debates/debates2025-06-03d conversation_26
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-06-03)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-06-03d conversation_26

Victoria Collins:My constituent Charlotte—a victim of abuse herself—has long campaigned for justice through transcripts and highlights how they can help victims to move forward with their lives. How can we ensure that victims are provided with sentencing remarks even if the accused is acquitted in a rape case? \p Sarah Sackman: The Ministry of Justice currently provides free sentencing remarks for victims of murder and manslaughter. As of last month, we have made permanent our pilot to provide those sentencing remarks to victims of rape. The hon. Lady will understand that providing full transcriptions is a costly exercise, which is why we are undertaking testing of artificial intelligence to make transcripts available in future in a lower-cost and timely manner. \p Andrew Cooper: At just 12 years old, my constituent was subjected to horrific abuse by a family member who was ultimately convicted of nine offences, including four counts of rape. The offender was sentenced in youth court to just a three-year referral order and a two-year restraining order. My constituent cannot appeal this sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme simply because of the court in which the case was heard. Will the Minister review this deeply troubling case and consider extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include youth court rape convictions? \p Shabana Mahmood: I hope that my hon. Friend heard the earlier answer on the unduly lenient sentence scheme and the review by the Law Commission, but if he writes to me with the specifics of that case, I will make sure that we look into it. \p Rebecca Paul: As of 1 May this year, there were seven biological males in HMP Downview, a women’s prison in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State confirm when they will be moved out? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Lady will be aware that those seven biological males are on E wing, which is a transgender-only facility. We will review the recent Supreme Court ruling and make sure that we are compliant in everything we do going forward. We have inherited a policy that we supported in opposition. It was a strong act by the last Government, but we will build on that following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. \p Kim Johnson: A recent freedom of information request showed that between January 2022 and March 2024, 52 prison staff were recommended for dismissal due to breaches of security. However, ten times that number resigned over similar breaches. What action has the Minister taken to strengthen training, oversight and accountability across the Prison Service to address this worrying trend and prevent further security failures? \p Nicholas Dakin: Prison officers do an amazingly positive job in our prisons. Occasionally, prison officers let themselves down, and those cases are properly looked at. We continue to keep a tight look, and we learn from any issues that occur. \p Sarah Pochin: Is the Justice Secretary content that her Department spends more than half a billion pounds every year locking up criminals who belong in other countries? \p Shabana Mahmood: I am content that this Government have deported more foreign national offenders than the previous Government. I am content that we have accepted the findings of the Gauke review, and we will be bringing the early removal scheme threshold from 50% down to 30% to make that sure more foreign offenders are eligible for removal from our country. \p Harpreet Uppal: Sadly, some of my constituents have experienced a double blow, not only from having defective cavity wall insulation installed, but from being pursued for adverse legal costs by firms such as SSB Law. Ministers have previously confirmed that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has opened an investigation. Will the Minister provide an update on that investigation and meet me to discuss how those affected can get redress? \p Sarah Sackman: Once again, I am sorry to hear about the impact that the collapse of SSB Law has had on my hon. Friend’s constituents and the many others affected. As she says, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is completing an investigation into the collapse. Disciplinary notices have been issued to several individuals and further decisions are expected before the summer. I am happy to provide her with a written update as that investigation is concluded. \p Julian Smith: I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Litigation finance plays a key role in the legal system in the UK and provides opportunities for postmasters and others to take cases to court. The Civil Justice Council has just published its report on the sector. When will the Government respond to that report? \p Sarah Sackman: I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I thank the Civil Justice Council for its work. He will understand that we have not yet had a chance to fully digest the report, but we anticipate acting on its recommendations in fairly short order. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: Lord Ponsonby told the Justice Committee in February that the Government will set out a public position on reform of wedding laws, including humanist marriage, in the next few months. The Minister has said much the same today, but when will it happen, and will it include reform of current cohabitation laws, which disadvantage millions of couples? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for that important question. He will know that our manifesto committed to reforming cohabitation law, and we will be bringing forward that reform shortly. The Law Commission’s report made 57 recommendations for reform of wedding law, including enabling non-religious groups such as humanists to conduct legally binding weddings, and we will be bringing forward information on our package of reforms shortly. \p Carla Lockhart: Recently, I attended a service marking 40 years since William Heenan was murdered by the IRA for being a Protestant. While we honoured his memory, the self-proclaimed “First Minister for all” in Northern Ireland was visiting the newly erected statue of IRA terrorist Bobby Sands, glorifying the movement responsible for the cold-blooded murder of men such as William. Will the Minister agree to meet me and innocent victims from Northern Ireland regarding the review and improvement of the glorification of terrorism legislation that applies to Northern Ireland? \p Shabana Mahmood: As I think the hon. Lady will be aware, that is primarily a policy area for our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, but I will make sure that we raise those issues with them.[Official Report, 1 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1WC.] (Correction) \p Nick Timothy: Yesterday, a man was convicted of a public order offence after burning a  Koran outside the Turkish embassy. The judge said that the fact that the man was attacked was proof that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour. This is grotesque, and means that in effect, we have a blasphemy law. Does the Justice Secretary believe that this should hold, or will the Government back my Bill to put an end to all of this madness next week? \p Shabana Mahmood: We do not have a blasphemy law, and we are not going to have a blasphemy law in this country. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I believe that that specific case is going to be subject to an appeal, so it would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to comment on the details of the matter. However, I am sure that once all other channels are exhausted and we have a final resolution, we will be debating these matters in detail in this House. \p Victoria Atkins: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on Thames Water’s financial situation. \p Steve Reed: I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this urgent question. I want to begin by making clear that Thames Water remains stable, and the Government are carefully monitoring the situation. Customers can be assured that there will be no disruption to water supply.

Thames Water is a commercial entity currently engaged in an equity raise, and KKR pulled out of that process earlier today. As Thames Water has said, the company will continue to work with its creditors as part of the equity raise to improve its financial position. There remains a market-led solution on the table, and we expect the company and its directors to continue the process that is under way and fix the financial resilience of the company in the interests of its customers. I want to be clear that the Government are prepared for all eventualities across our regulated industries and stand ready to intervene through the use of a special administration regime, should this be required to ensure the continued provision of vital public services.

The situation facing Thames is taking place within a wider context. Only last year, we saw record levels of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas. It is clear that our water system is broken. We have already passed legislation so that the regulator can ban the undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses that so outraged the public, and we have further strengthened accountability through the introduction of up to two years in prison for polluting water bosses who break the law. We have increased the regulator’s resources and launched a record 81 criminal investigations into water companies, and we have followed the “polluter pays” principle, meaning that companies that are successfully prosecuted will pay for the cost of that prosecution so that further prosecutions can follow. We have worked with the water companies to secure £104 billion of private sector investment to rebuild our broken water infrastructure. That means new sewage pipes, fewer leaking pipes, and new reservoirs across the country, as we work to end the sewage scandal that we inherited from the previous Government.

I launched the Independent Water Commission, under Sir Jon Cunliffe, so that it could outline recommendations for a once-in-a generation opportunity to transform our water industry and ensure that it delivers the service that the public deserve and our environment needs, and today Sir Jon published an interim report setting out the commission’s preliminary conclusions. The Government will respond in full to the commission’s final report in due course, and will outline further steps to benefit customers, attract investment and clean up our waterways.

Whether we are talking about Thames Water or about other companies serving other parts of the country, the era of profiting from pollution is over. This Government will clean up our waterways for good. \p Victoria Atkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by correcting the Secretary of State? When he refers to private sector investment, he is in fact referring to the bill increases that each and every one of us will pay—£31 a year—so when he talks about private sector investment, he means bill payers’ investment.

Some 16 million residents and bill payers will have been concerned by this morning’s news that the private equity firm KKR has pulled out of its rescue deal with Thames Water. According to a source close to KKR, one of the reasons it pulled out was its concern about negative rhetoric directed at Thames Water and the rest of the industry in recent weeks by the Secretary of State and other Ministers. In other words, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have talked themselves out of this rescue deal. I am bound to say, if only they could do the same thing with the Chagos islands deal.

On which date did the Secretary of State discover that KKR was thinking of pulling out of this deal, and what involvement did he have in the phone calls over the weekend between KKR and No. 10 spads to try to rescue it? I ask because in recent weeks there have been briefings to the press that he is considering temporary renationalisation. The Treasury has apparently instructed him that he will need to find up to £4 billion from the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to cover the cost of this manoeuvre. Let me put that in context: the entire farming budget for this year is roughly £2.5 billion.

Can the Secretary of State therefore explain the options to which he has just referred, and do they include a plan for temporary renationalisation? From which budget would a temporary renationalisation come: DEFRA or central funds? That question is particularly relevant in view of the upcoming spending review, on which there has been detailed briefing, including the suggestion that the DEFRA budget is to be slashed.

The Secretary of State referred to the Cunliffe report, which we will of course look at very carefully, but can he confirm—this recalls yesterday’s shambolic defence review announcement—that there is no funding for this latest review, and that it will do nothing to resolve the immediate issue of Thames Water’s solvency, which he has mishandled, just as he has mishandled the family farm tax, the fishing industry and the sustainable farming incentive? \p Steve Reed: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making it clear to the House that she does not understand the principles of private sector investment, and neither is it particularly clever to stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box and make up figures to  attack.

This Government stand ready for all eventualities, but I will make no apology for tackling the poor behaviour of water companies and water company executives that took place under the previous Government and that we are correcting. We even heard stories, which have been confirmed to me by water companies, of previous Conservative Secretaries of State shouting and screaming at water company bosses but not actually changing the law to do anything about the bonuses that they were able to pay themselves. This Government are taking action, working with customers, water companies and investors to ensure that we have a successful water  sector that works for the environment, customers and investors in a way that it completely failed to do under the previous Conservative Government. \p Clive Lewis: Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Let us be clear that the collapse of KKR’s rescue deal is not a blip; it is a reckoning—a moment that exposes the complete bankruptcy of the privatised water model. This morning’s interim Cunliffe review of the water sector confirms the scale of the crisis. It describes our water system—a regulated statutory monopoly—as being too risky for investors now. It did not seem to be too risky when shareholders were siphoning off billions in dividends while letting the pipes rot, the rivers choke and the debt pile up. The only people truly at risk now are bill payers, who face a 35% real-terms price hike in the next five years—and not just to fund clean water or climate resilience, because half of it is to boost investor return. So I ask my right hon. Friend again: when will the Government stop fiddling, put Thames Water into special administration, strip out the debt, and begin the job of returning our water system—not just Thames Water—to public ownership? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Lewis, I was very generous in bringing you in so early, but I did not expect you to make a statement yourself. \p Steve Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I reassure him that the Government stand ready for any eventuality and will take action as required. We are not looking at nationalisation because it would cost over £100 billion of public money, which would have to be taken away from other public services, such as the national health service, to be given to the owners of the water companies. It would take years to unpick the current model of ownership, during which time pollution would get worse. We know that nationalisation is not the answer, because we need only look at the situation in Scotland to see that. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Tim Farron: Under the Conservatives, Thames Water was allowed to pile up nearly £20 billion of debt while pumping sewage into rivers and lakes for 300,000 hours just last year, but rewarding its shareholders with £130 million of dividends. Today, Thames Water’s customers have been left in the lurch, and the Conservatives seem to think it is because we have all been a bit too mean about Thames Water.

The price must not be paid by the customers. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those who were responsible for making dreadful decisions rightly bear the cost instead? Is it not right for the company now to go into special administration, and to emerge from administration as a public interest company? Is it not also right that all water companies, including the likes of United Utilities in the north-west, move to a public interest model, so that caring for the environment matters more than profit?

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) has done more to hold Thames Water to account than Ofwat, this Government or their predecessor. Does that not prove that regulation has failed, and that   Ofwat should be abolished, with a new, powerful clean water authority given the power to clean up our lakes and rivers, and our industry? \p Steve Reed: I thank the hon. Member for his question. There is a procedure to be followed for special administration, and we stand ready should that be required, in this case or any other case involving the regulated industries. He may have had a chance today to look at the interim report, on which Sir Jon Cunliffe is inviting comments ahead of the final report in about a month. That report will form the basis of future legislation to fix the regulatory mess we inherited from the Conservative party. \p Clive Efford: Only the Conservatives could come here and defend Thames Water. The rest of the country has seen what an appalling performance this company has given during the 35 years since privatisation. I think it is time we put this company out of its misery, but we must do so in a way that does not bring the debts it has run up on to the taxpayer or the bill payers. Can my right hon. Friend say whether one of his options is preparing for that eventuality? \p Steve Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are prepared for every eventuality, as I have outlined, and we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure the continuing supply of water to customers in the Thames Water region and elsewhere. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. \p Alistair Carmichael: Under the £3 billion loan that Thames Water has negotiated, the first drawdown of £1.5 billion will be on 30 June, which is less than four weeks away. That is contingent on Thames Water having a lock-up agreement in respect of a recapitalisation transaction, but it now has no partner to provide that. It of course chose to proceed with just one option, which has now walked away. Who does the Secretary of State think that Thames Water will now turn to—it is not exactly going to be negotiating from a position of strength—and what are the Government going to do if it cannot meet that 30 June deadline? \p Steve Reed: There remains a market-led solution on the table, and we expect Thames Water to follow through with the process to ensure it is able to fix the problems it is currently facing. \p Meg Hillier: My constituents and other Thames Water users are fed up to the back teeth with having to pay more to help this company, which has failed them so badly. Obviously, the Secretary of State has to have special administration on the table, but we know that would be hugely costly to the taxpayer. I know it is hard to talk about hypotheticals, but if he does go down that route, will he have the cost to individual customers front and centre, so they do not actually have to pay more for that process? \p Steve Reed: Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I share her anger at the fact that bill rises were so high this year, but that is because the Conservative party did not take the necessary action to ensure that the water system was properly maintained. As anyone  who has ever owned or lived in a house will know, if people see a crack in a wall and leave it for 10 years without fixing it, the problem gets much worse and the cost of repairing it is much more. In a very real sense, the public have been left to pay the price of Tory failure. \p Joy Morrissey: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will ensure that Thames Water stands by its commitment to upgrade our sewage network in South Buckinghamshire? Specifically, will he ensure that the upgrade promised for the Little Marlow sewage treatment works in my constituency is delivered on time? \p Steve Reed: I am happy to give the hon. Member that reassurance. The Government expect Thames Water to carry through on the full range of programmes agreed as part of the last price review process. \p Helen Hayes: My constituents have been comprehensively failed by Thames Water for many years. We saw the catastrophic flood in Herne Hill in 2013, when many local businesses had to close permanently. Vulnerable customers were let down during the “beast from the east” freeze-thaw event, being left without water for days and days at a time. There are endless roadworks in the same locations where it has repeatedly failed to invest adequately in its infrastructure. Now my constituents are seeing bills go up by way more than the Ofwat determination. It is clear that this organisation is not fit for purpose. What options is my right hon. Friend considering to bring this misery to an end, and to put customers back at the heart of Thames Water’s operations? \p Steve Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am sure that she will have seen today the interim report from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s water commission, which outlines his initial thoughts on how to fix the broken regulatory system. The Government have also increased compensation from what we inherited from the previous Government, so her constituents who suffer from the kinds of problems she outlined can expect far better compensation as a result of this Government’s actions. \p Richard Tice: I declare an interest as a Thames Water customer. The reality is that Thames Water is bankrupt. It cannot pay its debts and it cannot meet its legal obligations to Ofwat, the state and its customers. Therefore, surely the right thing to do is to put it out of its misery, and put it into special administration for £1. The shareholders and the debt holders know—caveat emptor—that they have all blown their dough. If the Government buy it for £1, which would be a good deal for the taxpayer, it will not have to pay huge, egregious rates of interest and taxpayers and customers will be the beneficiaries. \p Steve Reed: I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that Reform cares so much about the problems facing our water system that it did not mention it even once in its general election manifesto. What he is proposing—nationalising the water sector—would cost in excess of £100 billion, which is money that Reform would have to take away from the services, such as the national health  service, on which his constituents rely. I think they would be very ill-served by him if he were to take away that funding, and push up the waiting lists we have just started to see coming down as a result of this Government’s investment. \p Liam Conlon: As a neighbouring MP, the Secretary of State will know the level of outrage in my constituency at the continuous failures of Thames Water, including the five-day period earlier this year during which residents were left without water. Given that this Labour Government have introduced measures to make polluting water company executives criminally liable and to ban unjustified bonuses, does he agree that we are finally seeing accountability brought back to the water sector? \p Steve Reed: I thank my hon. Friend, and indeed neighbour, for his question, and I know what a strong water champion he is on behalf of his constituents. His constituents, much like everybody else’s, will now benefit from increased compensation when there are failures. I agree with him that one of the problems we inherited from the previous Government was having a failing system with no accountability at all, so it is quite right that we have introduced new criminal liabilities and potentially prison time for polluting water bosses, and that we have given the regulator the power to ban the unfair and undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses they got away with under the Conservatives. \p Charlie Maynard: Does the Secretary of State agree with Thames Water’s own expert adviser Teneo—on page 193 of the expert advice report—that the ultimate cost to the Government if the company goes into special administration will be zero? \p Steve Reed: The point is that there is a market-led solution on the table and I expect Thames Water to follow through on that. \p Yuan Yang: It is possible for an American private equity company to walk away from Thames Water, but my constituents cannot. When water company bosses fail, it is our residents who pay: in sewage discharged into rivers and in their crumbling pipes and drainage. I am therefore glad that the Government have taken bonuses off of failing bosses, but what more can the Government do to tilt incentives towards investment in our infrastructure so that my constituents get some relief? \p Steve Reed: The problems that my hon. Friend points to are to do with a lack of investment throughout the entire period of the previous Government, so I was delighted that just before Christmas we secured a commitment to £104 billion of private sector investment. That is the single biggest investment in our water sector in its entire history and will be the second biggest private sector investment into any part of the economy under this Government. We are serious about clearing up the Conservatives’ sewage mess. \p Lincoln Jopp: Thames Waters is a massive stakeholder in my constituency, and the biggest landowner. We have half of London’s drinking water in four raised reservoirs and we have a fair chunk of the Thames, from Staines to Sunbury. For 11 months now, I have been trying to get a meeting with Thames Water.  I appreciate that it has had one or two other things on its mind recently, but can the Secretary of State use his good offices to encourage Thames Water to meet me? \p Steve Reed: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the water companies—Thames Water and all the others—should of course engage with MPs who are seeking to represent the interests of their constituents. I would be very happy to approach Thames Water on his behalf to ensure that he gets the meeting he seeks. \p Daniel Francis: My constituents, like those of my colleagues, are gravely concerned about the increase in their water bills, but I am also as concerned as them about the impact on business. Crayford town centre was closed again last month—the third year on the trot—because of rotting infrastructure. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to my constituents that no matter what happens, we will continue to invest in infrastructure to ensure that those kinds of closures finally end? \p Steve Reed: My hon. Friend will be aware of the action we have taken through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to give the regulator the power it needs to ban the unjustified bonuses that water bosses were able to pay themselves under the previous Government. The era where they could profit from pollution ended when that Government ended. \p Ellie Chowns: The Green party has campaigned for the public ownership of water since the year dot, unlike certain cynical opportunists behind me on the Reform Benches. We know allowing privatised monopolies to control water leaves infrastructure crumbling, waterways running with sewage, sky-high bills, and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank. Given this obscene and fundamental failure, why will the Government not even consider bringing water back into public hands, where it belongs? \p Steve Reed: The problems facing the water sector are to do with failures of governance and regulation. We need to tackle the actual problems, not the imagined ones. If we were to seek to nationalise the water sector, that would cost in excess of £100 billion that would have to be taken away from services such as the national health service or education. It would take years to unpick the current model of ownership, during which time there would be no investment and water pollution would get worse. From the example of Scotland, we know that nationalisation is not the answer, because there are also problems with pollution there. We will ensure that our priority is pure water, not the purity of the hon. Lady’s ideology. \p Peter Swallow: As Thames Water dumped sewage into the Cut and the Blackwater in my constituency, the Conservative Government washed their hands not in it, but of it. This Government are acting to ban bonuses, to issue the biggest fine we have seen from Ofwat and to bring in criminal liability. As we seek more action to get to grips with the Thames Water crisis, will the Secretary of State commit to putting two things at the forefront of his mind: first, our  environment and cleaning the sewage; and, secondly, making sure that customers and our constituents get a fair deal? \p Steve Reed: I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have launched 81 criminal investigations into water companies for pollution and other failings—a dramatic increase on what we inherited from the previous Government. I am sure he will recall that they cut the resources to the regulator in half. Despite the appalling financial inheritance, we increased resources by 9% at the Budget and we have now introduced the polluter pays principle, so that where there is a successful prosecution of a water company, that company will pay the price of the investigation, so that further investigations and prosecutions can follow. \p Munira Wilson: Thames Water is teetering on the brink, investors are running for the hills and my constituents are paying the price for its mismanagement through soaring bills. All the while, it is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a proposed sewage recycling project at Teddington lock on the River Thames in my constituency, which will at best be used every two years and which some cynics suggest is designed entirely to boost its balance sheet. This morning, the Secretary of State committed to my constituent Ian McNuff that he would come and visit the site to look at the impact of the proposed project. Will he reiterate that commitment today? My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I would be delighted to welcome him. \p Steve Reed: As I said to the hon. Lady’s constituent, I would be happy to visit if my diary allows. In any case, I would be very happy to ensure she gets a meeting with the Minister for Water to discuss her concerns around Teddington. \p Jayne Kirkham: Does the Secretary of State agree that it comes to something when the Opposition seem to be suggesting that Thames Water should maybe not be sanctioned, because that may put its preferred bidder at risk, when it had rejected others? Jon Cunliffe suggested stronger regulation, not weaker. Is it not clear that the direction that this Government are going in must be the right one? \p Steve Reed: I agree. The whole mess we inherited was due to the previous Government letting the water companies get away with it; people were paying themselves multimillion-pound bonuses as they profited from pollution. That ended when the Conservative Government were defeated. We are putting the water companies under tough special measures and we will focus them on serving their customers and the environment, not themselves. \p Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State think that the situation might improve if Thames Water executives were obliged to sign up to performance-related pay? \p Steve Reed: That is a very interesting proposal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will suggest it to Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is currently looking at a better way to regulate. \p Rebecca Long-Bailey: I note the Secretary of State’s reluctance to entertain public ownership, but I draw his attention to research from the University of Greenwich that shows that bringing water into public ownership would pay for itself within about seven years and that, after that, it would save the public purse up to £2.5 billion a year. Is the Secretary of State aware that immediately bringing Thames Water into special administration and permanent public ownership would cut the company’s massive debt mountain in half, stop the payment of huge dividends and debt payments into the future, and within just several years actually start turning a profit for the people of this country? \p Steve Reed: I beg to slightly correct my hon. Friend. Special administration is not nationalisation and nationalisation would cost in excess of £100 billion—money we would have to take away from other public services to hand to the bosses of the water companies who caused this mess in the first place. I do not think taxpayers would welcome that. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I received a note in my inbox today from the Government engagement lead for north Thames valley that says that Thames Water will run out of money in summer 2026. Will the Government commit to taking Thames Water into special administration and unburden the company of its debt via its creditors, or will Members be required to block their diaries for summer 2026 for another recess recall? \p Steve Reed: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are procedures to follow that would require any regulated company to go into special administration. As things stand, Thames Water remains stable and there is a market-led solution on the table. We expect Thames Water to follow through on that. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: This is another example of the previous Government’s failure to get a grip of our water system. Meanwhile, just last week this Government fined Yorkshire Water £350,000. My constituents are really upset to see their water bills going up. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will never let our national infrastructure get as bad as those on the Conservative Benches did? \p Steve Reed: Absolutely; we intend to clear up the mess the previous Government made. The fine that my hon. Friend refers to—indeed, there have been others—is the result of the additional criminal investigations we have launched, which follow on from the additional resources we have given the regulator so that it can investigate what is going wrong and then take action. What a difference between this Labour Government, who are putting our water companies under special measures, and the previous Government, who let them get away with it and line their pockets. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I find it deeply depressing to hear the Secretary of State say that somehow or other there is a market solution there for Thames Water. We have had 35 years of excessive profits, pollution and rising bills. He knows he will have to take Thames Water into public ownership at some point. He quotes this strange figure of £100 billion in compensation, but surely if we took it into public ownership, Parliament would set the price at which we would purchase the  company, taking into account excessive profits, pollution, damage and the destruction of so many people’s lives through the way Thames Water has behaved. Will the Secretary of State be tough with it for once and say that water is a human right, and that it should be publicly owned and publicly run? \p Steve Reed: Water is indeed a human right, which is why this Government are taking every step necessary to sort out the broken water system that we inherited from the previous Government. \p Perran Moon: The situation at Thames Water is deeply disturbing, and in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—the home of Surfers Against Sewage—there is now deep anxiety that this commercial insecurity will spread. With only three prosecutions and no meaningful penalties under the previous Government, is it not clear that the Conservatives prioritised the polluters instead of protecting the environment and customers? \p Steve Reed: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to congratulate Surfers Against Sewage on its fantastic work highlighting the failures of the water sector under the previous Government. I am sure both my hon. Friend and the charity will welcome the 81 criminal investigations we have launched in order to find out where lawbreaking is happening, to take action against it and to hold those who are responsible accountable for once. \p Monica Harding: In this Chamber in September, I called for Thames Water to be put into special administration in order to protect my constituents. A portion of the bills they have paid since then has gone on lawyers and consultants to put together a deal that has collapsed. The Liberal Democrats—unlike the Conservatives, who continue to bury their heads in the sand—have fought against throwing more good money after bad, and more and more debt. The Government did not act in September. Will they act now, put us all out of our misery and put Thames Water into special administration? \p Steve Reed: As I have said, the Government stand ready for all eventualities, should they be needed. \p Julian Smith: I refer the House to my registered voluntary interest. Over a year ago, I spoke to one of the then biggest investors in Thames Water, and I was struck by the fact that they said they had never been in a room with the regulator, other investors or the Government. I know it is difficult commercially, but I urge the Secretary of State, in trying to resolve this issue rapidly, to use his good offices and do as much as possible in the background to bring all the stakeholders to the best result. \p Steve Reed: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question; I think what he is referring to, in the round, is the failures of the regulatory system and, indeed, the regulators. He will have seen that Sir Jon Cunliffe points to exactly the same problems in his interim report, published today. As we work towards the final report, published in about a month, Sir Jon is starting to point to solutions, and I am sure he will want to pay attention to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. \p Luke Taylor: The British public are not fools—they know when the emperor has no clothes and, indeed, when a regulator has no teeth. Ofwat has failed, just as Thames Water has failed. Will the Government now act on the Independent Water Commission’s findings, published today, scrap Ofwat and replace it with a regulator that can end this crisis, which has been decades in the making? \p Steve Reed: We are working towards resetting the entire regulatory framework, as the hon. Gentleman may have seen from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report, published today. He is absolutely right, though: under the previous Government, the regulator was absolutely toothless. That is why one of the first pieces of legislation this Government passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which gave the regulator the power it lacked previously to ban the unfair and unjustified multimillion-pound bonuses that so outraged the public as those companies profited from pollution. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the Secretary of State for his comments on continuity of service, which will provide some reassurance to my constituents. Thames Water has failed my constituents time and again; clearly, it needs investment. What is he doing to ensure that there is the confidence to invest in our water sector? \p Steve Reed: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Part of making the sector more investable is ensuring that we have a robust, clear and predictable regulatory framework, which is what Sir Jon Cunliffe is working towards. The hon. Gentleman may have had a chance to look at the interim report that Sir Jon published today; if he has not, I recommend it to him. That is the way we create an investable water sector and bring in the money that will allow us to fix our broken water system once and for all. \p Calum Miller: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My constituent Bruno lives in Charlton-on-Otmoor. When it rains heavily, sewage flows into his garden, which is within sight of a pumping station that fails every single time. One third of bills paid to Thames Water by Bruno and other customers is used to service the company’s debt; that money should instead be invested, and should go towards improving pumping stations like the one near Bruno’s garden. Why will the Secretary of State not recognise that Thames is financially unviable, bring it into special administration, write down the debt and ensure that the future company serves the public interest? \p Steve Reed: The hon. Gentleman points with a graphic example to what happens when we face the scale of regulatory failure that developed untroubled under the previous Government. That is why Sir Jon Cunliffe has brought forward his report today, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read; I hope he will also provide Sir Jon with feedback, which he is asking for ahead of his final report in a month’s time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have helped to secure £104 billion of private sector investment by the conclusion of the price review period. That will be used to upgrade exactly  the kind of facilities that he points to, which are letting down his constituents and mine, and those of everyone else in the House. \p Will Forster: With a third of customers’ bills going to service Thames Water’s debt, my constituents are fed up of paying higher bills for Thames Water’s mistakes. Will the Government agree to put Thames Water into special measures to save my constituents and bill payers money? It is only a matter of time for Thames Water; will the Secretary of State act now and save people money? \p Steve Reed: I share the hon. Gentlemen’s anger that the public have been left to pay the price of Tory failure over 14 years. One of the first things I did when I was appointed Secretary of State was get the water company chief execs into my office, seven days after the election. I got them to commit to ringfencing customers’ money that is earmarked for investment, so that it can never again be diverted to pay bonuses and dividends in the way that it was under the previous Conservative Government. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Member for Strangford—on water, no less. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his answers, and for his perseverance on this subject. He will understand that it is disappointing in the extreme to hear that public funding may have to be used to bail out this company. Given that it has some 8,000 British employees and serves 25% of the UK population, Government attention is very urgently needed. What steps will be taken to ensure that this is not money down the drain, to use a pun, and that we instead reconstruct a viable concern that takes a modern approach? Does the Department have a team ready and able to step up and achieve that goal? \p Steve Reed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are ready for every eventuality, and there are teams in place to carry this out. Let me reassure him that I have no intention of using public money to bail out this company; we are looking for a market-led solution to its challenges. I thank him for his kind personal words—we will all keep persevering until we have cleaned up our waterways for good. \p Victoria Atkins: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. \p Lindsay Hoyle: It is not to continue the argument, is it? \p Victoria Atkins: indicated dissent. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Okay, shadow Secretary of State. Let us see if it is a point of order. \p Victoria Atkins: It is just to correct the record, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has given the impression in his answers—without, I am sure, intending to—that the investigations of which he is very proud, from July last year, were a direct result of Labour winning the election in July. That is simply incorrect. As I have drawn to his attention on Twitter, courtesy of a press release on 20 February last year, we in fact invested some £55 million in further investigations, which is the— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not responsible for the correction. You have certainly put the matter on the record. The Secretary of State may want to come back; if not, we will move on. \p Ellie Chowns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the House will know, Laila Soueif stopped eating 247 days ago to try to save her son, the imprisoned British-Egyptian national, Alaa Abd el-Fattah. He is an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience who has been in jail for more than a decade because of his writings on democracy. Laila is now at risk of death. Have you had any indication of whether the Foreign Secretary will come to the House to inform us about what action the Government are taking to secure Alaa’s urgent release? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I have had no message to say that a member of the Government will be coming to the House today, but what she has said is certainly on the record. I know, too, that the Prime Minister took notice of the question on this subject that was put to him, and I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard what the hon. Member has said. \p James Cartlidge: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, following the publication of the hard copy of the strategic defence review, I informed you that I was aware that at least two major defence companies had been given a copy of that document at 8 am yesterday morning. Looking at what happened on the market, I noticed that the share price of one of those companies spiked very sharply at exactly that time. We do not know exactly what that can be attributed to, but you will be aware that the “Ministerial Code” says very clearly, on the publication of White Papers and consultation papers, that

