and reduce reoffending? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me reassure the hon. Lady that this is a huge uplift in funding for probation. It is a £1.6 billion budget as it stands, and it will increase by up to £700 million by the end of the spending review period. We have already invested in piloting AI and  other technology designed to improve productivity, where AI can complete much of the paperwork that a lot of probation officers spend far too much of their time on, often repeating the same information in different documents. That shows huge promise. We will roll that out at pace to give probation officers more time with the offenders in front of them, doing the thing that only a human can do, which is to get to grips with what is driving that offender’s behaviour and have a plan to tackle it, including by accessing treatment programmes and other things in the community. We are determined to make sure that the Probation Service can rise to the scale of the challenge. The funding will help with that, as will our investment in that technology. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. We have a number of Members still to get in, so can hon. Members remember to keep their questions and answers short? \p Jonathan Brash: Location and curfew restrictions using electronic tagging to stop hyper-prolific offenders going anywhere near a place where they could reoffend; a requirement to engage in mental health, drug and alcohol treatment, including the use of sobriety tags to address the cause of criminality; putting offenders back to work cleaning up the communities they have harmed; chemical castration for sex offenders; the speeding up of foreign deportations; and the largest prison expansion ever—does the Lord Chancellor agree that this is about putting victims and the public first? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government are determined to clean up the mess left by the previous Conservative Government and to put victims first, cut crime and make our communities safer. \p John Cooper: Under the yoke of the SNP, Scotland already has a presumption against short sentences, and now the new Scottish commission looking at sentencing and penal policy has been accused of being packed with activists determined to keep criminals out of jail. Why is the Lord Chancellor in Westminster following this lead and failing to put victims at the heart of the justice system? \p Shabana Mahmood: What absolute rubbish, I am sorry to say. I am not taking any lessons from the hon. Gentleman or the SNP. This is a programme for England and Wales, for which I am directly responsible, and we are going to make it work. \p Jo White: When a previous Government fail to take responsibility for the crisis they have caused, they deserve a life sentence on the Opposition Benches. I welcome the construction of a new wing at Ranby prison in my constituency by Worksop-based Laing O’Rourke, a specialist in modern methods of construction that is involved in many other construction projects across the country. If the Minister is seeking more sites for new prisons, could I propose the Crown-owned land across the road from HMP Ranby? We would very much welcome a new prison there. \p Shabana Mahmood: I shall take my hon. Friend’s early bid for further building in her constituency under advisement immediately. \p Blake Stephenson: Under these proposals, foreign criminals will be deported after serving 30% of their sentence, which I appreciate is an improvement. The public want them to be deported right away—does the Lord Chancellor? \p Shabana Mahmood: The review recommends immediate deportation—meaning “as quickly as possible”, because we still have to detain people before we can get them on a plane and back to their country of origin—for sentences of under three years. We are going to work up proposals on that with the Home Office. For more serious offenders with sentences of over three years, we are going to bring the threshold down from 50% to 30%. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement today, which is a sensible response to the overincarceration and prison places crisis. Can she assure my constituents that notwithstanding these changes, under-reported and under-prosecuted crimes, such as violence against women and girls, will continue to be prioritised by this Government? \p Shabana Mahmood: This Government will make sure we are running a prison system that is sustainable and not on the point of collapse, so that we can ensure that dangerous offenders in this country are still locked up. We will make progress on our broader mission to halve the level of violence against women and girls over 10 years. \p Tessa Munt: I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement and the work that David Gauke has done to inform everything that is happening today. As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to seeing him before us shortly. I seek clarity on what the Lord Chancellor referred to as the

“so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal”.

Will she place the available research and conclusions in the Library so that we all have access to the information and can understand the data on which she and David Gauke have relied? \p Shabana Mahmood: I am happy to ensure that the evidence is available. I would say to the hon. Lady that the very small-scale pilot that I inherited had been running for some time without anybody paying a huge amount of attention to it, and the evidence from other jurisdictions where it has been rolled out a bit more widely is stronger. Our roll-out—I want to get to a national roll-out—will start with two extra regions and 20 more prisons, and we will build the evidence base there. We want measures that work, and I do believe that the combination of chemical suppressants and psychological interventions can help with a cohort of particularly difficult sex offenders. \p Ben Goldsborough: In the last four years of the previous Conservative Government, the number of foreign national offenders increased. Now, call me old-fashioned, but I believe that non-UK citizens who commit crimes within the UK should not serve their sentences here. Today’s report makes good progress, and I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s tackling this issue urgently; it is what South Norfolk wants to see, and it will get capacity back in our prisons. \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we are already deporting more foreign national offenders than the previous Government. We are taking forward the measures from the Gauke review to speed up and get more foreign offenders out of our system and back to their countries of origin. \p Charlie Dewhirst: I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) in his call for the immediate deportation of foreign criminals. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to ensure that the courts are not holding up those deportations, and that once deported, those criminals are never allowed back on these shores? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Gentleman may have seen that just last week, when the Home Secretary set out the immigration White Paper, we announced that we are reviewing the use of article 8 in relation to immigration cases, and we will bring forward our proposals on that in due course. We will not allow the misuse of our courts and the use of article 8 to enable people who have no right to be in this country to stay in this country. That will require changes to the immigration rules, which the Home Secretary is working on. \p Jessica Asato: Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the voluntary and community sector can play a vital role in supporting offenders to rehabilitate and gain vital employment and housing? Organisations such as Pathways Care Farm and Access Community Trust in my constituency have helped to prevent t reoffending. \p Shabana Mahmood: I pay tribute to the organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency; such voluntary organisations play a hugely important role in helping the justice system to succeed in rehabilitating offenders. We will continue to work closely and build on the review’s recommendations in this area. \p Rachel Gilmour: Having sat on the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into prison overcrowding, I know full well the issue at hand and who to blame. Can the Lord Chancellor assure me and my constituents that they will not be placed in more danger by the Government not jailing criminals? When those individuals are in the community, the local community must have a voice in the effectiveness and planning of these new sentences, lest we end up with community concerns similar to those about bail hostels in Tiverton and Minehead. \p Shabana Mahmood: What puts the whole country at risk, including current, future and potential victims of crime, is letting our prison system collapse, and I will never let that happen. The measures we are taking forward from the review today are designed to make sure that this country never runs out of prison places ever again. I will ensure that there is ample time for debate and discussion across this House as we bring our legislation forward. \p Josh Newbury: Is the Lord Chancellor as astounded as I am by the hypocrisy of the Conservatives? They really are the arsonists attacking  the firefighters. We are having to clean up their mess, because, in the words of the National Audit Office, this crisis is the result of their failure

“to ensure that the number of prison places was aligned with criminal justice”

priorities. \p Shabana Mahmood: After some months in this job facing the shadow Ministers, I am afraid that nothing about their behaviour surprises me any more. I will take notice—as, I think, will the country—when the Conservatives finally offer an apology for the absolute abject mess they left behind. \p Shaun Davies: Police officers, magistrates and judges all report that some offenders would rather go to prison to be back with their mates, watching Sky TV and having three square meals a day. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that those who go to prison should be treated more harshly and robustly than was the case under the 14 years of the previous Conservative Government? \p Shabana Mahmood: We want to make sure that our prisons are used to punish offenders, that those offenders are made to abide by strict prison rules, that they engage with programmes in prison to bring down their propensity to reoffend, and that, ultimately, we succeed in keeping my hon. Friend’s constituents safe by turning out better citizens rather than better criminals. \p Luke Myer: There are thousands of decent, moderate Conservatives all across the country who will have seen the ridiculous spectacle today of the Opposition denigrating David Gauke—of all people—on the prison system. The review was absolutely clear that short sentences are driving reoffending—60% reoffend within the year. Will the Minister set out the steps that she will take to cut crime and create fewer victims? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is right. We have to cut crime, have fewer victims and make sure that our streets are safe. That is why we have to make sure that we never run out of prison places, that we never see the breakdown in law and order that would ensue were that to happen, and that we take forward a package of measures that I have announced today. We work on the legislation in the coming weeks and months, which will be designed to make sure that we do not run out of prison places, that we put victims first, and that we cut crime in this country. \p Judith Cummins: I call Tristan Osborne for the last question on this statement. \p Tristan Osborne: Leaving the best until last, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As a former police officer, I can say that community payback works. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with me and many of my colleagues in the criminal justice system that rehabilitation of offenders, including filling potholes and clearing fly tipping, is popular, not only in Chatham and Aylesford but in Newark and across the country? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am determined that we toughen community punishment and make sure that unpaid work truly pays back to the communities that have been harmed by crime. That is why I work with businesses and local authorities, so we can all have a system that drives down reoffending—a system where reparations are made to the communities that have been harmed by crime, whether they are in Newark, Birmingham Ladywood or indeed anywhere else. \p Judith Cummins: That concludes the statement. \p Lucy Powell: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for the week commencing 2 June.

Monday 2 June—Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 3 June—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message, followed by a general debate on dementia care. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee, in unallotted time.

Wednesday 4 June—Remaining stages of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords].

Thursday 5 June—Debate on a motion on high street banking closures and banking hubs, followed by a debate on a motion on safety regulations in the construction and planning of battery energy storage sites. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 9 June 2025 will include:

Monday 9 June—Remaining stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, day one.

Tuesday 10 June— Remaining stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, day two. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Joy Morrissey: It is an honour to be responding to business questions as we march on to the recess. I know that the Leader of the House has had a challenging few weeks, but I want to start by thanking her for everything that she has done to advocate for Members in this House.

This morning, we have learned that the Government have been prevented from signing their Chagos surrender deal by the High Court. When will the Prime Minister come to the House to explain this latest humiliation and masterclass in how not to negotiate in Britain’s interests?

I know that Members across the House often say things in the Chamber and elsewhere that they regret. I know, too, that the Leader of the House has said that she regrets her words on rape gangs, but it is for the victims of those rape gangs to decide whether those regrets are enough. It is time for the Government finally to take action on this scandal. Will she grant a debate, in Government time, on the rape gang scandal, and commit the Government to the national inquiry that the victims deserve?

At the previous business questions, I called on the Leader of the House to ask the Chancellor to U-turn on her disastrous economic policies. Since then, things have got even worse. This week, inflation, which stood at 2% when Labour took office, has surged to 3.5%. Today, public sector net borrowing hit £20.2 billion, the fourth highest figure for the month since records began. We have had a disastrous Budget followed by an emergency one, and it looks like the next one could be catastrophic.

It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has also had enough of the Chancellor’s economic policies. The difference is that we on the Conservative Benches want the tax raids on businesses and households to be reversed, but the Deputy Prime Minister wants more tax and more spend. Yesterday, the Prime Minister would not rule out more tax rises either. I think that we can all see what is coming: £40 billion of tax rises last autumn was never going to be enough for this Government—a Government who are tough with the vulnerable, but weak with the unions.

The Deputy Prime Minister may be on leadership manoeuvres, but it is quite a shopping list of new taxes that she is after—although, curiously, further taxes on second homes were not included. It is the people who save hard for their retirement and build businesses who are next in the firing line for the tax-raid obsession of this Labour Government. To pensioners, farmers and business owners we can now add savers to the list of people whom this Government seem determined to make poor. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate, in Government time, on the Government’s economic plans, so that the Deputy Prime Minister can also come and set out her tax plans for the House. I would be very interested to see the tag-team operation there.

If the Deputy Prime Minister is otherwise engaged, perhaps we could turn our attention to yesterday’s welcome U-turn from the Prime Minister. I understand that he has always been gifted with the most flexible of principles, but it was quite a sight yesterday to see him admitting to promising a U-turn on punishing pensioners without any date for that U-turn, or an explanation of whether it would benefit all or just some pensioners. Crucially, we did not hear an apology from him. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the winter fuel payment U-turn, so that the Chancellor, or the Prime Minister, can come to this House and apologise to pensioners and set out when they will give pensioners the certainty that they can heat their homes next winter?

Let me conclude—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Ah, thank you. We are watching the Government in a slow-motion car crash, with no economic plan but to tax and spend as fast as they can. It is not the gingerbread man; it is tax, tax as fast as they can.

We are watching a Prime Minister who is having to undo the decisions of his own Government in the space of just months but who cannot bring himself to apologise. The Government are already showing that they have failed to learn the lesson of all socialist Governments: they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. This Government seem determined to run out in record time, and the only losers will be the British people. \p Lucy Powell: First of all, I congratulate Tottenham Hotspur and Crystal Palace football clubs on both winning silverware for the first time in a long time. North and south London celebrate, while both sides of Manchester commiserate.

The hon. Lady asks about an important subject. I can say now that the injunction has been lifted that, with the permission of Mr Speaker, the Defence Secretary will make a statement later today—probably at the end of business—on the future of the Diego Garcia military base following those developments.

I know that the whole House will want to send a very clear message that we condemn the brutal murder of the Israeli embassy staff in Washington overnight. We stand firmly together against antisemitism.

Today also marks the eighth anniversary of the Manchester Arena attack in my constituency. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of those affected. I also want to put on record my reflection of the determination of Figen Murray and her campaign for Martyn’s law. I am really proud that it was this Labour Government and our Prime Minister who kept the promise to Figen to introduce Martyn’s law, which is now an Act of Parliament.

Today also marks a year since the general election was called—in the rain, which I think we all remember. Let us be honest, the rain is still pouring on the Conservatives. They do not seem to have learned very much. They might have thought on that day that things could not get any worse, but they are. I want to say to the hon. Lady that I very much respect her and enjoy working with her on the Modernisation Committee and across the House. I thank her for yet again stepping in at short notice to cover for the shadow Leader of the House, who is performing other parliamentary functions, but I am sure we will see him back soon.

The hon. Lady asks about grooming gangs. I want to be absolutely clear that this Government—myself included—want the victims and survivors to be at the heart of everything that we do. We want their terrible experiences to be acted on, and we want those responsible to be brought to justice. That is exactly what we are doing. We will leave no stone unturned in securing justice for the victims. First and foremost, they want action to be taken and the many recommendations of the previous national inquiry to be implemented, and we are doing that. In addition, Louise Casey’s full audit of these matters will be brought to this House in very short order.

The hon. Lady raises several issues relating to the economy, but it is worth reminding the House what we inherited and what we have had to deal with since we came into office. The Conservatives do not want to talk about it, but we had to fix the gaping hole that their party left in the public finances. Pay deals were on desks but were unfunded. Billions of pounds on asylum hotels were not accounted for. All the reserves were gone in July of the financial year, and new hospitals were nothing more than a work of fiction.

We had to come in, fix the economy and get economic stability back. Those who pay the heaviest price when the economy crashes and when markets lose confidence are those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners and the poorest in society. It is also the value of people’s pensions that falls. We have acted on the £22 billion black hole, and we have got the economy going again.

The Conservatives do not like to hear it, but fixing the economy is exactly what we are doing. Growth is up. Interest rates have been cut four times since the general election. Half a million more people have moved into work since the election, and the UK is now the fastest growing European economy in the G7. Real wages have gone up for the first time in a decade, after the Conservatives left living standards falling for the first time in our history. We are fixing the mess that they left behind.

The hon. Lady asked about winter fuel payments. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, now that the economy is showing signs of recovery, because of the actions we have taken, we want to look at the threshold. First and foremost, we want to make sure that people feel the benefits of that economic growth and have more money in their pockets, and that includes pensions as well. However, we will not be making spending commitments without saying where the money is coming from, and it is right that those decisions are made in a future fiscal event, as the Prime Minister said yesterday.

A year on from that rainy day on Downing Street, it could not be clearer: the Conservatives are having an existential identity crisis. A year on from their worst defeat, they are still going backwards. They do not know who they are any more. They do not know what they stand for any more, and they do not know what they are even doing. They once proudly stood for free trade, and now they are against any trade deals. They used to claim to be the party of business, but in opposing our agreement with the EU, they are setting themselves against the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, UKHospitality and the Food and Drink Federation.

The Conservatives were once for levelling up and reindustrialisation of the north, but now they are against new energy infrastructure and the jobs of the future. They were once compassionate Conservatives who supported the NHS—I remember that very famously—but now they oppose the much-needed funding it is getting. A year on from that rainy day at Downing Street, they have not learned a thing, nor have they said sorry for the mess they left behind—whether that is the economy or prisons, which we heard about in the earlier statement. It is down to this Labour Government to clear up the mess that they left, fix the economy and public services, boost people’s living standards, cut immigration and get waiting lists down. \p Jon Trickett: I associate myself with the comments from the Leader of the House repudiating antisemitism. In South Elmsall in my constituency, there is a clay pit that has been working for 14 years, four years after the licence expired. Last year, an enforcement notice was taken out by the Environment Agency, and now we are hearing of multiple breaches of the licence, but nothing has been done yet to close the operation down. Can we have a debate in Government time on the enforcement powers of the Environment Agency in order that I can express my wish that immediate action now takes place to protect that community? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency, where he does great work on behalf of his constituents, and that enforcement action is not being taken where it should be. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard his question today and that the Environment Agency takes the action that it should be taking. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: Yesterday it was revealed by the charities Tommy’s and Sands that, tragically, delays in improvements to NHS maternity care are  costing the lives of hundreds of babies a year. This follows the Care Quality Commission’s findings that 65% of maternity units are not sufficiently safe, putting women and babies under threat. Will the Leader of the House grant Government time to debate the crisis unfolding in our maternity units, the failure to implement the immediate and essential actions in the Ockenden review, and the Government’s decision to end the ringfencing of £100 million for vital improvements to maternity care? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. As a mother myself, I pay tribute to the amazing work that midwives and our maternity services do, and I am sure that many other Members from across the House do too. I am sure we all remember every midwife involved when we gave birth. She is right that, after the parlous state that our maternity services were left in by the previous Government, we need to learn lessons and ensure that our maternity services are fit for purpose and have the funding that they need.

We must also ensure that we take on board all the experiences of those who have used the services and the many inquiries, including the Ockenden inquiry. That is what the Health Secretary is doing. He will come to this House to provide an update after he has considered all the findings and conversations. The hon. Lady spoke of ringfencing, but I assure her that the funding levels for maternity services have not gone down at all since the election. \p Carolyn Harris: Over the last few days, the Welsh Rugby Union has announced plans to introduce a disproportionate funding formula that will disadvantage both the Ospreys and the Scarlets rugby union teams. Will the Leader of the House ask colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to add their voices to a group of cross-party Welsh MPs who are asking the WRU to find a way to protect and support all four equally important regional Welsh rugby teams? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is a great champion for Welsh rugby who raises these issues with me regularly in these sessions. I am sorry to hear about the new funding arrangements. I am sure that the Welsh Rugby Union has heard her question and will respond and take action. I will ensure that a Minister gets in touch with her. \p Judith Cummins: I call Martin Vickers, on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Martin Vickers: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chairman sends his apologies to you and the House. I know that he will be pleased to hear the Leader of the House’s comments about Tottenham Hotspur.

In addition to the business already announced, the Committee agreed at its meeting earlier this week to another Select Committee statement on Thursday 5 June, which will be from the Justice Committee. It also agreed on debates in the Chamber on 19 June on incontinence and on Windrush Day. We also accepted debates for Westminster Hall on hydrogen powered aviation, the role of carers, education in improving social mobility, and Down syndrome regression disorder.

I remind hon. Members that application forms for the main estimates day debates, which we anticipate in late June, are now available on the Backbench Business Committee website. We are swamped with general applications, which is good news in one sense, but I urge hon. Members to get their applications in as quickly as possible, particularly if they are looking for a Chamber debate, as we have enough on the waiting list to fill the Chamber until November.

Last week, I was privileged to meet some teenagers from the Teenage Cancer Trust who were in Parliament having submitted a letter to the Department of Health and Social Care. They are remarkable young people who have clearly had an awful experience with cancer at an early age. May I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that she might like to allocate some Government time for a debate on that subject? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for stepping in for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who I understand is still out celebrating in Bilbao; he might eventually make his way back when he has finished. We look forward to seeing him after the recess. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all the work he does in business questions and elsewhere in raising issues from his area as well as British Steel in Scunthorpe.

The hon. Gentleman raises the really important issue of teenage cancer. Many of us have met young people who are living with and getting treatment for cancer. I know that the Secretary of State is particularly committed to these issues, and I am sure that he will be updating the House regularly. \p Clive Efford: On Tuesday, those who are infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal protested in Whitehall and handed in letters to No. 10. They are angry that they have been excluded from overseeing the compensation process and that, as a consequence, the process is very slow. The Government promised a debate in Government time on the contaminated blood scandal. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we are we likely to get that debate this side of the summer recess? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend once again for raising these important matters, which he does consistently and regularly. He knows that the Government are committed to paying comprehensive compensation to the infected and affected in the infected blood scandal, and we are working at pace to ensure that compensation is paid out. We are also committed to a debate. We had a statement to the House last week, and I will ensure that a debate, as promised, is forthcoming. \p Oliver Dowden: I have been working with residents of Meadowcroft retirement home in Bushey who have suffered repeated failures by Anchor homes, which culminated this week in residents being unable to get an ambulance to the facility because of a faulty key box. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the exploitation of vulnerable residents by such companies? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear of that shocking incident. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Anchor has a responsibility to ensure that care and ambulances  can get in. It is important that we ensure that our care homes are operating to the highest standards, that they have the best people working there, and that all the residents can be safe and cared for. I am sure that would be a popular topic for debate. \p Matt Western: Since the creation of the role of the National Security Adviser in 2010, every incumbent has come before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—until this Government. The Leader of the House will understand how accountability to this place is the cornerstone of our democracy, and a failure of the NSA to meet the Committee would set a dangerous precedent for future Governments to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, so will she use her position as a representative of this House in Government to ensure that the NSA is held to account and appears before the Committee? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter with me directly as well as with the Leader of the House of Lords. I will respond to him properly shortly. We take accountability very seriously indeed. I will ensure that the Committee is updated on the Government’s work to protect UK national security and that relevant people can appear before the Committee to be scrutinised. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I hope to end business questions at about 2 o’clock, so will Members please help each other out by keeping questions and answers short? \p Andrew Rosindell: Following the outcome of the UK-EU summit earlier this week, will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the state of British democracy? On 23 June 2016, 70% of my constituents in Romford voted to leave the European Union—as did the rest of the United Kingdom—yet this so-called EU reset is in fact a surrender of our hard-won Brexit freedoms, with rule taking from Brussels once again, the European Court of Justice back in charge, British fish handed over until 2038, and billions in payments back to the European Union. Will she please let the British people’s views be paramount, not the short-term views of the Government? \p Lucy Powell: What people voted for in the referendum was to leave the European Union but retain many benefits of trade and co-operation, which the hon. Member’s Government failed to negotiate in the aftermath of that referendum. This Government have brought them about. He cannot have it both ways. One of the promises that his Government made was that leaving the EU meant we could do lots of free trade deals with other countries. That is what this Government have delivered, with a unique and unprecedented trade deal with India and a trade deal with the US. We cannot have surrendered ourselves to the EU if we are getting those trade deals and securing those benefits at the same time.