“where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.”

Presumably, that is to avoid this sort of effect from the receipt of privileged information that is not made available to other companies. Mr Speaker, I seek your advice on how to pursue this matter further. Have you heard from the Government on whether they will make a statement, or take any steps to investigate these matters? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I have had no indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement. What the shadow Secretary of State has said is on the record, and I know that he will not give up on this. I suspect that he will be on his way to the Table Office to see what advice he can be given on pursuing this matter. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Jayne Kirkham: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a report on the potential merits of appointing a commissioner to consider, investigate and make recommendations to address welfare issues faced by personnel serving in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and their families.

This year marks the 120th anniversary of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which was founded in 1905. In those 120 years, RFA personnel have developed a proud sense of independence. They are non-military merchant navy sailors who support and supply the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, and they have a steadfast dedication to public service. Much of their work happens behind the scenes—they do not often make the headlines—but they are vital to UK defence, maritime power, and humanitarian and disaster relief.

The RFA refuels warships at sea. It delivers ammunition, supplies, food and water, and it transports Royal Marines and equipment to where they are needed. RFA ships were in the Falklands, Kosovo, the first Gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan. RFA personnel are not armed combatants, but they are deployed in war zones and they face danger. Recent RFA deployments have included: anti-narcotics missions in the Caribbean, the Persian gulf and the Indian ocean; the provision of disaster relief to Haiti, following earthquakes in 2010 and 2021; anti-people smuggling operations in the mediterranean; and the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The RFA Proteus was instrumental in responding to the security threat posed by the Russian vessel Yantar in the North sea last November. Responding to this sort of “grey zone” security threat, especially to subsea energy and communications infrastructure, is an increasing part of Royal Navy and RFA work to enhance national maritime security.

As RFA ships are maintained at the port of Falmouth, in my constituency, and call it their home, I have become accustomed to seeing them sailing in and out of Falmouth bay. I remember watching the RFA Argus depart in September 2014 to deploy off the west coast of Africa during the Ebola pandemic. She provided crucial medical equipment, supplies and food, and transported doctors, nurses and military personnel. On her return, she was honoured with an Admiralty Board letter of commendation.

I have highlighted these examples to show how important and varied RFA operations are. RFA personnel are, without doubt, incredibly hard-working, committed and courageous, but due to the unique nature of their service, they often do not receive the same level of protection and recognition as the rest of the forces. In recent years, the RFA has faced challenges. Resources are stretched, and the RFA has taken on more and more jobs previously done by the Royal Navy. At the same time, there is an ageing fleet and crew shortages—only six of 11 RFA ships are currently operational, and skilled positions are understaffed by 30% to 50%. The UK carrier strike group in the Pacific ocean is relying  on the Norwegian navy for solid support capacity due to the RFA Fort Victoria being non-operational. The Fort Victoria is more than 35 years old, and a replacement for the UK’s only solid support ship is not expected until the early 2030s. It is crucial for the UK’s security and impact on the world stage that the RFA is properly resourced. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the RFA during his statement on the strategic defence review yesterday.

The recruitment and retention crisis in the RFA has been fuelled by issues with pay and terms and conditions. A 2024 report commissioned from Faststream by the Ministry of Defence found that the RFA leave ratio was one to 0.69, and that the RFA offered less time off per day worked than any other sector. Personnel regularly have four-month sea tours. Officers have experienced a real-terms pay cut of over 30% since 2010. The Faststream report stated:

“The RFA’s current offering pays lower than the market average for the net day rate in every rank benchmarked.”

I was therefore pleased to see the pay deal that was agreed earlier this year by this Government. Alongside a pay increase, there was a commitment to improved terms and conditions, including reduced length of assignments, and an agreement to ratify a new collective bargaining agreement reached by the RFA and maritime trade unions. This, I hope, is just the beginning; we need to do more and go further to support RFA personnel. The Armed Forces Commissioner will be an independent, direct point of contact for armed forces personnel—someone with whom they can raise complaints and welfare issues. There should be an equivalent for the RFA—or the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill could include the RFA. It would mean that RFA personnel could raise concerns about bullying, unsafe working conditions, discrimination, and misconduct, but inclusion under the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit—or indeed that of a separate commissioner—would not change the RFA’s legal status. It would not militarise the RFA, which would retain the separate identity of which its personnel are so proud. Unions should rightly have a say in proposals for a commissioner that encompasses the RFA.

The Armed Forces Commissioner will supersede the previous service complaints ombudsman commissioner, whose remit was much narrower. This follows through on the promise made by this Labour Government to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. That contract should not end at the gates of a naval base, or the stern of an auxiliary ship. It should recognise the service of RFA personnel.

The families of servicemen and women will now also be able to raise issues with the commissioner. If RFA personnel came under the commissioner’s remit, their families would benefit, too. Partners and children of service personnel and the RFA are alone for long stretches of time. We know that service takes a toll not just on those in uniform, but on those around them; they need that support and that scaffolding, too. I am very aware of that as a former Navy wife.

We cannot claim to support the forces if we do not support those in auxiliary roles— the people who facilitate global deployments. The RFA must not be an afterthought in defence policy. Now more than ever, we need to provide RFA personnel with decent pay, conditions, career progression, equal time off, and modern vessels  to reflect the importance of the role that they play in an ever-changing and dangerous world.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Jayne Kirkham, Anna Gelderd, Andrew George, Anneliese Midgley, Ben Maguire, Chris Bloore, Graeme Downie, Jacob Collier, Laurence Turner, Luke Akehurst, Noah Law and Perran Moon present the Bill.

Jayne Kirkham accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 252). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 18 November 2024 (Armed Forces Commissioner Bill: Programme): \p UNKNOWN: (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

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

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Luke Pollard: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 2 and 3, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 4 to 7. \p Luke Pollard: I am delighted that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to the House. I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were proposed by the Government in the other place, as well as Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were proposed by the Opposition and to which we have proposed an amendment in lieu to strengthen them.

Before I start, I would like to recognise the publication of the strategic defence review yesterday, which signifies a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence. We made clear then, as I do today, that our people are at the heart of defence. The strategic defence review sets out our mission to look after our people better, to unlock their full potential, and to build a “one defence” culture that is focused, inclusive, respectful, and centred on valuing all contributions. The establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner is a key part of that mission.

I thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important piece of legislation. It is a landmark step in this Government’s commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand behind those who serve our nation. I extend my thanks in particular to Lord Coaker, the Minister in the House of Lords, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place. I also thank Baroness Goldie, the Earl of Minto, Baroness Smith of Newnham, Lord Stirrup, Lord Stansgate, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Beamish and Baroness Newlove, to name just a few who made valuable contributions in the other place on this important piece of legislation.

Seven amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. Before I turn to them, I remind colleagues that this Bill is part of a manifesto commitment made by Labour during the general election to improve the service life of all those who serve and, importantly, to provide for the very first time an opportunity for family members to raise concerns about service welfare as well. \p Jim Shannon: I think all of us in the House very much welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner. We have a new commissioner in Northern Ireland who is doing an excellent job. There is also a role for local councils to deliver the armed forces covenant. For councils in Northern Ireland that are perhaps hesitant—I am being very gentle with my words here—to fully integrate the covenant, will they be encouraged to  embrace in totality the opportunities that the Bill provides? Everything in the Bill is good, and I think the Government need to be congratulated on all they are doing. \p Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Implementing the armed forces covenant is something that this Government feel strongly about. That is why we are bringing forward legislation that will implement the armed forces covenant fully into law on a national basis, so that it grips not just on local authorities but on central Government. There is real merit in implementing the armed forces covenant at a local level. There are pockets of best practice nationwide—not just in military cities like Plymouth, which I represent, but across the country. It can also be of benefit to councils and communities, so I would encourage him to continue his campaign to ensure that the covenant is properly implemented.

For too long we have heard stories of bad experiences that have gone unchallenged, some resulting in tragedy. The Defence Secretary has made it clear from his first day in the Department that there will be zero tolerance for this type of behaviour. That is why we are acting, and that is why I hope that the whole House will support this vital endeavour and the amendments to the Bill.

I invite the House to agree to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which were made by the Government in response to suggestions made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They have the effect of fully implementing the Committee’s recommendations to change the regulation-making power to define relevant family members contained in the Bill from the negative to the affirmative procedure. \p Michelle Scrogham: I recently met the mother of Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life after being sexually assaulted and abused within the services. I was really impressed by her mother’s strength and her campaign. Does the Minister agree that the Bill will give more powers to family members, and that maybe we can avoid these tragic incidents in future? \p Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for raising a serious case and a real tragedy, not just for the family of Gunner Beck but our entire armed forces. It needs to be a wake-up call, where we recognise that the behaviour within some of our services is unacceptable and that we need to make improvements. For that very reason we must continue to support the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, because it will enable family members as well as those serving in uniform to raise genuine service welfare complaints with the commissioner.

It will not solve every problem we have with the culture in our armed forces, but it provides a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion. My hon. Friend mentions a conversation she had with Gunner Beck’s family, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that to make sure that we properly learn the lessons that defence needs to learn.

I am proud to come from a naval family and to say clearly from this Dispatch Box that the families of our armed forces matter. For the very first time, this Bill will give them a say and allow them to raise concerns.  Family members are a crucial element of the commissioner’s remit, and we agree that the definition of a relevant family member should be subject to parliamentary debate and approval. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), raised that point on Second Reading, and we support it. We are moving it from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure, which will enable that discussion to take place.

Lords amendment 7 is a technical amendment that is consequential on clause 3, and I invite the House to support it. Clause 3 amends section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a “person” rather than only an “officer” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible. This is an evolution of the way that the service complaints system has worked and is a prudent change to make. \p Graeme Downie: The Minister mentions family members and other individuals raising complaints, but some of the complaints will be about devolved issues such as health, education and other issues that affect families. Can he reassure me that the Armed Force Commissioner will have an effective method of working with the devolved Administrations to make sure that the concerns of armed forces across the UK can be addressed? \p Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend is right that defence is a reserved matter, and so it is appropriate for this place to introduce a UK-wide Armed Forces Commissioner. It is also right that whoever is appointed to the role of Armed Forces Commissioner is able to raise issues of concern with the Administrations in every part of the United Kingdom—whether it is London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. Equally, they should be able to engage with local councils. The Armed Forces Commissioner role builds on the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, who already has a good working relationship with the devolved Administrations, so I am certain that whoever is appointed to role will be able to build on that and make sure that, for instance, if a housing issue is highlighted by someone based in Scotland, that can be raised with the appropriate individuals in the Scottish Government.

Lords amendment 7 will ensure that the language in section 340N of the 2006 Act is also updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is no inconsistency in the legislation.

I will now turn to Lords amendments 2 and 3 and the debate that took place in the other place about whistleblowing. I thank Baroness Goldie, one of the previous Defence Ministers in the House of Lords, in whose name the amendments were tabled, for her characteristically considered and constructive contributions to the Bill’s passage and for raising a serious issue. The amendments seek to introduce a new general function for the commissioner

“to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and their relevant family members,”

and to define the term “whistleblower” for the purposes of this Bill.

We believe that the amendments, while well intentioned, are unnecessary because the Bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their  families outside the chain of command. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matter that they choose; anyone can raise an issue with the commissioner, including the type of person defined in Baroness Goldie’s amendment; and the commissioner is independent, sits outside the chain of command and the Ministry of Defence, and reports directly to Parliament and not to senior officers nor to Ministers. \p Julian Smith: I acknowledge the many merits of the Bill. However, it seems that Baroness Goldie was seeking to ensure that women such as those abused at the army college in Harrogate, near my constituency, and other victims have a clear and well-known route called whistleblowing. I urge the Government to not underestimate that whistleblowing presents a real opportunity to encourage people to come forward. \p Luke Pollard: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right that the entire Bill, to an extent, is about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone in our armed forces and their relevant family members to raise a concern outside the chain of command. Effectively, that is the very heart and soul of what we propose in this legislation.

I will come to the amendment in lieu in a moment, but certainly, with that, we seek to strengthen the provisions that Baroness Goldie’s amendments propose. We agree that there is an issue that needs to be addressed within our armed forces and we recognise that there are behaviours that are unacceptable. The Ministry of Defence’s Raising our Standards work, which the Minister for Veterans and People leads on, is an important part of providing an opportunity for everyone who serves to raise those concerns and have confidence that they can do so within the chain of command, but where they feel unable to do so, there will be a route available to them through the Armed Forces Commissioner to raise those concerns. Equally, as I just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), this is about the ability of family members, who may feel less constrained by the chain of command or the structure of the armed forces, to do so on behalf of their family unit. I entirely understand the purpose of the amendments and I agree with their spirit, but we seek to strengthen them in the amendment in lieu.

One of the key parts of the amendments was to ensure that anyone who raises a concern will have their identity protected. It worth noting that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be bound by the data protection legislation that this House has passed, meaning that the personal information and details provided by anyone who contacts the commissioner will be subject to stringent controls.

On the specifics of the word “whistleblower”, we all understand what we mean when we hear that term, and it is important that we provide opportunities for those within our services to raise concerns. However, it is not completely straightforward from a legal point of view how that is enacted in this piece of legislation. Although there is some limited precedent for the use of the term, there is no single meaning and it requires additional context to explain what it means in each case. That  means some technical changes are required to Baroness Goldie’s amendment to make it operable within the Bill, which is why we seek to strengthen it.

The amendments seek to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but importantly, no additional protections are created because the commissioner can already investigate anything that is contained in the amendment proposed by Baroness Goldie. However, it is a useful opportunity for us to restate the importance of being able to raise concerns, especially about the abuse that happens in our armed forces, and to state on the record from the Dispatch Box that there is no place for any of that abuse in our armed forces and that not only is the Ministry of Defence taking steps to tackle it but there are protections in the Bill to enable that.

None the less, I understand the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that people feel better able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions or their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit behind that. A united voice from this House, saying that we will not tolerate unacceptable behaviours, will send a strong message to those watching this debate—both perpetrators and complainants—that the zero tolerance approach we want for the armed forces is one that we will all get behind. \p Peter Swallow: The Minister is absolutely right. We have to have that zero tolerance approach, not only because it is right for our service personnel who sacrifice so much and for their families, but because it strengthens our whole armed forces. That is why it was so important to see that focus on personnel in the strategic defence review. Will the Minister reflect briefly on the connection between the Armed Forces Commissioner and the strategic defence review in turning around the issue we have had with retention in our armed forces and finally getting to grips with that crisis? \p Luke Pollard: Certainly, the consequence of one of our proposed objectives with the Bill—making it easier for people to raise an issue about service life and to have that addressed—is improved retention. We know that people have concerns about service life. Housing is a good example, and yesterday’s strategic defence review allocated £1.5 billion to improve it. However, we need to make sure that we are reflecting on our approach, and for me there is a good reason we do so, which is based on warfighting. In the event that our people are asked to commit to combat, every member of our forces should know that regardless of the skin colour or religion of the people standing beside them in the trench, or of who they love, they will have their back, and they will have their back consistently. That equality of service is vital to military discipline and to upholding our values, and it is also something that we still need to work on. For that reason, we need to make sure that the Bill passes and can be implemented swiftly.

We want people to trust the commissioner and feel confident that their issues will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences as a result of coming forward. As such, I have tabled an amendment in lieu that would go further than Baroness Goldie’s amendments and ensure genuine protection in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner, preserving the anonymity of individuals who make complaints. \p Andrew Murrison: I note with interest the Government’s amendment in lieu. Does the Minister agree that, in all of this, which is unobjectionable in the main, there is a concern not around the person making the complaint but around the person about whom the complaint is made? As we live in an increasingly litigious society—the number of service complaints are going up and the number of cases considered by the ombudsman has been going up—it is likely that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s work and the number of people complained about will go up. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient support for those about whom complaints are made, since the distress that it causes when those complaints are unfounded, or unfounded in part, is significant? \p Luke Pollard: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has experience as a Minister who covered this area in the last Government. He is right that we need to reflect on the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Certainly, we need to make sure that we are looking after our whole force.

It is true that there are issues that we believe are not being addressed because there is not a sufficient spotlight being shone on them. It is for that reason that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill provides for a reporting function not to Ministers or the Chief of the Defence Staff, but to Parliament. Indeed, I believe the Defence Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is likely to receive those reports. It is precisely for those reasons that I believe the commissioner may be able to offer a view as to how the system they oversee will be able not only to protect victims and perpetrators, and seek justice with perpetrators, but deal with people who may be falsely accused. Largely, I expect general service welfare matters to be the predominant piece of activity for the commissioner, rather than necessarily looking at individual aspects of abuse or misbehaviour for which there is already a legal system within defence that can address some of those. As a whole, however, I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

In addition to the amendment that we have tabled in lieu, the Government have also committed in the other place to updating their current Raising a Concern policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under the policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. That will include provisions related to anonymity and confidentiality, and ensure that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to the raising of that concern.

Further, the Government will conduct a thorough communications campaign to ensure that members of our armed forces and their families are clear about the role of the commissioner and how to access their office, how it interacts with existing policy protections and policy, the type of issues that can be raised, and how they will be dealt with.

Taken together, our Government amendment and the additional commitments that I have outlined today and that Lord Coaker outlined to the House of Lords will establish genuine protections for people wishing to raise  concerns anonymously, and build trust and confidence with the armed forces and their family members in a way that we cannot envisage would be achieved by Lords amendments 2 and 3 on their own.

This Bill is a critical step in renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. For the first time, we are providing them and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised in due course by Parliament, and in turn for the Government—this Government and any Government in the future—to be held to account. That can only be a positive thing. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position. \p Bayo Alaba: In Southend and Rochford I have had the pleasure of meeting many veterans and service people, men and women, who keep our country safe. An Armed Forces Commissioner will be a direct point of contact for those serving and their families, and will have direct authority to investigate welfare complaints from housing to kit to issues affecting family life. As a former soldier myself, I know that losing a lot of kit happened often, but I digress. This role comes alongside record amounts of funding for the armed forces and housing, so I am sure that colleagues across the House are extremely proud— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Member really ought not to be making a mini-speech. Perhaps he is drawing his comments to a close. \p Bayo Alaba: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure colleagues across the House are extremely proud of our armed forces. Does the Minister agree that this Bill is an opportunity for us to show a united Chamber in support of our armed forces and that colleagues should support it? \p Luke Pollard: I agree with my hon. Friend’s interventions, and he need not worry, because I will not be sending him a bill for any of the kit that he might have misplaced over the years.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this House is at its best when we focus not on the party politics that may give us cause to divide ourselves, but on support for our armed forces personnel, their families and the missions that we ask them to undertake to keep our nation safe. It is precisely for that reason that I hope colleagues across the House will take note of what he has said and present a united House in relation to these amendments.

For the first time, we are providing our armed forces and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised by Parliament and, in turn, for the Government to be held to account. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to put aside party politics and to put our troops first, so that we can move closer to delivering this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families. \p Caroline Nokes: I call shadow Minister Mark Francois. \p Mark Francois: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could begin by referring briefly to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), which immediately preceded this debate. As a Navy wife, she clearly fully understands the vital role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in supporting our armed forces, and as the son of someone who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, I have grown up to appreciate everything that the RFA does for us. It is a wonderful organisation. I was sitting on the Front Bench throughout her speech and I wish her Bill all the best.

As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I rise to speak as a critical friend of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, driven by a commitment to ensuring that it delivers real and meaningful support for the brave men and women who serve our country. Our armed forces personnel deserve a system that honours their sacrifice and guarantees fairness, accountability and transparency when concerns arise.

To recap, the Bill at its core seeks to strengthen oversight by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner modelled partly on the German system, with Ofsted-like powers to access military sites and relevant information for investigations. If implemented well, it could improve the lived experience of our servicemen and women, bolstering public confidence in how their issues are handled.

A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner is a vision that I believe commands support right across the House. Saying that, where are Reform Members? This is legislation that is designed to enhance the welfare of our armed forces and their families, so why are they not here? Having checked in Hansard, I know that they were not here yesterday either. They took no part in either of the urgent questions, and no part whatsoever in the statement or the very long debate that followed it. Why? It is because Reform Members do not do defence. They are one-club golfers with one single issue, and unfortunately the welfare of our armed forces personnel and their families does not seem to be it. Their empty Benches speak volumes, and while I am at it, are there any Scottish National party Members here? Oh well, they do not take this very seriously either, do they? \p Chris McDonald: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point. I have sat in this House on, I think, all the occasions when we have been discussing defence, and I was also sorry to note that there were no Reform Members here for either the VE Day debate or the Remembrance Day debate. Does he agree that that shows the complete dereliction of a party that aspires to govern? \p Mark Francois: For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes.

At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case.

That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that

“Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”.

He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner. \p Mike Martin: Recently, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said that he was “ashamed” by the stories of sexual misconduct—predominately crimes committed against women in service. He also said that lots of these crimes go unreported, so lots are unknown as well as the terrible ones that are known. How can we have a truly effective independent commissioner if there is no whistleblowing function through which these crimes can be reported? \p Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. I hope that if time allows, he will also make a speech.

The Government themselves acknowledge that the commissioner provides an enhanced, independent route for raising concerns. Our amendments build on that by embedding a clear, accessible and statutorily protected whistleblowing function. That simplicity is vital for ensuring that service personnel, especially those who feel most vulnerable, can come forward without fear.

The Government have further argued that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. However, that claim is simply untenable. As Baroness Goldie powerfully highlighted in the other place, the Armed Forces Act 2006—section 340Q is titled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”—and the Police Reform Act 2002 provide clear statutory precedent for the term. Those Acts demonstrate that including whistleblowing adds tangible value to legislation, ensuring protections for those who expose wrongdoing. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and the very  Act that this Bill is designed to amend, how can the Government argue that it lacks clarity or value in this context?

Let me address the Government’s contradictory stance. In Committee in the other place, we proposed a broader amendment to empower the commissioner. In the other place, the Ministry of Defence dismissed it as too wide-ranging. In the spirit of constructive compromise, which has been the general tenor of the Bill throughout, we narrowed our amendment to focus specifically on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that this revised amendment is too narrow and does not grant sufficient powers—too broad, then too narrow. That inconsistency displays a reluctance to engage with the substance of our proposal.

To illustrate my point, let me offer two theoretical examples to the House. First, let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will be aware, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether any armed forces personnel who served, or indeed are still serving, in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but as of today, over 131,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward to an early debate in Parliament on these matters. While we are of course in the hands of the Petitions Committee and not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this occasion, we are hopeful that the Committee might allow a debate to take place as soon as possible, and certainly prior to the summer recess. I see Labour Members nodding, so I am keen to get that into Hansard.

Secondly, let us consider the theoretical example of an officer serving as a military assistant to a Minister on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence. What protection in law would that officer have if they became seriously concerned that a Minister they were working for was about to breach the ministerial code? Not that any Minister here today would, of course. How would an officer faced with a moral dilemma of that magnitude be permitted to act as a whistleblower to raise concerns that Ministers had acted inappropriately—something that would certainly impact their general welfare as well as the reputation of the Government they served? We will see if the Minister has anything to add before we conclude.

In summary—I know others are keen to speak—the Government have offered assurances about anonymity in the commissioner’s work and promised a communications campaign to raise awareness of the commissioner’s role. These are welcome steps, but, as I hope I have argued, they are not enough. A communications campaign is no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can rely on with confidence. The other place recognised that, delivering a significant cross-party defeat to the Government last month when Conservative peers, alongside others, successfully amended the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Lords amendments 2 and 3 are not just about process; they are about rebuilding trust.

I will listen closely to the Minister’s response, but if the Government cannot move beyond their current position and continue to offer assurances without real  statutory weight—I am afraid we find the amendment in lieu unconvincing—we will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. We owe it to our service personnel to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are properly investigated. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee. \p Tan Dhesi: As we consider the Lords amendments to the Bill, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the important issues that these amendments address.

I am pleased to support Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which enhance parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation under the Bill. The Government’s support for those amendments is a positive step towards greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of this important legislation.

I also want to highlight the significance of whistleblower protection. Lords amendments 2 and 3 rightly draw attention to the need to safeguard those who come forward with concerns. I welcome His Majesty’s official Opposition’s efforts to bring attention to this issue and to the Government’s commitment to this principle, particularly through the amendments they have tabled in lieu, which aim to protect the anonymity of individuals making complaints. That is essential for fostering a culture of openness and trust within our armed forces and ensuring the Armed Forces Commissioner has the confidence of serving personnel and those who make complaints.

I am grateful to the Armed Forces Minister for his clarification on the matter just now. As Chair of the Defence Committee, I want to reiterate that our Committee very much looks forward to holding a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the first Armed Forces Commissioner—a vital step in ensuring the independence and effectiveness of this new office.

Finally, as this is likely our last opportunity to debate the Bill in the House, I look forward to its passage into law and thank all those who have been involved in drafting and amending the Bill as it has made its way through both Houses. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were tabled by Conservative peer Baroness Goldie and supported in the other place by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject the Government’s proposals to remove them and replace them with a watered-down version. The amendments do something simple but profoundly important: they embed within the commissioner’s role a clear and explicit whistleblowing function, one that empowers service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare and wrongdoing safely and with confidence, and, crucially, one that provides statutory protections for those who speak up.

A complaints process and a whistleblowing system have two different purposes. A complaint is often about personal redress whereas a whistleblowing disclosure is  about drawing attention to serious wrongdoing, often at great personal risk in the public interest. The Government’s amendment in lieu acknowledges the importance of anonymity, but it does not go far enough. It merely inserts a provision to protect identifying details in publishing reports and only where the disclosure was “in response to a request”. It neither defines nor protects whistleblowers in statute.

Whistleblowing is a vital tool in surfacing systemic failure—something that our service personnel clearly need. It seems like almost every month brave service personnel and veterans come forward with shocking accounts of misconduct. Their accounts underline how much courage it takes to speak up and how easily that courage can be crushed by fear of social backlash, reprisal or career damage. The Government argued that anyone can raise a concern with the commissioner and that data protection law already protects anonymity, but data protection is not the same as whistleblower protection. It is passive and does not actively encourage disclosures, does not instil confidence and does not grant status or safeguards against retaliation.

The whistleblowing amendments would not overburden the commissioner; they would simply recognise whistleblowing for what it is: a unique and necessary channel for uncovering wrongdoing that might otherwise be buried. They are tightly drawn, limited to welfare matters, and designed to ensure that information reaches someone with the authority to act. The commissioner will be tasked with improving the culture and confidence among our armed forces. Nothing would do more to support that mission than keeping the amendments, which would introduce a whistleblowing function, giving our brave service personnel and their families an independent, trusted person to whom they can speak safely and be heard without fear.

I will vote against the Government motion to remove Lords amendments 2 and 3, and I urge colleagues to do the same. The amendments give confidence to those who wish to speak up, but who are afraid of the consequences. “Whistleblowing” is a simple, clear and well-understood term that can provide extra assurance. It could make this Bill truly transformative to the armed forces culture. \p Luke Akehurst: Yesterday’s strategic defence review rightly put our brave service personnel at the heart of defence plans, and this Bill is a fundamental part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the amendments made in the other place, which improve the Bill. However, I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a new general function for the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, but the House will know that the commissioner can already investigate any general service matters that they choose, and the Bill already allows anyone who wishes to raise such issues to do so. While the Lords amendments have been important in raising issues around anonymity for whistleblowers, Government  amendment (a) would go further by ensuring genuine protection for people who raise an issue that later features in an investigation and report by the commissioner. \p Calvin Bailey: I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3. We have seen time and again how important it is to allow our service personnel to speak up in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our armed forces and the success of critical missions. The 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, the 2005 loss of the C-130 Hilton 22, and the 2006 loss of Nimrod XV230 serve as stark reminders of what happens when concerns are not openly reported. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to maintaining anonymity by ensuring that no identifying information, or information that could lead to identification, is included without the explicit consent of service members. I also welcome the Government’s assurance that they will update the MOD’s “raising a concern” policy to reflect civilian protections and ensure that all individuals who come forward can do so with guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. \p Lola McEvoy: Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that referencing such awful disasters really brings into focus the lack of public awareness of the lack of support for our armed forces in previous years, and that this landmark Labour Bill will transform the culture in our forces in a positive way and is long overdue? \p Calvin Bailey: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This Bill marks a culture change in how the Government go about interacting with our armed forces, and provides them with a sense of pride but also the necessary process to ensure that their service is protected and treated with dignity and respect.

Ultimately, whether it is reporting on ongoing cultural issues of bullying and sexual harassment, poor quality housing or equipment safety concerns, every service member should feel empowered to do so and feel assured that they can and should speak up. We have seen how the armed forces ombudsman has consistently been unable to ensure that the service complaints system does not disadvantage or discriminate. Such findings raise serious concerns, highlighting the critical need for the new and empowered Armed Forces Commissioner to regain the trust of service members. Building that trust is more important than simply enacting new legislation; it is essential that service members feel confident that their complaints will be handled anonymously and fairly.

Ultimately, fostering a culture of trust in the armed forces must take precedence over the specific language of the legislation. It is the practical implementation by the chain of command, and commitment to the fair treatment of all, that will truly make a difference. I recognise that this Government are committed to renewing our country’s contract with those who serve, and the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner is an important step. The success of the Armed Forces Commissioner largely depends on the effective implementation of this Bill, and on the willingness of the chain of command to work with the commissioner. However, the Government must ensure that the service complaints system tackles the deep-rooted systemic issues that persist in the armed forces, recognising that the  establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is only one part of much-needed broader reform—not that Reform— \p Mark Francois: They are not here! \p Calvin Bailey: Indeed they are not.

We need to restore trust and deliver meaningful change for all of those who serve. \p Luke Pollard: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate in the time that we have left. On behalf of the Government, I thank all Members for their contributions. It is clear that there is widespread support for the principle of introducing an Armed Forces Commissioner, for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit to include relevant family members, and for us to get on and implement the Bill well, which I can assure the shadow Minister is our intention.

I will refer to a number of the points that have been raised in today’s debate. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) that we need to ensure that the system works. The Bill in front of us is not designed to adjust the procedures, policies or process of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces as it transitions into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s Office, but it is designed to expand the powers of SCOAF. The current Service Complaints Ombudsman has been asking for that in her annual reports, and we have provided an expanded remit in the Bill in front of us. I share my hon. Friend’s determination to see an improved system, and I place on record my thanks to Mariette Hughes, the current Service Complaints Ombudsman, for her work in reducing the backlog of service complaints that were not being addressed. In Committee we heard about the progress that has been made, which was very welcome, and I am certain that that improvement will be embedded in the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner as well.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of Northern Ireland veterans, and we owe our veterans from Operation Banner a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and sacrifice saved lives in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, and helped bring about peace. There will be no rewriting of history. However, the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act did nothing to help those veterans. Over and over again, it was found to be unlawful by the UK courts, and any incoming Government at the last general election would have had to repeal and replace that unlawful legislation—it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

We must ensure that the legacy mechanisms in place are fair, lawful and proportionate, and we are working hard to ensure that veterans’ welfare and legal services are provided, so that anyone involved in any of the investigations gets the support they require and we can minimise the impact on this unique group of veterans. As we replace the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act, we will prioritise and strengthen the protections to ensure the dignity and respect of veterans, and I know that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office will look forward to further discussions on this issue should the Petitions Committee grant a debate. \p Julian Lewis: It has often been said that the courts rejected the legacy Act, at least in part. I am not aware of which part specifically they rejected, but I would like to remind the ministerial team that in 2017 the then Defence Committee examined in great detail whether it would be legal to have a statute of limitation that would put an end to these prosecutions. Four professors of law, including Philippe Sands, agreed that it would be, as long as there was an investigative process, possibly embodied in a truth recovery process. When the Government bring forward whatever alternative legislation to the legacy Act they propose, will they make sure that a statute of limitation is part of it? \p Luke Pollard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have had many long discussions about issues that the Committee discussed when he chaired it, and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) may have interest in this as Chair of the Committee today. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who are leading on that work have heard those remarks. \p Mark Francois: Well, 131,000 people do not agree with what the Minister just said, clearly. If he is so confident in the Government’s case, can he say on the record that he would welcome their proposals being debated in Parliament for at least three hours before the summer recess? Presumably he is not frightened of a debate, so could he put that on the record? \p Luke Pollard: I already had, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened—it was the last line I said before giving way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think there is a good issue that needs to be debated. This place should debate issues of concern to the British people, and it should also be the forum where we challenge and test those arguments. Indeed, the courts have already tested the legacy Act and found it to be unlawful. That is why any Government would need to look at it again—indeed, our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are doing so—and I am happy to confirm that any Bill would be brought forward to the House for such a discussion.

I turn to the whistleblowing protections, which were raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. I agree that the term “whistleblower” exists elsewhere in law. However, as I said, simply using the term in the Bill as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have no practical legal effects and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not provided for in the Government amendment in lieu. Indeed, the Government amendment goes further than the Opposition amendments. In relation to practical effect, there is no difference between what is proposed and what is already in the Bill.

However, I entirely accept the spirit in which both Members raised that important issue. We know that there are issues in terms of culture in our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and the whole team in the Ministry of Defence have been clear that there is no place for those issues, and we are making culture change. Indeed, the fact that our senior officers have made similar statements show that from the top to the bottom of our armed forces, there is no place for any abuse, and a  zero-tolerance policy must take that seriously. I am not certain that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have much legal effect, and the Government amendment goes further.

However, I welcome this debate and the opportunity we have as a Parliament to put on record our strong cross-party support for a zero-tolerance approach. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is pointing at the empty Reform Benches, which he made a strong argument about earlier. I am not a golf player—as a hockey player, I have only one stick, and I believe a few more are needed in golf.

The strong cross-party position—or the position of all parties represented here today, I should say—is that there is no place for abuse in our armed forces or a culture of intimidation. The powers contained in the Bill provide an opportunity for people to raise concerns outside the chain of command. That is what the Government’s amendment in lieu also seeks to do, recognising that, in addition to the commitments I have given to the House today, we can further strengthen the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 180.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.—(Luke Pollard.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 184.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment (a) proposed in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.—(Luke Pollard.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 101.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Lords amendments 4 to 7 agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Chris Bryant: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F.

I am tempted to start with a quote from “Macbeth”—

“When shall we three meet again?”—

because I notice there is a similar cast to our previous debates, but let me start by dispelling some misconceptions. We are not, contrary to what some have stated, changing UK copyright laws to the detriment of the creative industries. If the Government’s Bill is adopted, not a single word of copyright law will have changed in the United Kingdom. It will be as robust as it ever was. In fact, we have said repeatedly that creators should share in the value of this new technology, and we support artificial intelligence developers paying for the content that they use. We want to see more licensing of and proper remuneration for UK content.

We are not undermining copyright owners’ control over their work. We have said from the beginning that we want intellectual property owners to have more control over the use of their works. Some said in the House of Lords yesterday that we have not listened to them or to the creative industries, but that is simply not true. We have heard loud and clear the message from the creative industries and from others. That is why we put reporting commitments on the face of the Bill at a previous round, and we have committed to adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on enforcement. We have committed to delivering reports and impact assessments within nine rather than 12 months, and the Bill will require the Secretary of State to make a progress statement to Parliament about the impact assessment and reports within six months of Royal Assent.