The hon. Member will know that, in fact, since we left the EU we have had to adopt all the EU’s standards and regulations in order to continue trading with it, but we have had absolutely no benefit from doing that. Now  we have those free trade benefits as well as doing that. I am sorry to say that our deal is far better than the deal that his Government got. \p Neil Coyle: On Saturday, my constituent Vimal Pandya received the freedom of Bermondsey at Southwark cathedral for his exceptional work running Rotherhithe Community Kitchen, which feeds hundreds of people weekly. For his equally exceptional work during the covid lockdowns, he was recognised by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. However, he has recently been detained by the Home Office. May we have a debate in Government time to ensure that Home Office exceptional circumstances criteria recognise truly exceptional people such as Vimal and the amazing contribution that they make to communities such as mine? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is aware that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I will ensure that a Minister gives him a reply on his case. In this House, we regularly discuss issues relating to immigration and visas, and I will ensure that there is ample opportunity to do so in future. \p Helen Morgan: I chair the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities. At our meeting on Tuesday, we heard from industry executives that the shared rural network has been rolled out well ahead of schedule. However, I am afraid that my constituents have noticed no discernible difference to their mobile signal on the ground. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss what a decent mobile signal looks like for rural areas and how on earth we will deliver it? \p Lucy Powell: Mobile blackspots are a real challenge for many of our constituents, so I thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues. I will ensure that she receives a full response, but I know that any time anyone applies for a debate on such issues, it is very well subscribed. \p Caroline Dinenage: The Leader of the House may be aware that cheerleading is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK, and that it achieves the remarkable feat of keeping young girls engaged in sport at an age when so many disengage from school sports. She might not know, however, that two of the best cheerleading teams in the country are in Gosport. In fact, both Storm Athletics and Jessie Leigh Dance and Cheer Academy came back from the world summit in Florida early this month with gold medals and first-place trophies. I would love to see many more young people get involved in the sport, which has now been recognised as such by Sport England, but funding to support more disadvantaged youngsters to get involved cannot be applied for yet. Will the Leader of the House lead the cheer for cheerleading as a debate here in Parliament? [Interruption.] \p Lucy Powell: I do not have my pom-poms with me, but the hon. Lady raises an important matter, and I am glad that cheerleading has been recognised as a sport because, as she says, particularly for young women and girls, it is a great way to keep active and to stay involved in sport. I also congratulate her constituents on their gold medals and on all that they are doing for cheerleading the sport into the future. \p Jo Platt: To mark NABMA’s “Love Your Local Market” campaign, I want to express my support for Leigh market in my constituency. It is a vibrant hub of creativity, entrepreneurship and community spirit, and this Saturday it will host live events and workshops. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating local markets and recognising how they remain vital to the regeneration of our town centres? \p Lucy Powell: Leigh market is brilliant, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it here. “Love Your Local Market” is a great campaign, because she is right to say that markets are at the heart of the regeneration of our town centres. \p Christopher Chope: May we have an early debate on the refusal of the Bank of England to comply with its 2% inflation target? Also, will the Leader of the House facilitate a meeting between me and Treasury Ministers to see whether the Government are willing to support my Bank of England (Inflation Targets) Bill, due for Second Reading on 11 July, which makes provision for penalties against the court of directors of the Bank of England for failure to meet inflation targets? \p Lucy Powell: We had Treasury questions earlier this week, when the hon. Gentleman could have raised those issues.

I am proud that the previous Labour Government gave the Bank of England independence, which has been an important part of the fiscal stability that we have had in this country—sometimes ignored by the hon. Gentleman’s Conservative Government and party, I am sorry to say. Inflation is on its way down and interest rates are on their way down—that is what this Government are delivering. \p Paulette Hamilton: The unchecked proliferation of houses in multiple occupation and exempt accommodation is devastating communities across my constituency of Birmingham Erdington. Birmingham has the highest number of exempt accommodation claims in the country. Wards in my constituency rank among those worst affected by HMOs in the city, crippling neighbourhoods and overwhelming local services. Given the urgency of the crisis, will the Leader of the House commit to scheduling a debate in Government time to discuss how to ensure that no community is left behind while this issue is left in limbo? \p Lucy Powell: I know that the quality of HMOs and exempt accommodation is a huge issue in Birmingham and, frankly, it is a disgrace. We are determined to improve the quality of supported housing and are consulting on reforms. At the same time, we are progressing the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will give local authorities more power in that area, through the other House. \p Stephen Flynn: May I begin by echoing the revulsion of the Leader of the House in respect of the antisemitic murders in the United States of America in recent hours?

“Cruel” and a policy that sees a third child treated

“as almost a second-class citizen”.

That is not my phrasing, but that of Gordon Brown in describing the Labour party’s two-child benefit cap—and it is the Labour party’s two-child benefit cap, because its Members went through the Division Lobbies to retain it just last year. In Scotland, we know that the SNP will scrap the two-child benefit cap. Based on the Prime Minister’s U-turn yesterday in respect of the winter fuel allowance, will the Leader of the House advise us on whether another one is likely in respect of this heinous policy? \p Lucy Powell: This Labour Government, like the last, are absolutely determined to reduce child poverty in this country. We will be judged on our actions over the course of this Parliament as to whether we do, but we are determined to achieve that. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his advice, as I thank the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whom I greatly respect, for his. Our child poverty strategy will come out later this summer and the right hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to discuss that then. \p Sureena Brackenridge: Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Wednesfield History Society and all who organised the moving 80th anniversary service for the Lancaster bomber crash, which took place just nine days after VE Day in 1945, in which seven young airmen lost their lives in Wednesfield? It was deeply moving to stand with the crew’s family and see the community come together to pay its respects and watch an awe-inspiring flypast. \p Lucy Powell: What a lovely tribute my hon. Friend has just paid to the Wednesfield History Society for marking the 80th anniversary of the Lancaster bomber crash in her constituency. It is moments like that, when people come together to commemorate what happened, that show how we all stand together to remember the great sacrifice that all those people made in the second world war. \p John Whittingdale: On what basis are the Government claiming that the Lords amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill engages financial privilege, given that it contains no spending commitments? Will the Government engage with supporters of the amendment in the other place and with the creative industries to find a way forward, rather than trying to use spurious procedural arguments? \p Lucy Powell: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman? We will shortly debate the Lords amendment, after these questions, and we will have ample time to do that. It will go back to the Lords and the two Houses will continue to consider the matter, which I know is of great importance to many Members across the House. We are committed to trying to get the balance right between supporting our valued creative industries and the rights that they hold and supporting the future of the artificial intelligence industry. That is why we will legislate in future on some of those issues, and the consultation is running. We welcome that consideration, and we will continue to discuss the matter with Members across both Houses. \p Ben Goldsborough: The wonderful Wymondham train station in my constituency will mark its 180th birthday in July, which is great news, but we cannot bring out the cake just yet because it is not fully accessible—the centre platform cannot be reached by all. May I call for a debate in Government time on how we can get Access for All funding for all the stations up and down the country that desperately it? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Access for All in his Norfolk constituency. It is raised with me regularly at these sessions, and I know Ministers will come to this House and update us shortly on the review of the Access for All funding. I encourage him and others to apply for a debate because I think it would be very popular indeed. \p Andrew Murrison: One of the burning issues in my constituency is that of waste incinerators. When can we have a debate on the Government’s proposals for either placing a moratorium on them, as happens in Scotland and Wales, or introducing a tax on incineration—a bit like the landfill tax—to encourage the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste, rather than consigning it to the great landfill in the sky? \p Lucy Powell: We are taking steps and have set out new rules around waste incinerators. They will receive planning approval only if they meet strict new criteria, and they must demonstrate how they are going to move forward as part of the circular economy rather than the landfill process. The issue is raised with me a lot in these sessions, and I know it is a matter of importance to the House, so I will ensure that he gets an update from Ministers and that the rest of the House is kept updated. \p Melanie Ward: Community ownership of assets can be incredibly valuable, and I congratulate the village of Auchtertool on its new community ownership of the Tiel pub. Meanwhile, in North Queensferry, the community are working hard to take ownership of the Albert hotel, but their efforts were blocked by SNP Government Ministers, who rejected their application to exercise their right to buy. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging the Scottish Government to give way to the “Save the Albert” campaign, reverse their decision and let the residents of North Queensferry take this much-loved village asset into community ownership, and will she make Government time available for a debate on community ownership? \p Lucy Powell: Community ownership and community right to buy are a key part of this Government’s agenda on devolution. I am sorry to hear that the Scottish Government have rejected the application by her constituents. That should not have happened. We will be debating the importance of community right to buy in forthcoming legislation. \p Alison Bennett: Val Upton is a pillar of the community in the village of Lindfield in my constituency. Among the many hats she wears in her village is her involvement in the Royal British Legion. When I saw Val a couple of weeks ago at the 30th celebration of the Eastern Road nature reserve,  she asked me to find out whether more notice could be given for celebrations and commemoration events for VJ Day than were provided for VE Day. Is that possible? \p Lucy Powell: I thank Val Upton for all the community work she does in the hon. Member’s constituency. I hear her question; I will ask Ministers and ensure that she and Val get the reply they deserve. \p Emma Foody: The villages and towns across my constituency rely heavily on our bus services. Despite that, the big bus survey that I have been running recently shows that local people too often find buses to be unreliable and inaccessible and that they do not take them to the places they need to go. Will the upcoming buses Bill be an opportunity to debate how this Government are putting communities back in the driving seat and how a system can work for all our areas? \p Lucy Powell: I am pleased to hear the results of my hon. Friend’s big bus survey. She is absolutely right: people want affordable, reliable bus services that take them to the places they need to go. Our buses Bill will give local areas the powers to do that. I have seen what happens when local areas like mine in Manchester have those powers; it has massively increased the number of people using bus services and has brought in extra funding from doing so. \p Luke Evans: Last Friday, I was lucky enough that my private Member’s Bill was the second Bill listed. Unfortunately, it was timed out—rightfully so—for the assisted dying Bill. Two of my constituents, Roux and Ada, have been in contact with me about my Bill, which is about dog-on-dog attacks. I must declare an interest: Roux and Ada are my whippets and they live with me, but they are concerned about dog-on-dog attacks, as are many people up and down Leicestershire. Could the Government find time to have a debate on dog-on-dog attacks and responsible dog ownership? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry if Roux and Ada have ever been in a dog-on-dog attack—I am sure they are well looked after in the hon. Member’s ownership. It is an important matter, and I am sorry that we did not get to his private Member’s Bill last week, but maybe there will be further opportunity to do so later in the Session. \p Jonathan Brash: Hartlepool’s seaside community of Seaton Carew has earned a “top quality” award from environmental charity Keep Britain Tidy. The seaside accolade is only given to English beaches that are safe, clean and meet the highest environmental standards. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating council staff and volunteer litter pickers, including the brilliant people of Hartlepool Big Town Tidy Up, for their exceptional work in making our community a better place for us all to live? \p Lucy Powell: I thank all the council staff and volunteers from Hartlepool Big Town Tidy Up for getting Seaton Carew to be so tidy and for winning the seaside award. That sounds like a fantastic activity, bringing lots of tourists and enjoyment for local people in their clean seaside town. \p Adam Dance: In January, the Care Quality Commission warned that paediatric care at Yeovil district hospital requires significant improvement. The maternity unit has suddenly closed, initially for six months, creating real fear. This follows the closure of the hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit. May we have a debate in Government time on improving hospitals’ investment management and infrastructure so that we can discuss protecting hospital services in Yeovil and across the country? \p Lucy Powell: This Government are absolutely committed to improving our NHS and hospital services in Yeovil and elsewhere, given the situation in the public services that we inherited from the Conservatives. I will ensure that he gets a ministerial reply about what is happening in his local hospital with paediatric and other services, why they have been closed and what action is being taken after the CQC report. \p Elsie Blundell: As the Leader of the House knows, good internet connectivity is vital for economic growth, productivity and ensuring that everyone has access to the benefits of being online, but in many parts of Middleton in my constituency—less than six miles from Manchester city centre—people and businesses are being held back, with many having no connectivity whatsoever. I have been working locally to address the issue. Covering my campaign, the Manchester Evening News reported:

“The entire town has become a signal dead spot, and locals are sick of it”.

Will the Leader of the House work with me to secure a debate to provide a forum for Members to relay similar concerns about the lack of mobile signal in urban areas to ensure that the full scale of this national challenge is relayed to Government? \p Lucy Powell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign and the attention she is getting in bringing her community together to tackle the mobile blackspot in Rochdale and Middleton. I will ensure that she gets a ministerial reply, but as this is the second question, from across the House, relating to mobile blackspots, I suggest that Members get together and get a debate on this important matter. \p Joe Robertson: The Government are implementing their plans for UK transport, including major interventions on rail and buses, but also road and aviation. So far, they have ignored the plight of UK island residents, including mine on the Isle of Wight, where we pay up to £400 to take a car back and forth on a four-mile journey. Will the Government and the Leader of the House do more by allowing a debate in the House in Government time to discuss the cost of transport to and from UK islands? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for recognising all the work the Government are doing to ensure that our transport infrastructure—trains, rail, aviation—is there into the future and is fit for purpose. I hear what he says about the particular issues faced by his constituents on the Isle of Wight and by those on other isles, and I will ensure that he gets a full ministerial response. I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate, because that would be a good topic for one. \p Euan Stainbank: As hon. Friends in the Scottish parliamentary Labour party are sick of being reminded, it has been another distinctly fantastic season for football in Falkirk. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everyone at Falkirk football club on securing back-to-back promotions and a return to premiership football for the first time in 15 years? Will she also congratulate them on the restoration of the youth academy and congratulate Steins Thistle in Allandale on becoming the first Falkirk-based club to win the Scottish amateur cup in over 100 years? \p Lucy Powell: These things do not always go down well with everybody, but I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Falkirk FC on its back-to-back promotion and all its success this season, which I hope continues in the next. \p Sarah Dyke: The recent no-notice closure of the special care baby unit and maternity unit at Yeovil district hospital has shocked residents across Glastonbury and Somerton. A soon-to-be first-time dad from Martock told me:

“We are now left in this limbo state as the local NHS trust takes care of its poor management affairs”.

He is not alone; many people have expressed concern that adequate steps seem not to have been taken by the integrated care board and Somerset NHS trust to protect maternity care services in Yeovil. Could we have a debate in Government time specifically on improving maternity care services? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about the closure of services at Yeovil hospital. I do not know the reasons behind it, but I will ensure that all Members whose constituencies are in the hospital’s catchment area are updated by Ministers on the action plan to reopen the services as quickly as possible. The hon. Lady raises an important matter, in which many Members across the House take a great interest: making sure we have the very best, world-class maternity services available for every single community in the country. I am sure it would be a good topic for a debate. \p David Baines: My constituent, Corporal Andy Reid MBE, was severely injured while on patrol in Helmand province in 2009. He defied the odds to survive and has continued to do so every day since. He has undertaken a huge amount of charity work, including through his Standing Tall Foundation, which does incredible work across St Helens, the region and the whole country. In a ceremony in St Helens today, he is to receive the King’s Coronation Medal. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Andy and all the work he has done, and in thanking him for his service and for everything he continues to do for people up and down this country? \p Lucy Powell: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Corporal Andy Reid on receiving the King’s Coronation Medal today in St Helens. He sounds like a remarkable man who has made a remarkable contribution, and I am sure the whole House wishes him well. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: The petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution has, in a matter of days, amassed over  98,500 signatures. Will the Leader of the House commit that the petition, once it reaches the 100,000-signature threshold, will be granted debating time at the earliest opportunity? \p Lucy Powell: As the hon. Member knows, all petitions that receive 100,000 signatures are considered by the Petitions Committee and allocated time in Westminster Hall. Some issues, like this one, attract a great deal of attention, and that is what the petitions process is for. In fact, the Modernisation Committee, which I chair, is looking into whether the Petitions Committee can be given more opportunities to have debates here in the main Chamber or in Westminster Hall. \p Andrew Pakes: First, I associate myself on the record with the comments about the terrible antisemitic attacks in the United States overnight.

The horrors in Gaza are not just the young lives lost, but the lost opportunities. In the last few weeks, I have been speaking to an incredibly bright young Palestinian student in Gaza, who is due to start university in Cambridge in September. She cannot get a study visa because she is trapped in Gaza by the bombing and cannot get to a visa centre. She is supported by me, the university, and the Co-operative group—a great Manchester business that upholds its values well. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we can resolve challenges like this, and how we can help students in conflict zones get the best future? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. Personal stories bring into the light—if any more was needed—the true horrors happening in Gaza at the moment. That is why this Government have taken a very strong stance on some of those issues. I am really sorry to hear of the struggles his hope-to-be constituent is having in getting a visa, and I will make sure that the Minister gives him a full response about this case. \p Pete Wishart: Can we have a statement about political advertising and what is and is not acceptable? A disgusting, racist advert has been released by Reform in the Hamilton by-election in which a speech by the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, is selectively edited to question his identity and loyalty. We may disagree profoundly with Anas Sarwar on a range of issues, but he is a proud Scot, who always tries to put the interests of his country first. We in Scotland are united against that sort of gutter politics. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is everything that we in Scotland are not? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he asked that question and for putting on the record his disgust at how people warp what others say and edit things together to give a different impression of their values and opinions, as sounds like has been done to Anas Sarwar. I thank him greatly for that.

We have to tackle mis and disinformation, especially in our political discourse. Parties that purport to be mainstream really should know better than to engage in this type of activity. The Electoral Commission has  powers in this regard, but we recognise that those powers and some of the laws around such matters need strengthening. That is why we are bringing forward an elections Bill next year. I hope that Reform heard the hon. Gentleman’s question and takes down the video he described. \p Johanna Baxter: The Scottish National party pretends to be on the side of elderly people in our communities, but despite the rhetoric, the SNP-led Renfrewshire integration joint board has taken the heartless decision to slash funding to the Food Train—a vital volunteer initiative that supports our elderly residents with prepared meals and shopping, and helps them to live independently. The Food Train’s funding has been cut, despite the Scottish Government having received a record-breaking funding settlement from this Labour Government. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning Renfrewshire IJB’s heartless decision? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about the decision on funding for the Food Train, which sounds like it is a short-sighted one. As my hon. Friend says, this Government have given the Scottish Government a record budget settlement, and I hope they will use that record budget to support local services like those in her constituency. \p Victoria Collins: I am sure we all agree on the importance of protecting our rare chalk streams from pollution. I wrote to the Environment Agency nearly two months ago, on 28 March, regarding its investigation into Markyate waste water treatment works, which has now discharged raw sewage into the River Ver, a precious chalk stream, for over 4,000 hours. Despite the seriousness of the issue and its impact on my constituents, I have yet to receive a reply from the agency. Will the Leader of the House assist me in securing a response and a meeting with the Environment Agency on this urgent matter? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady has not heard back from the Environment Agency. Other Members have raised with me, today and on other occasions, cases where the enforcement powers are not being used and responses are not being given. That is just not acceptable. I shall ensure that the Environment Agency heard her question today. I assure her that the Government are absolutely committed to cleaning up our waterways and giving people the powers they need to take on water bosses where that is necessary. That is why the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is now in force, and further legislation will be introduced to make wider reforms to our water industry. \p Alistair Strathern: It has been fantastic to secure investment from GB Energy in much-needed rooftop solar panels at Lister hospital, saving thousands on the hospital’s bills that can now be better spent on treating patients, but we should not stop there. Far too many homes are being built in my constituency without solar panels, so new residents are missing out on potential savings. May we have a statement from the Housing Secretary to make sure that we toughen regulations on solar panels, so that in the future more new homes get the benefits they bring? \p Lucy Powell: I am really glad to hear my hon. Friend’s welcome for GB Energy’s investment in solar panels on his local hospital and that it is already having an effect. He raises the important issue of how we can fully utilise solar technology and other advances in green technologies in new homes. That is what this Government are committed to doing. \p Ann Davies: My constituent’s daughter, Greta Marie Otteson, and her fiancé, Arno Els Quinton, tragically died in Vietnam on Christmas day. The limoncello drink supplied by a local restaurant was contaminated with methanol, a toxic industrial chemical sometimes used instead of alcohol. Greta’s parents, Susan and Paul Otteson, are seeking transparency and justice. Notwithstanding their attempts to do so over the last five months, they remain without answers. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Office to urgently provide either Greta’s parents or my office with an update on the ongoing criminal case? \p Lucy Powell: Like many other Members, I am sure, I remember hearing of the shocking nature of this case over Christmas. I am sorry that the hon. Lady’s constituents have suffered since and have not been able to get the answers they need on the deaths of their loved ones. I will ensure that the relevant Minister is in touch with her at the earliest opportunity to ensure that her constituents get the answers and support they need. \p Adam Thompson: As the first metrologist elected to this House, I think it falls to me to remind Members that Tuesday this week was World Metrology Day. This year, we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the metre convention, which is the international treaty that established the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures and enabled the creation of the modern metrological framework that allows our modern world to exist. As the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill passes through this House, will the Leader of the House join me in wishing everybody a very happy, if slightly belated, World Metrology Day? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. We all bring our own special expertise to this House, and my hon. Friend’s expertise is particularly noteworthy—and unique, by the sound of it. I wish him a happy World Metrology Day, and I am really pleased that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill has come to this House with his arrival here—he can take full credit for it. \p Shockat Adam: A few short years ago, when I was a bright-eyed nine-year-old boy, I visited the Leicester City football training ground on Belvoir Drive. That was the first time I saw a young Gary Winston Lineker. He went on to be my sporting hero, as the top scorer at virtually every football club he played for, the Golden Boot winner at the ’86 World cup and an England captain. For the past 26 years, Gary has been a national Saturday night institution as the face of “Match of the Day”. He has brought us sharp analysis and very dry humour, and when Leicester City won the league, he even brought out his boxer shorts. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to our Gary for his remarkable run on “Match of the Day” and his contribution to countless childhood cancer charities, and wish him all the best as he signs off from the sofa for the last time this weekend? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for taking the opportunity to raise that. I am sure the whole House will want to pay tribute to and thank Gary Lineker, who has been a remarkable “Match of the Day” presenter for many years. He has brought football and football highlights to life for many of us, and I am sure we all want to pay tribute to him. \p Claire Hughes: Bangor pier celebrated its 129th anniversary last Sunday. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Friends of Bangor Garth Pier for organising an amazing event, which is just one of those happening this year, as Bangor celebrates its 1,500th year? \p Lucy Powell: Happy birthday to Bangor pier—I am sure we will all join my hon. Friend in that celebration. \p Jamie Stone: People living in the north of Scotland are forced to pay extortionate delivery charges for goods they order from further south—charges that are far higher than people in Glasgow, Edinburgh or Birmingham have to pay. This is a fundamental injustice. Could we have a debate in Government time on something that is very wrong indeed? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member raises the really important matter of the different delivery costs for rural communities such as his, who often need those deliveries the most. I shall certainly raise it with Ministers and get a full response for him. \p Michelle Welsh: In just over a week’s time, the independent review of maternity services at Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust is due to close to new cases. It is the largest review of maternity services in NHS history, with more than 2,300 families now involved. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Donna Ockenden, her team and the affected families, and encourage anyone else who can to come forward before 31 May? I am the third person to raise this matter in business questions today. I would like, as would the affected families, a debate in this House in Government time on the future of maternity services, as the issue becomes more and more pressing. \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking Donna Ockenden for all the tremendous work she is doing on the independent review of maternity services at Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust. As she says, a number of people have raised the future and quality of maternity services with me today. I will, when I leave the Chamber, speak to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and encourage him to make time to update the House and ensure that Members are well informed about the progress of the review. \p Tom Morrison: On new year’s day, hundreds of homes and businesses across my constituency were flooded, and this followed similar floods in 2016 and 2019. Since then, residents have been desperately fighting to get a commitment from the Government and the Environment Agency to ensure that it never happens again, but the process is not transparent and clear. Can we have a debate on how communities can engage organisations such as the Environment Agency to help secure their areas from flooding, so that this never happens again? \p Lucy Powell: I remember well the floods in the hon. Member’s constituency. I am really sorry that his constituents are still dealing with the aftermath and are unable to get the answers and support they need from the Environment Agency. A number of colleagues have raised the lack of responsiveness of the Environment Agency with me today, so I will ensure that they are all heard, but they can rest assured that this Government take flooding and its consequences incredibly seriously. That is why we have set up the taskforce and put record levels of funding into it. \p Mark Sewards: As I am sure you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is time for trams in West Yorkshire. I want to thank all the colleagues across this House and the other place who have supported Tracy Brabin and I as we lead the charge to secure mass transit in West Yorkshire. The benefits are obvious: we know it will create jobs, growth and investment. Ahead of the spending review, will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on why it is finally time to bring trams back to Leeds and to bring them to West Yorkshire? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me before, and he is a fantastic campaigner and advocate for the tram system coming to Leeds. I am sure his near neighbour, the Chancellor, has heard his question ahead of the spending review, and I am sure she also wants to see trams coming to Leeds. I know what a great benefit they have been for Manchester, and I hope Leeds gets them soon, too. \p Claire Young: Businesses in Thornbury and Yate are crying out for change on business rates, from the Play Shed, which has seen its relief cut from 75% to 40%, to the company told it would have to wait at least a year to get a revaluation after it subdivided some units. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government bring to this House a statement setting out how they will review business rates? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member will be aware that we have made some changes to business rates, with a new lower business rate for small independent businesses.   I am sure that further announcements will be made in due course, and I will ensure that they are made in the House. \p Luke Myer: Thanks to the decisions of this Government, NHS waiting times have been falling consistently month on month, but there are still some delays for specific kinds of treatment. My constituent, Alan, has been waiting over a year for the specialist corrective procedure he urgently needs. Does the Leader of the House agree that these delays in specialist treatment deserve serious parliamentary attention? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in recognising that waiting lists have been falling month on month since last year. That is what this Government are committed to doing, but we recognise that some specialist treatments will be a harder nut to crack, and I will ensure he is updated on that issue. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call Tessa Munt to ask the final question on the business statement. \p Tessa Munt: This week is National Epilepsy Week. Epilepsy is more than just seizures; it affects every area of somebody’s life. With more than 630,000 people suffering in the UK, every single MP in this House will have someone with this condition in their constituency. In the light of this being National Epilepsy Week, can we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s commitment to improving access to care and treatment for those with this condition, particularly those whose seizures do not respond to treatment? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that during Epilepsy Week. The Government are committed to improving care for people with neurological conditions including epilepsy. We have a transformation programme under way and that is improving services, but there is much more to be done and much more can be done. I will ensure that she and the rest of the House are kept updated. \p UNKNOWN: 1.59 pm \p Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am on record as having expressed my appreciation to the Leader of the House for her insistence that Ministers should give accurate and timely responses to parliamentary questions. I am sure she will therefore share my disappointment that in answering my question earlier she asserted that inflation is falling when in fact it is not falling but has reached 3.5%. She also chided me for not having raised the issue at Treasury questions on Tuesday, but the news did not come out until Wednesday. Is that the standard we are now expected to accept? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he will know, that is a matter of debate and is not a matter for the Chair. \p Adam Jogee: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in my role as chair of the all-party group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain regarding yesterday’s Opposition day debate on business and the economy in which the shadow Secretary of State the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone):

“I am not sure if one can subsist entirely on a seed potato—it may have been tried historically, and not with enormous success”.—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1038.]