It is also why the Secretary of State, who is sitting by me now, stated clearly that although we went into the consultation with a preferred option, we have heard the reaction to that. We want to consider the consultation responses in full, and—to quote him precisely—

“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.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1233.]

As I have said, the Government have listened at every stage.

As I have explained to the House previously, the Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. What we have is a Bill that will harness data for economic growth, improve public services and support modern digital government. We want to get the legislation on the statute book as fast as we possibly can. \p Caroline Dinenage: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: Of course, it would be a delight. \p Caroline Dinenage: If only I believed the Minister. I pick up the frustration in his tone, and I appreciate that this must be exhausting for him, because this is the fourth time that the Government have been defeated on this issue in the other place. I understand that he just wants to get this piece of legislation done, but this time it only requires the Government to come forward with a plan to implement transparency before it is too late. He says that our copyright law is robust and that he is not seeking to undermine it—it is robust, but it is being ignored. How long will it take before the Government hold the AI companies to account for what is effectively the biggest copyright heist in history? How long will it take before the Government clamp down on what is basically the whitewashing of the behaviour of big tech? Who is really pulling the strings here? \p Chris Bryant: Well, nobody is pulling my strings. I do not know what that final reference was to. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and the Select Committee, who have done important work in this field. Some of what we have committed to in previous rounds of ping-pong in this House has sprung directly from what her Select Committee asked us to do. We will continue to listen to that. As she knows, we have always said, right from the beginning, that a key aspect of any package we bring forward would be something around transparency.

I will come on to the precise matters in the new clause before us, and I hope that might explain why we are urging the House to reject the amendment today. It is a delight to hear from the hon. Lady, and she need not doubt me. \p Robin Swann: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: Another delight. \p Robin Swann: I know that the Minister does mean it in this case. He talks about the speed of moving this legislation on to the statute book. I note that legislative consent motions are in from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but as yet there is not one from the Northern Ireland Assembly. Can he give me clarification as to what implication that legislative consent motion not being in place will have for those businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland who will be affected by this legislation? \p Chris Bryant: I have spoken to Ministers in Northern Ireland, and they have already laid that legislative consent motion. My understanding is that that process will be fully done in time for Royal Assent, so he need not worry. We have sorted that one out, too.

I promised the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), that I was about to come on to the precise details of the amendment, so I will address that. First, as Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, my noble colleague, said in the Lords yesterday,

“the Government’s report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Baroness’s original amendment”—

the one that we are now considering—

“how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 481.]

We will do subsection (1) of the new clause as part of our report and economic impact assessment. In other words, we have already committed to do half of what is in the amendment, and I would therefore argue that that half is unnecessary.

The second part of the new clause is problematic, and I think it would be problematic for any Government. It requires the Government to produce a draft Bill on copyright and AI according to a specific timetable. It lays out elements that that Bill must include and determines how it should be considered by this House. I cannot think of any Bill in our history that has included such a clause, for very good reason. A central plank of parliamentary sovereignty is that no Parliament can bind its successor. That does not just mean from one Parliament to another; it means that one Session of Parliament cannot bind a future Session. However, the Kidron amendment says that, for instance, the draft Bill

“must make provision for enforcement”.

What happens if it does not do so, or if the measures it includes for enforcement are not sufficient in some people’s minds? Where would that be adjudicated? How would it be decided? \p Caroline Dinenage: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: I will just finish this point, if the hon. Lady will allow me. In addition, we are still working through a huge number of consultation responses. To prescribe a draft Bill in detail at this point would completely undermine that process and the policy work that is taking place. I would argue that not only is that bad policymaking, but it would completely disregard the input that so many respondents to the consultation have exhausted so much effort in providing. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Chris Bryant: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Gosport, and then to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). \p Caroline Dinenage: I think the Minister for giving way, but I think he is dancing on the head of a pin. The fact is that all legislation somehow binds those who are coming down the track, and others have spoken on many occasions about the urgency of bringing forward measures to provide transparency about what of people’s intellectual property is being scraped right now. I cannot understand why the Government are taking this position. This amendment is not asking for much; it is just asking for the Government to have a plan to sort this out in short order. \p Chris Bryant: Of course, I understand the demand for us to act as swiftly as we possibly can, and that is our intention. One could argue that introducing a draft Bill, which would then be considered in various different places and presumably would be followed by a Bill, would delay things rather than speed them up. In addition—this is a really important constitutional point—as I said earlier, I am not aware of a single Bill in the past that has required a future Bill to be produced and specified things that must be in it. \p Polly Billington: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Chris Bryant: I have got to give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon first, but then of course I will come back to my hon. Friend. \p Julian Smith: I thank the Minister for giving way. The essential point is that the creative industry is desperate to get a hook within this Bill to reassure it that this vacuuming up of its intellectual property will be controlled. The problem with all the commitments, the working groups and all the words that the Minister is saying is that they do not give the creative industry that reassurance. Yesterday’s debate was passionate about the need—somehow, in whatever way the Government want—to give the creative industry reassurance that this issue will be dealt with within a set timeframe. \p Chris Bryant: I understand the concern of the creative industries—they have expressed it to me in no uncertain terms on many occasions, both individually and in larger groups. We have heard the message loud and clear. I think some people have been labouring under the misconception that this Bill is doing something to undermine copyright. I know that the right hon. Gentleman listened to the debate in the House of Lords yesterday, because I was standing next to him, listening to the fullness of the debate as a courtesy to the House of Lords.

As I have said before, I worry that to legislate on a part of this issue, rather than the whole of it, is a mistake. For the sake of argument, let us say that we only legislated in relation to what transparency should be required and did not come up with an enforcement measure. What would happen if the companies simply refused to provide that information? Would we have to introduce a new offence of not providing such information? What would we have to do? That is my argument for why I think—notwithstanding the clamour for us to go as fast as we possibly can, which I fully understand—we need to get it right and to legislate in the round, rather than just piecemeal on the back of a Bill that is not meant to deal with these matters at all.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) attempt to intervene earlier. \p Polly Billington: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I understand that he is being extremely patient in these circumstances. May I draw his attention to something that happened before 2010? I know that that was a long time ago, but both he and I are old enough—and, indeed, ugly enough—to remember those times.

When Lord Mandelson was Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, what was then known as the Napster clause was included in the then Digital Economy Bill. That was done precisely to give reassurance to the music industry that if, later on, downloading became so problematic that the music industry was going to be hollowed out, the Government would give themselves the power to act. If my hon. Friend is giving the Government the power to report, surely it would be right for the Government to give themselves the power to act once they have received evidence that something is going wrong, enabling them to enforce the copyright law that we all now agree is clear and should therefore be enforced. \p Chris Bryant: I will start with my hon. Friend’s very last point, which is that we all agree that copyright law is clear—we do. I hope people understand that the Government’s position is clear that copyright law is clear. I do not think that is in doubt.

Secondly, of course, we always have the power to introduce legislation. However, certainly if I were sitting on the Opposition Benches, I would doubt whether it would be right to introduce transparency requirements solely on the basis of secondary legislation, which—as I say—would probably have to contain some sort of enforcement mechanism and potentially a new offence. I would say, “Secondary legislation is unamendable—it is take it or leave it. That would be problematic.”

While again I understand the desire for us to move as swiftly as possible, I reiterate that I think it is better for us to legislate in the round, taking all of the subject matter into consideration. Some matters have not even been mentioned in this debate, such as what we do about the copyright that pertains to AI-created material. Should that material have any protection, or no protection? Should it follow the person who created the AI large language model, or should it stick with the person who asked the AI large language model the question? \p Pete Wishart: The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) is quite right: back in 2010, the Napster provision was first enacted through the Digital Economy Act. Such provision is possible, and I just do not understand the Minister’s reticence about this amendment. It seems an entirely reasonable amendment to bring forward—it does everything that everybody wants to achieve when it comes to this Bill. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, could he at least say that he accepts the principles of it and what it requires, and that he will do all he can to bring forward all the provisions it asks for? \p Chris Bryant: I am trying to be tidy in the way I respond to people, so first, I note that I did not respond to the Napster point. Quite a lot of people have made the point to me that we got from Napster to Spotify. There are many problems with Spotify that many musicians, record labels and so on have raised with me, but at least it is better than people taking stuff for nothing. There is an argument—a strong argument, I would say—that in this debate, we want to move from Napster to Spotify, or to something even better than Spotify. I am not sure precisely how we get there, but I am absolutely certain that we need to legislate in the round for all of these issues.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me about the principles of the noble Baroness Kidron’s amendment. Of course we believe in transparency—we are fully subscribed to wanting to provide that. That has always been part of the package that we have wanted to present. There is still the question of what enforcement would look like, and many other issues that any Bill that comes forward would need to address. I am hesitant about introducing a draft Bill, because a draft Bill would take longer to go through.

We want to be able to legislate in this area as soon as we possibly can, but we also want to have listened to and borne in mind the full panoply of the responses.  People may presume that they know what the 11,500 responses will say, but actually, they are much more diverse. I am not saying that everybody is clamouring for what the Government have laid out; I am just saying that those responses address a diversity of issues, all of which we need to address. \p Anneliese Midgley: I thank the Minister for giving way again, as he has on so many occasions during these debates, and for his ongoing engagement in these matters, but does he agree that if the Government do not act now to enforce the law, we will basically be allowing what everyone already sees as theft to continue? Would he accept that in any other industry, such as retail or farming? \p Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the issue of enforcement, although traditionally it is not for Governments to enforce the law. It is for the courts to do that, although in certain circumstances when there has been a breach of the criminal law, it will be for the prosecuting authorities to consider. In a way this makes my point, which is that it is all very well to legislate on transparency requirements, but if there are no enforcement measures it will not make the blindest bit of difference. All this has to be done in the round.

We have already said that we want to engage with the creative sector and, of course, the technology sector as much as we can. We believe that such engagement will help to chart the way forward on both transparency and technical standards, and possibly on technical solutions to the problem. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed on and implemented. However, we must see what comes of the process rather than imposing preconditions at this early stage.

For all those reasons, I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendment. The first part of the proposed new clause is a helpful addition to the work that we will do and are now committed to doing, but the lion’s share of it would lead to what I believe is confusing law and constitutionally uncertain. \p James Frith: I echo the comments of my hon. Friends about how open and engaging both the Minister and the Secretary of State have been on this issue. As for the consideration of working groups, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s policy is to ensure that both sides are in the room at the same time, with the Minister and the Secretary of State? This has been rehearsed before; the last Government failed, and talks broke down. May I urge this Government please to ensure that both voices hear each other? Their job is to manage that process, as well as leading it. \p Chris Bryant: I agree 100%. There would be absolutely no point in not having both sides—indeed, I would say several sides—of the argument in the room at the same time. Yesterday morning I had an interesting conversation with someone who is very prominent on the music scene. He told me, in granular detail, what we would need to do for transparency in the music sector, but added that obviously it would be completely different for the publishing sector. That is the kind of detail we will have to go into. If we are to bring about a licensing regime that really works, it will have to work differently  for sound, music, words and images, which means that we will have to have all those people around the table, as well as AI—not just “big tech”, a phrase that was used frequently in their lordships’ House yesterday, but tech from the UK. That is a very important part of what we need to be promoting. So yes, I can guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will have everyone in the room, and also that we want to get on with it as soon as we possibly can— \p Mike Martin: rose— \p Chris Bryant: And I want to be able to sit down as soon as I possibly can, but I am being prevented from doing so. \p Mike Martin: The Minister is being extremely generous, as he always is. I pressed him on this point on the last occasion when we met across the Chamber, but some time has passed since then. He speaks of dealing with the issue “in the round”, which is a sentiment that I understand, but when? Can he give a timetable? \p Chris Bryant: “As soon as possible”, I am afraid. I know that there are lots of parliamentary terms for these matters, such as “imminently” and “soon” and so on. The difficulty is that there are plenty of other priorities for legislation at the same time. I am not the Leader of the House, so I fear that I cannot give a guarantee about a timeline, but we have given some guarantees about when the Secretary of State will report back to the House—within six months of Royal Assent, and I hope that that is within six months of “soon”—and we have given guarantees about our other reports back, which will be within nine months, shortened from 12 months. \p Caroline Dinenage: rose— \p Chris Bryant: I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will try to crack on. \p Caroline Dinenage: I thank the Minister for giving way again: he is being very generous. He has spoken about trying to bring the AI sector together with the creative industries. The last Government tried that in response to the text and data mining exception. They formed an AI working group, which, as the Minister knows, fell into abeyance because the AI companies did not engage. Does he think that that could be a problem this time, and has he heard any signals from the big tech companies that they would be more forthcoming with their engagement in response to this attempt? \p Chris Bryant: We will make sure that they engage. In a strange way, I think that the campaign that has been led by the hon. Lady and others, in the House of Lords and elsewhere, will help to make people engage in what will not necessarily be an easy process, but one that I think could deliver a win-win for us in the UK and could potentially enable us to lead for other countries in the world. Every indication that we have had thus far suggests that everyone wants to sit in the room together, and, of course, we will have to provide significant leadership in those meetings to be able to drive them forward. As I said on the last occasion when I was talking about these matters at the Dispatch Box, I should like to be able to get on with that as soon as possible, but we have a duty to get the Bill out of the way first.

Let me now say a few words about ping-pong. As Members will know, this is in large measure the same Bill that was presented, twice, by the previous Government. The second Bill fell at the general election, but both major parties committed themselves to reintroducing it, in a broadly similar form, in the new Parliament. None of the parties intended to introduce any matters relating to copyright into the Bill when they discussed it in the run-up to, and during, the general election.

I warmly commend those who are fighting the corner of the creative industries—of course I do; I am the creative industries Minister—but there comes a point at which the Lords is barring the Commons from fulfilling a pledge made by both major parties. We shall now be entering the fourth round of ping-pong. Few Bills in our history have gone this many rounds. In the cases of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill of 2004-05 and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2006-07, at issue was what the Government had put in rather than what it had not included. Neither of those Bills had been openly advocated by both main parties at a general election. By tradition, the House of Lords does not interfere with Bills to which Governments have committed themselves at the time of a general election. Everyone agrees that this Bill is a valuable piece of legislation, and for that reason I urge their lordships to let it pass into law. \p Julian Smith: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: Oh, all right. \p Julian Smith: The Minister was present at yesterday’s debate. Their lordships were acutely aware of not wanting to fetter the House of Commons, but at the same time they are trying to represent thousands of people who are desperate about their incomes. I think it worth putting on the record here that all those who spoke were very aware of what they were doing, but on balance felt that fighting for the underdog was the best thing to do. \p Chris Bryant: I am not making an criticism of any individual Member of the House of Lords. I listened to the debate, and it was clear that people felt passionately and were arguing entirely in good faith. I fully understand that. As I have said, however, this a Bill that was not intended to include elements relating to AI and copyright. In the last Parliament it was supported by the Conservative party and by us on the Opposition Benches, and was referred to by both sides during our general election campaigns. Neither of us said that we were going to include anything about copyright in the Bill, but that is what is now holding up Royal Assent. There are economic benefits that would flow from the Bill, but they will of course be delayed if we further delay Royal Assent.

Let me end by saying that, as I think I have said several times, I fully understand the concerns expressed by people in the creative industries about artificial intelligence. Many use it already, but they are understandably concerned about where it will go, and they fear for their jobs. It is true that, for many, the strikes in the US had an even more cataclysmic effect on their careers, but I would just add one corrective to those fears. There is a moment at the end of “The Winter’s Tale” when Paulina takes Leontes to see a statue of his wife, who he thinks died of grief when he falsely accused of her adultery many years earlier. We all know when we watch it in the theatre that the statue  is actually the actress playing Hermione; it is not a statue at all. Yet the moment when Leontes touches the statue and says, “O, she’s warm!”, still shocks us and brings tears to our eyes. Why? Because it is human to human. Yes, of course it is artifice laid upon artifice, but it is humanity face to face that really moves us. The Government have heard the concerns expressed by this House and the other place, and we have set out our plans to address them. I believe the Bill must be allowed to run its course. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Ben Spencer: Back again, and it feels a bit like groundhog day. I must confess that I am a Bill Murray fan, and I think “Groundhog Day” is a great movie. However, I realise that some Members on both sides of the House may not have been born when it was released, which makes me feel a little old, so I will explain a little of the plot. A weatherman set in his ways is sent to a town in Pennsylvania to report on groundhog day, and finds himself in a time loop in which he lives the same day over and over again. In due course, that leads to despair, but eventually he learns that this gives him the opportunity to learn from his mistakes—the time loops can be seen as a blessing or an opportunity, not a curse—and through this he grows, develops and changes. He then breaks out of the time loop to live happily ever after.

We will be stuck in groundhog day on this Bill until the Government realise that the Lords amendments are not a nuisance, but an opportunity, and that they need to listen to the concerns and change course. The noble Lords in the House in which this Bill started have made clear the risk to creatives from AI companies taking their data, and the importance of fairness and transparency. We on the Opposition Benches and Members on both sides of the House have raised similar concerns, but we do not have the numbers yet. In Parliament, it is not sufficient to win the vote; it is also necessary to win the argument, and the Government have lost this argument.

Copyright law is a toothless instrument if the lack of transparency about the use of creative content in AI models continues. The lack of transparency renders the enforcement of rights elusive, and the Government are apparently happy for this to persist on an open-ended basis. While the Government’s direction of travel remains uncertain, everyone loses out. Creatives continue to lose out when their work is exploited without payment. Firms in the AI industry, especially smaller ones, cannot get out of the starting blocks, let alone play their part in turbocharging our tech economy. The Government continue to risk the confidence of both these key industries, with the chilling effect on investment that this entails.

Of course, we are sensitive to the constitutional principles, and noble Lords were very mindful of that topic in their speeches in the other place. The Minister is right that it is almost unprecedented for the other place to return to a Bill so many times. However, rather than use this as a reason to try to push through the Bill, the Government need to listen to that evidence of the strength of feeling. We all know that the Government will have to respond to these concerns, and their position will have to change.

I would love to end this speech with a literary quote suited to the substance of the debate, and I envy the Minister’s ability always to bring flair to our discussions across the Dispatch Box. Instead, I will fall back on a political one from the 38th American President, Gerald Ford:

“Compromise is the oil that makes governments go.”

The Government should meet the Lords on the compromise they have offered, put oil in the engines of our creative and AI industries, and bring an end to this groundhog day. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Victoria Collins: Here we are again. Once again, I would like to thank those in the other place who have worked so hard on these amendments, and indeed Members across the House who have stood up for creatives. We are back here again two weeks later to discuss and vote on Lords amendment 49F to secure the rights of creatives in the changing face of AI.

What has changed in those two weeks? An awful lot actually. Forty eight hours before we voted on the amendment on 20 May, the latest big AI tech launch occurred when Google launched Veo 3—literally an all-talking, all-singing, all-dancing AI video creator, the like of which we have never seen before. Seeing is believing, and even when you see it, you will not always be able to believe that what you are seeing is not real. The emotions of the characters created by binary code, a series of zeros and ones, have already had me laughing, feeling and thinking; their jokes like a stand-up comedian, the light of the sunset comparable to standing at the Ashridge beech woods as a perfect day’s golden hour arrives, the tangible fear of the binary character representing the actress, the director and the artist questioning what this means for them. The engineering, the development and, dare I say it, the creativity that has gone into developing such software is epic. There is no denying that, but I cannot help but wonder if all the value came from the engineering and the computing. What about the period dramas, the beauty of children’s illustration, the wit of the one-liner and the fast-paced thrillers that have helped to train this cinematic experience at the touch of a prompt?

As far as I can discover, Google representatives have previously mentioned that, as well as publicly available content, YouTube may have been used to train the model. I wonder how many must feel, seeing their creations replicated. Of course, this is just one example of the AI developments happening every minute. The alarm bell that creatives have been ringing has come to fruition a thousand times over. As much as I am sure that many creatives are excited about the possibilities, many will be questioning the implications for their industry, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Just this afternoon, I spoke to creatives from the Creators’ Rights Alliance, who have proof of their works being essentially copied against their will. Artists, writers, photographers, filmmakers, singers and songwriters are watching their life’s work swallowed up.

I have not even spoken about Lyria, which writes music, or the thousands of other developments coming out of AI—incredible developments that we must celebrate, but we must also ensure that the creative work that has  gone into it is also valued. While technology moves at pace, our frameworks for accountability have not kept up. In this moment, as artificial intelligence reshapes how creative works are used, adjusted and commercialised, the time for reflection is behind us. I appreciate the Government talking about protecting rights and the actions they are taking, but the time for real action is now. That is why I urge Members across the House to vote for Lords amendment 49F, to ensure transparency of business data is used in relation to AI models, a proportionate approach that calls to establish transparency. I urge the Government to also move at pace to protect creators’ rights with a plan and with everyone around the table, something we have heard across the House today.

As I walked around Little Gaddesden arts fair this weekend, I saw the bright colours and joy that had been created by Sally Bassett, Alison Bateson and Andrew Dixon. Right at the end of the road, Little Gaddesden village hall is where parts of “The Crown” were filmed. I thought of the legendary story about Picasso, which many Members may know. At a Parisian market, an admirer approached Picasso and asked if he could do a quick sketch on a napkin. He kindly obliged, creating art on the napkin. He handed it back to her, but not before asking for 1 million francs. “But it only took you five minutes,” barked the admirer. “No,” Picasso replied, “it took me 40 years to be able to draw this in five minutes.”

Given that prompts can create art, whether song, print, film or story, in seconds, who is being renumerated for the years of work that have gone into it? I urge Members across the House to vote for Lords amendment 49F. We must find a solution to ensure that human creativity is truly valued. \p Julian Smith: First, the Ministers, who I like personally and rate a lot, unfortunately do not control the timetable of Government business. Secondly, they do not have a Bill in the King’s Speech. Thirdly, my prediction is that they will be promoted before this new Bill comes to pass.

The speeches were honest, but what they exposed is that there is no time commitment whatever from those on the Government Benches to bring back a Bill to this House to address the current property theft raining down on the UK creative industries. That is why the creative industries and the debate in the other place, which we listened to yesterday, are so passionate. Theft of the property rights of composers, writers, filmmakers and other creatives have been happening for years. They continue to happen and will continue to happen until the new Bill comes forward; greater and greater volumes of intellectual property and hard-fought rights falling into the AI hopper never to be seen again, and no system of redress other than expensive legal action to get it back. How would we feel if it was our own property, business or land—if it was removed without us even being asked, with the gentle reassurance that we could take action retrospectively?

Creatives are desperate. Most do not have the workers’ rights the majority of us have, or things such as pensions or holiday pay; all they have is their intellectual property rights. Where will the incentive be now to toil for weeks, months and years creating a piece of music or writing a text, only to have it snatched away when success arrives?  There is an irony, with the Government returning shortly with the Employment Rights Bill, that creative workers’ rights continue to be so eroded.

The transparency amendment in front of us today is a much diluted version of the previous Kidron amendments sent to us from the other place. It sets out a clear timeline for when the Government must return with a Bill, which is a modest request; the Government will still be able to delay the Bill, should they want to, and, to be honest, the creative industries will still not have the opportunity to protect their works in the meantime.

The amendment should be accepted because it will provide reassurance to a key UK sector. However, it should also be accepted as an example of our two Chambers respecting each other. No one in the debate yesterday, listening to the words of Baroness Kidron, Lord Forsyth or others, could feel they were trying to cause the Government problems. Each and every supporter of the amendment did so on the basis of support for the rights of those working in one of the UK’s leading economic sectors, who are pleading with us for their survival and to work positively with this new technological development.

Our politics is currently jam-packed with black and white positions and an instinct to jump to disagreement and polarisation. The Lords amendment before us today represents a modest proposal to disagree well, and the Government should accept it. \p Pete Wishart: I was not going to say anything in this round of ping pong, but a couple of things in the debate have tempted me to my feet. The first thing I want to say is about the House of Lords. I have to say that I congratulate their lordships on their tenacity on this issue; I think we both expected and presumed that they would have backed down a long time ago, but they have decided not to, and I think that is because of what I have heard today. They are backing the sector. It has been left to the Lords to ensure that the voices of our artists and those in our creative industries and sectors are adequately articulated and presented to Ministers, so I congratulate them on that. I say that as somebody who is no great respecter of the House of Lords—I have this cute little notion that someone serving in a legislature should be elected to that legislature.

The Lords have done an exemplary job in all this, and they are entirely entitled to bring forward this matter again and again until the ministerial team find some sort of compromise, which, between the two of them, they will surely be able to do. This is the territory we are in now; this is the fourth round of ping pong. It is no good us just sending it back to the Lords again and again. The Government can insist and get their way, of course: they are the Government, and this is the primary House in our Parliament, so they can do that if they want. But why would they not sit down and work out a way forward that takes on board everything the Lords want to achieve and secure and that meets the noble ambitions and lofty rhetoric we have heard from those on the Government Front Bench today and the last few times this has been debated?

I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment. It sounds like the Minister is inventing reasons as to why it could not be agreed to. The example from the Digital Economy Act is spot on: we were adaptable and did things as the situation required in order to meet the  challenge of the time—a huge challenge, when digitisation was coming into our creative arts. This is a bigger challenge and test. This is more existential than the Digital Economy Act of 20 years ago, and that is why we must act now. People cannot wait.

Our cultural heritage is being scraped and hoovered up by large tech companies, and soon there will be nothing left of it. Millions of creative artists are waiting for the Government to engage—to sort it out, compromise and do something with those with an interest in all this. The Government are convincing no one thus far; the creative industries do not believe that they have their best interests at heart or that we will have enough time to secure what is left of our cultural heritage.

The Government should do something—do not just send the Bill away again, although they probably will, and have it come back to us. Sit down, compromise and get something sorted out and, for the sake of our creative industries, find a solution that works for everybody.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 185.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 49F disagreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 49F;

That Chris Bryant, Anna Turley, Callum Anderson, Luke Myer, Adam Jogee, Dr Ben Spencer and Victoria Collins be members of the Committee;

That Chris Bryant be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Chris Elmore.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 29 April, be approved.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the business determined by the Backbench Business Committee may be proceeded with for up to two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, or until 7.00pm, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; those proceedings may be entered upon and may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.) \p Caroline Voaden: I beg to move,

That this House has considered dementia care.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate and Members for supporting it, as well as the charities and organisations that have provided material. Dementia is undoubtedly one of the most urgent health and care challenges facing our society, and I know that most of us in this Chamber will know someone affected by it. My family is currently battling it on two fronts. My confident, witty, generous father-in-law is now almost unrecognisable as the man he used to be. He is lucky to be living in a lovely care home where he receives the best care possible, but the decision to move him there was heartbreaking. My brilliant, funny cousin, always the life and soul of family parties, was diagnosed far too early with frontotemporal dementia, which is likely to affect her ability to communicate over time—a particularly cruel diagnosis for someone so young. Watching people we love become confused by the world around them, unable to communicate and fading away from us while so physically present is heart-wrenching. Dementia has to be one of the cruellest conditions for those afflicted and for those supporting them.

As we are neatly placed between Dementia Week and Carers Week, it is fitting that we should discuss this condition with which 900,000 people in the UK are living, most over the age of 65. Dementia is now the leading cause of death in the UK, and while its scale is national, its impact is deeply local and personal. It is already widespread as our population ages, and that number is expected to rise sharply. According to NHS England, one in 11 people over the age of 65 has dementia, and that rises to one in six for those over 80. In Devon, which has one of the oldest populations in England, this issue is not just coming; it is already here. Unless we act now to improve diagnosis, care and support, we will fail tens of thousands of families in our communities.

A timely diagnosis is not just about putting a name to a condition; it is also the essential first step towards accessing care, planning for the future and, increasingly, receiving treatment. New disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer’s offer real hope, but only if the disease is caught early and diagnosed accurately. In October 2023, the all-party parliamentary group on dementia published a report highlighting the significant regional disparities in dementia diagnosis across England. The findings were stark. While Stoke-on-Trent had the highest diagnosis rate, at 90%, the South Hams—much of which lies in my constituency of South Devon—had the lowest rate nationally, at just 44%. \p Rebecca Smith: As a fellow South Hams representative, I wonder whether the hon. Lady would agree that the Government’s lack of focus and targets for dementia diagnosis is having a particular impact on rural constituencies such as ours, given that treatment is so dependent on diagnosis. Does she also agree that the work of local groups such as the  Dementia Friendly Parishes around the Yealm is going to be vital to increasing diagnosis in our communities in Devon? \p Caroline Voaden: I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I agree that community groups such as the one around the Yealm are vital in caring for people with dementia.

Devon as a whole is falling worryingly behind. As of March 2025, our county’s dementia diagnosis rate stands well below the national average, placing Devon 39th out of 42 NHS systems in England. At the same time, demand for services is increasing sharply. Referrals to the Devon memory service have surged by 94% of the past five years, yet no additional investment has been made to meet this rising need. In Torbay the pressure is especially acute, with some individuals now waiting up to 20 weeks for an assessment.

A diagnosis can change lives. It provides clarity, access to support and the opportunity to plan for the future. It has proven to help people live well with dementia, but without investment people are being locked out of vital services, including support groups. One local dementia charity told me:

“Until there is a formal diagnosis, patients and their families cannot access our Memory Cafes, as our funding requires a confirmed diagnosis to provide support.”

I know from family members that this kind of support can make a world of difference, giving carers contact with others who truly understand the pressures and strain of caring for a much-loved relative who is slowly but surely losing themselves to this awful condition. \p Liam Conlon: The hon. Member speaks about community groups and their importance. In recent months I have had the pleasure of joining and supporting lots of dementia support groups, including South East London Mind’s young onset dementia activists group, Beckenham dementia café, and Beckenham and Penge dementia café, and Angela from Bromley Dementia Friendly Community. Will she join me in acknowledging the incredible acts of kindness that such groups do every single day, so often motivated by their personal experiences of dementia? \p Caroline Voaden: I absolutely commend all those groups—the hon. Member is lucky to have so many in his constituency.

Like many other diagnoses that can be equally shocking to receive, dementia has no cure. Approved medications offer limited benefit only in the early stages and not for everyone. For those in the moderate to late stages, the most effective treatments are access to information to navigate the social care system and good-quality care. That means personalised, respectful and consistent support not only for the individual but for their family too, and that family support is critical. Across Devon and beyond, unpaid carers bear the overwhelming weight of responsibility. There is a physical, financial and emotional toll from the moment of diagnosis, yet respite support is sparse and, in many places, non-existent. \p Paulette Hamilton: I share the hon. Member’s deep commitment to ensuring quality care within our communities—something I saw at first hand last year during my visit to Warren Farm  Lodge care home in Kingstanding. The dedication of the staff left a lasting impression. Does she agree that we need to work with the Government to urgently develop a blueprint for transforming dementia diagnosis? \p Caroline Voaden: The hon. Member has beaten me to it—I absolutely agree.

The lack of respite support is pushing carers into crisis, and when that happens the result is clear: faster entry into long-term care, increased hospital admissions, more GP appointments and distress for everyone involved. \p Peter Swallow: The hon. Member is absolutely right that respite care is important. In my constituency, Sandhurst day centre offers fantastic respite care, allowing people with dementia to stay as active and as social as possible for as long as possible, which we know also keeps people out of hospital for longer. Does she agree that we need to see more support for day centres such as Sandhurst day centre? \p Caroline Voaden: I could not agree more—I am sure I will agree with most of the interventions in this debate.

This does not have to be the outcome. We know that with the right support at the right time, people can live well with dementia at home, and that reduces pressure on services and improves quality of life. \p Warinder Juss: One in four hospital beds are occupied by someone living with dementia, and there is a 50% higher hospital readmissions rate for those who have dementia than the general population, with one in three people living with the condition never receiving a diagnosis. Does the hon. Member agree that the key is to get that early diagnosis, so that help and support can come in early, which will have better prospects for the individual and their families? \p Caroline Voaden: I absolutely agree that early diagnosis is one of the key things that makes a difference to anyone living with dementia.

We talk a lot about social care in this place, and the Liberal Democrats have championed the cause of carers—those thousands of people who quietly and lovingly dedicate themselves to caring for someone they love, often someone suffering from dementia. These carers are, because of the nature of this disease, often elderly themselves and, because of a postcode lottery, are sometimes left to just get on with it themselves without the vital support and advice that they so desperately need. \p Anna Dixon: I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about the vital role that family carers and unpaid carers play in enabling people with dementia to live well at home. Does she agree that, in addition to formal respite care, community support from groups in my constituency such as the Wrose Dementia Friendly Community Support Group and Shipley Memories Group is vital to give carers little breaks, when they have an opportunity to get out of the house and meet other carers like them? \p Caroline Voaden: Having regular, small chunks of respite is absolutely vital for carers. \p Sonia Kumar: A constituent has written to me to tell me the story of her mother, who was diagnosed with dementia in 2020. Her father was 86 and the primary carer. They spent over £7,000 on five weeks of respite. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to expand respite centres, day centres and home care to ensure that families are not left by themselves? \p Caroline Voaden: I could not agree more. If we had little chunks of regular respite care, people would not end up having to pay for several weeks, just to recover from the care that they are providing.

There are some brilliant projects working to support families afflicted by dementia, and several of them have been mentioned already. One of the most inspiring examples that I have seen is the Filo Project, a community interest company that offers dementia support in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and east Lancashire, and which has recently expanded to Bournemouth. The Filo Project takes its name from the pastry, referring to the many layers that make up a personality—the layers that are cruelly and silently stripped away by dementia. The project provides high-quality, community-based day care for people with early to moderate dementia, and what makes it so powerful is its simple approach: small, weekly group support in the home of a host, where people with dementia spend the day receiving the attention, care and companionship they need. That not only helps them, but provides their families with regular and crucial respite and support. I commend founders Libby Price and Dr Liz Dennis, who I believe is in the Gallery today. It is a model that works, and it has made a tangible difference to many families.

There is a critical need for more community-based initiatives such as the Filo Project, and one of my direct asks of the Minister today is that VAT be removed from such services. Although dementia patients can access goods and services exempt from VAT, they have to pay it on the care provided by the Filo Project and others like it. Families supported by the project have paid more than £700,000 in VAT for care since the group was set up 10 years ago, and the extra cost restricts who can afford to take part, so I urge the Minister to remove this burden. While the Government are facing mounting pressures from all sides to find additional funding, it is worth noting that investing in community-based projects is a fraction of the cost of the NHS, yet the impact is transformational, benefiting families across the country and ultimately saving money. \p Sureena Brackenridge: Like every Member here, I have many constituents who have explained that navigating such a complex web of health and social care services is absolutely exhausting. For many families, it leads to crisis before help arrives. Will the hon. Member join me in calling on the Government to tackle the delays and disparities in dementia diagnosis, and to ensure that there is investment in diagnostic capacity, including the fantastic memory clinics that hon. Members have spoken about today? \p Caroline Voaden: I absolutely agree.

In 2023, Devon saw the closure of its dementia advice service after 10 years because of a cut in funding under the previous Government—a decision that left a significant gap in community support across the county. The service  offered vital information, practical advice, and tips and strategies on coping with dementia, as well as signposting to legal and financial support, and the closure was a blow to many families already struggling to cope. It is a scandal that Devon’s integrated care board has neglected older adults by cutting a service that was designed to prevent early care home and hospital admission, and to ease pressure on primary care.

However, there is hope on the horizon. Devon has recently developed a new countywide Devon dementia strategy, which aims to bring about real and meaningful change for those living with dementia and their loved ones. Written in collaboration with over 40 organisations, it sets out what is needed in dementia care today and for the foreseeable future, and I commend them for their work. This strategy is vital, and so is the funding to support the measures it highlights. Dementia prevalence in the area covered by Devon’s ICB is expected to rise by 54% between 2023 and 2040, and by then, over 33,700 people in Devon will be living with dementia. Now is the moment to act, to ensure that this strategy is not just a document that sits on a shelf but becomes a driving force for better services, earlier diagnosis and more consistent support.

I would like to briefly share the story of one of my constituents, Michael, to illustrate why this is so urgent. Michael’s wife began showing signs of dementia six years ago and was diagnosed with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s nearly five years ago. As her symptoms worsened, her condition became more difficult to manage, and she was eventually sectioned as being a danger to herself. At that point, the NHS took over her care, and she is now in a home where she is receiving very good care. Michael has nothing but praise for his GP, the older people’s mental health team and his local hospital for their support. However, his experience has highlighted critical gaps in the system. He recalls the complete lack of day care facilities to provide respite before his wife went to hospital and the overstretched system that was unable to assess people quickly or provide necessary help, either at home or in day care. \p Ben Coleman: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for leading this debate so effectively and raising these important issues. She will be aware that three in four dementia carers have no alternative plans in place if they are unable to provide care. Many of them are terrified about what will happen to their loved ones if they are no longer there to provide care, and nine in 10 have already reached crisis point, with burnout and depression. Does she agree that dementia carers need to be fully supported to put alternative care arrangements in place? May I urge the Minister to implement a carers strategy that sets out carers’ rights and what support carers should receive when it comes to alternative provision? \p Caroline Voaden: So many thousands of people are doing this care for free, at home, living under this burden and worrying about what will happen if they are no longer there. They deserve recognition and help to put those plans in place, in case something happens to them—that is crucial.

For many families, accessing respite care is a huge challenge. Caring for someone with dementia is often a 24/7 job and is utterly exhausting, yet unpaid carers like  Michael are saving the country billions of pounds and are often doing so without the support they need. Michael echoes the calls I have heard in my own family for the Government to do more to support carers by ensuring they have access to regular respite care. We must also urgently examine the funding and availability of care homes that can support high-needs dementia patients. \p Patricia Ferguson: I thank the hon. Member for taking so many interventions; it is very welcome. As she will be aware, health is devolved to the Scottish Government, and we Scots have a slightly different system. However, Alzheimer Scotland has called on the Scottish Government to commit to recognising that the needs of people with advanced dementia are healthcare needs and to ensure equality of access to appropriate health and nursing care that is free at the point of delivery, regardless of our geography. Does she agree that that is what we all want for our loved ones? \p Caroline Voaden: There is a lack of equity, is there not? I looked at Hansard, and dementia has been mentioned 192 times since the general election last year, but cancer has been mentioned nearly 1,000 times—we have spoken about cancer five times more than we have about dementia. That shines a light on what a hidden problem it is, and yet it is not hidden, because we all have experience of it.

We must urgently examine the funding and availability of care homes and find a way to reduce the staggering costs, which can cripple family finances and local authority budgets. House of Commons Library research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has shown that the cost of care in nursing homes increased by 61% from 2015 to 2022. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of free personal care in England, based on the model introduced by the party in government in Scotland in 2002, so that provision is based on need, not ability to pay. \p Shockat Adam: The hon. Member is being extremely generous with her time. Is she concerned, along with the Alzheimer’s Society, that more than 71% of carers for people with dementia have no formal training whatsoever, although dementia requires very specific care and training? Will she join me in calling on the Government to introduce mandatory training for all those who care for our loved ones with dementia? \p Caroline Voaden: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—I have not quite got there yet, but it is in my speech. We are also calling for a cross-party commission to form a long-term agreement on sustainable funding for social care in England.

Last week I met journalist John Suchet, whose wife Bonnie died of dementia. He is now married to Nula, who lost her husband James to a rare form of dementia known as Pick’s disease, diagnosed when he was just 57. John and Nula met in the care home where they were supporting their partners. They supported each other along a terrible journey and have both since written books about their experience. In Nula’s book she says:

“Dementia, dementia, what is it? I still know very little. All I know is, it’s a bloody cruel, sadistic disease, that has demolished my hopes, plans and dreams. It has taken away my life, twisted it and mangled it, and so it can claim another victim—two for the  price of one…With absolutely no professional support—no-one at all monitoring his or my journey as they would, for instance, a cancer or Parkinson’s patient. I am entirely alone.”

It should not and must not be like that for the carers who give up everything to look after someone they love.

This is where the Government must step in. We need a clear strategy to support people with dementia and their families at every stage. That starts with an urgent review of NHS continuing healthcare, so that dementia-specific needs, especially cognitive and behavioural needs, are properly recognised, with specialists involved in assessments. No one should face dementia alone. Families must have access to a specialist dementia nurse, regular health and wellbeing reviews, and co-ordinated, joined-up care. We also need a national framework for young onset dementia, ensuring timely diagnosis, tailored support, and fair access to care. To relieve pressure on hospitals, every NHS acute trust should have a specialist dementia nurse service, backed by ringfenced funding.

Investing in dementia support will clearly save the NHS money in the long term. I am sure the Minister knows these statistics, but I will read them out: people with dementia visit the GP three times more often than someone without dementia; 25% of people with dementia living in their own homes are admitted to hospital with a potentially treatable condition; 25% of hospital beds are occupied by people with dementia, and they stay in hospital twice as long as other people aged over 65; and 43% of people with dementia in hospital are there due to urinary tract and chest infections, both of which are treatable at home.

A voluntary, community and social enterprise response to the closure of the Devon adviser service showed that dementia support workers are cost-effective, and that every £1 invested in dementia support worker roles results in almost £4-worth of benefits. Compare that with the cost of a hospital stay. Over 85% of dementia patients with a hip fracture stay for up to 14 days, and 34% for over a month, despite the national average length of stay being just seven days. The extra cost is estimated at around £6,000 per patient. The Alzheimer’s Society said between 2015 and 2020,

“almost 336,000 admissions costing almost £1 billion to the NHS were for chest infections, delirium, falls and UTIs, all of which can be prevented or managed well in the community.”

Clearly, this is a strong case for invest to save.

Clinical care must go hand in hand with long overdue social care reform. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive social care workforce plan, the creation of a royal college of care workers, and a higher carer’s minimum wage to reflect the value of this essential work. Unpaid carers also need support, with paid leave, respite breaks, and proper recognition. Finally, we must expand dementia training across the sector, backed by a national care agency to uphold standards and register care workers. The Care Quality Commission has just published a report that underlines the importance of reform. Its findings were alarming, confirming that health and social care staff frequently lack understanding about the specific needs of dementia patients. The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that only 29% of paid carers have training in dementia.

Dementia is a growing issue and the system is already under strain. Right now, approximately 30% of general hospital beds in Devon are occupied by people with dementia, many of whom are there because of preventable  conditions. A sustainable strategy for dementia care must focus on community-based support, early diagnosis, carer support and workforce training. That is not only the right thing to do; it will save money in the long run. It is time that we treated dementia care not as a burden, but as a vital part of building a compassionate and sustainable future for everyone affected. \p Christopher Bloore: I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate, which shines vital light on an issue that affects so many families across this country, especially in my constituency of Redditch and the villages.

Over 900,000 people in the UK are currently living with dementia, and by 2040 that number is expected to rise to 1.6 million. However, the challenge is not just the growing number of people affected, but the poor support that many receive and the inequalities that persist in diagnosis and care. It is estimated that only about 65% of people aged 65 or over who are thought to have dementia actually have a recorded diagnosis, which means that far too many people are missing out on vital help early on. That is especially true in communities including ethnic minorities and in deprived areas.

I have been contacted by many families in Redditch who describe the distress of waiting months—sometimes years—for a diagnosis or clear guidance on what to do next. One particularly heartbreaking aspect is the many families who are forced to sell the home of a parent who no longer knows that they cannot return home. These homes often represent a lifetime of memories, yet families face that heartbreaking decision simply because the system does not provide adequate care options.

A particularly worrying fact cited by Age UK is that 19% of people it spoke to were concerned about accessing dementia services—they did not know where to turn or felt unable to get the support they needed. We also have to confront the huge variation in care home capacity across England’s integrated care board areas. In some parts of the country, care home availability simply cannot meet demand, limiting options for people with dementia and their families. This postcode lottery means that some people wait longer or must travel far from home for care, which is unacceptable.

The challenges faced by our NHS are also starkly evident in dementia care. Too many patients with dementia are caught up in the crisis of corridor care, where beds are not available and patients wait in hospital corridors for hours or even days. It is deeply distressing for patients and their families, and exacerbates the risk of deterioration. Such failures are a direct consequence of years of under-investment in our NHS, which has stretched resources to breaking point.