Those words appear to be referencing the tragedy of the Irish potato famine, which, if that is the case, is of course offensive and insensitive to what took place at the time in the United Kingdom. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, please advise on how best we can remedy any offence caused by outlining the process for an hon. Member to withdraw such a statement? \p Judith Cummins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I take it that he has notified the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber. \p Adam Jogee: indicated assent. \p Judith Cummins: The Chair is not responsible for the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks, but the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) has put his point on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Caroline Nokes: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Lords amendment 49D engages Commons financial privilege. If Lords amendment 49D is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. \p UNKNOWN: 2.2 pm \p Peter Kyle: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.

I want to start by putting on record something that I should perhaps have said a bit more about in this place. I cherish the UK creative industries—their immense contribution to our national and personal lives; their embodiment of the best of human creativity—and I appreciate the sincerity of their concerns about the future. I want to express my genuine gratitude to the whole of the creative sector, from national treasures such as Sir Ian McKellen, Kate Bush and, yes, Sir Elton John, whose performances enrich our lives—having seen all of them perform live, I can say how much that has personally enriched my life—to local artists such as Pauly the painter, whose paintings of Hove enrich my ministerial office in Whitehall. However, this is not a competition about who loves the sector most; it is an argument about how best to champion the interests of creatives, large and small, and to protect and promote them into the future.

The purpose of the Data (Use and Access) Bill is to better harness data for economic growth, to improve public services and to support modern digital government, and I acknowledge the agreements reached in the other place on scientific research and sex data to that end. The Bill before us today is one step closer to completion, and I am grateful to Minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch for her work on these important issues. I am sure the House will unite in wishing her a happy birthday today—it is a significant birthday, but I will not do her the discourtesy of mentioning which one.

This Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. However, the other place has yet again suggested that there be an amendment on this issue, despite hon. Members of this elected House having already removed a similar amendment twice before. Madam Deputy Speaker, I also note your decision that the amendment from the other place still conflicts with the financial privileges of this place. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has stated repeatedly, we absolutely recognise that a workable solution on transparency is a key part of tackling this issue, but we absolutely disagree that this Bill or this amendment is the right way to address it. \p Samantha Niblett: I thank the Secretary of State for mentioning Kate Bush; she is the love of my life and has been since I was nine.

We have repeatedly spoken about the need for a tech solution to address this issue. I have a background in data and technology and have been meeting several companies that seem between them to have a possible tech solution. Will the Secretary of State meet me and them to discuss it? \p Peter Kyle: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, for her love of Kate Bush, which I share, and for her passion for finding a workable solution and way forward. As I go through my remarks, I hope she will see that I propose a way to formalise the insight, wisdom and experience of the kinds of companies that she references, so that they can move forward. It is because of the complexities around AI copyright law and the understandable sensitivities of content creators that this needs to be done properly and carefully in a considered, measured and reasoned way. That is what this Government intend to do.

In order to make progress all of us need to work to find some common ground and reflect on things that we could have done better. In that spirit, let me say to this House and the other place that I regret the timing of the consultation on copyright and AI and the consideration of this Bill and the way that the two collided, and I regret that by indicating a preferred option it appeared to some that I had taken a side in the debate before everyone felt that they had been listened to. \p Alison Hume: I welcome the Secretary of State’s words; it is great to hear words such as “cherish” and “champion” in this House. I acknowledge that there is no opt-out in the Bill, but the Secretary of State mentioned the consultation that was launched alongside it, which adjoins these very issues. Will my right hon. Friend confirm once and for all that the Government’s preferred opt-out for reserving copyright is now abandoned? \p Peter Kyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Just to clarify, this is a legacy Bill which has been in Parliament several times before, including under the previous Government, so it was always inevitable that at whatever time the consultation was launched it would have coincided with the Bill going through Parliament. That was never my intention but, as I have just said, I accept that that was the impression given. When we went into the consultation, I believed that opting out could have offered an opportunity to bring both sides together, but I now accept that that is not the case. \p Pete Wishart: This afternoon, we will go to the Ivor Novello awards to celebrate the ability and talent of the best of our songwriters from across this country—it will be a magnificent and wonderful display. Those writers are seriously concerned that their works will be ingested and churned out in an inferior way. The Government are not offering anything to our creators. The amendment that the Lords have presented seems to be reasonable, so what is wrong with it as a way forward? \p Peter Kyle: As I have said, and as I will elaborate, the Government and I believe that there is a better way forward to give the creative sectors and creators the  protections that they need. It would deliver them the certainties, protections and ability to have transparency and to be renumerated, and provide more possibilities to large creators, or those who represent them, to deliver licences into the future. We need to take the issues in the round, not just one part of them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a great time at the Ivor Novello awards. I congratulate everyone who wins, has been nominated or is participating today, especially U2, who are I think receiving an award—other creators who I have seen live many times. \p James Naish: Many of my constituents have told me that they feel that their works have already been scraped, and that AI development has already trampled over their rights. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give me that we already recognise that this is a time-limited issue and that action is required? \p Peter Kyle: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. It is true that much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models, usually from other territories and under the current law. Nothing illustrates the need to have a comprehensive think about the way forward than the example that he has just given. \p Caroline Dinenage: On that point, will the Secretary of State give way? \p Peter Kyle: I see that the right hon. Lady, the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, is on her feet, and, of course, I give way. \p Caroline Dinenage: I appreciate the tone in which the Secretary of State has started his speech. Ministers keep repeating a mantra about “the uncertainty” of what our copyright law says about AI training. However, there is no uncertainty: commercial generative AI training on UK copyright work is illegal in the UK, but what rightsholders need is what this amendment says:

“clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information”

about

“the use of their copyright works used, and the means by which those works were accessed”.

A legislative vehicle in the future, however welcome, will be simply too late to protect the livelihoods of so many of the UK’s 2.5 million creative workers, who fear that this uncertainty line is just an excuse to undermine copyright law. Is the Government really committed to proactively enforcing our copyright law? If they do not do so through this Bill now, how will they do it and when? \p Peter Kyle: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, which is thoughtful as always. May I pick her up on one substantial point? I have not used the word “uncertainty” or implied that the challenge we have is uncertainty. Existing copyright law is very certain, but it is not fit for purpose. All the dangers and the existing loss into AI models have happened within the existing law. The challenges that we have, which I will go into further, are happening currently.

We need to ensure that we can have a domestic legal system that is fit for the digital age; we cannot rely on legislation that was created for, and is still only effective  in, the analogue age. I want to give certainty. The reason that I am making this speech is to give certainty, not only in my words but most importantly in legislation, in the most rapid fashion possible, so that creatives and the AI sector can move forward together.

Unfortunately, at times the Bill has been presented as a battle between creative industries and new technology companies, but nothing could be further from the truth \p Polly Billington: I thank my right hon. Friend for his tone and for the direction of travel that he is setting out. Bearing in mind that he is talking about “the most rapid fashion possible”, why are the Government refusing to put notice of backstop powers for transparency in the Bill? That is what the creative industries would like to see, in order to give reassurance that, in anticipation of further legislation along the line, the Secretary of State and the Government give themselves the powers to act, when and if they see that the current rules are being broken systemically by AI and tech companies. \p Peter Kyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—nobody speaks with more passion and insight on the subject than she does. I simply say that the amendment is not comprehensive enough and does not tackle the needs and opportunities of both sectors. The only way that our country will benefit from the maximum potential that both these sectors present is if we can bring them together to find a way forward. Pitting one against the other is unnecessarily divisive and damages both.

The truth is that growing Britain’s economy needs both sectors to succeed and to prosper. Britain has to be the place where the creative industries, every bit as much as AI companies, can invest and grow, confident that their future prosperity is assured. We have to become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both. There is an investment battle for Britain happening, and we must win it. \p James Frith: My right hon. Friend’s tone is most welcome, but it is also consistent with how he has been both in private and public on this matter, and I thank him for that, while sharing much of his taste in music. Does he agree that transparency should be a prerequisite for all AI development, not a matter for copyright to handle? If not now, will he commit to including such powers in secondary legislation, should the voluntary approach fail? \p Peter Kyle: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s tone and for the way that he has engaged so fruitfully, passionately and effectively, both on the record and in the conversations that we have had together.

Transparency is the foundation upon which we will build the future solutions to this problem. In a moment, I will go on to talk a bit more about how I intend to deliver that progress, but in order to have remuneration, solutions and the empowerment that creatives need in the digital age, of course we need transparency, which is essential and immutable. I will strive on behalf of creatives to deliver those things in a way that is also enforceable and will make the tangible difference, to give them the grip that they need in a digital age that they are currently lacking in the age that we live in. \p Joe Robertson: The Secretary of State talks about delivering certainty, but does he not see that the certainty he is giving is to large multinational tech companies that will be able to get away with scraping original content that is copyrighted? Through the Bill, he will give such companies the certainty to abuse the rights of creatives. \p Peter Kyle: In all sincerity, I am confused by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The Bill before us does not mention AI or copyright—it has nothing to do with those items. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is as I described at the beginning of my remarks. If there is a clause, sentence or paragraph of the legislation that is before us and for consideration that damages either the AI sectors or the creative industries, then I would like him to stand up and read that out. What I am proposing is a comprehensive solution in legislation to both the opportunities and the challenges presented to the AI sector, which is a barrier for companies in that sector investing here, and to the current direction of travel that is posing an existential threat to the nature of the creative sector as we know it. That is what I am proposing, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill before us does not damage any of those interests in the way that he suggests. \p Emily Darlington: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he is comprehensively showing our commitment to the creative industries. Like him, I am a huge nerd when it comes to amazing new innovations in data and AI. I am hugely enthusiastic about them, but I also share his equally huge enthusiasm for the creative industries. I appreciate what he is saying about transparency—for me, that is the absolutely key point—but what is the backstop if the voluntary approach does not create the transparency that creators need to understand how their creations are being used and if they are being remunerated properly for that? \p Peter Kyle: The reason I opened the consultation in the first place was to try to understand where the concerns are and where the tech companies can provide their suggested solutions, on the back of which we can come together as two Houses of Parliament and two separate sectors to find the way forward. If we cannot answer the question that my hon. Friend poses, how will the legislation, which I will propose as soon as I can, get through either House?

We need to bring both sectors together. We need to have workable, implementable solutions that have grip in the digital age as well as the confidence of both Houses to get the legislation forward. I ask Members across this House and in the other place to offer me a degree of trust that I will lead it through the difficult, challenging process—which has bedevilled not just the current situation, but the Government before—needed to deliver it for those who need it the most. \p Bayo Alaba: rose— \p Rachael Maskell: rose— \p Peter Kyle: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who was the first on his feet, then I will come to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). \p Bayo Alaba: I appreciate the tone with which the Secretary of State is conducting this discussion, and I thank him for that. Having spent two decades running businesses and projects in the creative sector before entering this House, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm when the Government intend to bring forward the promised AI and IP Bill? Will he commit to prioritising transparency obligations in the next Parliament or even to finding a suitable vehicle? Finally, will stakeholders be formally consulted before that Bill is introduced? \p Peter Kyle: We can see what a fast learner my hon. Friend has become since he has been in this place, as he got three questions into a 30-second intervention. I will take them in reverse order. I assure him that I will engage with both sectors and give a meaningful voice, including finding ways of engaging views across the House in that process. On his first two questions, I have striven to speak—perhaps even stretched the boundaries of the clarity with which I am allowed to speak—about the future when it comes to legislation and the processes and formalities of this House, in which we are governed by traditions, conventions and the wrath of the Leader of the House.

I know and hope that when I offer my words, Members with varying degrees of experience will understand that there are meanings behind them about the speed, enthusiasm and determination to get this issue resolved swiftly, but the legislative programme of the House is in the hands of His Majesty the King and the Leader of the House, for whom we have high regard—I know that she will be watching somewhere in this building, ready to pounce should I step one millimetre out of line. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford will understand as I go through my remarks and speak in a bit more detail about my intentions that the necessity for speed and alacrity underpins every single one of my words. \p Sally Jameson: rose— \p Polly Billington: rose— \p Peter Kyle: I will give way once more, before I make some progress. \p Polly Billington: On the point about speed, determination and the conventions of this House with regard to the legislative programme, in some ways that gives the Secretary of State a case for putting backstop powers on the face of this Bill to create the confidence that the creative industries require, so that we do not have to wait for full legislation. Having some confidence now would give the Government the power to enforce if they saw something that passed the test and there were some transgressions. There is a case for what we are asking for because of those constraints. \p Peter Kyle: Let me be as direct as I possibly can. The amendment before us does not include powers of enforcement; it would give powers to the Secretary of State, but it gives no indication of how those powers should be used. Given that ambiguity, it would be incumbent on me to use the powers in a way in which I saw fit, and I would see fit to do a thorough engagement on the back of such powers before using them, if I decided to use them at all. Any of my successors in the post could well use those powers in vastly different ways, which  would lead to great instability in an area where I am determined to create stability. Finally, it would be disempowering for this place to have all those powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State when what we really need is a comprehensive set of legislative measures that this place and the other place have fully endorsed, is on statute and can give the security that both sectors need into the future.

It was remiss of me to take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), even though it was an important one, before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, to whom I turn now. \p Rachael Maskell: I do take a word spoken at the Dispatch Box as a commitment, so I really welcome what the Secretary of State is saying. Will he ensure that, beyond transparency, there will be accountability? That is the missing element in the Lords amendment in particular. We need accountability for those businesses and platforms that go on to make profit out of our creatives’ work. They should be held to account as the Secretary of State approaches this issue in a more comprehensive way, working with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. \p Peter Kyle: The range of interventions shows several things, including the breadth of wisdom and experience in this House and the complex nature of the issue at hand. That is all being dealt with by one amendment that does not actually touch on many of the issues that I am being questioned about. Again, that reinforces the need to deal with this issue in the round and in its entirety, with all its complexities.

I will turn to the point that my hon. Friend raises shortly, but the extraterritorial nature of the way in which AI is being consumed, scraped and brought into the models adds challenges to getting a grip on it. That is why having a Bill that incentivises investment in this country, alongside giving modern digital rights and obligations to creatives in the digital age, is a way in which we can incentivise companies to come and obey the law of this land as we move forward.

I believe one more Member was on their feet to whom I am yet to give way. \p Sally Jameson: While I agree with most of the Secretary of State’s music recommendations, I pay tribute to Girls Aloud, who are the ultimate pop icons in the British music industry. \p Chris Bryant: Sugababes, surely! \p Sally Jameson: A close second. Will the Secretary of State commit to chairing a cross-sector working group with the AI industries and the creative sector in the room to help to inform any future legislation? \p Peter Kyle: I kind of regret taking that intervention, because it contains the first reference to a band I have not seen live. I have some life goals yet, so I will add it to my bucket list.

I will turn to the point that my hon. Friend made then make progress, because we have limited time here, and I want to ensure that Opposition figures have all the time that they need to make their points. These issues   need serious and dedicated consideration. We have never needed the language of conflict, betrayal or slavery in this debate. \p Catherine Fookes: Will the Secretary of State give way? \p Peter Kyle: I am going to make some progress. I will try to give way a bit later.

It is time to tone down the unnecessary rhetoric and instead recognise that the country needs to strike a balance between content and creativity, transparency and training, and recognition and reward. That cannot be done by well-meaning but ultimately imperfect amendments to a Bill that was never intended to do such a thing. The issue of AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. To that end, I can tell the House that I am now setting up a series of expert working groups to bring together people from both sectors on the issues of transparency, licensing and other technical standards to chart a workable way forward. I will ensure that the outcome of these endeavours is made available to Members of both Houses.

I know that people want this issue resolved speedily. I understand that, just as I understand the anger and frustration of creatives who feel that their contribution is being taken without proper recognition or reward. The copyright system must be designed so that it works for creatives and AI companies alike. \p Catherine Fookes: Will the Secretary of State give way? \p Peter Kyle: I am going to make some progress, but other voices will be heard.

Much of the creative content on the internet has already been scraped elsewhere in the world. We cannot turn back time, and nor should we kid ourselves that we can exercise extraterritorial reach that we simply do not have. My determination is to get this absolutely right, not just rush it right now, which would make us feel better but would make no real improvements to the status quo. Let me be absolutely clear to the House: I get it, and I will get it right.

Finally, just as I regret that this has been portrayed as a choice between creatives and artificial intelligence, it is regrettable to me that this has become an issue of contention between this House and the other place. This House is not putting the interests of one sector above those of another—that would be the wrong approach. The right approach is to recognise that this is too important and complex an issue to be rushed. It deserves proper consideration, and it requires us to accept our responsibility to do this right, in a way that reflects the seriousness of the situation and the sensitivities of both sectors. For now, let us just put this data Bill behind us. \p Julian Lewis: Given the constructive tone that the Secretary of State is taking today, would he like to say a word of praise for the upper House, without whose determination to keep revisiting this matter he might not have felt it quite so necessary to come to this House today and outline in such detail the constructive alternatives he wishes to put forward? \p Peter Kyle: I of course acknowledge the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I have acknowledged a couple of times already in my speech the work of the upper House and several Members of it, and the constructive and functional way in which we have resolved disagreements on other parts of the Bill. That is the way both Houses were designed to work—in co-operation, sometimes with tension, but ultimately to deliver the legislation that the Government intend to introduce, using the primacy of this place.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is not the first time I have engaged, privately or publicly. Many of the statements I have made today have been made previously, but not in the pointed way that I am doing now, which I hope rises to the moment we are in. I have already acknowledged how, looking back, I would have taken other actions to bring this matter to a conclusion much sooner. I also hope that other Members across this House and in the other place will similarly act in a way that can put this moment behind us, so that we can focus on using the power of Government and, of course, of both Houses to get this right for those sectors that are counting on us to do just that.

From this moment, I give this House my personal commitment from the Dispatch Box to unstinting work alongside both sectors, working together to resolve the contentious issue of AI and copyright quickly and effectively. I will report back to this House regularly on the progress made. My responsibility as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is to bring forward proposals on copyright that can deliver the balance we seek between the interests of the creative industries and those of the AI industry. We will do that, and we will get it right. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p John Whittingdale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has spoken for 33 minutes in a debate that is due to last for an hour, and we have yet to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. There will not be time to have a proper debate on this matter, which is of great importance to a number of people. Will the Government please make available more time beyond the 60-minute time limit? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which was not in fact a point of order. He will be aware that the programme motion has already been agreed to by the House. \p Ben Spencer: As hon. Members know, the substance of this Bill began with the previous Government, in recognition of the need to streamline and harness the use of data to grow the economy and drive improvement in the delivery of public services. As I have said before, when the Bill started its life, most of us had no idea that it would become the vehicle for addressing some of the most important social and technological issues of our time.

Although I welcome the huge benefits that the Bill will bring to the economy and public services when it comes into force, I fear that it will go down on the Government’s record as the Bill of missed opportunities.  It is a missed opportunity to fix our flawed public data sets, which present a barrier to tracking and tackling inequalities in areas such as women’s health; a missed opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children in their use of social media platforms, and to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there is good reason to do so; and a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to two of our key growth industries, the creative and AI sectors, on how they can interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing.

It could be seen as somewhat dispiriting to be back at the Dispatch Box again, having the debate on copyright and AI with the Department’s ministerial team, but I see that there has been an upgrade since our last outing at the Dispatch Box. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his tone and his approach to this debate, particularly his recognition of previous mistakes made. As politicians, we do not say sorry often enough, or recognise mistakes or where we would have wanted things to go better. I appreciate the statements he has made from the Dispatch Box, but the fact that we are here is testament to the determination and sincere concern of Members of both Houses. Whatever Benches they sit on, they are deeply concerned that we must not miss this opportunity to find a solution to such a significant challenge.

Our colleagues in the other place have spoken about their commitment to the primacy of this House, and their reticence to delay the passage of this Bill any further than is absolutely necessary. Their resolve demonstrates the importance of this issue to Members of both Houses and the stakeholders they represent. The Government have spoken repeatedly of their commitment to protecting the creative industries, but their actions are still yet to match their rhetoric. It appears that “reviews” have today been upgraded to “working groups.”

Many excuses have been made for why the Government feel unable to act now. Baroness Kidron and other noble Lords have acted in good faith on the Government’s stated concerns, and have sought to address them in the latest iteration of their transparency amendment on copyright and AI. Lords amendment 49D would provide the Government with flexibility to put in place proportionate regulations on the transparency of AI enterprises by reference to their size. Importantly, it would allow a reasonable timeframe for the Government to complete their review of responses to their consultation, which concluded in February, before the Secretary of State is compelled to lay draft transparency regulations before Parliament.

For the third time, an amendment on this topic received the overwhelming support of Members in the other place, and the debate at the last round showed that the strength of feeling is mirrored in this House. Amendment 49D is a balanced clause that would put in place a much-needed long-stop date to provide the certainty that creatives and the technology industries alike have been calling for. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) suggested, it is a backstop.

The Government have run out of excuses for failing to act. Today we have an opportunity to achieve something relatively rare in our political climate: creating effective, balanced legislation based on cross-party compromise.  It is important to public confidence in Government to show that we can put sound principles above politics when the overwhelming need arises. The Government have another opportunity today; let us make sure that it is not another missed one. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Victoria Collins: I rise to speak to Lords amendment 49D. As the Bill returns to this House, I am grateful that the other place continues to fight for creatives, and this amendment focuses on the fundamental principle of transparency while securing the principle of proportionality. I am also grateful for the cross-party work and support in this House and the movement from the Secretary of State today. I know that many Members have signed various amendments standing up for creatives, and I call on colleagues across the House to consider how they vote today on this amendment.

At its very core, the amendment would require AI companies to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant information about how their works are being used for AI development and training. The amendment is clear that it is for the trader or data holder to ensure that the data is accessible to copyright owners upon request. Behind that are real people, real communities and the rich tapestry of a £126 billion creative industry. \p Manuela Perteghella: My constituency of Stratford-on-Avon has always been a place where arts and creativity flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is needed now to ensure that our British artists, musicians and writers—the William Shakespeares of the future—are fully protected and compensated by the big tech companies? \p Victoria Collins: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, I was going to say that every MP here will have local creatives. The Secretary of State talked about the artists represented in his office. In mine is Tabitha Mary, who does pictures of around town in Harpenden and Berkhamsted. We have musicians such as Rock Chorus. In Hertfordshire we have film studios such as Elstree, Warner Bros Leavesden and Bovingdon, and I am that sure many of them will be following this debate. Their life’s work—their paintings, performances or films—are feeding into AI systems right now and they have no way of knowing. They want to work hand in hand with technology and AI, but our creatives are calling for a fair playing field.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I was recently approached by the British Deaf Association with concerns about AI companies requiring vast volumes of video footage of British Sign Language without proper consent or awareness from the original signers. I was curious about what an AI would say about the issue, so I asked it to write in the style of the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I did not ask it for the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore is a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I thought it would be quite interesting.