My own mother served in the NHS for 40 years. She witnessed at first hand both its strengths and its struggles. I know how deeply committed this Government are, just as the then Government were in the late 1990s, to rebuilding and reinvesting in our NHS. The recent commitments to increase funding and recruit more staff are steps in the right direction, but we must ensure that translates into real improvements in dementia care on the ground. \p Mark Sewards: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. One of my constituents has a grandma who waited a staggering 18 months for a dementia diagnosis. The family did not have the £3,000 required to get a private diagnosis. My hon. Friend mentioned the need to increase the resources available to the NHS and how committed this Government are, so will he join me in encouraging the Minister to direct resources not just to dementia care, but to dementia diagnosis, so people can get the diagnosis they need faster? \p Christopher Bloore: My hon. Friend’s intervention highlights inequalities throughout the country and reaffirms why the hon. Member for South Devon sought this debate. People who cannot access private care are put at a huge disadvantage, which is simply not acceptable, so I agree with my hon. Friend’s call to the Government.

We know that people with dementia are far more likely to have unplanned hospital admissions, which can cause distress and often worsen their condition. That shows why we urgently need better community care, and why hospital staff must have improved dementia training to provide the care that these patients deserve.

The economic cost of dementia to the UK is enormous; including healthcare, social care and the wider costs to society, it is estimated to be over £42 billion a year. The huge financial burden highlights the importance not only of investing in medical research but of improving support and care infrastructure.

Unpaid carers play a massive and often overlooked role. In fact, family members and friends provide the majority of care for people living with dementia. Women make up a disproportionate share of unpaid carers, balancing that demanding role alongside work and other responsibilities. Their contribution is invaluable but can come at a significant personal cost, including financial strain, mental and physical exhaustion, and social isolation.

Age UK has made it clear that the system is overstretched and underfunded. People in Redditch, and everywhere else, deserve consistent, high-quality care that respects their dignity no matter where they live. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In particular, I commend him for the way in which he has talked about the support that relatives often give as caregivers. Will he elaborate a little further on the points he made about the need for more resources to be focused on less advantaged communities? My own experience in representing a community that has some disadvantages is that people in those communities, particularly families from ethnic minority backgrounds, need far more support. \p Christopher Bloore: I completely agree. It is clear from the data that disadvantaged communities and those from ethnic minorities are not getting the targeted support that they need; I see that in my constituency, particularly in the Winyates district of Redditch. The data shows a very clear reason for further intervention.

Diagnosis is only the start. The Alzheimer’s Society calls for a minimum standard of good quality post-diagnosis support, but real faults remain. Too many people receive little or no clear information after diagnosis. They are left to navigate a confusing maze of services alone, with  inconsistent follow-up and limited access to support groups or counselling. That gap leaves families isolated and unsure about managing symptoms or planning for the future, increasing stress and uncertainty during a profoundly difficult time.

Carers also bear an incredible burden. Families in Redditch tell me about exhaustion and isolation. We need better respite care, as the hon. Member for South Devon said, and better financial support and mental health services for carers. Too many of my residents rely on the voluntary sector for support in their communities; I particularly commend the Astwood Bank memory café for the work that it does.

We must improve the skills of those caring for people with dementia. The Alzheimer’s Society calls for mandatory, high-quality dementia training for all adult social care workers. Hospital staff need better access to dementia training too, because too many patients experience distress and delays because staff do not have the skills that they need.

Importantly, dementia must have parity of esteem with cancers in funding and Government prioritisation. Dementia affects millions and carries a massive societal and economic cost. It deserves the same urgent intention, investment and commitment that cancers receive so that research, care and support can improve in step.

While investing in research is important, we cannot forget the urgent need to improve care for those people living with dementia. Dementia care is a test of our values. I am sure that no one in this House believes that anyone should face this journey alone or without support. We should all be committed to building a fairer, more compassionate care system that delivers for all, including the people of Redditch and the villages. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this very important debate. There is hardly a healthcare issue so big that we do not talk enough about as dementia. Perhaps that is because it is one of the most feared diseases, for understandable reasons.

For decade upon decade—unlike cancer, for example—there has been very little tangible scientific progress, until recently. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medicines and medical devices, I will focus my remarks on those treatments. Breakthroughs are coming through thick and fast, with the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approving two disease-modifying therapies in 2024 for Alzheimer’s. Those medicines chart a path to a time when Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia are a treatable condition that can be delayed to the point where it is, for all intents and purposes, cured. That is incredibly exciting for families such as mine with a history of Alzheimer’s, and more is on the way.

More than 100 medicines are being investigated, so it is a matter of not if, but when new medicines come forward, yet the UK is not ready. The alarm has been raised, but no one is listening. The last Government were asleep at the wheel, and I fear that this Government are too. Moving from a system focused entirely on care to prevention and treatment will require a monumental shift in thinking that breaks down departmental silos  and redistributes budget to treatment. We know that reversing brain damage is nigh impossible, but preventing it is not. That is why early detection and diagnosis are so critical.

Dementia begins without symptoms as early as people’s 40s or 50s. We need to identify those people before the onset of decline, but that requires a system with sufficient diagnostic capacity. That means improved GP waiting times, increased capacity at memory clinics and a massive increase in magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography and lumbar puncture test capacity. The lack of capital investment in our NHS has left us dangerously exposed, with the lowest number of MRI scanners per capita in the OECD. The UK has 6.1 systems per million people. In Germany, the rate is 30.5. Emerging diagnostics, including the blood biomarkers being investigated at the Warneford in Oxfordshire, need to be embraced alongside getting the basics right.

The Government must also look actively at how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assesses new medicines in dementia. Both lecanemab and donanemab were approved by the MHRA and then rejected by NICE on the same day. That means the MHRA believes these medicines are safe and effective, but NICE believes them too expensive for the NHS, because it fails to consider the economic and social benefits, including savings to informal care.

Do we want a system where those who can pay privately for medicines that delay dementia get treatment, and those who cannot, do not? Even when a new therapy is approved by the MHRA, given the green light by NICE and by some miracle we have diagnostic capacity, patients still may not get their hands on it. Depending on how a new medicine is delivered, we may not have enough infusion capacity. If it is a pill, we will be in luck, but we cannot bank on that. The truth is that the NHS cannot cope with the innovation we all want in dementia. My message to the Government is simple: get ready.

I hope the Minister for Care will take note of one final point: please stop punting problems down to the ICBs. My recent written parliamentary question, asking what steps the Government are taking to increase the number of Alzheimer’s disease specialists, was answered by him yesterday, and he said:

“The provision of dementia health care services is the responsibility of local integrated care boards”. \p Gregory Stafford: The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, especially with that last point. Is he, like me, concerned that ICBs will have their funding cut by 50%? Dementia will be one of the many conditions that will suffer because of that. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: Like the hon. Member, I am incredibly frustrated that whenever I put concerns to the Minister, I get pointed towards the ICBs, and when I talk to the ICBs, they tell me to talk to the Minister. There must be responsibility within our system. The Minister has been in politics for longer than me, but I hope he will allow me to offer him a little advice. It is not the ICBs that the people of this country are angry with when it comes to not getting the treatment they deserve; it is the Government. They expect the Government to take responsibility, not pass the buck. \p Jonathan Brash: My dad was a GP in Hartlepool for 33 years. When I was young, I was never more impressed than when he would talk to me about his medical knowledge. The depth of his knowledge was extraordinary, and one of the tricks he used to be able to do at any given moment was take any two numbers I gave him and divide them or multiply them and get the answer right when I checked on the calculator. It was a rare skill, and his impact over those 33 years meant that when I went into politics the most common thing I heard on the doorstep was, “Are you the doctor’s son?” He did tell me recently that someone had asked him whether he was the MP’s dad, and I take that as a small victory.

In Hartlepool, there are 1,299 people living with dementia, and my dad is one of them. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s five years after he retired. Speaking to my mum, who obviously is his carer, too, we both agree that it feels like we have already gone through a form of bereavement, because the person who brought me up is not quite there any more. He is happy, and he enjoys his grandchildren, but it is different. I want to see that changed for other people, because early diagnosis is critical. My dad did not get the early diagnosis that he should have received, and we have paid the consequences as we have gone forward.

In Hartlepool, we are pioneering a new dementia strategy. I am so proud of Hartlepool borough council, because as part of that strategy, the council has committed to ensuring that 100% of its social care staff have dementia training, so that this evil disease—I do mean evil—can be caught and better treated at an earlier stage. As we have already heard from the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), only 29% of social care staff in this country have any form of dementia training. I impress on the Minister that that must change.

Dementia is the defining health and social care challenge of our time. It impacts one in two of us—50% of the population—either through being diagnosed ourselves, or having someone in our life diagnosed with it. Despite this reality, too many people living with dementia and their families struggle to access necessary support. The lack of an integrated care pathway often leads to families being led into fragmented and complex systems, where they can easily fall through the cracks and reach crisis point. Shockingly, one in four hospital beds is occupied by a person living with dementia, and those people face hospital readmissions at rates 50% higher than the general population. We must improve specialist dementia support, both in hospitals and in our communities. That is not just a moral imperative; it is vital for building the health service that we want, one that is fit for the future. The forthcoming 10-year health plan presents a crucial opportunity to rectify those shortcomings. \p Richard Baker: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have worked in this area of policy and services, and I am aware that some of the most powerful advocates for change in dementia care are people with dementia themselves and their families. Does he agree that, when formulating new strategies for dementia care, people with dementia must be fully included in making those plans, based on their own experience? \p Jonathan Brash: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In a completely unplanned way, the next sentence in my speech is, “It is essential that the voices of those affected by dementia are at the forefront of these NHS reforms”, so his intervention was very timely and deadly accurate.

We must ensure that the clinical support and person-centred care that reduces the risk of crises and unnecessary hospital admissions comes to the fore. To that end, I urge Government Ministers to commit to providing ringfenced funding for a dementia specialist nurse in each NHS acute trust, and to integrate specialist nurses such as Admiral nurses—I was so proud to meet them here in Parliament recently—into multidisciplinary neighbourhood health centres. With 1 million people currently living with dementia, and with that number projected to rise to 1.6 million by 2040, as we have heard today, we literally cannot afford delay. The economic impact of dementia is estimated to reach £90 billion by 2040, with 40% of care costs borne by families and unpaid carers. It is time for action.

One of the consequences of my father’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis is that that evil disease has done to him what it does to so many: it robs people of their strengths, but it exacerbates their weaknesses too. My father now struggles with travel, and despite my election in July last year, it is very unlikely that he will ever get here to see me stand in Parliament. In his name—Dr Charles Brash—I ask the Minister to act. \p Alec Shelbrooke: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who has hit the nail on the head when it comes to how terrible this disease is.

Forty years ago this August, my paternal grandfather was dying of lung cancer. My father went to the hospital with him. The day went on and on, and eventually, my grandfather said to my father, “Go and give your mother a call—let her know where we are at.” She answered the phone, and my dad said, “Just to let you know, mum, we’re delayed at the hospital. Dad and I are going to be late.” She said, “Oh, I’ve not seen your father in three weeks.” At that point, he said, his blood ran cold. Tragically, my grandfather died just two weeks later. The funeral came, and the funeral went. My grandmother constantly asked, “Where have all these flowers come from?”

Within four years, my grandmother had to go into a nursing home. Making the right decisions during those four years put a huge strain on my father. “Do we sell the house? How are we going to pay for the care?” My grandmother was walking the streets at 3 am. She was leaving the gas on. Neighbours were saying, “The whole street is going to be destroyed. Derek, you have got to do something.” Then she was put into the home. What I have found during my work on dementia is that that is often the pattern. The spouse, or the partner, protects his or her spouse or partner. They pick up the slack—and this is such a ratcheting disease, which comes so slowly, that they do not realise that they are under more and more pressure and taking on more and more work.

Tragically again, in 2019, my father-in-law died suddenly, and it soon became apparent that he had been hiding my mother-in-law’s dementia. My mother-in-law is doing very well: she has a carer, and on some days she is still pretty sparky. She was a formidable woman in her time.  She is 87 years old now. She still remembers me, and there is an important point there: I will be the person she forgets next, because I was the last in. I say to my wife, “For as long as she remembers me, we are still in a roughly good place.” That is quite a sad statement, is it not? It is sad that we are moving down that road.

However, I was inspired by something I saw shortly after I was elected, in 2010 or 2011, at a dementia café down in Rothwell. I went there when it first opened, and I quickly became aware of the support that it was giving people, and of how much they appreciated it. That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Hartlepool said about how cruel this disease is. Because people are gradually supporting their loved ones more and more, they reach a point at which there is enormous pressure. They are not going to take a step back, go on to Google or try to get on to the local Facebook to try and work out what is going on locally. People do not know what is going on out there, and that was even more true 10 or so years ago.

A huge number of voluntary organisations take clients. Let me name just two in my constituency: Wetherby in Support of the Elderly—WISE—and the Easingwold Hub Club. They provide a huge amount of support for people with dementia, but dozens of other voluntary organisations supply an incredible service that helps to take the pressure off carers, who are also able to take their loved ones out, which in itself can be stimulating. That gave me an idea, and I created the Dementia Directory and one of the first dementia-friendly constituencies. The directory breaks up the constituency up into parts, and lists all the events that are going on. We are working on the new one now. It is a complex process; it is a bit of a spider’s web, because we find one event and then another is off, and then another is off. We try not to miss any, but inevitably we do.

It is because the last directory had such a huge and positive impact that we are preparing this one for the new constituency, following the boundary change. All that we need now is the sponsorship that will enable it to be printed and posted. It will make a difference, because, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, this is a terribly cruel disease. There is a statement that upsets and annoys me greatly: “It is not such a bad disease, because the person who has it does not know they have it.” That is an awful thing to say. I can never hold back a tear when I see the advertisement in which a chap sitting on the end of the bed says to his wife, “I want to go home.” How many of us, as children, became homesick? I was homesick when I went to university. It is a terrifying thought that as you get older you will not know your partner, and you will be constantly homesick.

For Members who may not know this, I have a tip, because I have done dementia training. When I went to a care home, there was an elderly lady of about 90, who said, “I don’t like it here. They never let me see my parents. I just wish they’d let me see my father.” I had been told to get into a memory of the person and mention somewhere their relative may be, so I said, “Well, your father’s down at the allotment.” She said, “Oh, yes, that’s right,” and she calmed down. Do not argue with those people, because that will just make them more upset, but try to take them back to a memory.

As well the directory being used to notice events, it highlights things that may help, such as hydration. One of the things that happens with elderly people is that  they do not want to keep going to the toilet and they get worried about doing so, so they are often quite sparky in the morning when they have had a cup of tea, but by 3 o’clock they are getting memory lapses because they have not drunk enough. That is also something we have to tell people.

How many Members in this Chamber, when they said they were going to speak in this debate—they do not have to put their hands up—had somebody say, “Oh, don’t forget to go there”? Everybody seems to know what dementia is, but nobody really knows what it is. It is a real paradox. Everybody makes that comment, “Don’t forget,” but do they really understand the depth and impact of this disease? Dementia includes Alzheimer’s disease. I recently read a book about Ronald Reagan, which at the end said that he did not open his eyes for the last four years of his life. Just think about that, and what this terrible disease does to people and all the impact it has.

This debate is about dementia care, and several contributions have been made about things the Government can do. I raised this issue back in 2012-13, and the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, did put funding into research for dementia. The trouble is that we have learned how to preserve all the organs of our body with medical research and medical advances, but we have never bothered with the brain. The blunt truth is that, before this disease had the prevalence it now has, most people were dead before they got it. However, there is something we can do all do as Members of Parliament in our constituencies, and that is to draw together all the voluntary organisations that give such relief to families and help to stimulate the sufferer along the way. \p Simon Hoare: My right hon. Friend is making a characteristically powerful and informed speech. He mentioned the importance of the role of volunteers, which I think the whole House will recognise. Does he, however, share my concern that, with an ageing population, we seem to be seeing a smaller cohort of people prepared to step up to volunteer? Across the Government and across this place, a noble endeavour to embark upon would be to champion and encourage more people to get involved with volunteering outside the usual catchment or cohort, because otherwise, in the not-too-distant future, these vital organisations will be so short of volunteers that they will not be able to do the jobs they need to do. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who does indeed make an important comment. My constituency of Wetherby and Easingwold has an older demographic, and that will become more acute over time. He is right to say that there is a dedicated band of volunteers, but most of the people who do the voluntary work during daytime are of an age to be retired. There are people who I think do an incredible job in supporting people—they really do—and they deserve nothing but our gratitude and thanks.

As I have said, there is something positive that we really can do as Members of Parliament, so I urge everyone when they are back in their constituencies to look at what goes on and see what they can do to promote it. I promise them that it will make a transformational difference not just to the lives of the people affected, but to their lives as Members of Parliament in doing what they can do for their local community, which is why we are all here in the first place. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Over 20 Members wish to speak, so there will be a speaking limit of six minutes. \p Linsey Farnsworth: I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this most important of debates. Dementia care is a subject incredibly close to my heart and that of many of my Amber Valley constituents who write to me. Any hon. Members who were present when I made my maiden speech may recall my speaking about my dad, David Farnsworth. Once an extremely talkative man, sadly, like that of so many others, dementia has taken his voice.

With that in mind, it is incumbent on me and other hon. Members to use our voices in this place to advocate for much-needed improvements to dementia care. That must start with increased diagnosis. Alzheimer’s UK is rightly calling on the Government to improve dementia diagnosis rates and set ambitious targets for the future. NHS statistics show that diagnosis rates, as of July 2024, were 65%, so a third of people living with dementia across the UK still do not have a diagnosis, meaning they are missing out on the vital care support and symptomatic treatment it can bring.

The picture is particularly bad for the 70,800 people in the UK who are estimated to have young-onset dementia, where symptoms develop before the age of 65. Getting a diagnosis can take twice as long as for older people. My father-in-law, Michael Spare, was diagnosed with dementia at the age of 64. My mother-in-law, Yvonne, recalls how hard it was to get a diagnosis and to be taken seriously, despite them both knowing that there was a problem. Dementia UK advocates for the Government to mandate every integrated care system to develop a young-onset dementia pathway to include providing timely and accurate diagnosis. I wholeheartedly support that.

When my dad was diagnosed with dementia in 2018, my family and I were frightened. At the time I had a colleague, Sue, who had gone through this with her mother. She was kind enough to give me some advice: try not to focus on what you have lost; celebrate what you can still share and enjoy together. I remembered that advice recently when my step-mum, Kate, started the engine of my dad’s beloved classic car. His face lit up at the sound. Somewhere deep inside, he remembers the joy that restoring his Triumph Spitfire brought him over many years.

Not everyone will have someone like Sue to talk to and living with dementia can be very lonely. For those people, Admiral nurses, employed by Dementia UK, can be a godsend. They provide an invaluable service to families confronting or navigating the reality of living with dementia. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Kath Hunt, who works at the Ripley branch of Nationwide building society. Nationwide has been partnering Dementia UK to offer free appointments with Admiral nurses in high street branches across the country, including in Ripley. Sadly, there are far too few Admiral nurses and, while I am thankful that the scheme exists, it should not fall to partnerships like this for families to get support. Dementia UK recommends that Admiral or specialist  nurses should be core members of multidisciplinary neighbourhood health centres to provide vital care in the community. I wholeheartedly support that recommendation.

Admiral and specialist dementia nurses can also be hospital-based, but they are few and far between. When my dad was hospitalised for an infection unrelated to his dementia, he was put on a general ward. He was so ill, we thought he would never get out of bed. Several weeks into his hospitalisation, I saw a nurse perform what seemed a miracle. He was able to get my dad to engage and even got him to stand up. Amazed, I asked how this could be. He explained that he usually worked on the dementia ward. It was his expert skills and knowledge rather than a miracle that made the difference, but the nurse was certainly an angel in my eyes. Dementia UK is demanding that the Government commit ringfenced funding for a dementia specialist nurse service within each NHS acute trust, and Age UK is calling for urgent improvements to staff training in hospitals to ensure people with dementia have their needs fully met. I support both measures.

My dad is now at home and is looked after by my step-mum Kate and my brother Bradd Farnsworth, supported by visiting carers. I recently asked whether they had had specialist training for caring for people with dementia. They had not, but said they would find it useful. They are not alone. Despite people living with dementia making up 70% of residents of older age residential care and 60% of people drawing on care at home, around 29% of social care staff have no record of dementia training. I am calling for mandatory training for social care staff, in line with the dementia training standards framework, which is absolutely essential, and I will continue to campaign for that.

With the 10-year health plan for England due, this is a key moment. It is vital that improving dementia care is included in the NHS reforms, and I implore the Government not to pass up the opportunity to fix dementia care at long last. \p Manuela Perteghella: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for bringing this important debate to this Chamber.

Dementia is one of the most urgent public health crises we face, and one that profoundly affects so many of my constituents; according to Alzheimer’s Research UK, 1,800 people are living with dementia in our area. The current package of care for those living with dementia is simply not good enough. Far too many of my constituents speak of delayed diagnoses, exhausted kinship carers and gaps in social care provision.

Last year, I joined the brilliant Warwickshire Reminiscence Action Project in Stratford-upon-Avon to hear directly from people in my community living with dementia and their carers. Their stories were heartbreaking and moving, much like those we have heard in the Chamber today. There are many dementia cafés and social groups around my constituency, which provide information, much-needed support, and memory and sensory activities. We must support care workers, including by equipping them with specialist training, and kinship carers, who give everything, often with little recognition or support. Improving the availability of respite care is one step forward.

I have to say that I was deeply disappointed that the Government have dropped their target of diagnosing two thirds of those living with dementia. Early and timely diagnosis is absolutely crucial for individuals and their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon said, we need a proper workforce plan for social care, and to ensure that every person living with dementia receives timely, high-quality care, while making sure their carers are properly supported, too. That can be achieved only with early diagnosis.

We also know that dementia is an intersectional issue, with those from disadvantaged backgrounds disproportionately affected. Falling diagnosis targets and longer delays for appropriate care will fall hardest on those who cannot afford to go private. Dementia is also a rural issue; in communities such as mine, the risk of isolation for dementia patients is even greater, as is the need for strong local support. Families impacted by dementia often have to wait far too long to get the best support.

Make no mistake: this is not just about compassion. Dementia already costs the UK economy £42 billion a year, a figure that is projected to more than double by 2040 if we do not act.

In conclusion, I ask that we do not row back on care commitments, and that we have a dementia care plan that eases pressure on our acute settings while giving patients and their families the support they need when they need it. \p Beccy Cooper: I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for bringing this important debate to the House this afternoon. I also thank other Members for sharing such personal testimonies; as well as bringing broader context, it really adds value to what this House brings to our national conversation.

As a public health consultant, it would be remiss of me not to spend a couple of minutes talking about how to reduce the risk of dementia before getting on to dementia care, as only about a third of UK adults think it is actually possible to reduce their risk of dementia. I am sure these recommendations will all be familiar to everybody listening. As healthcare professionals and as politicians, we should encourage people of all ages and stages of life, and in particular middle-aged adults, to be more physically active, eat healthily and maintain a healthy weight, drink less alcohol, stop smoking—very apt at the moment—and be socially active.

Many Members have spoken today about being socially active, and socially isolated older adults are nearly twice as likely to develop dementia within 15 years. Further recommendations include controlling diabetes and high blood pressure. If that sounds familiar, it is because we talk about that in the cardiovascular realm, too. We should be communicating loudly that what is good for the heart is good for reducing the risk of dementia.

Let me move on to dementia care. I want to talk a little bit about what we are doing in Worthing West, which relates to a lot of what has been said already, and then I shall conclude with the national picture. In Worthing West we have 2,361 people currently living with the condition. The charity Guild Care is a not-for-profit care service for older people, people with dementia, and  children and adults with learning difficulties. It provides care for 120 people with dementia in their own homes and for a further 100 in its respite service. It is great that we have heard so much about respite services in this debate today. It is so important to help people with dementia access support, care and activities that provide a healthy way of living. People visiting dementia day services experience stronger social ties, have better mental health, require fewer GP visits, use less medication, sleep better—something that we all need to do—and have more active engaged minds.

We also know that respite is vital because behind each diagnosis, as we have heard today, often stands an unpaid carer whose career and life are put on hold while their own health quietly deteriorates, as stress, sleep loss and isolation take their toll. Inevitably, in that situation, we see dementia rates rising. Recognising and investing in the value of respite has huge benefits.

We have also heard about some innovative community care hubs across the country. Guild Care in Worthing West is developing its own community hub to combat social isolation. It provides integrated dementia care, diagnosis, support and a rich programme of activities that keep people healthy and living at home. That is an aspiration that we want for all of us—to live well and to stay at home for as long as possible. Our role in Government is to ensure a more co-ordinated system, building on best practice models, such as those that we have heard about today, including that of Guild Care in Worthing West.

We have also touched on training. Guild Care delivers in-house specialist dementia training to its staff in a bespoke programme that it developed with colleagues in the Bromley dementia hub—so I give a shout-out for Bromley there. Good research-based staff training is essential to help care professionals to deliver compassionate, person-centred support, as so many hon. Members have said today. It is the bedrock of quality care. \p Martin Rhodes: My hon. Friend mentioned person-centred care in dementia. Does she agree that initiatives such as Playlist for Life in my constituency, which uses meaningful music to reconnect people with dementia to their memories and their identity, should be more widely supported across the NHS? \p Beccy Cooper: What an outstanding service that sounds. I know there is a creative mental health all-party parliamentary group taking place today. We underestimate the benefits of exposure to the creative arts for all of us, specifically for those with dementia. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for raising that. Clearly, training is essential, as are the creative arts.

To conclude, I wish to talk about what this all means nationally, and specifically about the implementation of a national social care service, which I know the Minister is very well aware of. I acknowledge that the Casey Commission is a vital step towards implementing that service. The Darzi report and our recent work in the Health and Social Care Committee, some members of whom are here this afternoon, underline what we all know, which is that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing the broken social care system. The two are fundamentally interconnected; we must not look at health and social care issues in isolation, and that includes dementia. We must ensure that strategic plans build better integration  and recognise that investment in social care is essential. It is essential to improve people’s lives. Moving from treatment to prevention of illness is pivotal to the NHS 10-year strategy and to reducing the spiralling costs to the NHS of an ageing population.

Let me conclude now with this idea of changing the narrative. This has been touched on this afternoon. Sometimes we think about dementia as an illness that has no hope. One Member has already said that 50% of us may well develop dementia in our lifetimes. One way or another, the illness has touched pretty much everyone in this Chamber. Care Talk recently published a comprehensive report on dementia, which is well worth reading. I would like to urge everyone to take up this new narrative on dementia. The traditional narrative surrounding dementia focuses on decline and inevitability, but, as I have already mentioned, around 40% of dementia cases might be attributable to risk factors that can be modified. A 20% reduction in the risk factors per decade could reduce UK prevalence by 16%—even by this year.

I am advocating for policies that help people live well and protect them from illnesses including dementia, and for services that help people to live well with dementia, by emphasising their strengths, which many personal testimonies have already touched on. We must also be supporting people and their families to better navigate the condition and contribute to their communities and our society. \p Ann Davies: Dementia is heartbreaking. With over 944,000 people in the UK suffering from this illness, we need to support families and sufferers in a more holistic manner. Health in Wales is devolved—as it is in Scotland—to the Senedd. However, as dementia affects so many of my constituents, I want to highlight the work that is being done in my constituency to support carers and their loves ones during this difficult period in their lives.

The trajectory for dementia is upwards, with 1.6 million adults expected to suffer from the illness by 2050. Some 70,000 of those will be under the age of 65, so although it is known as an older person’s disease, it is not exclusively so. Lewy body dementia, which affected a very close friend of mine, is thought to account for 15% to 20% of cases of dementia, and it can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms are so similar to Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. The symptoms for Lewy body dementia can include hallucinations, loss of sleep, movement problems, changes in alertness and attention, and most of all confusion.

I think of how afraid they must feel when they know that something is wrong but they cannot articulate their feelings and do not know what to do or where to go for help, and the same can be said for their carers, families and loved ones. Their world is turned upside down. First they have to navigate a diagnosis, and then they have to obtain the help that is there, but how do they find that help? Where is it and who is there to point them in the right direction?

In Caerfyrddin we have dementia groups and memory clinics, all run by volunteers who have walked this journey with their loved ones—people who understand and care. The Cathen Dementia Group is one such safe space.  It runs every Thursday from Llangathen Hall between 2 pm and 4 pm and serves the wider Llandeilo area and all rural villages around it. When I popped in for a visit in January, they said that they wanted a way to reach more people who are living with dementia, such as people who live rurally and do not drive cars and people who do not have the support network that others have on their doorstep.

Working with Dolen Teifi, a third sector volunteer transport provider, we are preparing to have transport in place for the autumn term. Working with the Carmarthenshire Association of Voluntary Services, we will secure funding for not only this but other incidentals that they need in order to operate. Working collaboratively, we can achieve the help that these groups need. The groups provide safe spaces for sufferers of dementia, support for the carers, and the chance to have a cuppa and a chat. The groups provide a bit of normality for a couple of hours a week.

If anybody can help and support these groups, please do. They are a lifeline within my rural constituency, where if people do not drive then they just do not go anywhere or meet anyone. I want to thank Dolen Teifi and the Carmarthenshire Association of Voluntary Services, but I want to give my biggest thanks to the team of volunteers and carers who run groups such as Cathen Dementia Group. \p Andrew Pakes: It is a huge honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and the many others who have shared personal family stories as well as stories about what is happening in their constituency. I truly welcome this debate and thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing it.

Dementia care is important to many of us in this House and to the communities we represent. I would like to start by putting on record my thanks to local dementia support teams and the families and volunteers involved for their work in my constituency. It seems fitting that we are discussing this matter during Volunteers’ Week, having heard many important contributions, particularly the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), about how we can all play a personal role and encourage more volunteers in this space.

I want to put on record a particular shout-out to a volunteer in my constituency, Heather Hooper, a dementia friend ambassador who has done so much to help me in my journey of learning on this issue. Indeed, I thank all the volunteers in this space for their help and outreach work, including for helping me as a new constituency Member of Parliament, along with my team, to learn and understand not just what needs to change in the care system, but how we can support families and people with dementia when dealing with the casework requests that sadly come forward so often because of challenges in this area.

As many in this House will know, dementia is the leading cause of death in the UK, and one in two of us will be affected by this complex condition in our lifetime. The individual stories I have heard from local families and carers are so moving—perhaps some of the most moving casework I have received since being elected—and it is heartbreaking to hear about the lack of accessible  care and support still faced by too many people. The facts and figures, beyond the human toll of the stories that we have heard, are stark. Dementia UK’s recent survey results are a hard read. Three quarters of respondents said that they did not receive the right care to meet their needs through the NHS, and 76% said that hospital care did not meet the specific needs of people with dementia. We cannot, and should not, accept that.

I am hopeful that in Peterborough we can make a positive change. In my constituency, there has been a recent debate about the future of our Dementia Resource Centre—a unique partnership between families, care workers and the city council, and one of just two in the country that follow such a model. The centre is, in effect, a one-stop centre for dementia sufferers and their families in the city. It offers vital services in the community that enable people to be diagnosed with dementia fast. It works in collaboration with GPs and the local authority, as well as with other bits of the health service—we have heard about how important that is—to give people with dementia and their loved ones the care and support they need. It also works to simplify the system so that it is based around their needs, rather than there being an expectation on too many people to navigate an already complex system, given the pressure that they may be experiencing. I thank the Alzheimer’s Society for its dedication and work alongside the council and other healthcare professionals.

With dementia rates only set to increase, centres of excellence like the one in Peterborough need to be promoted across the country, and we have heard about so many good examples already. That is why we have fought so hard to keep the centre open in our city. The story of our dementia centre in Peterborough will be familiar, with so many of its services involving local government. The accumulation of financial pressures on the council means that the authority is rationalising the estate. We have recently been through the traumatic experience of finding out whether the Dementia Resource Centre would continue to exist and where it would be moved to, but I am pleased to say that it is now safe.

Thanks to campaigners, families and the incredible work of Councillor Dr Shabina Qayyum—our council’s cabinet member for adult social care, who other hon. Friends will know—we have saved the centre and found a new home for it at Paston Farm community centre. That means not only that have we saved the centre; we have also created a bespoke area in which the council will continue to invest. It will provide a dedicated space for socialising, so that families and carers have something that is in their lives every day, alongside the professional medical care and healthcare that they need. \p Christopher Vince: My hon. Friend is giving an incredibly powerful and trademark passionate speech. When he talks about the support that families need, will he also recognise the support that young people and particularly young carers need? To experience a loved one suffering from dementia must be incredibly challenging for younger people as well. \p Andrew Pakes: My hon. Friend has answered his own question, given the passion with which he has told that story; the role of young carers is a story to which the House must bear witness. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Care is passionate about ensuring that  those who care for loved ones facing health conditions get the recognition and support they need, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his question as well as the Minister, in recognition of the role he plays in this issue. \p Gregory Stafford: The hon. Gentleman’s story of his saving his local centre rings a bell with me. The Hunter Centre in Haslemere, which had been run by the Alzheimer’s Society, looked like it was going to close in 2017, but because of some great work by Anne Downing, it was saved and is now thriving—in fact, I am a patron—so I am sure that this can be done not just in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in mine, but across the country. \p Andrew Pakes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us such a wonderful practical example. I would correct him only by saying that it was not me that saved our centre; it was the campaigners and their families. I would like to ensure that the record represents that it was their work that saved it, rather than me as an individual MP, although I was glad to play my small role alongside their great efforts to hold me to account.

Fundamentally, care belongs in the community. It is our duty to promote and support such initiatives as I have talked about, and to ensure that the wonderful creation that is the NHS is centred on community-based care, not on top-down-based care. It is our duty to promote this and I sincerely hope that this type of provision, alongside the additional services that hon. Members have spoken so passionately about today, will be the hallmark of what comes next and will feature prominently in the 10-year plan and in the remarks that the Minister will shortly make. \p Rachel Gilmour: Dementia is a uniquely tragic disease because it is, after all, an attack on the mind and on one’s memories. It is a terminal malady for which there is currently no cure and which affects almost every family in the country. My constituent, Timothy, said this of his family’s experience with the disease:

“My wife, to whom I was married for 65 years, slipped into dementia about three years ago. When dementia strikes, it comes slowly. We did not know what was happening, and though our children were very supportive, they could not know why one parent had dementia and the other didn’t. Household management got worse, making each day a strain. My wife had been a superb cook, but I was a poor substitute. Our children tried to help, but they had their own lives to live.”

In my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, it is estimated we have 1,877 people living with dementia—a figure that far exceeds the national average—and yet in my constituency and in rural areas around the country, the paucity of care provision coupled with significant transport challenges means that the impact of dementia is felt even more acutely. The lack of access to dementia care only exacerbates feelings of abandonment and isolation.

It is no secret that we are an ageing society. Projections from the national health service indicate that we are on course to have over 1 million people living with dementia by 2030, and as many as 1.6 million by the mid-point of this century. This significant demographic shift underscores  the need to expand and strengthen the workforce in the care sector through upskilling, training and retention strategies. I speak with particular thrust as the Member of Parliament for an overwhelmingly rural area. I am all too aware of the recruitment and retention woes in remote communities where geographical isolation and resource constraints make things additionally challenging.

Several Members of my party have made the point about social care and I know that my party leader makes it on a weekly basis at Prime Minister’s questions, so I will not revisit the need for social care as it runs alongside the NHS. However, we must support our carers. Increased pay for carers is not merely a matter of fairness; it is an investment in a future where better care will inevitably lead to better outcomes for those with dementia. After all, a rising tide lifts all boats. According to the UK Dementia Research Institute, 85% of people with dementia wish to remain in their own home, so it is about time that unpaid carers—those silent heroes—were afforded the right to carer’s leave and a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks.

Unlike other speakers, I have not talked about my family’s experience with dementia until the end of my speech because, quite frankly, I thought I would cry. My three brothers and I were lucky enough to be brought up by an intellectual colossus: my mother, M—Cambridge educated, a City solicitor, and a wonderful mother and grandmother. Fortunately, my family is able financially to look after her, and I am endlessly grateful to my brother and sister-in-law for looking after her as well as they do, and to her carer, Nicolette, who comes from Romania and who has literally changed her life.

Somebody earlier said that it is important not to look at the sad side of things, but to look at the best side. I rang my mother—mummy—last Sunday. We were laughing so much that I nearly had to put the phone down. She might not be able to remember everything, but she still has a sense of humour, she still has a good appetite, and she always enjoys a wee glass of sherry. She will be here with me next Wednesday for parliamentary questions. Mummy, I can’t wait to see you. I love you. \p Warinder Juss: I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. As Members across the House have rightly highlighted, dementia remains one of the most urgent health and social care challenges facing our country. One in two of us will be affected by it in our lifetime, whether through our own diagnosis, caring for a loved one or both.

Over 14,200 people in the Black Country live with dementia, including over 3,000 in city of Wolverhampton. That number is expected to more than double over the next 10 years. As lack of early diagnosis is an issue and prevents proper dementia care, and considering the prevalence of dementia in our communities, I am pleased that 67% of people with dementia in Wolverhampton have been formally diagnosed as having the condition, compared to 62% nationally and 59% across the west midlands. These are more than just statistics; each number represents the individuals, families and communities living with the daily realities of this cruel condition.

The total annual cost of dementia in England reached £42 billion in 2024, and that is set to double in the next 15 years. More than half the cost is shouldered by unpaid carers—the family members and friends who often go without support, recognition or respite. I welcome the Government’s recent increase in the carer’s allowance earnings threshold, which will enable more carers to remain in work while continuing to receive the support they rely on. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but if we are serious about improving dementia care, we must start with the chronic underfunding of our social care system, which is fragmented, overstretched and under-resourced. We cannot rely on good will alone, so I urge the Government to commit to sustainable, long-term funding for our social care sector—for the workers, for community-based services and for specialist dementia provision.

I am proud that the city of Wolverhampton, which is within my constituency of Wolverhampton West, has been recognised as a dementia-friendly community by the Alzheimer’s Society, with over 13,000 dementia friends across the city. I particularly commend the work of Alz Café in my constituency, which is an independent, volunteer-led service providing a warm, welcoming space for people living with dementia and their families. With live music, hot meals and compassionate support, it is a lifeline for many, and it is run entirely free of charge.

Community-led initiatives are vital, but we cannot allow them to become a substitute for a robust national care infrastructure in our NHS and our country. Volunteers and charities play an incredible role, but they cannot carry the burden alone. Dementia care should therefore be included in the NHS 10-year health plan, as advocated by Dementia UK, with more specialist dementia nurses in our hospitals and in the community to deliver timely, person-centred care, which can save on costs by reducing hospital stays. It is beyond time for us to have a properly funded, co-ordinated national approach to social care that ensures that everyone affected by dementia can access the crucial care and support that they so need.

It is important that we have timely diagnosis of dementia, particularly given that young-onset dementia is becoming common, and age-appropriate support. Dementia care is vital for the future health of us all. \p Sorcha Eastwood: My constituent Silé’s husband developed early onset dementia at the age of 38. Nobody knew what it was initially, because they were not expecting a normal, healthy 38-year-old to have early-onset dementia. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to do much more right across the UK to highlight that dementia and Alzheimer’s can develop at any age? \p Warinder Juss: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need to take urgent action, and earlier. There are now cases of people having got dementia even as early as the age of 50 without knowing that they have the condition because there is no diagnosis, so I agree with the hon. Lady. \p Claire Young: Everyone deserves high-quality care when they need it—that is particularly the case for those with dementia, who often have some of the most complex needs—but the sad reality  is that social care services in this country are in crisis. The disease has a huge impact not only on the patients, but on their family and friends as they struggle to care for them.

Richard wrote to me about his experience of being a full-time carer for his wife of 55 years. She has ataxia, compounded by dementia. She is losing her ability to walk or talk, write or use the phone, or follow simple instructions, and Richard has to be with her 24/7 to ensure her safety. The daily routine starts with getting his wife out of bed; transporting her to the bathroom; helping her with the toilet; getting her into the shower and then getting in the shower to shower her; helping her clean her teeth; getting her back to the bedroom to dry her hair and dress her; taking her downstairs via their self-funded stairlift; getting her into a wheelchair to transport her to the dining table for breakfast; and then taking her back to the lounge. She may sleep for a little bit, but sooner or later there will be a call for help to go to the toilet, so it is back into the wheelchair, back on the stairlift and back on the toilet. Richard will clean and dress her, and then she will go back on the stairlift, back into the wheelchair and back into the lounge, where the whole palaver will repeat after five minutes, as she has forgotten that she has already been to the toilet and cannot be convinced otherwise.

That is just one small part of a day, and it sounds relentless. Owing to a recent back injury, Richard has had to employ a carer for two mornings a week to help. He wants to care for his wife as long as he can, but one day he may have to move her to a nursing home, and that worries him. He reckons it will cost approximately £1,800 per week and rising due to the increase in national insurance, and he is now worried that in pandering to populism on immigration, the Government may make it even harder to recruit carers. He says:

“Once again, it is the least fortunate and needy of us who will bear the cost.”

Another constituent wrote:

“When my wife was first diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2019, we were given a couple of booklets and told to prepare for the inevitable.”

He went on to explain that for a couple of years, including during the covid lockdown, they saw no one apart from the occasional surgery visit, until a crisis in 2023 led to the community mental health team being involved. For a while, his wife got a fair amount of support, but when the mental health team deemed her stabilised, that support was withdrawn, leading to another crisis in January 2024. He is very worried that the whole cycle will play out again and again. \p Sarah Dyke: My hon. Friend reminds me of a conversation that I had with William, a constituent from High Ham who has been caring for his wife, who has had Alzheimer’s for many years. He has relied on the intensive dementia support team in Yeovil, but the service has recently been reorganised. As a result, it has become quite fragmented across Somerset and there is no central contact or clear structure. There are incomplete records, leaving some carers adrift. Does my hon. Friend agree that streamlining dementia care services is vital to ensure clarity and co-ordination for carers? \p Claire Young: Absolutely. It is a very frightening situation for people to find themselves in. For carers who have to do all that I have described Richard having to do, having to battle their way to find the services available just adds to the problems.

My constituent says that mental health services are the Cinderella of the NHS. There is a lack of staff and resources, and such services need more financial support so that they do not abandon people the minute they think they can get away with it.

A number of Members have highlighted the importance of voluntary initiatives, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those in my constituency, including Time 4 Carers, the memory cafés in Yate and Thornbury, and the Charfield memory group. However, voluntary initiatives are not enough to provide the support that dementia patients and their carers need.

The cross-party commission on social care is welcome, but unpaid carers such as my constituents cannot wait three years—they need a fair deal now. That means respite breaks, so that they do not get to breaking point and can carry on caring for their loved ones, as they want to. It means ongoing support from health services, regular check-ins and not being abandoned when the immediate crisis is over, and it means having the confidence that when they do need to turn to paid carers, those carers will be available, they will have dementia training, and cost will not be a barrier to using them. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am now asking Members to speak for no longer than five minutes. \p Jo Platt: I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for bringing this really important debate to the House. I am speaking today on behalf of the 1,422 people in Leigh and Atherton living with dementia. That is above the national average; my constituency ranks 281 out of 650. I want to speak about the incredible work being done in our communities to support these individuals.

Sadly, due to years of neglect and underfunding, there is no integrated dementia care pathway, and trying to navigate fragmented and complex health and social care systems can cause families to fall between the gaps and reach crisis point. Dementia is placing a monumental pressure on our health and social care system, but it is all too often an afterthought. This cruel condition is having a terrible impact on so many families, and that is clear when speaking to my constituents, who share with me heartbreaking stories of their struggle to access the support they need. That is why improving dementia care in the community is essential. It can offer improved outcomes not only for those with dementia but in the wider health and social care system, as we have heard today.

At a local level, we are fortunate to have brilliant organisations that go above and beyond, offering care, comfort and invaluable support. I pay tribute to my remarkable constituent, Mark Aldred, whose passion for dementia causes is nothing short of inspiring. When he was mayor, his charity appeal partnered with the  local Alzheimer’s Society and raised an outstanding £30,000—a true testament to his unwavering commitment to making a real difference. Together with his wife Karen, Mark founded the Good Deeds Trust, a heartfelt initiative born from their deep connection with the people of our borough. Their family-run charity offers essential advice and support to those navigating the challenges of dementia.