I highlight that the AI said that the Minister was known for his bold, articulate style, often weaving sharp analysis with a touch of wit, but I will let others be the judge of whether the AI has encapsulated that. This is what it had to say:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we stand at a crossroads—one where technology and creativity are colliding, not in conflict, but in collaboration. For centuries, imagination has driven progress, shaping our world through art, literature, design, and innovation. And now, AI is in the mix, not to replace human ingenuity, but to challenge it, expand it, and sometimes even surprise us. The question isn’t whether AI is coming—it’s here. The real question is: how do we harness it to elevate human creativity, rather than diminish it?”

It asks a very good question. To elevate that human creativity, creatives are calling for transparency. Today we are at that crossroads, with an opportunity to vote for that transparency.

As the Bill nears completion, I urge the Government to accept this reasonable compromise. I accept that the tone and the movement today are welcome, and that work with creatives and tech is much-needed. \p Emily Darlington: Does the hon. Member agree that what that quote proves is that AI cannot capture the wit and humour that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) brings to this Chamber? \p Chris Bryant: And fashion. \p Emily Darlington: And fashion. In fact, AI is a poor copy of what my hon. Friend represents and bring. \p Victoria Collins: I think the House has spoken on that. True leadership in AI means building on respect for creativity, including in the House of Commons, not exploitation. We can build an AI-powered future where technology and human ingenuity flourish together, but only if we start with transparency. We can be a world leader in setting a standard for creatives and technology to work together. I invite all colleagues from all parties to join us today in supporting amendment 49D, to set that direction and to stand up for transparency for our creators and for the principle that, in the age of AI, human creativity still matters. \p Pete Wishart: This is the second time we have considered this amendment in this House, and it is the second time we have received this, “Just trust me—I just want to get on with it” homily that all the ministerial team present when we discuss the matter. They say they want to set up all sorts of working groups and that they want to get to legislation. None of us have any difficulty with or objection to that, but what we want is action now. We get concerned when the Secretary of State, as he just did, says that there is no certainty in our copyright laws just now. \p Peter Kyle: I did not say that. \p Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State can check back in Hansard. That is exactly what he said, and that is where the concern and anxiety comes in. The Government might get a technical victory today because of the invocation of financial issues, but the Bill will come back again from the House of Lords. They are not going to give up.

Everybody is united with the House of Lords when it comes to these issues; everybody wants a solution now. Nobody agrees with the Government’s position—except the AI firms that seek to benefit from the unauthorised use of our cultural work—and the anger is growing. The more the public see of this, the more our constituents get increasingly concerned about how our artists are being treated. We only need to look at Sir Elton John’s reaction on Sunday—not just the choice of language about the Government Front Benchers, but that he feels so dismissed he is even threatening legal action.

Surely the way forward is compromise and the Government going some way toward giving the creative sector what they want. Lords amendment 49D presents that approach. It respects the financial prerogatives of this Government, and it has taken on board everything that the Front Benchers have said. I urge the Government to reconsider their position and to engage seriously on the substance of the amendment, which would address copyright holders’ calls for transparency without imposing immediate enforcement costs. It would require AI developers to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information on how their works have been used and how they were accessed. Nothing could be fairer than that.

The Government use words like “may” rather than “must”, thereby avoiding direct spending obligations. We must surely work together on the basis of what has been agreed between both Houses, and try to ensure that we get something that meets everybody’s concerns. That has to start with this Lords amendment. I urge the Government to accept it at this really late stage, and I encourage Labour Back Benchers, who have made fantastic contributions today and who have stood up to this Government, to vote against them. That will show exactly how strongly they feel about this issue. I encourage Labour colleagues to back the amendment. \p John Whittingdale: I have to say that I am slightly surprised that no Labour Back Bencher is willing to speak in support of the Government’s position, but it means that I have more time to speak than I had initially thought would be the case. I will not repeat the arguments that we have had in the lengthy debates on these measures that have already taken place, but I want to make one or two points.

In his contribution, the Secretary of State said that he had never mentioned the word “uncertainty” and implied that he thought that copyright law is clear. I have to say that that contrasts with an awful lot of the debates we have had previously, in which his colleague, the Minister for the Creative Industries, has talked about there being uncertainty. \p Chris Bryant: The right hon. Member must have missed several of the debates in which I expressly said that I did not think there was any uncertainty about the law as it presently stands. \p John Whittingdale: Well, the ministerial foreword to the consultation paper suggests there was uncertainty, and that has consistently been one of the reasons why the Government have said they need to carry out all these consultations. Even if the law is clear, as the Secretary of State suggests—personally, I believe it is  clear—the important thing is that it can only be enforced if those who have their copyright breached are aware that that has taken place. That is why transparency is of critical importance, as I know the Government have acknowledged.

The Secretary of State has said this afternoon that he is going to set up more working parties. Our concern is that, as the Secretary of State has just said, a large amount of copyrighted material is already being scraped by generative AI. His working parties and further consultations—we wait to hear when legislation might arrive—mean that it will be another few years before we actually have this measure on the statute book. There is an opportunity to have something on the statute book now, and he will be aware that the existing provisions—the robots.txt provisions—are simply being ignored. They are not working, and it is important that we act immediately to send a very clear signal that we expect transparency to be in place and for generative AI companies to properly remunerate licence holders.

I want to mention some of the other provisions. On the Order Paper, the Government have said that Lords amendment 49D “engages financial privilege”. \p Peter Kyle: The Chair says that—not us. \p John Whittingdale: Well, the Clerks may have advised—[Interruption.] I merely suggest that it is very unclear. As many in the House of Lords have suggested, it is very unclear how the amendment can engage financial privilege. The amendment use the word “may”, so it does not contain any requirement on the Government to indulge in financial expenditure. It is a worrying precedent if the Government are going to avoid debate on policy by suggesting that— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I think it would be helpful if I clarified that that is a matter for the Chair and not for the Government. \p John Whittingdale: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker; it just looks very strange to see that the amendment “engages financial privilege” when there is no financial requirement in the amendment.

I will finish on one further point. I understand the Secretary of State’s keenness to attract investment from tech companies. When we have previously debated legislation affecting tech companies, on each occasion we have heard that it may result in their being unwilling to come and invest in this country, but that has never been the case. I hope the Secretary of State will not listen to those who say that if we proceeded to enforce copyright law, it may somehow result in tech companies finding this country unattractive. I do not believe that is the case and I do not believe that it would jeopardise the jobs that the Government are keen to create. But unless we proceed down the route of accepting the Lords amendment, we will jeopardise the jobs of the 2.4 million people in this country who are employed in the creative industries.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 124.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 49D disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 49D;

That Peter Kyle, Anna Turley, Matthew Patrick, Steven Yemm, Katrina Murray, Dr Ben Spencer and Victoria Collins be members of the Committee;

That Peter Kyle be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 22D relating to the scheduling of select committee statements, select committee statements on the Sixth Report of the Business and Trade Committee and the Third Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights may be made after the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Anna McMorrin.) \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Caroline Nokes: We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; these should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning. \p Liam Byrne: I rise to speak to the House today on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee on our sixth report—a road map for the EU reset. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for using this moment to share my profound thanks to the members of the Committee, who are both diligent and hard-working.

From our earliest days together as a Committee, it was clear to us all that our relationship with the European Union had been trapped in the logic of the past, and that although not all of that past was bitter, the present was clearly unsatisfactory, and the future could be richer if we collectively chose to reset that relationship with more ambition. That, we sensed, was also the analysis of His Majesty’s Government. We asked ourselves what could be done to move this relationship forward—not distracted by fantasy, but informed with a real, hard-headed and pragmatic focus.

We travelled to Brussels, Belfast and Geneva. We listened to businesses, trade unions, diplomats and officials in the European Commission. We looked at border posts, trade barriers and, I am afraid to say, an awful lot of lost opportunities. We asked one simple question: how can we make these arrangements better? We sought not to reopen old wounds, but to open new doors.

What surprised us was that it was not difficult to  find 21 different ways in which our relationship with the European Union could be reset in a manner that would make our country richer—with steps that would support our security, deepen our energy ties, and cut the red tape that is throttling trade with the EU. These were not abstract aspirations. They were grounded, practical and deliverable, and they were supported by an overwhelming coalition of business groups that we met. In short, the proposals we presented were backed by business, because they were good for business and therefore good for our country.

We divided the work into three ambitions: first, to defend our prosperity; secondly, to defend and advance energy co-operation; and, thirdly, to cut the red tape strangling trade at the border.

On security, we proposed a bold new partnership: a joint defence industrial policy, a framework for protecting critical national infrastructure and stronger co-ordination to tackle economic crime. We called for closer co-operation at the World Trade Organisation, including UK participation  in the new dispute resolution procedures, because a rules-based order is not just idealism; for us it is insurance. On energy, we saw something extraordinary: an opportunity to unlock the potential of the North sea as the world’s biggest green energy power station. That vision demanded that we come together with the EU to create a single carbon border adjustment mechanism and to connect, again, electricity trading and emissions trading. That could add up to a faster and cheaper path to net zero for both us and our European neighbours.

On trade, we welcomed the Government’s ambition for a deep sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and, indeed, a fair fisheries deal, but we pressed for some specifics: mutual recognition of alternative economic operator schemes; bilateral waivers for safety and security declarations; co-operation around roll-on, roll-off ferries; rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention; mutual recognition of conformity assessments; and a long-term road map for compatible regulation.

On services, we urged His Majesty’s Government to strike a new data adequacy agreement, pursue deeper co-operation on financial services, ensure UK access to Horizon Europe framework programme 10, sort out a new road map for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, reduce the barriers for touring artists, and implement a visa-based, number-capped, age-capped youth experience scheme.

We published our draft report to test it. The response was overwhelming, with support levels of between 80% and 90% for the measures that we proposed. Businesses said, “This is what we need, because it will unlock growth, create jobs and raise wages.”

On Monday, we saw some signs that the Government had listened. We were glad to see progress on security, defence, electricity trading and emissions alignment. There was a new security and defence pact. There was useful language on critical national infrastructure. There was a welcome step towards joining electricity and carbon markets together. There was, however, also much left in the to-do pile. There was no iron-clad commitment to a shared defence industrial policy and there was too little progress on law enforcement co-operation. There was silence on WTO co-operation, although I acknowledge that may come in the trade strategy when it is published. We also thought that there could have been more on financial services co-operation, data adequacy and mutual recognition of conformity assessments.

This is a deal without a date—a handshake, but not yet a contract. None the less, it was an important start. After years of drift and division, this was the first time since Brexit that, collectively, we had the chance to stop digging ditches of grievance and start rebuilding some bridges of co-operation. This was a step forward, but it was only a step. What comes next must be really clear. We must now have a timetable for drawing up, finalising and implementing these agreements. There should be action to take forward the unfinished business, which we have set out in this report. Crucially, we think there should be a bigger role for Parliament, because Parliament should not be a bystander while our future is forged.

Let us not retreat into nostalgia. Let us work pragmatically together in the national interest, because that is how futures are built. We are at our best in this Parliament when we choose to lead, and that is exactly what this relationship now needs. I commend to the House this report and its call to action. \p Sonia Kumar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that consistency and clarity are exactly what businesses require to grow and thrive? That is why the Government should consider the report’s recommendation to consult with industry on rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. PEM membership could support tariff-free trade, simplify rules of origin and reduce trade barriers for key sectors such as automotive, manufacturing, chemicals and food production. By joining PEM, British business would expand its preferential market access to 25 countries, thereby strengthening supply chains and boosting the competitiveness of British exports. \p Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend made that point repeatedly during the Committee’s deliberations. What has been especially welcome is how she consistently brings the perspective of local businesses in her Dudley constituency —the home of the industrial revolution, as we all know. She is right that, subject to consultation, in particular around the implications for the electric vehicle industry, rejoining the PEM convention could deliver us some rules of origin that would radically cut red tape for many businesses in her constituency and across our country. Frankly, it would also lower costs at a time when that is much needed. \p Harriett Baldwin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their extensive piece of work and for the report he has presented today. He mentions the wide range of different asks that the UK Government had and that he recommended that they pursue. Does he agree that it is disappointing that out of the areas that the UK wanted to achieve agreement on, movement for touring artists and participation in EU defence spending are left unagreed, while the UK Government seem to have agreed on and traded one of our most valuable areas in the negotiation: access to our fishing grounds? \p Liam Byrne: The hon. Lady will know, as I do, that although fisheries and the fishing industry constitutes quite a small part of our economy—about 0.04% of GDP—for many coastal communities it is a vital industry. Nevertheless, we felt—I certainly did—that the prize of an SPS agreement, which could be worth a huge boost of up to £3 billion to £4 billion a year according to Aston University and that allows for shellfish exports to the European market, was potentially a prize was worth having.

However, the hon. Lady is right to say that the biggest concern that we should have had was defence industrial co-operation. We cannot defend Europe in the way that we should, and we cannot spend the increases in our defence spending in the way that we should, unless we reorganise Europe’s fragmented defence industrial base. We cannot be stronger together unless we build that shared defence base together. I very much hope that we will hear of progress on that in the strategic defence review and the national security review when those strategies are presented to Parliament before the summer recess. \p Gregor Poynton: Our Committee’s report covered how we can help agrifood businesses export to the EU, and I was delighted to see Salmon Scotland and the National Farmers Union Scotland come out in support of the deal this week. Does my  right hon. Friend agree that it was baffling to see the SNP stand with Reform and the Tories in opposition to the deal? \p Liam Byrne: The consensus when we published the draft of our report was overwhelming, and the measures we proposed were backed by an enormous majority of business groups across the country, including groups across Scotland. What business saw was a practical, hard-headed, common-sense set of recommendations that should be supported by not only the Government but those in public life across our country. \p Charlie Maynard: I thank the right hon. Member for his leadership and hard work on the Committee. I welcome the move this week, and the set of aspirational statements of intent that go in the right direction. That is great, but does he agree that we should focus on the big stuff? Proportionately, the deal with India will get us 0.1% of GDP growth by 2040 and the American pact takes us to a position that is worse than where we were six months ago, so Europe is where it is at. Europe represents 45% of our trade versus 12% with the US, but of the beneficial 21 recommendations that the Committee set out, maybe five or six have been hit. The key thing is to go for the big stuff, such as being back inside the customs union. That would make a big difference. \p Liam Byrne: The report could not have been as well written or as strong and robust in its recommendations without the hon. Member’s input. We are grateful for the hard work he put into getting the report right. As he knows, a bespoke customs union was not a proposal we made, perhaps because it would not necessarily have swept up the Committee in unanimity. What is striking is that the measures set out in the report would have been significant enough to offset the economic damage we will suffer because of the tariffs introduced by President Trump. The hon. Member is right that in economic matters it is always wise to focus on the big numbers, and the big numbers in trade come from a better, closer, stronger relationship with the European Union. \p Christopher Bloore: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his report and his stewardship of the Committee. My inbox was full of emails from local businesses in Redditch, relieved that after years of hesitation and no progress we are finally in a dialogue with the EU about improving access for businesses. Does he agree that, as the report states, by continuously speaking to the EU we can finally start getting rid of the red tape, as was promised to businesses by many on the pro-Brexit side, and get proper access to the markets that world-leading companies in Redditch really should be able to access freely? \p Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend has consistently been a strong voice for the business community in Redditch since he joined us in the House. He is right that what has been lacking for a long time in the relationship with the European Union is the kinetic energy required to drive any bureaucracy forward.

A number of working groups were set up because of the trade and co-operation agreement. In a cross-party spirit, I should say it is important to note that the mood in Brussels changed significantly under the last Prime Minister, with the progress made in the Windsor framework.  However, unless significant amounts of political attention and energy are invested, things will not move forward, and there is still a long way to go. The Committee has set out in the report where some of that progress still needs to happen, but ultimately politics is what changes things. I hope that the political energy that went into Monday can be sustained for the future. \p John Cooper: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, whose tremendously adroit chairmanship of the Committee has allowed a lot of cross-party working, which has been really refreshing and very good. This is a moment of regret: the Committee did flag up how fragile coastal communities could be damaged badly by a multi-year deal on fishing, and the 12-year deal is beyond anything anybody imagined. It will hammer fragile communities right across Britain, and particularly in Scotland; that is unfortunate. Does he agree that achieving an SPS deal must be balanced with the deals with India, America and so forth that are coming down the tracks—I am sure the Committee will look at this—and that we must have due care for ensuring that the Brexit freedoms that allow us to strike those deals are not damaged? \p Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman is right. As we were composing the report for the House over the last few weeks, he consistently underlined the risks that coastal communities would confront if the deal were to go the wrong way. We are all incredibly grateful to him for the voice he provided

We must ensure that we enshrine certain standards that allow us to draw closer to Europe without compromising the alliances already coming into place and those that we still need to strike in order to restore our role as the great free trading nation on this planet. The way in which the Government seek to tessellate the agreement with the trade deal with the United States, with our leadership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, with the deal with India and with the deals that are still to come with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Korea and Switzerland needs to be very carefully balanced. It looks like the Government have just about got it right. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will want our Committee to keep an extremely close eye on that as the trade talks proceed. \p James Naish: I thank my right hon. Friend for this excellent report that is rooted in pragmatism and practical steps, which I know my constituents welcome. He has highlighted a gap—as he sees it, it is a first step —and there is a lot more to do. Will his Committee undertake to monitor the gap between what the Government have committed to and where he would like the Government to be, and will he and his Committee continue to make recommendations to the Government? \p Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The good news for the Minister is that he now has the scrutiny framework in front of him that the Committee will use to judge the progress that he makes over the course of this Parliament. There is a moment that is still to come for this Parliament, however. At some point—we are not quite sure when—scrubbed treaties will need to  be laid in this House. This House will then enjoy the grand total of 21 days during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process in which to scrutinise them. That is not very long. The Committee has therefore decided this week that we will open inquiries on the EU, India and United States deals. We will seek to hold hearings on each of those trade deals before the summer so that the House can be as well informed as possible when the CRaG process begins, and we can zero in on the issues that are at stake for our constituents. \p Richard Foord: I am grateful to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee for this thorough set of proposals, and especially for the call for a greater role for Parliament. The Committee red, amber and green-rated its 20 proposals and marked as green the UK-EU security pact. Yet the Prime Minister’s spokesman admitted:

“This is a first step towards UK participation in Europe’s defence investment progression”

and went on to say that it merely

“opens the door towards joint procurement.”

Will the Committee Chair acknowledge how much more there is to do before this amounts to a shared defence industrial base? \p Liam Byrne: The hon. Member is absolutely right. He knows, because of the extraordinary record of service that he brings to this House, that there is an immense amount of work that we still need to do to conquer the inefficiencies and fragmentation of the European defence industrial base. We cannot spend the money that we propose to spend on defence wisely unless we change the way that we procure military equipment. On the one hand, that will provide greater certainty and long-term contracts to defence suppliers and, on the other, it will help ensure that we are building an innovative ecosystem of funding to help smaller, innovative, nimble and agile suppliers of weaponry to come forward in the way that they can to ensure that the lessons that we have learned on the battlefields of Ukraine inform our military strategy in future.

If there is one lesson that we have learned, it is that any warfighting capability depends on the strength of our defence industrial base. Quite obviously, today’s defence industrial base in Europe is not in the right place, and together with our partners we have to work hard on that. I hope that the strategic defence review will set out some practical steps for how we will do that together with our allies in Europe. \p Andrew Murrison: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement and on the work of his Committee. Clearly, renewable energy is an important part of our relationship with the European Union. What opportunity did his Committee have to examine that and the trade of energy between the UK and the European Union, particularly in the light of the possibility in the near future of an interconnector between Morocco and the UK by way of the UK-Morocco Power Project, or Xlinks? He may know that if the UK does not greenlight that in the near future, other European countries certainly will. \p Liam Byrne: The right hon. Member is absolutely right to say that Morocco is a country that we should work more closely with. Xlinks is an exciting proposal.  As a stable, long-term partner to Europe, Morocco is a country with which we have a shared interest in the future.

The perspective that we brought to the question was on how we can ensure a faster, cheaper and less risky path to net zero for us and for Europe. We heard striking evidence from many in the electricity and energy sectors about almost the thoughtless way that we had been disconnected from electricity trading schemes. What really worried us in the near term was that, given different carbon prices in the UK and Europe, if Europe introduced a carbon border adjustment mechanism, and we did a little later on, almost a tariff wall would be created.

We think the Government have done well in seizing that win-win, but that is not to take anything away from the logic and force of the hon. Member’s remarks. Ultimately, we will need several big infrastructure initiatives if we are to do what we all know needs to be done in this country: to drive down industrial electricity prices. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Caroline Nokes: The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions must be directed to the Select Committee member and not the relevant Minister, and Front Benchers may take part in questioning. \p Peter Swallow: It is an honour to present to the House the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report into the Mental Health Bill. As Members will know, the Joint Committee is a cross-party body of both Houses, chaired by Lord Alton of Liverpool, whose remit is to examine matters relating to human rights within the UK, including through legislative scrutiny.

Over the course of our inquiry into the Bill, we have examined legal frameworks and witness submissions and, crucially, heard from those with direct experience of the mental health system. As part of our inquiry, the Committee convened a roundtable with individuals who had experienced detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. Their testimonies were powerful, candid and often harrowing. They spoke of the trauma of being sectioned, the overuse of medication and restraint, and the disempowerment from being detained in facilities that too often felt isolating rather than therapeutic.

Participants have since shared with us

“how important this visibility was to them, to see their evidence truly listened to and shared publicly”.

Hearing directly from people with lived experience was not just informative; it was essential. These conversations grounded our scrutiny in the realities faced by patients and families. The insights shared at that roundtable shaped our thinking and sharpened our final recommendations. As one participant told us:

“lived experience matters. Using it to inform policy should be the standard, not a shock.”

I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to the roundtable, often at the cost of revisiting past trauma. The Committee is also grateful for the expert work of the Committee’s legal counsel, particularly Alex Gask who led on this work, as well as Thiago Simoes Froio and Hafsa Saeed who led on the delivery of the roundtable event.

It became clear over the course of our scrutiny just how overdue the Mental Health Bill had become. It will introduce substantial changes to the Mental Health Act, which provides the legal framework for the detention and compulsory treatment of people with “mental disorders”—an outdated term, but one that remains part of our law. The changes introduced by the Bill will bring our mental health legislation into the 21st century, strengthen patient rights and help end practices that bring more harm than good.

When people hear about detention under the Mental Health Act, many instinctively think of those who have committed the most serious and violent crimes. They  picture high-security hospitals such as Broadmoor, which happens to be located in my constituency. I have had the opportunity to visit Broadmoor. The work they do there is outstanding; it is vital, world-leading work that deals with some of the most complex and challenging cases in psychiatric medicine.

Let us be clear, though: the reality of detention under the Mental Health Act is not limited to high-security hospitals or individuals convicted of serious crimes. Many people detained under the Act are not criminals. Many of them are children, young people and adults with autism or learning disabilities who are detained not because they pose a danger to others, but because the support they need in their communities simply is not there. This is not just inefficient, it can often be deeply traumatising and raises significant human rights concerns.

That is why the Committee welcomes the major changes introduced by the Government’s Bill. It will end the detention of individuals under section 3 of the Mental Health Act solely on the basis that they are autistic or have a learning disability; tighten the criteria for detention and require decision makers to consider the nature, degree and likelihood of harm before deciding to detain; introduce the concept of a nominated person to replace the outdated nearest relative system; and remove police stations and prisons as places of safety for individuals in crisis. As stated in the evidence we received from witnesses, those are important, welcomed and long-awaited reforms. They reflect the breadth of the Government’s consultations and prove that the Government listened to the information they received.

While welcoming the Bill’s direction of travel, the Committee believes that there are areas where the Government could go even further to provide enhanced protections for human rights. That is why, based on the evidence we received during the inquiry, we have recommended a few key amendments. First, we recommend a new clause to ensure that children detained under the Mental Health Act are accommodated on adult wards only when that is demonstrably in their best interests.

Secondly, we recommend an amendment to clause 1 to include equity as a fifth guiding principle under the Act. This would refer specifically to addressing inequalities in treatments and outcomes on racial grounds in particular, and I welcome the Health Secretary saying on Second Reading of the Bill on Monday:

“People from ethnic minority communities, especially black African and Caribbean men, are more than three times as likely to be sectioned.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 783.]

In our report, we find that adding equity as a guiding principle would do more to address racial disparities.

Thirdly, we recommend an amendment to clause 32 to shorten the review periods for restricted patients who are discharged into conditions amounting to the deprivation of liberty. The first review will be required within six months, rather than 12, and subsequent reviews will take place annually, rather than every two years.

Those key amendments come amid a range of other recommendations. Recent case law shows that mental health patients in state-commissioned and funded but privately provided care do not come within the protection of the Human Rights Act. That loophole must be closed, and we recommend that the Government do just that.

We also heard evidence that the question of when the Mental Health Act and when the Mental Capacity Act should govern a patient’s deprivation of liberty and treatment is far too complex and raises human rights concerns, not least because depriving a person of their liberty on any ground can be justified only if the legal basis is clear. We therefore recommend that the Government carry out an urgent review and provide the clarity that is currently lacking on this question.

Another crucial area the Bill covers is the rights of children, who are particularly vulnerable when assessed or treated under the Mental Health Act. Many of the proposed changes to the law will be positive for children, including the introduction of an opt-out approach to receiving a report from independent mental health advocates, but we recommend that the Government consult on introducing a statutory test for assessing whether under-16s are competent to consent or to refuse consent to treatment—a cornerstone of compliance with a child’s human rights.

The Committee also deems it vital that prisoners whose mental health makes holding them in prison unsuitable are transferred promptly to an appropriate setting. Keeping them in prison may result in human rights breaches. In our report, we welcome the introduction in the Bill of a statutory 28-day timeframe for hospital transfer. Relevant data should be collected and made available to monitor and help to ensure compliance with that standard.

The Committee welcomes changes to restriction orders placed on a small number of offenders detained under a hospital order, but the Government should consider introducing more prompt and regular reviews by the mental health tribunal, to ensure that any loss of liberty is justified. Witnesses told us that, in the absence of effective support in the community, autistic people and people with learning disabilities could still end up in unjustified detention on other legal bases. The Government have stated that the change in the Bill will come into force only where there are strong community services in place, but it is vital that this does not delay the much-needed reform. We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to provide a written ministerial statement annually to both Houses of Parliament setting out progress to date on implementation. On what more the Bill could do to improve the prospects of patients receiving timely care in the community, we also ask the Government to consider introducing an English equivalent to the right to a mental health assessment that applies in Wales.

The report makes it clear that much more is needed to fix the broken mental health system in this country, and I know the Government recognise that as well. This is a small, targeted Bill, which will not change everything, but the changes it will introduce are significant and long overdue. The Government have committed to introducing mental health experts in every school, to set up Young Futures hubs and to recruit 8,500 more mental health staff. By focusing on community-based interventions and driving down waiting lists for mental health support alongside the welcome changes in the Bill, we can turn the tide and fix our broken mental health system, so that the human rights of all those with mental health needs are properly protected and they can get the support they need.

I commend this report to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Luke Evans: I commend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) and his Committee for the report. We on the Opposition Benches will be looking favourably at it, especially as the Bill goes into Committee. I have one technical question. He talked about restraint for people who have autism and learning disabilities. Currently, the timetable for working out whether they have a mental health disorder or it is related to their condition is 28 days. Did his Committee look at that from a human rights perspective, to see whether it is the right time in which to make that assessment? \p Peter Swallow: We did look at whether the process for assessing people was appropriate, and that issue came up. It is one where the individual’s human rights are exercised, and we must strike a careful balance between the need to protect them and those around them and to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is only ever a last resort. Off the top of my head, I seem to remember that the report finds that the balance currently struck is appropriate, albeit it is one that the Government should look at. If I have got that wrong, I will happily correct the record. \p Christopher Bloore: I congratulate the hon. Member on his Committee’s report. I was really interested in the point he made about an English equivalent to the right to a mental health assessment in Wales. With admissions to acute mental health settings increasing year by year, does he agree that it could drastically improve admissions if we were to introduce such equivalence for England and did not wait until a crisis point for people—particularly young people—to get the support they need? \p Peter Swallow: My hon. Friend makes a really good point. It is vital, as we have seen across health, education and the justice system, that we get back to having a laser-like focus on early intervention, because we know that the earlier we intervene, the better it is for all involved. As he suggests, improving our mental health system through the measure recommended in the report would mean that we do not get to a crisis point where individuals have to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Instead, community support, which we know works when it is there, can be used to provide these individuals with the help they need. \p Richard Foord: I am grateful to the Joint Committee for this report. I note the Committee’s call for

“more prompt and regular reviews by the Mental Health Tribunal.”

The basis for that call is compliance with the individual’s right to liberty, but does the hon. Member agree that regular reviews by the tribunal are also in the interests of the families and neighbours of mental health patients, given how disruptive and upsetting it can be for them to have patients living in the community? \p Peter Swallow: Absolutely. We heard through our reporting of families being in real distress, particularly where a child is in treatment and where treatment is happening a long way away from where the family lives, making access to the family member even more difficult. The hon. Member’s point is really important. Of course, our Committee was scrutinising this Bill through the lens of human rights, though it was important to us, as I said in my statement, that we hear from those with lived experience of the mental health system to inform our recommendations. He makes a powerful point. \p Melanie Onn: I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to NHS dentistry.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate and the colleagues who supported that application. I am pleased that many Members want to speak and am aware of the limitations on time, so I will keep my remarks brief.

During the general election, Labour promised to tackle the lack of NHS dental services, and I welcome the progress already made in the Labour Government’s first 10 months. After 14 years of neglect we are finally starting to see action to address the crisis in NHS dental care, including the launch of 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments, with my own integrated care board in Humber and North Yorkshire delivering 27,196 of them across the region.

This Government are rightly focusing on prevention by rolling out much-needed supervised tooth-brushing schemes in schools. That is a small intervention with long-term benefits, particularly for children growing up in areas like mine where levels of tooth decay are among the highest in England. Currently, one in three five-year-olds in deprived areas experience tooth decay—a shocking statistic that simply must be addressed.

Over 260,000 people have signed a petition led by the British Dental Association, the Women’s Institute and the Daily Mirror calling on the Government to urgently deliver on their promise to reform NHS dentistry, and the demand could not be more urgent. Catherine, one of many constituents who has written to me about dental provision, had been with her dentist for over a decade but during the pandemic a missed appointment—a simple missed appointment that was cancelled by the surgery itself—saw her removed from her regular appointments, and she has since been unable to join another practice, being told that waiting lists would take at least two years. In the meantime she suffered devastating deterioration to her oral health, losing all of her back teeth, suffering with an infected crown and bridge, and facing the real fear of losing her top teeth too; and Catherine is only in her 40s. She was quoted £14,000 privately for treatment. She simply cannot afford that. She has had to endure constant pain that no one should be left to bear.

Constituents regularly tell me that they cannot find an NHS dentist taking new patients. They are calling every single practice listed on the NHS website and they are getting nowhere. People are living in pain, they are missing work and their mental health is suffering. Some people are even attempting their own dental work, and we cannot allow that to become the norm.

The desire for action is also supported by dental practices in my constituency. One of them told me:

“We’re seeing high-need patients we’ve never treated before, often for complex work—but we’re doing this using the same budget we’ve had for years.”

In fact, some of the new urgent care and schools-based initiatives are not additionally funded. The BDA’s most recent figures show that dentists in England are delivering the least NHS care of all four UK nations: only 39% of dentists in England are spending most of their time on  NHS work, compared with nearly 60% in Scotland. Practices are delivering NHS treatments at a loss: they lose over £42 for every denture fitted and nearly £8 for every new patient they see.

This Labour Government pledged to reform the dental contract: it was in our manifesto; it was part of the plan that we were elected on. I welcome the early signs of recovery, but when we say that we want to go further, faster, it is precisely on issues like this that the public are looking to Government to deliver.

In Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes and across the nation we are privileged to have so many dedicated dental professionals. Tomorrow I am visiting Dental Design Studio to celebrate its 20 years of high-quality dental care provision in Cleethorpes. It is a real credit to the team there who have delivered consistent care to local people, often under increasing strain. And our young people are not forgotten locally: thanks to the commitment of Dr Jatinder Ubhi from Dentology, multiple young people in my constituency have received essential dental support.

We must not let dentistry become a luxury service only for those who can afford to go private. We need a new approach that is fair, that funds dentists properly, and that delivers accessible care to everyone who needs it. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Because so many Members wish to contribute and we have to conclude by 5 pm, we will have a time limit of three minutes starting from now. I call Sir Julian Lewis, who I think can manage that—I think you can do it. \p Julian Lewis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that no-pressure introduction. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her speech and I agree with every part of it. I was hoping to quote from individual cases raised by constituents and from the local Women’s Institute, but all that will have to go by the board.

I have a wonderful briefing from the British Dental Association and, in the remaining two and a half minutes, I would like to make one pertinent observation, from which everything else flows. Dentistry is a highly skilled profession in which practitioners can charge colossal sums of money in private practice, which gives them a financial incentive to steer clear of working for the NHS. That is the root of the problem.

On 13 March, I put a question to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about a point made by the Darzi report, last September, which says:

“There are enough dentists in England, just not enough dentists willing to do enough NHS work, which impacts provision for the poorest in society.”

I was pleasantly surprised when his reply was:

“NHS dentistry is in a terrible state and, in fact, in many parts of the country it barely exists. There are lots of reasons for that, and it is a source of constant astonishment to me that the dentistry budget was underspent year after year despite that situation.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1298.]

In reality, as the BDA points out, the reason why that budget is underspent is not because of the lack of demand, but because NHS practices cannot fill vacancies and are unable to meet contractual commitments. Therefore,  those who do work with and for the NHS are having to deliver dental care at a loss. There is a fundamental requirement for a rewritten constitution and contract by which it becomes worthwhile for people to practice dentistry in the NHS, because otherwise we will see a two-tier society, in which only the rich can get the dental care that people so desperately need. \p Irene Campbell: When the NHS was introduced, it made the biggest positive changes ever to the health of the general population. The original “How to use your NHS” booklet from 1948 stated:

“It will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone—rich or poor, man, woman or child—can use it or any part of it.”

On the topic of dentistry, it said:

“After 5th July you can go to any dentist taking part in the new arrangements (there will be a list at your Post Office).”

At that time, 83% of registered dentists signed up to work in the NHS. Currently, in England, approximately 66% are signed up to work in the NHS, a significant reduction since the early days that demonstrates a clear barrier to access.

As a former NHS manager in Scotland, I have seen the importance of early intervention when it comes to health inequalities, particularly in dentistry. Scotland too has an access crisis, with decreasing numbers of NHS participating dentists. Naturally, those lower levels of participation affect patient access to NHS dental services, and dentists lose the chance to pick up early signs of decay, cancers and other serious issues, which results in higher costs for the NHS and worse outcomes for patients.

Additionally, children and adults from the most deprived areas were less likely than their wealthier counterparts to have seen their dentist within the last two years. Recent statistics from Public Health Scotland showed that 55.9% of children from the most deprived areas have seen their dentist in the last two years, compared with 75.8% for children in the least deprived areas. Those figures drop to 42.7% and 53.5% for adults.

In September 2008, the gap in child participation between the most and least deprived areas was three percentage points. That increased to seven percentage points by 2010, 18 percentage points in 2021, and then 20 percentage points in 2023. We cannot let that continue. As oral health inequalities continue to grow, it is important that our NHS strategy involves a focus on increasing participation and access in more deprived areas. Otherwise, we will continue to see further such worrying trends, which cause more serious problems further down the line. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Ben Maguire. [Interruption.] I call Dr Andrew Murrison. \p Andrew Murrison: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I prefer Ben— I have never enjoyed Andrew—but Andrew will do.

Quite honestly, NHS dentists are saints. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has said, the reason why we do not have any  NHS dentists is that it is far more remunerative to do expensive dental work than the sort of grinding service work that NHS dentistry implies. The reason for that, fundamentally, is the so-called new dental contract introduced in 2006. That is the problem. Units of dental activity have plagued the dental profession and the provision of NHS dentistry all these years.

I am delighted that the Government are revising the dental contract that their Labour predecessor introduced 20 years ago, but, unless they are prepared to underwrite it, I am afraid that we will still be more or less in the same position. It is not as if we are not training dentists—we are training more and more dentists and there are more and more dental schools, and rightly so—but if those professionals are going to practice in the NHS, they need to be incentivised to do so. \p Sam Rushworth: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the 2006 NHS dentistry contract, which clearly needed revision. Why did his party not do that in 14 years in government? \p Andrew Murrison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has destroyed the consensual way in which I was trying to introduce my remarks.

If I may, I will explain that I think there has been a conspiracy of silence all these years on NHS dentistry. What Government have to get to grips with is whether they intend that dentistry should continue to be a universal part of our NHS and whether it will be exempted from the universality that has characterised the provision of healthcare services in this country since 1948.

The Government could decide that dentistry is a bit like ophthalmic optics, which in the 1940s was deliberately excluded from NHS provision. I am not recommending that, but I am recommending to the Minister that we are at least honest with the public. At the moment, we have this pretence around NHS dentistry that says, “Of course you have the right to have your teeth fixed at no cost to you at all up front.” In reality, in most parts of the country, mine included, that is a complete fiction.

When the Government come to their new arrangements, which I welcome very much, can we first have some honesty? Can we have some money behind them? Can we have some idea about what part of current NHS provision the Government intend to deprioritise, if that is their intention, to ensure that we have truly universal provision of NHS dentistry going forward? \p Claire Hazelgrove: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this debate.

Today marks a year since the general election was called. Over the two-and-a-half years before then, I was out knocking on doors and listening to people across the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency, as I still do almost every weekend. One of the issues raised with me the most was how hard it had become to find and keep an NHS dentist. Listening and acting on what matters locally, I took that campaign up. I raised those local issues with the then shadow Health Secretary, who kindly raised them here in the House of Commons for us before the election. Still there was no change from the Conservatives, who voted against Labour’s plans to rescue NHS dentistry and, remarkably, continued to do nothing.

Conservative failure is far from a deterrent. I ran a survey asking local people what their experiences were— I thank fellow residents who took the time to complete it—and the findings were clear. Only 31% of those who completed my survey had an NHS dentist, but almost everyone without an NHS dentist—97%—wanted one. Notably, 65% of those without an NHS dentist said that it was because theirs went private, and nearly all respondents—94%—agreed that Labour’s plans to open up 700,000 more urgent appointments a year where they are most needed would help. Still no action came from the Conservatives, and local people voted for change.

My very first question in this House was about ensuring we have the right infrastructure as our communities grow, including dentists. Living locally, I know how challenging this has become—I do not have an NHS dentist, either. While receiving official designation as a dental desert is not something anyone wants for their community, I am relieved that we finally have a Government who recognise the challenges we face. This Labour Government’s action means that across our integrated care board area we will now have an extra 19,000 urgent NHS dental appointments, and I know this will be just the beginning. The Government will reform the dental contract and examine how we can encourage more dentists to stay within the NHS, getting us back to that place where people can again pop that dentist’s appointment back on the calendar, whether they like going or not.

I will not stand for a future where as many as six in 10 children have rotting teeth by the age of five, as they do in the Britain we have inherited. I will not stand for a future where the most common reason why children are admitted to hospital is tooth decay, as it is in the Britain we have inherited. I will continue to campaign for good access to NHS dentists across my community for as long as it takes, and I am glad to finally have a Government who I can work with—rather than have to fight against—to get the NHS dental services we need locally. \p John Milne: Since being elected to represent Horsham, I have been approached by many residents facing impossible prices for urgent dental treatment. Annie is 67 and caring for a husband with terminal bowel cancer. You would think that she has enough things to worry about, but given the state of dental services in the Horsham area, she has been unable to find an NHS dentist within a 20-mile radius. Forced to go private, she paid £80 for an assessment and was then quoted £150 for an extraction. She asks simply:

“When will an alternative to private dentistry be available?”

I also heard from Sally. Her family were denied NHS root canal treatment, with an £800 private option as the only alternative. She asks:

“How can we trust their advice when it feels like it’s all about the money?”

Of course, this is a crisis not of dentists, but of dentistry. The NHS contract—based as it is on units of dental activity—is simply no longer fit for purpose, if it ever was. The conflict of interest between public and private is the result of more and more dentists being forced to subsidise their NHS contracts through private work. The Government have committed to providing  more support and more urgent appointments, but it is hard to get enough new employees through the front door when so many continue to leave by the back door.

In the area covered by my local integrated care board, there are more people leaving than joining across many key dental roles. Over a six-month period to the end of March last year, there were 41 general dentists in and 43 out; one orthodontist in and two out; 48 dental nurses in and 60 out; and 48 receptionists in and 54 out. In fact, five out of nine roles in dentists’ clinics have been losing staff faster than they can get new ones. The result is ever-declining access to NHS dental services, with children losing their teeth before they even reach the age of 10 and the horror stories of do-it-yourself dental treatment.

I will leave the House with the words of the West Sussex local dental committee, which contacted me just weeks after my election last year regarding the NHS dental contract. Its warning was simple:

“If we don’t act quickly, there may be very little NHS left to adopt a new NHS contract.”

I accept that the present Government were not responsible for causing this problem, but they are responsible for fixing it. \p Ben Goldsborough: A crisis has unfolded in Norfolk, quietly but painfully; a crisis that we can afford to ignore no longer. It is the urgent and worsening state of NHS dentistry. Just 33.6% of adults in Norfolk have seen an NHS dentist over the past two years, well below the national average of 40%. For children the picture is even worse: only 42.7% have been seen, compared with 55% nationally. A&E visits due to dental problems are rising—in the east of England, there have been 152.6 visits per 100,000 people. That is worse than London, the south-east and the midlands. The only region doing worse than us is the south-west.

We now have just 328 dentists in Norfolk and Waveney with any NHS activity, down from 423 in 2019. That is one dentist for every 3,177 people. One of my constituents recently rang 111 with a swollen face from an infected tooth. They contacted six emergency dentists but could not be seen by a single one. They were forced to go private, paying more than £1,000. That simply is not good enough in a modern society. \p Luke Murphy: My hon. Friend is setting out eloquently why we need to improve dentistry. Does he agree that today’s access crisis is the result of a decade of underfunding and contract failure? In Basingstoke, as in his constituency, two thirds of adults and nearly half of children did not see a dentist last year. Does he believe this goes beyond a postcode lottery and is in fact a systemic failure? \p Ben Goldsborough: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point—as though he had read the next part of my speech.

The Secretary of State has described our area as the Sahara of dental deserts. I agree, but we need more than just a diagnosis; we need solutions. I urge the Government to invest in a new dental school in the Edith Cavell medical campus in south Norfolk. We need to train dentists where they are needed and keep them there. I also encourage all dentists to complete the Government’s  new survey before 16 June. Insight must lead to reform, starting with the broken NHS dental contract. Norfolk has been taken for granted for too long. Our county is ready for change, and I know that my hon. Friends will work together to deliver it, because only by working together can we unlock the dental revolution that we need across Norfolk. \p Alison Griffiths: It is an honour to speak in this debate and to raise the plight of my constituents, some of whom are struggling in silence, pain and frustration, simply trying to access basic NHS dental care. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing the debate, and I share her views on pretty much everything she has said, but in particular the wider impact of poor dentistry on A&E, the NHS more widely and cardiac health.

I have many constituents’ testimony to refer to today. Let me begin with the real story of a person who has worked tirelessly her entire life. Now, due to long covid, she is housebound and dependent. When she missed a single NHS dental appointment due to illness, she was removed from the list. She has since been unable to find another NHS dentist. When an infection struck, she waited a week for emergency care at St Richard’s hospital, and she is not alone.

In 2023, only 24.7% of adults in the south-east were seen by an NHS dentist in the previous two years—the second-lowest rate in England. In some areas, fewer than one in five adults have been able to access NHS dentistry. The Government have announced recent steps, with 26,546 additional urgent care dental appointments for Sussex—a rise from 245 to 455 a week. We have a £20,000 golden hello relocation incentive to attract dentists to underserved areas. Some 17 of those posts have been approved for Sussex. I welcome those steps, but they are not enough.

The Dental Defence Union and the Public Accounts Committee have made it clear, as have other colleagues, that the NHS contract is broken. It disincentivises dentists from treating those patients with the greatest needs. In 2022, 91% of dentists surveyed felt worn out, and 84% reported burnout. They are walking away from NHS dentistry not out of disinterest, but because the system is unsustainable. How many of the urgent contracts are now available, and when will real contract reform take place? \p Jo Platt: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing the debate.

For far too long, people across the country have struggled to access NHS dental care, and I have heard heartbreaking stories in my constituency. One constituent has struggled to find an NHS dentist, which has left him without access to the dentures he needs. He told me:

“All I want is to return to work as I have always worked but having no upper teeth is holding me back as I am so embarrassed.”

Poor dental health should not be a barrier to individuals returning to work, and my constituent’s situation is unacceptable. It simply should not happen.

However, there are glimmers of hope. This Government’s announcement of 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments is a vital step forward, and nearly 18,000 of those appointments will be delivered in Greater Manchester, including for residents in Leigh and Atherton, who have been waiting for far too long. It is a sign of intent and a recognition that action is overdue, but for all this to work we need the workforce in place, and that is where the challenge remains.

Railway Road dental practice in Leigh has been trying to replace a senior dentist for nearly nine years. Despite advertising, there has been no interest. It is a clear sign that practices, particularly in areas of high deprivation, need better support to attract and retain staff. The Government’s golden hello scheme is a smart move, as it offers financial incentives to bring dentists into the areas that need them most. Through the NHS long-term workforce plan, we are increasing dental training places by 40%.

As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, we must acknowledge the people who have kept NHS dentistry going through difficult times. I pay tribute to Mr Dobranski, a local dentist who has given 53 years of his life to the NHS. His service to the people of Leigh is nothing short of remarkable, and I sincerely thank him for it.

Yes, the challenge is big, but I am encouraged by the steps being taken. The extra appointments, the investment in the workforce and the renewed focus on prevention are all signs that we are finally facing up to the crisis. \p Edward Morello: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on securing the debate. I was delighted to be able to support her application, because this issue deeply affects my constituents.

Dentistry is in crisis nationally, and nowhere is that felt more so than in rural communities such as West Dorset. In my constituency we have just 15 dental practices offering any form of NHS dental care, serving a population of more than 94,000. \p Rachel Gilmour: I have to confess that I rather envy my hon. Friend for having 15 dental practices, as I have a mere nine. In fact, as became evident in the Public Accounts Committee inquiry, which I attended as a Committee member, Minehead has fewer dentists than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is really important that we carry on lobbying the integrated care boards, because they can give out contracts. \p Edward Morello: I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency suffers from a lot of the same issues as West Dorset, given their similarity.

The consequences of the lack of NHS dental care are stark: only 36% of adults in West Dorset have seen a dentist in the past two years, and just 50% of children have had a dental appointment in that time—an alarming 9% lower than in 2019. I know that the Government have announced a rescue plan to provide 700,000 more urgent dental appointments and to recruit new dentists to the areas that need them most. That is welcome news, but how exactly are the areas with the most need being assessed? What specific provisions are being made to  ensure that rural areas such as West Dorset, where the population density is low but unmet demand is high, are not left behind once again? \p Steve Darling: In Devon we have a budget of £377,000 to recruit new dentists. Sadly, only two of the 22 dentists have actually been recruited. Does my hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that the Conservatives’ golden hello scheme has completely failed, and that we desperately need a new contract now? \p Edward Morello: My hon. Friend is right that a lot of this comes down to the funding model. When funding is allocated under the current model, it is always rural communities that lose out. I ask that the rurality of places such as West Dorset be recognised in both the workplace planning and the resource allocation, because the south-west has the highest rate of dental-related A&E visits—217 per 100,000 people. That is one in every 460 people turning to emergency care because they cannot get an NHS dentist’s appointment. Preventable oral health issues are flooding our hospitals because we have failed to resource our community dental services.

The Government have made some minor tweaks to the dysfunctional NHS contract, which is welcome, but morale is at an all-time low. Over 60% of dentists in England are thinking of leaving the NHS all together. The current contract often leaves dentists losing money on every NHS patient they see—for example, a typical dentist loses £42.60 per denture fitted. That is unsustainable, and it is time to reform the system as a whole, because change cannot wait. I ask the Government to come forward with a clear timeline for negotiating on contract reform, and to properly support integrated care boards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) said, with ringfenced funding for dental services.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive dental rescue package that would guarantee access to an NHS dentist for everyone in need of urgent or emergency care. It would also ensure NHS dental check-ups for those already eligible, including children, pregnant women, new mothers and people on low incomes. In addition, the package would guarantee that anyone beginning chemotherapy, undergoing a transplant or facing critical treatment receives the essential dental assessments that they need beforehand.

I would like the Government to reverse the cuts to public health grants, which have fallen by 26% in real terms since 2015, to restore funding for preventive oral health programmes, to expand supervised toothbrushing for children in schools and nurseries, and to scrap the VAT on children’s toothbrushes and toothpaste. I ask the Government to act now. On behalf of my constituents and all rural communities, I ask that communities such as mine in West Dorset are not treated as an afterthought in the funding model, but are given priority. \p Linsey Farnsworth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this vital debate. This issue touches on every community, but I will focus on how the crisis is playing out in my constituency.

Amber Valley has less than a quarter of the national average number of NHS dentists per 100,000 people. When I speak to residents on the doorstep and in my surgeries, I hear the same heartbreaking stories from people in pain who are unable to access an NHS appointment. Some have become so desperate that they have resorted to pulling out their own teeth. During my campaign, I made a promise to the people of Amber Valley to fight for better access to NHS dental care, and that remains my most urgent pledge. We do have a handful of dedicated, hard-working dentists who are maintaining NHS patient lists against difficult odds—dentists such as Dr Nadia Duarte at Amber Valley dental practice—but most surgeries simply do not have the resources to keep their NHS lists open. This puts huge pressure on the few that do, with waiting lists stretching over two years. Simply put, anyone is extremely lucky to get an NHS appointment in Amber Valley.

Amber Valley dentists have told me that our surgeries received the lowest payment per NHS treatment when compared with neighbouring constituencies. This has made it almost impossible to recruit and retain the quality NHS staff we need. I took this up with the Derbyshire integrated care board, saying not just that this was unfair, but that it had created a crisis of health inequality for Amber Valley. I am grateful that it listened and acted. We have secured an additional £240,000 to address this underpayment, allow our surgeries in Amber Valley to take on more NHS staff and make it easier for us to get the NHS appointments we need. It is a real win for Amber Valley, but nothing less than my constituents deserve, although it is only a small part of the solution and one that will take time to bear fruit. That is why I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to 700,000 additional emergency NHS dental appointments each year, and I urge my constituents to access one of the 16,298 such appointments in Derbyshire.

I promised the people of Amber Valley that I would speak up for them and fight for the dental care that should be their right, so although I am grateful for the progress the Government have made so far, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister: please, let us go further and faster so that no one in Amber Valley has to suffer without the dental care they need. \p Claire Young: I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for introducing this debate.

Thornbury and Yate is a dental desert. According to a recent newspaper report, not a single dentist in Thornbury and Yate is taking on new NHS patients for the third year in a row, leaving people having to travel long distances for care, or forced to pay for private treatment. I am sure, as a fellow south-west MP, the Minister will be as concerned as I am to hear that in September 2024 the NHS dental activity delivery rate was lowest in the south-west, at 61.6%, compared to the highest in London, at 94.7%. Not surprisingly, in the south-west, around one in every 460 people had to be taken to A&E with a dental problem in 2023-24. That was substantially higher than in London, where the figure was only one in every 860 people. The area covered by the NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire integrated care board is the worst of all worlds, with fewer dentists,  adjusted for population size, and lower dental activity delivery rates alongside higher numbers of A&E visits with dental problems.

I want to highlight two cases that show the impact that is having on vulnerable people. One constituent wrote:

“Despite contacting more than a dozen dental practices in and around South Gloucestershire and Bristol, I have been told by every single surgery that no NHS appointments are available. However, I have been offered private appointments if I am willing to pay…The situation is even more distressing as my wife is currently pregnant and requires urgent dental care, which is crucial for her health and that of our unborn child. Pregnant women are entitled to free NHS dental care, yet this right is rendered meaningless when no NHS appointments are available.”

Another constituent wrote to me: a cancer patient who needed major dental treatment ahead of intense radiotherapy. Bristol dental hospital advised them they would need lifelong follow-up care, but during covid that treatment was stopped and they were discharged back to their NHS dentist. Soon after—surprise, surprise—the practice ceased to provide NHS dentistry and they could not find another, so they were forced to pay for their essential treatment. \p Charlie Maynard: There seems to be a consensus across the House that the NHS dental contract is broken. That is the consensus across the country as well, including in my constituency. If there is one thing we can get out of the debate today, it is a timeline to which the Government will commit to fixing the situation and to bringing legislation before the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that would be of benefit? \p Claire Young: I do. We also need solutions for people like my constituent in the meantime; they have already had to pay £1,400 for treatment and they face another £2,000-worth of work to be able to eat normally. That is a stiff fee when you are reliant on personal independence payment and your spouse’s pension. My constituent feels that they have nowhere to turn.

To sum up, patients like my constituents deserve access to an NHS dentist. We need an emergency scheme to guarantee access to free NHS dental check-ups for those already eligible: children; new mothers; those who, like my constituent’s wife, are pregnant; and those on low incomes. We need a dental rescue package that brings dentists back into the NHS from the private sector by fixing the dental contract and using flexible commissioning to meet patients’ needs in the meantime. \p Chris Webb: Anyone who has had severe toothache knows the unbearable agony. In those moments, it feels like there is nothing worse. But imagine watching your four-year-old child suffer that same pain and being told that he cannot be helped. That was the reality for my constituent, Louise. A single mum, Louise got in touch with me when she was at breaking point. She had to watch her son suffer through constant distress: crying in agony, unable to sleep and refusing his food. When she managed to see an emergency dentist, she was told he would need between four and eight teeth extracted under local anaesthetic, but the wait time for that procedure was up to two years. Louise was left with no choice but to manage her son’s pain with daily Calpol and ibuprofen. That is not healthcare—it is abandonment.

Sadly, Louise’s story is not rare. In my constituency of Blackpool South, people are being driven to desperate measures. They are turning up at A&E in agony because they cannot get dental appointments. Some are even resorting to pulling out their own teeth at home—DIY dentistry in 21st-century Britain. NHS dentistry was left to decay under the previous Government. I stood over there on the Opposition Benches one year ago today, highlighting the problems we have in Blackpool. In Blackpool South, just 34% of adults have seen an NHS dentist in the last two years. That is a sharp fall from over 50% a few years ago and well below the national average. Only 45% of children were seen in the past year—a figure that is lower than almost anywhere else in England.

People living in poverty are most at risk of poor dental health, and in my constituency, poverty is a daily reality for so many. Children’s tooth decay is one of the clearest signs of how deep this crisis runs. In Blackpool, one in five three-year-olds and nearly one in three five-year-olds have visible dental decay—among the highest rates in the country. Behind every number is a child missing class because of dental pain, and a parent like Louise who feels helpless; all this in a town that already faces some of the deepest health inequalities in the country.

I am pleased that the Government have rolled out 700,000 more urgent dentist appointments, and I know the Government are committed to recruiting new dentists in areas that need them most, like Blackpool. I welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming the dental contract, but I urge them to act now. The BDA points out that a reformed service will not work if there is no workforce left by the time it is finally introduced. The sector needs a clear timetable for negotiations, a firm deadline for a new system and a sustainable funding model. The Government need to build a system not on crisis care, but on prevention and early access, and it has never been more urgent.

People in Blackpool South are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking for treatment—and the simple assurance that toothache will not become trauma. \p Steffan Aquarone: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this debate—the application for which I was pleased to support.

I would like to tell the House about Philip, who wrote to me, in his own words, in “desperation”. He is a proud armed forces veteran and was recovering from a recent surgery for lung cancer when he suffered a fall, which caused him to lose a number of his teeth. After his maxillofacial surgery, he was horrified to discover that there were no dentists taking NHS patients near him, and his previous dentist had simply removed him from their system. He needed dentures—not just for cosmetic reasons, but to be able to eat proper meals—and was facing a future without any of this support.

Cases like Philip’s will ring true, I am sure, for far too many people here, and indeed across my constituency. I am pleased to say that in this instance, my team and I got straight on the case and were able to help Philip to secure an NHS appointment with a local dentist earlier this week. We look forward to seeing him with a full  smile again soon. However, we cannot do that for the two thirds of my constituents who are not seeing an NHS dentist, and nor should we have to. We need to fix the broken system that is letting down people in North Norfolk.

One exciting prospect on the horizon is the establishment of a dental school at the University of East Anglia, as my near neighbour, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), has already mentioned. The school has support from Members of all parties in Norfolk, and we are excited for Norfolk to start training and placing its own dentists in the coming years. However, the University of East Anglia needed funding for places from the Government confirmed before 2 May in order to appear in the UCAS applications for students beginning in September 2026, but the Treasury has demanded that any such spending not be confirmed until the spending review in a few weeks’ time. For the sake of less than six weeks of bureaucracy, my constituents face yet another full year of delay.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that it was confirmed this week that Cromer will have an expanded dental practice that will take on new NHS patients. The Lib Dem-led North Norfolk district council has worked to secure a new lease with the Dental Design Studio on the former tourist information centre. The new practice will have five surgeries, all at ground level to improve accessibility. After years of decline, we may finally be seeing the green shoots of improvement in North Norfolk’s part of the dental desert.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to stand up for everyone who has struggled with our crumbling system over the past few years—for people like Philip, for the many children facing tooth decay, for all those on waiting lists and for those forced to fork out for private treatment. Things must improve, and they can. I will be fighting hard to ensure that they do. \p Lizzi Collinge: NHS dentistry has been a recurring theme for me both before the election and since, as I know is true for most colleagues, which is why this Labour Government have made it a priority. However, we are starting from a very difficult place.

Let me set out just how bad the situation is in Morecambe and Lunesdale. Last year, I knocked on the door of a man in Morecambe who had lost most of his teeth because he did not have access to dental care. Just yesterday, a constituent wrote to me asking me to speak in this debate. She and her husband travel more than 80 miles four times a year just to see their NHS dentist. They are retired and cannot afford to go private, and, like many older people, they need regular and more complex care. We do not have to look far to see the root of the problem—so to speak. Dentists have been telling us for years that the NHS dental contract is not fit for purpose. The contract creates perverse incentives. Dentists are discouraged from treating the patients who need them the most. I appreciate that this is partly because  in the ’90s and early ’00s, the contract incentivised the over-treating of patients, but now the pendulum has swung back too far the other way, and we have to find a balanced approach.

Dental decay is one of the leading causes of hospital admissions in children. In 2023, over 30,000 children ended up in hospital needing their teeth removed. \p Paulette Hamilton: The Government have an historic commitment to prevention. Birmingham Erdington is one of the youngest constituencies in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must continue to build on supervised brushing and targeted fluoride applications in early years settings to protect the youngsters? \p Lizzi Collinge: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Prevention is always better than cure. When I sat on Lancashire county council’s health scrutiny committee, we took evidence that showed that things such as supervised brushing and help with fluoride were some of the most cost-effective interventions, and they could prevent the horror of 30,000 children going into hospital for preventable tooth removal.

Dental health has become a stark marker of inequality. Without ongoing care and access to that preventive care, children in less well-off families are more likely to suffer worsening dental problems.

The contract was a major problem. It locked in those perverse incentives, but the situation was then worsened by over a decade of neglect of all areas of public health under the previous Government. Too many families do not go to the dentist until it is too late and it is very expensive, so we need those preventive measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington spoke about and we need access to NHS dentists. We know that if people are not able to go to the dentist, it means they turn up at A&E, but they are sent away with painkillers and antibiotics, and that does not fulfil their needs.

I am pleased that our Government are taking this issue seriously. I am pleased that we recognise the scale of the problem, and I am pleased that we are taking action not only on NHS dentistry, but on preventive care. We owe it to families in Morecambe and Lunesdale and across the country to fix this broken system. We need a dental contract that actually works, fair funding for local services and access to care that is available when people need it. \p Caroline Voaden: NHS dentistry is in crisis, and South Devon is no exception. According to the Nuffield Trust, it is now at

“its most perilous point in its 75-year history.”

Parents are pulling out their children’s teeth at home. Pensioners are travelling abroad for basic dental treatment. Hundreds of people in the dental desert of South Devon have simply given up hope of ever seeing an NHS dentist again.

Last year, 13 million adults across the country could not get an NHS dental appointment—more than one in four. In my constituency, the situation is even worse. Over 60% of adults and 50% of children in Devon have not seen a dentist in the past two years. No local practices are accepting new NHS patients, and waiting times can stretch into years.

The crisis is driven by an underfunded and outdated system that is pushing professionals out. In England, NHS dentistry receives just £38 a head. In Scotland,  I am told that it is nearly double that. Each year, hundreds of millions of pounds in dental funding goes unspent, not because it is not needed, but because dental practices cannot recruit or retain staff under the current contract.

The rigid contract system is also preventing dentists coming up with innovative ideas, such as a proposal for a no-frills, low-cost dental service in Dartmouth in my constituency that got nowhere because of NHS red tape. I ask the Minister when will we hear about a reformed dental contract?

The Dental Defence Union has highlighted other issues that are contributing to the collapse. One major concern is falling morale among dental professionals. In a 2022 survey of nearly 500 dental staff, 86% reported experiencing increased workplace pressures over the past two to three years—a clear signal that the working conditions are driving people out of the profession.

Dentists are also losing money to provide NHS care. For every denture they fit, they are out of pocket by more than £40. No wonder over 60% of NHS dentists say they plan to leave. We need urgent action. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for real reform. We are campaigning to end dental deserts and to guarantee access to an NHS dentist for everyone who needs urgent or emergency care. Our dental rescue package would bring dentists back to the NHS by fixing the broken contract and using flexible commissioning to meet local needs.

We want an emergency scheme to ensure free NHS check-ups for those who are already eligible, such as children, new mothers, pregnant women and people on low incomes. We are also calling for guaranteed access to dental care for anyone needing treatment before chemotherapy.

The longer this goes on, the worse it gets. South Devon needs proper dental care, not more delays. Yes, preventive dental care costs money, but prevention is always better and cheaper than cure. \p Alex McIntyre: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate. I also thank the dentists, hygienists, dental nurses and practice staff in my constituency who do so much to look after my constituents.

The reality is that the dentistry system we inherited from the previous Government is broken, and we need to fix it. Time and again when I am knocking on doors in Gloucester, I hear that patients cannot get the dentist appointments they need, that we have people pulling their own teeth out at home, and that there are children with teeth rotting in their mouths.

We need more NHS dentists in Gloucester. This week, I have launched a campaign to get a new dental practice in Gloucester city to deliver for my constituents, and I wrote to my local ICB earlier this week about it. We need to see this new practice as soon as possible, so I would welcome a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss my campaign to deliver a new dental practice for my constituents.

I recognise that my ICB and this Government have made fantastic progress on urgent dental care in Gloucestershire. We have another 11,000 urgent dental  appointments in my constituency and the wider area, which is already delivering for my constituents who are most in need. But what we really need are regular check-up appointments so that people can be seen more regularly. I welcome reform of the dental contract and the consultation with local dentists, and I encourage all dentists and dental practices in my constituency to get involved with it so that we can deliver a better dentistry system than the one left behind a year ago by the Conservative party. \p Susan Murray: I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for bringing forward this important debate.

In my constituency and across Scotland, families are desperately struggling to access NHS dental treatment. Public Health Scotland figures show that while 87% of children are registered with an NHS dentist, only about 66% have actually been seen by one in the past two years, and in our most deprived areas that drops to only one in two children. This is despite the SNP claiming that 95% of children are registered with an NHS dentist.

When routine care disappears, the consequences are seen in hospitals. Before the pandemic, Scotland was admitting about 8,000 children a year for dental extractions under general anaesthetic, making it the single biggest cause of planned childhood admissions to hospitals. Despite the clear and dire consequences of failing to address dental health and health inequalities in general, the Governments in both Holyrood and Westminster appear to be looking the other way. A recent British Dental Association survey highlighted the financial strain faced by dentists, with 45% of practices saying that they were struggling to stay financially viable and over half saying that the recent Budget had accelerated their move into the private sector.

With that in mind, we must ask why this Government chose to follow through on their national insurance rise for primary care providers such as dentists. It appears that while Labour’s manifesto said that they would support local health providers, the reality for those providing care is quite different.

I therefore join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in calling on the Government to reconsider their stance on national insurance. Failing to return national insurance contributions to their former levels will inevitably result in fewer NHS dental appointments, fewer NHS dental providers, and more children on operating tables. \p Peter Prinsley: Is there a better metaphor for the state of this country than the state of dentistry? Fourteen years of neglect left us with a decayed system of NHS provision, with those able to pay the only ones protected. I see it myself with wards full of children with dental abscesses at the weekend.

Residents have told me stories of searching for NHS dental provision that simply does not exist. In my constituency, the number of urgent appointments has increased by 35%, with practices providing urgent dental care services seven days a week and into the evenings, and there are more coming soon, so the Government are making a serious attempt to deal with the decades of decay and drift, but we must go further.

We do not have enough dentists and we do not have enough dental service providers, so let us sort out the dental contract, which we have heard about. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is no longer in his place, is quite right that NHS dentists are in fact heroes. \p Jerome Mayhew: The point has been made repeatedly that dentists can earn a lot more money in private practice than in NHS dentistry, and that is unlikely to change no matter what happens in the renegotiation. Does the hon. Member agree with the last Government’s review, which suggested that the roughly £300,000 cost of training a dentist should come with a requirement to work for the NHS for a number of years afterwards? \p Peter Prinsley: That is certainly a suggestion that should be investigated.

We must increase the number of dentists, as we have only 24 dentists for every 100,000 people in the east of England. We also need to increase the number of training providers and training places, but even with the opening of a dental school it will take ages for there to be new dentists.

One suggestion is that we sort out the dental accreditation system. Hon. Members may not know that there are only 600 opportunities to take the accreditation exam each year, but there are 6,000 people planning to take the exam—that will take 10 years. We must get the General Dental Council to increase the number of exam opportunities.

We have begun to address this political emergency, but we must go further with a clear and fair offer focusing on what the Minister described as the triangle of patients, practitioners and the public purse, providing a service that ensures that we give excellent, affordable care for all, including prevention, especially for the most vulnerable, and in a way that means we can pay for it. NHS dentistry can be saved. Let us have a sign on the door saying, “Urgent NHS dental appointments available here.” Would that not that be great? \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Danny Chambers: I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this really important debate. Before I was elected, I drove around Winchester, the Meon valley and the beautiful New Forest treating horses as a veterinary surgeon, and a key part of that role is providing regular dental treatment. Horses do not like going to the dentist any more than humans do, but they need to have their teeth brushed every six months—at least every year—or they get ulcers in their mouths and they can get infected tooth roots. When we have to remove a tooth with a root that is three inches long—especially on a hot day like today—we work up a sweat and it takes a long time, but it is really painful for the horse, even though we use painkillers and nerve blocks. Often, all of that would have been avoidable had they had regular dental treatment, and it costs the owner a lot more money. It is exactly the same with human medicine.

There is cross-party agreement, with no one disputing that prevention is better than cure, and when it comes to dental care in the NHS we are failing at even the most basic level of public health. I am not going to go through all the stats that hon. Members have repeated about the numbers of children needing general anaesthetics for dental care. \p Alex McIntyre: Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government’s partnership with Colgate on tooth- brushing in schools so that we can tackle prevention with children and make sure they are not going into hospital with tooth decay because they are learning how to brush their teeth and doing so properly? \p Danny Chambers: I absolutely welcome that fantastic initiative.

I visited two dental practices in Winchester, and both told me exactly the same thing: they want to do more NHS work, and they want to be there for their communities, but because of the current NHS dental contract they simply cannot make it financially viable. They are effectively subsidising their NHS patients with income from private work. The British Dental Association estimates that private dentistry in England cross-subsidises NHS care to the tune of £332 million a year, which is due to rise to £425 million if NHS practices are not offered any help with the tens of thousands in additional staff costs brought in by the increase in national insurance. With the NHS work they do perform, they do not have time for the education—the proactive, holistic healthcare— that they want to do. Instead, they have to get people through in a quick turnaround. I say this clearly: dentists are not the problem. They are doing their best within a contract that is outdated and damaging.

I also want to speak to something that is often overlooked in this conversation: oral health is not just about teeth. I know that my dentist colleagues, as in veterinary practice, routinely identify serious conditions such as oral cancers and squamous cell carcinomas during routine dental checks. Those cancers are often aggressive but spotted early, they can be treated. We also know that infections in the mouth can lead to things such as endocarditis, which is not a trivial condition, and there is good evidence that periodontitis can contribute to the onset of dementia. How many cancers are we missing? How many heart problems are we not avoiding by not having routine dental checks?

I will sum up now as I know that we are pushed for time. The Liberal Democrats will continue to fight tooth and nail for an NHS that includes dentistry. I managed to avoid making any jokes about equine dentistry, and Members will be glad to hear that straight from the horse’s mouth. We do not want NHS dentistry to be an afterthought; it has to be a core part of a truly universal, holistic health service. Everyone deserves access to routine dental care. Many Members have said that they live in areas that are dental deserts, where NHS dentists are rarer than hen’s teeth. It is clear that we have cross-party consensus. Let us get the dental contract reformed and let us make this Parliament the last one during which anyone has to extract their own teeth. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on securing this debate. Dentistry is important. Dentists do not just deal with our teeth; they deal with our mouth and gums, they identify physical diseases that include cancer and they prevent sepsis. Last month, I visited The Dental Design Studio in Sleaford to celebrate its 20th anniversary of great dentistry and I met some fabulous, committed professionals. Somewhat unexpectedly, given the venue, I was asked to help judge a cake competition. Members and my dentist will be pleased to know that I brushed my teeth very well afterwards.

Access to NHS dentistry has been a problem for a very long time. When I moved house in 2001, there was no NHS dentist available and I travelled two hours to Redcar to see the wonderful dentist Mr Dixon for many years until he retired. After that, there was no dentist at all. Are we therefore short of dentists? No, we are not. The Conservative Government increased the number of new trainee places and the number of new dentists, and although the population increased, there are still more per capita than in 2010. As the Minister for Care has said,

“The issue is not the number of dentists…but the paucity of dentists who are doing NHS work.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 766.]

I encourage the Minister for Secondary Care to consider more dental places, because we see that one in 15 of the youngsters who want to become a dentist is turned away and, as such, they go overseas to train or train to do something else. Will she commit to a dental school not just in Norwich, but in other underserved areas, such as Lincoln?

The main problem, as many have identified, is the 2006 contract with the UDA bands for procedures, and there are several issues with that. First, the amounts vary between practices based on historical volume data; secondly, there is a disincentive to treat new or high-need patients; and thirdly, the UDA simply do not cover all the costs. The Conservatives improved that a little bit, ironing out some of the bizarre UDA contract terms and setting a new, higher floor for minimum UDAs. Yet there is much more to do, as we have heard today, to reform it completely. How are the Government getting on with that? Will the Minister give us an update, please? As the Public Accounts Committee notes,

“NHSE and DHSC do not yet know what that reform might look like or to what timescales it can be delivered”,

beyond a vague assertion that some reform is imminent. \p Alex McIntyre: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point? \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I will not because there is not much time at all.

I met Eddie Crouch from the BDA recently, who talked about the national insurance costs. Before today’s announced pay rise, dental practices were facing a 9.5% increase in staff costs, again pushing more of them further to private practice. Will the Minister ask the Chancellor to exempt NHS dentists from the national insurance contribution rise? There has also been discussion about compelling dentists to do a proportion of their  work in the NHS, either by compelling dentists who are newly trained or by incentivising with the use of student loan repayments. Have the Government considered that?

We have many overseas trained dentists—some are British students who were trained overseas, some are foreign nationals—but the overseas registration exam has 2,000 people on its waiting list. Somewhat bizarrely, those who pass can work in the private sector, but not in the NHS without supervision. That seems somewhat incoherent. Does the Government have confidence in the exam or not? It is illogical to allow a person to practise as a private dentist but not in the NHS. It is also a clear disincentive to NHS practice. What good discussions have the Government had with the General Dental Council about this issue?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has repeatedly raised the issue of Ukrainian dentists. There are 200 Ukrainians dentists in the UK. Why not assess them and allow them to work? It is better for them and for us.

Dentists form part of a wider team of hygienists, nurses, technicians and therapists. What are the Government doing to help people in each of those roles practise at the top of their skill range to provide greater dental care? What are the Government doing to support rural areas since they cancelled the mobile dental vans? What are they doing to ensure they deliver the 700,000 promised appointments a year, since they have delivered hardly any of them so far? \p Sam Rushworth: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I will not give way because there is very little time.

It has been clear today that the NHS is not fit for purpose when it comes to dentistry. The Government need to get grip of this, and soon. \p Karin Smyth: I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson); I could not have asked for a better set-up. I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). This is an issue she has pursued for some time, and I am grateful for her securing this important debate. I know many more Members would have liked to speak. I will not take any interventions in the short time I have to respond because I want to address some of the questions raised.

This issue continues to be a matter of great concern to Members and all our constituents. Poor oral health can have a devastating effect on individuals, as we have heard, impacting their mental and physical health alike and, indeed, their opportunities for work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) made clear. Yet it is a largely preventable issue through good oral health hygiene and regular visits to a dentist. We inherited a broken NHS dental system, and our ambition is to rescue and restore NHS dentistry so that we deliver more NHS dental care to those who need it. Fourteen years of neglect, cuts and incompetence by the previous Government have left NHS dentistry in a state of decay. That is simply unacceptable and needs to change, which it will.

As of March 2024, more than 36,000 dentists are registered with the General Dental Council in England, and yet less than 11,000 full-time equivalent dentists were working within the NHS. Lord Darzi said in his report:

“There are enough dentists in England, just not enough dentists willing to do enough NHS work”.

That is why this Government are prepared to take strong action. Since coming into office, we have made good progress on our plan for change. We have already taken action to address the immediate needs of patients in pain and requiring urgent dental care through our manifesto commitment to deliver an additional 700,000 urgent dental appointments per year. Integrated care boards started to deliver those appointments from April, and each area has been given expectations for delivery based on their local needs.

That point was noted by my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), who campaigned studiously in opposition and continue to bring this to the House. ICBs have returned detailed plans for delivering against the expectations, and the Minister for Care is holding regular meetings with officials in the Department and with NHS England to monitor and drive progress against those plans. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) for pursuing the matter with his ICB—that is exactly the right thing to do.

To have a truly effective dental system, we cannot focus just on those already in pain. We must have a system that prioritises prevention, particularly for children—a point well made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge). That is why we have invested over £11 million to roll out a national supervised toothbrushing programme for three to five year olds. That will reach up to 600,000 children a year in the most deprived areas of England. Alongside that, we have launched an innovative partnership with Colgate-Palmolive, which is donating more than 23 million toothbrushes and toothpastes over the next five years. That is incredible value for the taxpayer and a fantastic example of how businesses and Government can work together for public good.

We have also taken the decision to expand community water fluoridation across the north-east of England. That is the first expansion for decades and will bring benefits to an additional 1.6 million people in the region.

Our workforce is crucial, as we have heard this afternoon. A strong dentistry system needs a strong workforce, and we recognise the incredible work that dentists and dental professionals do. I pay tribute to Mr Dobranski mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton—what amazing service. I also mention my own dentist Aidan Moran, who has been seeing me for the best part of three decades.

A central part of our 10-year health plan will be our workforce and how to make sure that we train and provide the staff, technology and infrastructure the NHS needs to care for patients across our communities—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). We will publish a refreshed workforce plan to make sure the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills to deliver the care that people need.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted, we are all sadly familiar with the term “dental deserts” to describe parts of the country where access is especially difficult. We are continuing to support integrated care boards through the golden hello scheme, but of course dentists are only part of the team; dental therapists, hygienists, nurses and technicians all play a vital role, and we need to make the NHS a better place to work for all of them.

We are committed to fundamental reform of the dental contract. It could have been done sooner; it could have been done at any point over the last 14 years by the coalition or the Tories, but they left it for us to do. It will take time, but I assure everyone here that development of these proposals is under way. We continue to work with the British Dental Association and other representatives to deliver our shared ambitions for dentistry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care met the BDA recently and they have a productive relationship.

In the spirit of honesty, let me be clear: there are no perfect payment models, and any changes to the complex dental system must be carefully considered, so that we deliver genuine improvements for patients and the profession. It is an immense challenge. There are no quick fixes and no easy answers, but people across the country deserve better access, and we are determined to make that happen.

We know we must deal with the immediate crisis. That is why we will deliver 700,000 extra appointments each year, get more dentists into the communities that need them the most, and make sure that everyone who needs an NHS dentist can get one. NHS dentistry will not be rescued overnight. It will take time, investment and reform, but improving access to NHS dentistry is key to our mission to get the NHS back on its feet and fit for the future. \p Melanie Onn: I am grateful for the number of Members who participated in the debate, and can only apologise to those who were not able to get in or whose time to speak was shortened. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. It is clear that we have some way to go before we get the sort of service that people across the country, in all our constituencies, deserve, but I am confident that she will take this forward, having heard all the comments and suggestions made this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered access to NHS dentistry. \p John Healey: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Diego Garcia military base.

For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This afternoon, the Prime Minister has signed a treaty with Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius that guarantees full continued UK control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.

I pay tribute to the UK’s negotiators, to the teams from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence who supported them, and to the Mauritian officials who worked for two and a half years to reach this agreement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has today laid in the House the full treaty text and his formal exchange of letters with the Foreign Minister of Mauritius that confirm the agreement and the financial arrangements between our two countries. A Bill will be introduced soon.

There has been a great deal of misinformation about this treaty, much of it fuelled by the Conservative party, but the simple truth is that our national security rests on securing a deal that protects the operational sovereignty of this vital military installation. By signing this treaty on our terms, the Prime Minister has ensured that the UK retains full control of Diego Garcia throughout the next century and beyond. It is a deal struck in the national interest and a deal that makes Britons today and generations to come safer and more secure.

The importance of Diego Garcia cannot be overstated. Some of the operations on our joint UK-US base are in the public domain; most, by necessity, are not. But all the work conducted from Diego Garcia plays a crucial role in protecting our nation, our armed forces and our trade routes. Diego Garcia is unique. We do things there that we simply could not do anywhere else. Its airfield allows for strike operations and rapid deployments to the middle east, east Africa and south Asia. Its deep-water port supports missions from nuclear-powered submarines to our carrier strike group. It hosts surveillance stations that disrupt terrorist attacks, protect satellites and provide global intelligence capabilities, and it projects UK-US military power in the Indo-Pacific, to reinforce regional stability and security.

America is our closest security ally, and continued use of this base is fundamental to maintaining the special strength of that relationship. In fact, Diego Garcia is our nation’s most significant contribution to the UK-US security partnership that has kept us safe for nearly 80 years. As I have said, this is a joint military base, and almost every operation conducted from it is done in partnership with the US. That is why the treaty has the full-throated support of the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who has said this afternoon:

“This agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia, which is critical to regional and global security.”

President Trump himself has described this as “very long-term” and “very strong”.

Diego Garcia also strengthens Britain’s economic security. Over one third of the world’s bulk cargo traffic and two thirds of global oil shipments are transported through the Indian ocean. Our constant presence in these waters serves to safeguard trade routes, keeping down the price of food and energy for Britons here at home. Diego Garcia is also the permanent location of critical comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty monitoring equipment—a network that watches every moment of every day for evidence of nuclear testing, to hold nuclear and would-be nuclear powers to account. Diego Garcia is one of just four locations in the world to operate ground station antennae for the global positioning system, which everyone from astronauts to motorists and our military rely on to navigate.

Quite simply, the loss of the Diego Garcia military base would be unthinkable. And yet, without action—without this deal—within weeks we could face losing legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable. Some have suggested simply ignoring international legal decisions, but this is not just about international law; this is about the direct impact of law on our ability to control and operate this base.

Rulings against us would mean we could not prevent hostile nations from setting up installations around Diego Garcia, on the outer islands, or carrying out joint exercises near the base. No deal would mean we could not guarantee the safe berth of our subs, patrol the waters around the base, control the airspace directly above or protect the integrity of our communications systems. Such developments would deeply damage the security interests of the UK and our allies. It would be a dereliction of the first duty of Government.

Agreeing this treaty now on our terms means that the UK retains full control over Diego Garcia now and for the next century. We have laid before the House the full treaty and the associated costings. Those on the Conservative Front Bench will see how we have toughened the terms of the deal they were doing so it does now guarantee the UK’s national interest and national security. At a cost of less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget we have secured unrestricted access to, and use of, the base, as well as control over movement of all persons and all goods on the base and control of all communication and electronic systems. Nothing can be built within a 24 nautical-mile buffer zone without our say so, and we have secured an effective veto on all developments in the Chagos archipelago, and a strict ban will be imposed on foreign security forces operating on the outer islands—all provisions that were not in the draft agreement that had been negotiated by the Conservative party before the election.

I just say to the parties opposite that anyone who would abandon this deal would abandon the base. They would weaken the security of the British people and weaken the strength of the British armed forces. By signing this deal, the British flag will fly over the Diego Garcia base well into the next century. By signing this deal, the relationship with our closest security ally will be strengthened. By signing this deal, our capacity to deter our adversaries and defend UK interests is secured for generations to come. As the world becomes more dangerous, Diego Garcia becomes more important. This Government will never compromise on our national security. With this deal, we have made Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

5.6 pm \p James Cartlidge: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Before I go into the detail, however, I wish to place two important points on the record. First, it was beneath contempt for the Prime Minister in his press conference to state that those who oppose this deal are on the side of Russia and China. I am intensely proud of the role that my party has played in supporting Ukraine— I have worn this badge of the Ukrainian flag every day. I and many of my colleagues have been sanctioned by Russia and China and passionately believe that we must stand up to them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons we oppose this deal.

Let us not forget that only last week Mauritius agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia, and this week China said that it wanted to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius and that that country was well placed with strategic advantages. This is a democracy: if we as elected parliamentarians choose to take a different view on this issue and vote against the deal, that does not make us pro-Russian or pro-Chinese. Voting against this deal does not make us traitors to this country; it makes us patriots.

Secondly, the Secretary of State and his Defence Ministers have said 26 times on the Floor of the House that the urgently needed strategic defence review would be delivered by the spring, but he has broken that promise. Here we are, at literally at the last sitting moment of this spring, and instead of the SDR he has come to the House to announce a total, abject surrender of our territory and a fundamental betrayal of the UK’s national interest. The Government are not surrendering British sovereign territory because of military defeat, or because of a binding legal verdict, but wilfully due to a total failure to take a stand and fight for Britain’s interests on the world stage—a complete and utter negotiating failure.

Yes, it is true that we held talks with the Mauritians when in government, but we never signed a deal. Why? Because we fundamentally oppose the idea of spending billions of pounds on a surrender tax to lease back land that we currently own freehold. And it is billions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the deal will cost £1 billion over the next five years?

When the Prime Minister recently gave a statement to the House about defence spending, he used the cash figure to state by how much spending would rise. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the same basis, this deal will cost UK taxpayers over £10 billion? Will he confirm definitively how much of that cost will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?

Mr Speaker, you will be interested to hear that, on military operations, the treaty confirms that we must

“expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia.”

Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means we would need to tell Mauritius if the base were to be used to launch strikes against Iran or its proxies? What guarantees has he received that Mauritius would not tell potential adversaries?

As we all know, the key issue is that the Government fear a binding legal judgment. [Interruption.] They are following the legal advice to act definitively to our  detriment, entirely on the basis of hypothetical risk that has not yet materialised and that we could challenge, and that is part of a pattern.

On Monday, with the EU defence pact, the Secretary of State admitted that he has secured only “potential participation” in the rearmament fund, but despite no guarantee of hard cash for defence, the Government have already given up our sovereign fishing grounds for over a decade.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refused to explain why this Government failed to appeal the legal decision that now threatens our veterans with a new era of lawfare for the crime of serving this nation and keeping us safe all those years ago.

And today, with Chagos, once again the Government have prioritised heeding the most pessimistic legal advice, even though we have exposed the fact that fear of binding threats from the International Telecommunication Union or the United Nations convention on the law of the sea are overblown. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), a Labour Back Bencher, said earlier, we are all “Getting real tired of this ‘the courts have settled it’ line of argument”.

It is not so much a case of “no surrender”, as “yes, surrender” every single time, always listening to the lawyers instead of our national interests, even if that means surrendering our veterans, our fishing grounds and the Chagos islands—[Interruption.] May I suggest they change the lyrics of their Labour party song, because we all know that they will keep the white flag flying here? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not want to interrupt, but Mr Gemmell, you are not being helpful to your cause. It is the worst day to be thrown out, so please, I want to hear no more from you—it has been continuous. \p James Cartlidge: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was expecting to hear the strategic defence review, as all of us were, given the Government’s multiple promises.

Finally, the Chagossian community has been shamefully sidelined by this Government from start to finish, with only tick-box engagement by junior Ministers. Is it not the case that the treaty offers no protection to the Chagossians whatsoever?

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege. We would abandon this deal, but we would never abandon the Chagos islands. This is a bad deal for Britain and we will do everything possible to oppose it. \p John Healey: I regret the tone that the hon. Gentleman has struck this evening—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister was making a simple point: if the base goes, the countries that benefit—the countries that want to see the base go and the deal fail—are China, Russia and Iran. Quite simply, he was asking whose side of the argument— \p James Cartlidge: Are we on? \p John Healey: Yes, whose side are you on? [Interruption.] Frankly, if you do not back the deal, you do not back the base. \p James Cleverly: Shameful. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will decide what is and is  not shameful. I am going to say this once and for all: Mr Cartlidge, you have been pushing and pushing for quite a while. Emotions are running high, but I do not want a continuous barracking and that level of noise coming from you. You should be setting a good example as the shadow Secretary of State, keeping calm and being effective, not bawling. \p John Healey: Quite simply, if you do not back the deal, you cannot back the base. There is no viable alternative option than this deal. The senior military figure who was part of the treaty signing this afternoon, General Sir Jim Hockenhull, confirmed that publicly. The shadow Defence Secretary knows that—he was a Defence Minister until the last election. He knows that that was the advice he and the previous Government were given. Even the spokesperson for his party’s leader admitted in February that a deal was needed. Politico’s “Playbook” reported:

“A spokesperson for Badenoch insisted she understands negotiations over the islands are needed due to the international legal position.”

That is the job that we have done. The Conservatives conceded the principle that negotiation was necessary and a deal was required to safeguard the long-term protection and control of this base; they conducted 11 rounds of negotiations before the last election.

The hon. Gentleman talks about this being part of a pattern. The previous Government failed to deliver a trade deal with India, and we did it. They failed to deliver a trade deal with the US, and we did it. They failed to safeguard Diego Garcia, and we have done it. We picked up those negotiations and strengthened the defence protections for the UK, and we did the deal today.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the money. Once again, he was not just a Defence Minister, but also a Treasury Minister before the last election—in fact, he was Exchequer Secretary when the negotiations first kicked off. He knows that the Government Actuary tells us that the full accounting cost of this deal over the 99 years is £3.4 billion. That is the figure reported and laid before the House today.

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-established method—used under our Government, his Government and the previous Government—for accounting for long-term projects, like this base, the nuclear commissioning programme, big infrastructure projects and pensions liabilities. The facts for me, as Defence Secretary, are that the cost of this deal is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget; that this is an essential deal for our national security that will ensure Britain is better equipped to face down the rising threats we face; and that our armed forces are stronger and safer because of the deal done today.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the Chagossians. We have been concerned, since we were elected just 10 months ago, to restore good communication and better relations with a wide range of Chagossian groups. The Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has met them regularly, and he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met them this morning. The negotiations,  however, were between the Mauritian Government and the UK Government, just as they were under the previous Government. We have worked to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance that Chagossians attach to the islands, so we will finance a new £40 million trust fund for Mauritius to support the Chagossian community.

I will conclude where I started. I say to the shadow Defence Secretary: we have worked together on a cross-party basis on Ukraine, and we have offered him and his party’s leader security briefings on any of the big issues that we face. This deal is in the national security interest. That is why, when we were in opposition, we backed his Government when they set out to try to negotiate that deal, just as we backed his Government when he led the UK’s support for Ukraine. When he looks at the treaty, considers that there was no alternative and recognises that this is a tougher deal that is better for our base, better for our forces and better for protecting our British people in this country, I hope that he will back it. \p Peter Lamb: In the ’60s and ’70s, Labour and Conservative Governments removed the Chagossian people from their islands in the interests of national security. In response to written questions, the Foreign Office has confirmed that many certainties that would be required for Chagossians to return to the islands have not been secured as a part of this deal—once more banning them in the name of national security. What should I tell my Chagossian constituents when they ask about the moral basis on which the UK is once again ignoring their right to self-determination while we fight for it in Ukraine for Ukrainians? On what basis can members of British overseas territories feel any certainty that they will retain possession of their islands in the event that our national security interests are suddenly piqued? \p John Healey: I have known my hon. Friend for a  long time, and he has been a loud and strong voice for Chagossians in this country. I hope he will recognise, first, that this has been a negotiation that the  British Government have conducted with the Mauritian Government. I hope he will also recognise and respect the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, have tried to set a new tone in relationships and communications with the range of Chagossian groups in this country. Finally, I hope he will recognise that that range of Chagossian groups includes a range of Chagossian views, some of which support this deal and see the need for it. I trust he will be strong in advocating for the use of the trust fund and the programmes we will put in place to help the Chagossian people. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p James MacCleary: Liberal Democrats support the UK complying with international law, but the process for agreeing this deal has been more than a little bit bumpy. While the Conservatives have feigned anger, bordering on hysteria at times, despite it being their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement, this Government have failed consistently to provide any clarity on the progress of the deal. We do not need a running commentary,  but we do need to know that public money is being  used wisely.

It was also clear that the Government were prepared to give Donald Trump the ultimate veto over any agreement, without regard for the priorities of Chagossians themselves. As the deal has now been reached, can the Secretary of State confirm what issues Chagossians raised during their meetings with Ministers, and how the Government have responded to ensure their voices and issues have been addressed in this deal? In attempting yesterday to humiliate South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump proved once again his instincts as unreliable and an unpredictable bully. Having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK-US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this White House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests?

Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government are reportedly willing to negotiate such significant sums paid to Mauritius at a time when the personal independence payment is being severely scaled back. Will the Secretary of State put on record today the proposed schedule of payments as they relate to the deal, and when it is expected that that schedule will commence?

As the Government have previously confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security and its implications for the Exchequer. I hope this sets a valuable precedent that could be applied to future trade deals, for instance, so can the Secretary of State confirm when this House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed deal, as well as a chance to vote on its ratification? \p John Healey: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that from this point, this House has the full opportunity to scrutinise the deal. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has placed the full text of the treaty before this House, together with the financial arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman says that the negotiators have not been giving a running commentary, but he also says that he does not want a running commentary because he respects the fact that in any negotiation, there has to be a private space in which discussions can take place. I have said consistently that when the treaty is ready and put before the House, the full financial information will come alongside it. That has happened today. The proper scrutiny by this House begins today, and when the Bill is published soon, the hon. Gentleman will be able to scrutinise that, too. On the question of the Chagossians, we will provide £40 million so that the Mauritians can set up a new trust fund for those communities.

Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the US. This treaty has been negotiated between and signed today by our Prime Minister and the Mauritian Prime Minister. It secures a vital defence and intelligence base for Britain, but, as I said in my statement, almost everything we do on this base is done jointly with the US, so of course we have kept the Americans informed and consulted them. At no point has the US had a veto—this is our deal and our decision. I bring it to the House this afternoon because it is in our best national interest and our best security interest. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Mayhew, did you have a comment to make? \p Jerome Mayhew: indicated dissent. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Shaking your head and making comments —that is certainly not the example I want to see when I am looking to keep the House calm. I do not need the backchat; that has been going on for a while. \p Alex Ballinger: The Conservatives started negotiations on handing over the Chagos islands because they understood the national security implications of not doing a deal. Indeed, they did 11 rounds of negotiations on this deal. Now, with our closest security partners—the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders—all welcoming this deal, why are the Conservatives playing politics with our national security? \p John Healey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a powerful point in a judicious way. The shadow Defence Secretary could learn a bit from him. \p James Cleverly: Both the Prime Minister—in his extensive press conference prior to the Secretary of State for Defence coming to the House—and the Secretary of State have said on numerous occasions that this deal is the only way of protecting the military operations on Diego Garcia. When I was Foreign Secretary, I did not see anything to make me agree that this is the only way of protecting military operations on that base. The Defence Secretary suggested in his statement that a judgment could come within weeks that would undermine the operations of the base. From which binding legal authority does he fear that jurisdiction may come? We know it is not the International Telecommunication Union or the International Court of Justice. Who does he believe would prevent us from military operations on that island? \p John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman was a formidable and very senior figure in the previous Government. He was in the post of Foreign Secretary during the period when there were negotiations on this deal. By entering into the negotiations, his Government accepted and conceded the principle that a negotiated deal was the way to secure the full operational sovereignty of this base for the long term.

The right hon. Gentleman may well not have been satisfied with the deal that his own people could have negotiated at the time, because when we picked up the negotiations, there was no agreement on an effective UK veto across the archipelago, which we have now; there was no buffer zone accepted in that agreement, which there is now; there was no agreement in that text for 99 years, or the option of an extra 40 years, which we have got in there now; and there was also not an agreement for Mauritius to take on responsibility for any migrants, but there is now. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman looks at the new text of the treaty, and I hope he will back it when it comes before the House. \p Amanda Martin: I rise to welcome this agreement, which safeguards a vital national security asset and cements the United Kingdom’s role at the heart of global defence co-operation. Let us be clear: this treaty is about protecting Britain’s ability to defend itself and its allies. Diego Garcia is not just a piece of land in the Indian ocean, but the backbone of our joint operations with the United States and a linchpin of the UK’s ability to project power, to deter threats and to ensure security in an increasingly unstable world. All our closest allies—the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India—support this deal. NATO supports this deal. They understand what Diego Garcia represents: unmatched strategic certainty. Will the Secretary of State please give us more information about how we will be protecting the area around the islands? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our close allies take a close interest, and they can see that this treaty is the best way of securing—for the UK, for the US and for themselves—a vital base on which we can help both to project military power and to reinforce regional security. My hon. Friend will see the 24 nautical mile buffer zone—an exclusion zone, if you like—that allows us to control the seas and the air. We would not be able to do that, increasingly, without the deal. She will see that sweep and an effective veto on any developments across the archipelago to ranges of at least 100 nautical miles. She will also see the value of a deal that guarantees our full operational sovereignty and therefore prevents any undermining of our ability to use the electromagnetic spectrum. As I said in my statement, that is so crucial to the unique capabilities that this base and its operations offer to this country and to the United States. \p Julian Lewis: When a former Foreign Secretary asks a sitting Defence Secretary for a direct answer as to which court would be able to make a binding judgment against us on this matter, he is entitled to a direct answer, so will the Secretary of State now give that direct answer? \p John Healey: There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. \p Anneliese Dodds: My right hon. Friend has set out that this deal, which is essential for our national security, will cost less than a quarter of 1% of our national defence budget. Will he also confirm that this deal costs far less than other base deals, such as France’s deal with Djibouti, yet offers vastly superior strategic scale and value? \p John Healey: I can indeed, and my right hon. Friend is right: this deal will cost less than 0.2% of the defence budget. It compares very favourably with the €85 million that the French paid for their Djibouti base, which by the way is right next to a Chinese base. Diego Garcia is 15 times bigger than the French base in Djibouti and has an exclusion zone around it, which helps to protect our operations and the intelligence services that we have there. My right hon. Friend is right: this is a good investment for the future national security of this country. \p Al Pinkerton: This morning, I was at the High Court to listen to the judgment. I was with a very large group of Chagossians, who told me  that they feel betrayed. They also feel that the United Kingdom is acting in exactly the same high-handed, colonial-like manner that led to their dislocation and displacement from the islands in the 1960s. Can those on the Government Front Bench assure us all that when this deal comes back to the House, we are not going to be asked to vote for a new round of colonial practice that will further disadvantage the Chagossians? \p John Healey: Of course we are not going to ask that. We deeply regret the way that the Chagossians were removed from the islands. We have expressed that sentiment as a new Government since July. We have made provisions in the treaty to support the Chagossian communities, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a wide range of views within the Chagossian communities and groups. Some of them see the value of this deal, and some of them support it. The important fact for us is that the legal challenge in the High Court demonstrates some of the legal difficulties that would continue to bedevil the operation of this base without the deal that our Prime Minister has signed today. \p Meg Hillier: I commend my right hon. Friend for explaining—in as much detail as he is able on the Floor of the House—why he believes that this is a necessary act, and I trust him to have the security of the nation as his top priority. However, elements of the treaty cannot be talked about, even at the point when this House may vote on it. There is only one Member of this House who has access to all areas of Government spending: the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). Does my right hon. Friend agree that some areas need deeper scrutiny, and will he support our plan to have a scrutiny Committee that can examine sensitive issues, including this one? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend knows that I have had discussions with her and the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the capability of the House of Commons to scrutinise and hold to account the Government— of whatever party—in areas of necessarily highly secret and confidential activity. She knows that I have a different view about how to deal with that challenge, but deal with it we must. \p Andrew Murrison: The Secretary of State has cited UNCLOS—under pressure from my right hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—as the reason for this expensive cave-in. I am familiar with UNCLOS, and although I am a layman and so is the Secretary of State, could he explain in lay terms which parts of UNCLOS are responsible for what has happened, because it is not clear to me and it will not be clear to my constituents and to his, who will be paying the bill for this? \p John Healey: The judgments of any international tribunal or court do not necessarily just apply to the UK; they are taken by other agencies, other organisations and other nations. In particular, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister spelt out this afternoon, if there is uncertainty or a binding finding against the UK about the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, our ability to protect, in particular and most immediately, the  electromagnetic spectrum on which our sensors, radars, communications and intelligence functions depend is compromised. That is the security assessment and that is the military view. That is why we have taken this step, and recognised that the best and only way of safeguarding the operational sovereignty—the total control and protection—of the Diego Garcia island base for the future is the deal we have struck this afternoon. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I am alarmed by the passion of Conservative Members for the Chagos islands— \p James Cartlidge: Because we care about them. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Will the hon. Member let me finish? I have on a number of occasions intervened on Conservative Members to ask them to name the Chagos islands, and they have been unable to tell me that there is Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos, the Salomon islands, the Egmont islands— \p James Cleverly: Well, you had to write them down. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I do not share the right hon. Member’s passion.

Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition first tweeted about the Chagos islands in October 2024. That was five years after the ICJ ruling and two years after negotiations started. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives’ new-found passion for the Chagos islands perhaps owes more to political opportunism than to any deeply held conviction? \p John Healey: I do, indeed, and I have to say that I am relieved my hon. Friend has not asked me to name all 50-plus islands in the archipelago. \p Richard Tice: The Mauritians have never ever owned the Chagos islands. When they gained independence from the United Kingdom in the 1960s, the UK paid them millions of pounds to cede any future claims over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. The Defence Secretary has confirmed the strategic importance of the Chagos islands, and we all agree on that, but the truth is that this is the worst ever deal in history by this country. Over 100 years we are paying, with inflation, over £40 billion to give away a strategically important security asset. The truth is, and I confirm it now, that when Reform wins the next general election, we will rip up this deal—tear it up—and stop all future payments. It is a disgrace. \p John Healey: That is total rubbish—not just the hon. Member’s figures, but his assertion. Our closest ally, which has taken the closest look at the deal we have negotiated, sees this as the way we can secure the joint operations and the control of this base. Through this deal, we can jointly guarantee that for the next century and beyond. We have gone over the cost, and it is less than 0.2% of the defence budget. For this, we get the security of being able to continue operating an intelligence and defence base doing activities and operations that we simply could not do anywhere else. This is a good investment for Britain, and Britain is safer today because of the deal we have struck. \p Louise Jones: The Conservative party had a terrible record on defence, with abject failure after abject failure. I think we have seen this afternoon that Conservative Members have not learnt from those lessons. Does the Secretary of State agree that in backing this deal, with support from the US, NATO, Five Eyes and some of our biggest allies in the Indo-Pacific region such as India and Australia, the Labour party is showing that it cares seriously about national security, will put the national interest first and, unlike the party opposite, will not make meaningless gestures to put our own party first? \p John Healey: I do indeed. This is a base that has saved British lives for over 50 years. It has saved the lives of people at home in this country, because it has been the launchpad from which we have defeated terrorist attacks. It has also been the launchpad for protecting and saving the lives of British forces when they have been deployed to war zones around the world. This deal, which we signed today, means we can continue to exercise the full control necessary to continue to do that for the century to come. \p Bernard Jenkin: May I, in all candour, suggest to the Government  that having now introduced this new element—the UN convention on the law of the sea and, I presume, the associated International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—as the decisive factor that might have created a binding ruling, it really is incumbent on the Government to set out in a statement exactly how it would have affected the electromagnetic spectrum or our ability to use it in Diego—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary might just calm down for a minute. I just want a proper explanation.

I make this forecast. To cut personal independence payments and winter fuel allowances to pay billions of pounds for something that was already British sovereign territory—how is the Secretary of State going to explain that on the doorstep to all his party’s voters? I promise you, we will make sure that they never hear the end of it. \p John Healey: The hon. Gentleman might just like to remember this and make the comparison: the total cost over the 99 years of the deal we have struck to protect this space and British control over it is less than the value of the personal protective equipment that was unusable and that was burned because the last Government bought it in the first year of the covid pandemic. \p Gordon McKee: The US supports this deal. NATO supports this deal. India supports this deal. Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that Opposition Members seem so intent on ignoring our allies? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point very succinctly. I hope this House has heard it and I hope the Conservative party listens to it. \p John Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman knows the regard I have for him and for the Foreign Secretary. He knows, too, of my interest and involvement in national security matters. There is no debate across the House about the  salience of Diego Garcia. It is absolutely critical to our national interest. The debate is about the legal advice. Will he, in the interests of scrutiny, provide, where it does not compromise national security, all the information and advice given to him and previous Ministers on the subject of that legal advice? We suspect that that advice could have been challenged, and I suspect that many previous holders of his office and others will have received similar, if not the same, legal advice and resisted it. \p John Healey: This House will have plenty of opportunity to test and debate these issues, but the right hon. Gentleman might start by asking those of his right hon. Friends who were in government at the time. They started negotiations and judged at the time that negotiations on the deal were necessary to safeguard the future of Diego Garcia and the full operational control of the base. \p Bayo Alaba: I commend the Secretary of State for his calm and measured approach to this really serious topic. Will he expand on the safeguards in the deal, in particular the 24-mile nautical exclusion or buffer zone and the ban on foreign military presence, which guarantee full UK command of the base? I remind Opposition colleagues that it is important to lead and not follow, and to use sensible, measured language, not charged mistruths. \p John Healey: The provisions of the treaty, as my hon. Friend will see from the full text, guarantee the rights of the UK in the 24-nautical mile zone immediately around the islands and in the airspace above to patrol and control that airspace. If we saw a succession of legal judgments that started to establish a Mauritian claim to sovereignty, that would undermine and weaken our ability to conduct those patrols, control the skies and protect the base. \p Neil O'Brien: Under this deal, we will be paying billions of pounds for the privilege of having our own territory taken away from us. The Secretary of State talks about the threat to the base as if Mauritius, a country with no navy, is about to steam in or pick a fight with the United States. That is implausible. The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State trying to dodge the question from the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and, on being pressed, scrambling around for a legal argument and coming up with something totally novel and hazy. The truth is that our constituents are going to be paying billions so that the Prime Minister can bask in the warm glow of approval from his fellow human rights lawyers. \p John Healey: Absolute rubbish. It is £3.4 billion over 99 years, which is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget. This is a good investment for a unique capability that has played an essential role in defeating terrorism and breaking up terrorist groups, deploying British forces, protecting our trade routes and monitoring nuclear threats around the globe. This is an essential base. We run it jointly with the US, which is full square behind us—and I hope the hon. Gentleman’s party will be the same. \p Jim Dickson: I thank the Secretary of State for setting out very clearly why this is the right thing to do for the UK. Could he share with the House  any threat assessments that he has, indicating that without guaranteed access to Diego Garcia—and “guaranteed” is the key word—China and other countries could attempt to expand their regional military presence, building installations close to the base? \p John Healey: Of course China wants to try to move in on the Chagos archipelago; of course it wants to try to set up operations or activities that would allow it to interfere or monitor what we do from the base. This deal helps to protect the base and helps to prevent that from happening. \p Jerome Mayhew: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I mean it this time. The Secretary of State has asserted from the Dispatch Box that it is the risk of an UNCLOS judgment that is requiring this capitulation of sovereignty. Can he therefore answer this specific question: is he aware of a single case that is live under UNCLOS at the moment against the United Kingdom? \p John Healey: Within a few weeks, we expect rulings that will start to weaken our ability to control and maintain our full operational sovereignty over Diego Garcia; within a few years, we expect that to be at a point where it compromises our ability to continue the operations that are so essential to protecting people at home, as well as protecting our forces when they deploy around the world. \p Mike Tapp: National security decisions and debate should be led by facts, not political point scoring, as we have seen today. Does the Secretary of State agree that had the Conservatives performed some sort of miracle and stayed in government at the election, they too would have signed this deal, and we would have supported that in the interests of national security? \p John Healey: I do not want to speak for the Conservatives, but, clearly, they were trying to negotiate a deal. They had had 11 rounds of negotiations. Any Government elected in July would have been faced with the challenge of how to secure this space for the long term. It was clear that that was their direction, and that they had conceded that principle in government. I regret the fact that they are not consistent in pursuing that principle, recognising the way that we have strengthened the deal and done the deal that they were unable to secure. \p James McMurdock: I am concerned about the influence of foreign nations levied through the criminal courts. If it is not too vague, I should like to read out a very brief quote:

“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”

Given that this land was always going to be ours and now it will be ours for only 99 more years, who will benefit from that shade in a century? \p John Healey: The British people and British forces will benefit from that shade. They will continue to benefit from that shade beyond the 99 years if we choose as a nation at that point to exercise our first refusal to extend the deal for another 40 years. That was a provision that was not in the deal that the Conservatives  negotiated. It is a provision that extends our ability to control this space for the long term, for our national security. \p Deirdre Costigan: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As the Prime Minister confirmed earlier today, the cost of this deal is slightly less than the average annual cost of just one aircraft carrier without the aircraft. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a price well worth paying to ensure our country’s safety and security? \p John Healey: It is definitely a good investment for this country. It helps protect our security at home. It helps strengthen our forces abroad. It helps reinforce that very special security relationship that we have with our closest ally, the United States. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I hope the Defence Secretary is fully across the detail here. Annex 1, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph c states:

“Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide upon the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum”

in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia. Given that Diego Garcia shall be represented by Mauritius at the International Telecommunication Union—as per Letter No.1 on 22 May 2025—how will control and management of the electromagnetic spectrum be reflected as per annex 1, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph b, clause iv? And given the threat posed by Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific and the level of Chinese development finance investment in Mauritius, what assessment have the Government made of future lack of co-operation from Mauritius on access to said electromagnetic spectrum? \p John Healey: I will have a word with my right hon. Friend, the Chief Whip, and just let him know that the hon. Gentleman has made an early bid for membership of the Bill Committee. \p Gregor Poynton: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is telling that one of the many Tory Prime Ministers that we had over their 14 years in Government, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), said in 2023 that he wanted to conclude a deal soon. Is it not the case that the bluster and the red faces that we have seen from the Conservative party today is nothing more than the worst type of political hypocrisy? \p John Healey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has a quote that I have not managed to get, and I will ask him to pass it on to me. He makes a very powerful point to this House and to the Conservative party, a number of whom served under the right hon. Gentleman who was Prime Minister at the time. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: The Government’s position appears to be predicated on a hypothetical judgment to a hypothetical claim. In this hypothetical scenario, why would the Government not simply appeal? \p John Healey: The jeopardy and the uncertainty over this space is putting at risk security operations that are essential to us and our allies. We are not prepared to  take that risk with national security. We have done a deal in order to secure for the long term the guaranteed full operational continuing control of Diego Garcia and that military base. \p Mark Ferguson: America backs the deal. Canada backs the deal. Australia backs the deal. New Zealand backs the deal. Our relationship with the Five Eyes countries is our most crucial intelligence relationship, so does the Secretary of State agree that it would have been a dereliction of duty to our country and those four countries to have failed to do this deal? \p John Healey: Well said, and I would add that India supports the deal. Those countries, which are our staunchest allies, are our strongest supporters on this deal. The countries that are our adversaries, that do us harm and that want to be able to move into the part of the world of this archipelago do not want us to have the base and do not want the deal. So there is a question: whose side of the argument are you on? \p Luke Evans: I respect the expertise of the Defence Secretary, so I hope he can help me here. The ICJ said that it was a non-binding decision. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is the court that he is worried about. The country will wonder why he would not challenge this in the court, stand by it, and see what that process would look like. If he was worried he would lose, will he publish the documentation that shows why he was advised that he would lose, so that the country can understand why he is not making that challenge? If he failed in that challenge, he could appeal as well. To the public it looks like we are just giving into the deal without even using the courts that we could legally use. \p John Healey: The Chief Whip has a second volunteer for the Committee stage of this legislation! There is an accumulation of legal challenge, and there is a serious risk of legal rulings. This is not just a matter of international law; it is about the direct impact on the operations of this base that is essential to our national security. The risk that this poses puts the future operation of the base in jeopardy, and no responsible Government can stand by and simply say, “We cannot act”. No action is not an option, and that is why we struck the deal and signed the treaty today. \p Caroline Voaden: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of South Devon concerning the proposed temporary co-location of the Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation trust’s out-of-hours primary percutaneous coronary intervention services at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. This change would significantly increase travel times for patients suffering life-threatening cardiac emergencies, causing deep concern in the community. Many constituents have contacted me fearing delays to urgent care. Quick access to treatment is critical in these situations, and this proposal could endanger lives by reducing access.

The petitioners therefore request that

“the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure NHS Devon reconsider the proposed co-location and to ensure that all PPCI services, including out-of-hours, remain accessible within the local area.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the proposed temporary co-location of the Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust’s out-of-hours Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PPCI) services at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital will lead to increased travel times and potential delays in emergency cardiac treatment for residents in South Devon; and further declares that the protection of timely, local access to urgent cardiac care is essential.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure NHS Devon reconsider the proposed co-location and to ensure that all PPCI services, including out-of-hours, remain accessible within the local area.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003075] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Vicky Foxcroft.) \p Markus Campbell-Savours: It is a pleasure and a privilege to have secured the last Adjournment debate before recess, especially on an issue that is of great importance to my constituents, Cumbria and the wider region. I start with an apology to the Minister. Recess is starting and half our colleagues have already set off to their constituencies, and I have dragged her in for the graveyard shift. I am sorry, but it is appreciated.

We are rapidly approaching completion of the spending review. Having spent months communicating with officials in National Highways, and along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) with Ministers in the Department for Transport and the Treasury, I view this as my last chance to help get the project over the line.

In preparation for what is my first Adjournment debate, I noted the last time that a politician with my surname spoke in a pre-recess Adjournment debate. It was 24 years ago, and the then Speaker—perhaps setting an unusual precedent—joined in the debate. If you want to say some supportive words, Mr Speaker, I am sure that my constituents would be very pleased—although, I admit that the extent to which Speaker Martin stuck to the topic of the debate in 2001 is debatable.

The A66 northern trans-Pennine project is the north of England’s largest road project and, at a cost of £1.5 billion, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the new Government are reviewing the business case. I will set out the importance of the project for my constituents and why it must go ahead.

I know that the Minister will not preannounce from the Dispatch Box the outcome of the spending review, but I hope that she will confirm that the A66 project is in the running and has not been shelved, as was claimed by a Conservative politician on BBC television last week. That politician oversaw and left a council on the brink of bankruptcy, and the irony of them now pontificating on the nation’s finances is frankly bizarre.

I take the financial position inherited from the last Government very seriously, and I applaud the Government’s mission of securing sustained growth. The important thing for those of us in the rural north is that we see our fair share of that growth and the investment that enables it. The last decade has given us reasons to worry. The Institute for Public Policy Research North has produced figures showing that between 2010 and 2020, the north missed out on £86 billion in transport investment compared with London—a lost decade that only leaves us weaker at a time when we need growth. Last year the same think-tank calculated that total public spending on transport projects in 2023-24 was £1,321 per person in London, which is more than double the £615 per person spent on the north.

I therefore welcome the Government’s renewed focus on the north and the recent announcements of higher investment in the north of England this year as part of Labour’s plan for change. Indeed, the Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will be spending  more than double the money per head on local transport in the north than in the south this year. But I still remember the last Government’s integrated rail plan for the north, which made not one mention of Cumbria.

I see this project as a key enabler for delivering growth in my region. The project will see the upgrade of approximately 50 miles of the A66 between the M6 at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner, converting single carriageway sections into dual carriageways and improving countless junctions along the route.

I feel obliged to offer some expectation management to my constituents, as not one mile of the road will be dualled in the Penrith and Solway constituency. The major benefits for the residents of Penrith will be the upgrades to the junction 40 of the M6 and the Kemplay roundabout. I cannot count the number of times I have sat in traffic on those junctions, alongside local residents fighting through the commercial and tourist traffic, just trying to go about their daily business, with tourists stuck just at the beginning or end of their holiday in the Lake District national park or north Pennines, and the heavy goods vehicle drivers anxiously thinking about their tachographs. Perhaps they are thinking about dinner and getting home to their families, as I am sure some hon. Members are now. Some are simply travelling down the M6, possibly not even conscious that a bottleneck on an adjacent A road is the cause of their delayed journey.

The planned underpass just outside Penrith will separate the east-west A66 traffic from the north-south flow. That will reduce traffic volumes by 55% and provide major benefits for local people, including pedestrians and cyclists, improving access to Penrith itself and the facilities and businesses around the roundabout. It will reduce delays and queues at the M6 junction 40 and will ensure that visitors have a much better start to their holidays, whether they are travelling by car or taking advantage of the local active travel network.

There will be environmental benefits and economic benefits. We would feel as if the Government had prioritised the rural north, so often neglected by central Government. This project will improve connections between Cumbria, North Yorkshire, the Tees Valley, Tyne and Wear, and beyond. It is the most direct route between the central belt of Scotland and the eastern side of England. It connects cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh with Leeds, Sheffield and Norwich, if those journeys are made by road.

Safety has been a huge concern along the route and there have been a number of avoidable deaths over the last few years. The junctions of particular concern are in the Richmond and Northallerton and the Westmorland and Lonsdale constituencies, and I know that the hon. Members representing those areas have raised their concerns with Ministers. However, the wider route is regularly used by my constituents and I am acutely aware of the risks that stretches of the road present.

Adjacent to the Kemplay roundabout are the Cumbria fire and police headquarters, with operational elements at both. In the summer, it can take 45 minutes for non-emergency vehicles to travel 100 metres. For our emergency services, that congestion presents a significant issue, and I know that Dave Allen, Cumbria’s police,  fire and crime commissioner, fully supports the project not only to improve emergency vehicle access, but to make the A66 safer.

After my election in July, I met National Highways to discuss the scheme, knowing that this Government faced difficult choices. I wanted reassurance that the business case was up to date and would withstand scrutiny. The primary economic benefits come from travel time savings that will be realised by business users. The A66 is an important route for freight traffic, with HGVs comprising a quarter of the vehicles on the route, and the fact that that is more than double the national average highlights the importance of the route for business. The regular closures on the existing route present significant disruption for business-to-business transactions, with many of my constituency businesses directly affected.

During discussions with National Highways, it became apparent that existing Treasury Green Book guidance prevents a distinction being made in the economic case between general road users and business vehicles. That means that the cost-benefit ratio does not distinguish between an individual making a social trip in a car and an HGV delivering vital components to a factory. For a road project so important to business, that is a disaster.

I understand that new guidance is on the way, but not in time for it to be used to appraise this project in this spending review. That limits the ability for the economic case to tell the true story, so efforts have been put in to reflect that within the strategic case. However, that still leaves me uncomfortable that the true benefits of the scheme are not fully articulated. As frustrated as I am, the economic case as it stands still predicts hundreds of millions of pounds of benefits, primarily through cost efficiency and saving to business, and even additional tax revenue through employment.

The project is vital for Cumbria. It will reduce road traffic accidents and deaths on the single-carriage section of the route. It will improve strategic regional and national connectivity, particularly for hauliers—heavy goods vehicles, which account for a quarter of all traffic on the road, are double the national average. It will reduce delays and queues during busy periods and improve the performance of key junctions such as the A66/A6 junction and M6 junction 40. It might even occasionally stop me missing the train. I appeal to Ministers to support this project. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Let us come to Minister Greenwood, even though I have been tempted to say that I hope it is not another 22 years before we discuss this again with a Campbell-Savours. \p Lilian Greenwood: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing today’s debate on the A66 northern trans-Pennine project, and I thank him for his powerful arguments. It has been some time since I travelled on the A66, which tells me that it is time for a trip to the Lake district sometime soon—although I will be rather wary now about how much time to allow for that journey.

My hon. Friend has been an incredibly determined campaigner for this project, which runs through part of his constituency. As he acknowledged, we have already  met to discuss the importance of the project to the region, and indeed its wider national significance. He has written to me to reiterate its value to business users, including freight, and highlighted the need to address safety concerns, which I take very seriously, as does the Secretary of State.

Although the Chamber is rather empty this evening, I am pleased to take the opportunity to thank other right hon. and hon. Members with constituencies along the route, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for their correspondence and for our meetings to discuss their aspirations for the A66. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway and others that they have convinced Ministers of the overwhelming local support for this important project.

Rebuilding Britain means modernising our transport infrastructure. This Government will maintain and renew our road network to ensure that it serves all users, remains safe and tackles congestion. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, the financial inheritance that this Government received is extremely challenging. Communities up and down the country have been given hope for new transport infrastructure with no plans and no funds to deliver them. We will not repeat that mistake.

This Government will rebuild our economic foundations while restoring transparency and public trust. That is why on 30 July 2024 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a multi-year spending review. But let me be absolutely clear: the A66 project is being considered as part of the second phase, which will conclude on 11 June. A decision on the A66 cannot be taken separately from that process, and whatever has been claimed by other local politicians, I can assure my hon. Friend that the project has not been shelved.

The spending review will support the development of our new long-term strategy for transport, developing a modern and integrated network with people at its heart. Within the north of England, the A66 link between the M6 at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner is a key artery in our strategic road network, providing a vital east-west connection across the Pennines. It links ports on the east coast of England with north-west England, southern Scotland and ferry links to Northern Ireland. The nearest alternative east-west motorway is the M62, which is much further south, and, looking northwards, the M8 in Scotland. Today the A66 between the M6 and the A1(M) is approximately 50 miles long and a mixture of single and dual carriageways. Approximately half of the route has already been dualled, leaving six sections of single carriageway to be upgraded.

National Highways notes that collision rates on the single carriageway sections tend to be higher than on the dualled sections and, tragically, a number of lives have been lost on the route in recent years. More than 22% of the vehicles on the route are goods vehicles, which is approximately twice the average proportion of such vehicles on the strategic road network as a whole. As my hon. Friend knows, the A66 is a vital link for people living along the route, enabling them to reach  shops, services and employment in nearby towns. For many living along the route, there is no alternative rail connection.

Upgrading the trans-Pennine A66 would enable traffic to flow more quickly. The scheme would make the A66 a more viable option for freight operators as they move goods across the country, aiding economic growth. As my hon. Friend noted, the economic case for the scheme could be improved if higher values for the freight value of time were included in the transport analysis guidance. We aim to do that in the future, but I am pleased to be able to assure him that the economic assessment of this project for spending review deliberations included a sensitivity test to show the impacts of using higher values for freight value of time. Dualling the remaining sections would make the route more resilient when incidents occur, as most collisions would be confined to one carriageway, allowing traffic to pass on the other—although we would of course prefer that there were no collisions at all.

My final point on the A66 northern trans-Pennine project is that National Highways estimates that the scheme could support the building of thousands of houses and the creation of thousands of jobs as part of growth deals and local plans along the route. It could also support Carlisle’s planned St Cuthbert’s garden village—an ambitious proposal to provide 10,000 new homes and create economic opportunities.

Until the conclusion of the spending review, the interim settlement is the framework for the £4.8 billion investment for National Highways for the current financial year. The investment includes more than £3 billion for capital enhancements, including the A66 northern trans-Pennine scheme. This is a one-year settlement while we prepare to return to the road investment strategy settlements in a sustainable way.

The A66 northern trans-Pennine project is being considered alongside other future road projects as part of the spending review. Until that concludes, the Department is not in a position to make a judgment on individual schemes, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of this mission-driven Government. I am determined to ensure that we build the transport infrastructure needed to drive economic growth and opportunity in every part of the country, including the rural north.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing this debate, and thank him for the important contribution he has made. I hope that he is reassured that the Department fully appreciates the proposal’s importance to his constituents, to people in other constituencies along the route and to the wider country, and that the scheme is being considered carefully. I thank him again for this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.