We are also privileged to have specialist dementia nurses Bridget Lawler and Caroline Clifton at Belong, a care home based in the heart of Atherton. I pay tribute to them. Their dedication to supporting patients has earned them national recognition, as they have been shortlisted for the Admiral nurse award at the Dementia Care awards. They offer invaluable advice, help arrange assessments with healthcare professionals and provide essential guidance on securing financial support.

I could not be prouder of the staff at Belong Atherton. To see their hard work and kindness recognised at national level is truly inspirational, but they are not alone. We have a pub in Tyldesley called the Union Arms that has been holding dementia meet-ups for the last 10 years. It has become a safe space for people living with the condition to spend time in good company. The group, known as the Forgotten Regulars, has created a fantastic support network, brightening the lives of those affected by dementia, including their families. Despite the incredible work the pub is doing, it faces the challenge of rising costs as it tries to keep the dementia club running.

As a dementia research champion, I proudly stand with Dementia UK and other organisations advocating for better support for community initiatives, greater investment in research and treatment and earlier diagnosis to transform the future of dementia in my constituency and the rest of the UK. Ultimately, ensuring we have a health service fit for the future means improving community and primary dementia support. That starts with championing and nurturing the incredible work being done in our communities that is making a difference and supporting those who need it most. \p Liz Jarvis: I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. Dementia care is in crisis. One in six hospital beds is currently occupied by someone with dementia, and by 2040 it is estimated that the figure will be one in four hospital beds. We need the Government to take bold, radical action to introduce a system that provides the best possible support for people with dementia and their families—support that is easily accessible every step of the way.

I have heard from many carers in my constituency who are stretched to their limit, and adding to that pressure is the constant uncertainty over support. People with dementia often fall through the gaps in the health and social care service, as many assessments are not designed for people with dementia. That is why I support Dementia UK’s call for the Government urgently to review the NHS continuing healthcare process. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering  a specific focus on how cognitive and behavioural needs are assessed, and say whether dementia specialists will be involved in the continuing healthcare assessment process?

Support for carers is also incredibly important. In May 2024, Hampshire county council changed a local support service, after 12 years and with very little notice. One of my constituents described how the previous provider, the charity Andover Mind, had been a lifeline for him and his wife who was diagnosed with early-onset dementia. The charity offered care advice, legal guidance and hosted social events that helped to build supportive networks at an incredibly difficult time. My constituents feel that the new service is focused on short-term emergency response rather than comprehensive support.

At present, the care system relies heavily on unpaid carers, who are usually family members, and people with dementia often rely on a combination of unpaid and formal social care. Two thirds of unpaid carers are women, and a third provide more than 100 hours of care a week. This is a full-time job with no pay, little rest, and far too little recognition. As my constituent Julia said,

“post diagnosis, there was just very little help”.

While caring for her husband, she found that she had to do her own research and reading to get him the care he needed. She is concerned, however, that her husband is better off than many others who do not have family advocating on their behalf. Clearly, there is a growing need for a minimum standard of good quality, post-diagnosis support for people with dementia and their carers.

I urge the Government to commit to providing guidance and ringfenced funding to ensure that there is a specialist dementia nurse service in every NHS acute trust. I support the demand for a bold, new diagnosis target, urgent action to reduce waiting lists, and improved dementia diagnosis data collection and publication to drive greater accountability. There is also a discussion to be had about dementia-specific training for care workers. Last year in England, only 45% of care workers received dementia-specific training, which highlights the scale of the problem. Will the Government implement the Alzheimer’s Society’s recommendation that dementia training should be mandatory across the adult social care workforce?

I have spoken in this Chamber on previous occasions about the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s on my own family, and how after a loved one is diagnosed with this terrible disease, we lose them twice. With our rapidly ageing population, it is critical that more support is given to families coping with dementia, so they do not have to jump through hoops to get support, and so that those living with dementia and Alzheimer’s are treated with the specialist care and dignity they deserve. \p Sarah Russell: I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. Caring for a relative with dementia is one of the most tremendously difficult things that many people will ever have to do. I pay tribute to the many people in my constituency who are caring for a relative with dementia; it is incredibly challenging. Over time I have spoken to many people on the doorstep whose relatives  were suffering from dementia, and who were finding things very difficult. When I read a dementia care plan, I saw that 51% of carers providing unpaid care in my constituency are providing more than 100 hours a week. That is the most phenomenal commitment, and I thank ever so much all those who are doing that.

I have heard the Minister speak extremely movingly about his family’s experiences and I know that he is very committed to improving dementia care in this country. However, it is shocking that at present only about 67% of people with dementia in my constituency will actually receive a diagnosis. I recently spoke to a resident whose mother has been in a care home with advanced dementia for three years, but is still undiagnosed. As long as we do not have a full set of diagnoses, we cannot properly explore good healthcare outcomes for people, what proportionate spend would look like and how we can improve the system generally.

A huge amount of unpaid care is provided by women—although, of course, there are people of all genders providing it and I salute everyone who does so—which is one reason why the gender pay gap doubles when women are in their 40s. Work by the Women’s Budget Group has shown that as well as improving the wellbeing of those providing that care, investment in the care sector could create 2.7 times as many jobs as the same amount of investment in construction. I do not think that we should be providing better care just because there is a good economic basis for doing so—we should be doing it because it is the right thing to do—but it is important to note that there would be huge economic benefits.

I welcome the Government’s launch of an independent commission into adult social care as the first step towards creating a national care service. In Cheshire East, there has been inconsistent funding of Admiral nurses, which has led to inconsistent support. I have been impressed by the care provided by local hospices; although traditionally associated with cancer care, they are now often involved in dementia care. I would like us to provide more funding for hospice care as soon as we are able to do so.

The services that people receive are hugely important to them, whether they are delivered in the community or in care homes. A dentist in my constituency has told me that due to an issue with insurance, many dentists are no longer covered to provide services in care homes, which is a huge loss as those people deserve dental care. The Alzheimer’s Society has called for dementia training for paid carers, and I agree that we should be moving to do that at pace.

I want to thank not just the unpaid carers, but the volunteers in my constituency who are doing the most incredible work. In Congleton, we have the Congleton Lions dementia buddy scheme and the New Life church “Forget-me-not” group for carers and those living with dementia; we have over 1,000 Dementia Friends in Sandbach and the “Bring me sunshine” group at Sandbach library; we have memory cafés at Alsager library, Astbury village hall and Holmes Chapel Methodist church; and I would like to say a huge thank you to everyone involved in making Holmes Chapel a dementia-friendly village. I have not captured the full range of support provided and I apologise to the groups that I may not have picked up on, but the variety of services provided by people on an unpaid basis across my community is staggering.

However, that does not take away from the fact that we need the right paid services for people in their homes and subsequently in care homes, if that becomes the right choice for families. I thank everyone who is providing enormous support to the people who they care for, across our entire society. I know that hon. Members from all parties will agree that we need to provide more support to those giving that care. \p Cameron Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for bringing this debate to the House. I would also like to give credit to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), whose touching tribute to their father reminded me of the grandfather who I knew and loved, before dementia slowly stripped me of that man.

Dementia is a particularly cruel terminal illness and the leading cause of death in the UK. We each know somebody who is watching or who has watched somebody they love slowly fade from dementia. One day, some of our own children will slowly be robbed of us—perhaps, in time, my daughter will slowly suffer my own withdrawal. The very foundations of our characters are the memories of lives lived, and friends and families loved. Dementia steals away those memories, and with each memory lost, so too is a little more of that person. Children and grandchildren, once a source of joy and warmth, become strangers as the void left by lost memories is filled with confusion and fear. Confusion chips away at confidence while fear eats away at empathy. Once only a shadow of the person we love remains, dementia takes their independence. It comes for their speech, their ability to walk and even their ability to eat.

For those who shoulder the burden of care, the impact is profound, provoking competing feelings of sadness, anger and pride. Many do not realise that they are carers and soldier on in their duty to their loved ones without external support. Young carers, such as those I met recently in Twigworth, shoulder their additional responsibility through the most challenging period of their own development. Many do not know that they are carers, and too many are not identified as such by their schools or their authorities.

The financial burden of dementia on the UK economy is £42 billion per year, and £26 billion of that is borne by informal carers. Patients and carers alike are failed by dual crises in social care and the NHS, and the stresses imposed on patients only hasten their decline. Liberal Democrats have consistently called on this Government to address the growing social care crisis with a long-term plan, and I reiterate that we cannot adequately support the NHS without addressing social care.

Other Members have spoken at length about measures that the Government can take. I will not repeat those, but I will say that one area in which the Government can move quickly is dementia care skills, through tailored training for our health and care workers to better understand the needs of dementia patients. Too often, care is not adequately tailored for dementia. In Tewkesbury constituency, I am proud to have Gloucestershire’s sole dementia-only nursing home, Wentworth Court. I will be visiting it this week to listen to its needs and learn from its experience, and I will follow up by writing to the Secretary of State. \p Chris McDonald: I thought this evening that I might appraise the House of the story of Pat and John Hirst from my constituency. Pat was a nurse. She qualified in 1975 at Leeds general infirmary, and the following year she met John while studying in Liverpool. They married in 1978, raised their three sons and settled in Stockton. Pat returned to work after she had had her children, initially in nursing homes, caring for residents with dementia, then later at the University hospital of North Tees, where she worked for more than a decade.

In the final months of Pat’s time at the hospital, her performance as a nurse began to decline. Unbeknownst to her colleagues or her family, Pat was displaying the early symptoms of frontotemporal dementia, which we heard about earlier from the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). Pat’s colleagues did not realise that, so disciplinary action was initiated. John believes that Pat would have been dismissed, but she instead decided to retire on her 60th birthday, before the end of that year.

In early 2012, Pat experienced swallowing difficulties. She underwent tests across several hospitals, and the diagnosis came. No further explanation was provided, other than a referral to the local memory clinic—an experience of many people with dementia. That evening, John sat at his computer and searched online for more information. There, alone in his own home, he learned that the average life expectancy from diagnosis was between two and 20 years. He had not realised until that point that dementia could be a terminal illness. I think we can all agree that there must be a better way of finding out such devastating news.

Pat remained aware of her surroundings and her loved ones until the very end. In her final two years, she lost the ability to speak and could communicate only with her eyes. John recalls the look of fear in her eyes when it became clear that end of life care was beginning. At that point, she was fully aware that she was saying goodbye to her husband and her sons. Their grandson Henry is now two years old. He will never know his granny, but John is determined that Henry and others of his generation should grow up in a world where dementia can be diagnosed early, managed better and ultimately cured. John now volunteers with Alzheimer’s Research UK, and he recently completed a walk from Teesside to Newcastle to raise awareness and funding. For those not familiar with the area, that is quite a long distance. Even walking, he got there faster than he would have done on the Durham coast line.

In Stockton, we have about 1,300 people suffering from dementia, but it takes six weeks longer for a dementia diagnosis in my constituency than the national average. We clearly need to ensure that people are diagnosed early before symptoms become apparent, but it is also important that we raise awareness with the public and employers that early-onset dementia can and does affect people before retirement age, so that people do not suffer the kind of treatment that Pat did in her last year of employment.

While the impact of dementia is a difficulty for a parent, it adds a new dimension when that person is diagnosed at the age of 30 or 40. We have heard already that if nothing changes, one in two of us will be affected  by dementia, whether individually, living as a carer or both. John speaks not only for himself and for Pat, but for the thousands of families across Stockton North and the country who are facing this condition. We owe it to John and to other families to ensure that the experience of dementia is no longer defined by lengthy waits, lack of information and financial hardship or, indeed, improved by people like John walking long distances from Teesside to Newcastle. Instead, it should be defined by early intervention, compassionate care, and meaningful progress through research. \p Victoria Collins: I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. I also thank the many Members from all parts of the House who have shared passionate stories, either of their own or of constituents. Far too many people across the UK are living with dementia, a cruel and progressive condition that robs them of their memory, speech and independence. For every person with dementia, there is often a family doing everything they can behind closed doors to hold things together. I have heard from so many, and one of them is my constituent, Claire.

Claire describes her mother, Christine, as a vibrant and sociable woman. She was a devoted mother, a church flower arranger and a proud Harpenden resident of nearly 40 years. However, in her early 60s, Christine started showing signs of confusion, withdrawal and mood swings. Her family noticed something was off, but like so many others, they did not assume it was dementia. Even medical professionals overlooked these signs. Christine’s story took a devastating turn in 2018, just four weeks after her daughter Claire had given birth to twins.

At what should have been a joyful and tender time in their family’s life, Christine suffered a cardiac arrest. That moment plunged her into mid-stage vascular dementia, a terminal diagnosis with no treatment or cure. After Christine’s diagnosis, the family was visited by a nurse once and then told they were being discharged. They received no care plan nor long-term guidance. From then on, care fell entirely to the family. Claire’s dad, a retired engineer, became a full-time carer overnight. He learned to administer insulin and to manage medicine, and he joined online courses alongside his daughter.

Support for the family came when Dementia UK got involved in March 2020, and that was great, but unfortunately it was too late to change the trajectory and was tragically interrupted by the pandemic. Admiral nurses, who provide expert guidance for families such as Claire’s, could have made all the difference, but demand continues to outstrip supply.

Through it all, Claire created something positive. She saw at first hand the extraordinary power music had to reach her mum, even in the late stages of her dementia, so she set up Sing from the Heart, a community singalong in care settings and online for people with dementia. It was a real pleasure to visit them in the Willow Court care home and to hear Claire play along and the residents enjoying it. It is now a lasting tribute to her mother, who passed away in April last year, aged 73.

Alongside Sing from the Heart in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, we also have the memory café at Harpenden Trust and Open Door. There are so many volunteers,  as mentioned today, working to give that care in the community. Everyone with dementia deserves high-quality care whenever they need it. The Liberal Democrats want everyone to be able to live independently and with dignity, and to receive any care they need in their home whenever possible. That is why we have routinely called on the Government to act now. Their decision to quietly drop cross-party talks on social care and push the delivery of the Casey commission’s recommendations to almost a decade away will leave many with dementia, and their families, paying the price. Do the Government accept that dementia care is in crisis, and will they now commit to better funding, so that families in this country do not go through the same hardships of receiving care as Claire and Christine? \p Judith Cummins: I now ask Members to keep their comments to no more than four minutes. \p Brian Leishman: All politics is personal, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for sharing their personal experiences today. Three years ago, Clackmannanshire became home to the Alzheimer Scotland brain health and dementia resource centre. Alongside other local women, Debbie Cassidy—a constituent of mine—raised in excess of £100,000 and created a first for our country: a dedicated brain hub that helps people understand and manage the factors that affect brain health and what potentially leads to dementia. That is a terrific achievement, and an inspirational example of what can be achieved by local people when they are backed with the right support.

Talking of support, for years Ludgate House in Alloa has been instrumental in providing specialist respite care for people and families with many complex needs, including dementia. Clackmannanshire residents with dementia have received the most compassionate, attentive and brilliant care from the staff—the same dedicated staff who have provided peace of mind to families, allowing them to take a much-needed break from their caring responsibilities. However, there is uncertainty around the future of the respite unit at Ludgate House. This is a consequence of the chronic underfunding and systemic issues within our Scottish social care system.

The possible fate of the respite unit at Ludgate House is representative of a broader crisis in dementia care. In Scotland, over 90,000 people are living with dementia, a number that is projected to rise by 50% by 2040. With that alarming prediction, the removal of that respite unit would leave a significant void in our community, depriving families of essential support and placing additional strain on already overstretched health services. In fact, a recent report from Alzheimer Scotland highlighted the lack of strategic planning in commissioning for long-term care, noting that many people with advanced dementia face monthly care bills of thousands of pounds.

Like people from all over the UK, families from Clackmannanshire have been and continue to be victims of the cost of living crisis, so the possibility of losing the respite unit at Ludgate House does not bear thinking about. In response, I am working with the staff. We have set up a campaign to keep the respite unit open and press the integration joint board for clarity, transparency and—above all else—the continued delivery of this vital  service. The Scottish Government must invest in dementia care, allocating sufficient funding to support existing facilities and develop new community-based care models. There must be equitable access to dementia care regardless of financial circumstances, and we must support people with dementia, their families, carers, and the staff affected by the uncertainty surrounding Ludgate House and, of course, facilities all across Scotland and the UK that face very similar problems. \p Brian Mathew: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. In my constituency, an estimated 1,638 people are living with dementia, which is above the national average. However, beyond those numbers are the stories of individual people, each with their own unique experience of living with dementia. Dementia does not discriminate; it can impact anyone, robbing them of their best memories and devastating families and friends in its wake.

I also commend those who dedicate themselves to caring for and supporting those with dementia. I have been lucky enough to meet some of them in Melksham and Devizes. Recently, I visited a branch of the Nationwide bank in Devizes, which has been hosting dementia-friendly sessions and acting as a support hub for those with dementia. It was truly heartwarming to see the friendships and bonds formed between the regular customers and the staff, who have undertaken special training to help them.

However, I must also point out the impact that the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions is having on care providers, including those providing care for people with dementia. The care sector already operates on a razor-thin margin, and these rises have increased operational costs drastically, affecting not only the budgets of the individuals and local authorities who will be picking up the added burden, but hospices, which are being faced with difficult choices over who they can care for and for how long, and how to raise sufficient funds to continue operating. \p Sureena Brackenridge: I, too, thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for initiating this important debate, especially because dementia is the defining health and social care challenge of our time. It is now a leading cause of death in the UK, and one in two of us will be affected in our lifetime, whether through receiving a diagnosis ourselves, caring for a loved one, or both. Yet despite the scale and impact of the condition, people affected by dementia continue to face a fragmented system that all too often leaves them without the support they need when they need it most. Navigating a complex web of health and social care services is exhausting, and for many families it leads to crisis before help arrives.

As the hon. Member explained, there is a postcode lottery, but I am proud of the fact that Wolverhampton is a dementia-friendly city. Through Dementia Connect, a personalised support service from the Alzheimer’s Society, people have access to a wide range of help. Whether it involves emotional support, advice on benefits, connection to local support groups or practical tips for  living with dementia, the service makes a real difference, enhancing the quality of life for patients and their families.

Alongside that, Wolverhampton’s wider dementia pathway—our memory clinics, community health teams, Admiral Nurses, dementia cafés and carer support services—form a crucial safety net for families who are under immense pressure. To every NHS worker and social care professional, and to all the volunteers and the army of unpaid workers who provide support for patients and families in my constituency, I say “Thank you.” Their knowledge, their lived experiences and their absolute dedication are deeply valued and appreciated.

However, local services can only go so far, which is why I am urging the Government to make dementia a core priority in their upcoming NHS 10-year plan. I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to listen to leading experts such as Dementia UK and Age UK; to ringfence funding for dementia specialist nurses in every NHS acute trust; to embed dementia specialist nurses, such as Admiral Nurses, in neighbourhood health centres; to tackle the delays and disparities in dementia diagnosis —as of April 2025, only 65% of those aged 65 or over who were estimated to have dementia had had a recorded diagnosis—to ensure investment in diagnostic capacity, including memory clinics; and to address the growing concern among older people and unpaid carers about their ability to access these vital services.

Dementia is not just a clinical condition; it is a personal crisis that unfolds in so many living rooms, GP surgeries, hospital wards and care homes across our country. Let us not allow a “geography roulette” to determine the dignity that is needed by every person who is affected by dementia. \p Vikki Slade: Dementia is such a cruel disease. Let us be clear that it is not simply part of getting old, yet too often it is treated as though it is inevitable. In my constituency the number of people living with dementia is nearly 40% higher than the national average. One in every 45 adults of all ages has been diagnosed, and we know that the true number is even higher when we include those not diagnosed.

Family members, who provide such amazing care, are relying so heavily on community groups such as Stepping Stones—led by my predecessor and good friend, Dame Annette Brooke—with jigsaws and its tea dances providing moments of joy. The Leonardo Trust provides grants for unpaid carers, and I thank the Museum of East Dorset for its fantastic work in recruiting residents to crochet the over 8,000 forget-me-nots that decorated the town of Wimborne last month.

Neurological conditions such as dementia are the leading cause of illness globally, and as our population ages, the challenge will only grow. However, dementia is not just a disease of old age—some of the most heartbreaking cases are among younger people. A neighbour of mine in Broadstone—a proud veteran, builder and father—was diagnosed in his early 50s. I watched him go from walking past our house without recognising us, to needing a carer by his side and now living full-time in a care home. His daughters, who once  played with mine, will never have their father walk them down the aisle and his wife will never share the retirement they dreamed of.

That is why I did not hesitate to become a dementia research champion. If we do not understand how the brain works and how to stop it failing, we will not get the benefits of extended life expectancy. Today, the Daily Mirror has reported that over 100 new drugs are in development to halt dementia, with scientists saying we are at the start of a journey to a cure. Of these drugs, 86% could halt or reverse the disease. However, research alone is not enough, and we must transform the care we give.

Like those of other Members, my constituents are facing a battle just to get the care they need. Andrew was told that his wife Tricia did not qualify for NHS continuing healthcare because it did not meet the NHS-funded nursing criteria of being short term or of optimum potential, despite changing on a daily basis. The council eventually stepped in, but not until Andrew himself had become ill. Why is nursing care not being picked up by the NHS? Surely that is what it is for.

Another constituent, Emma-Jane, told me about her mother, who has dementia and paranoia, and has become abusive. Her father, who had protected his family for so long, once spent the night in a park just to escape. A social worker decided that her mother could not go into a care home, because her mother had wanted to stay at home, despite acknowledging that she lacked the capacity to make such a decision. After accessing respite care when the family reached crisis, Emma-Jane is now funding care privately, while she battles the council because her father simply cannot cope. This is intolerable: families are breaking and councils are overwhelmed.

Kevin wrote to me about his Aunt Jean, now 92, who entered a care home eight years ago. The family home has gone and the money has gone, so the council must step in, but the care home fees are nearly double the local authority cap. Even with Jean’s pension and a discount from the care company, there is a £300 a week shortfall, leaving the family to choose between paying out of their own pocket or moving her from the place she has called home for nearly a decade. To put that into perspective, the cost of caring for Jean for one year, after her pension contribution, is equivalent to the total annual council tax of 24 households. If every dementia patient in my constituency needed council tax funded care, it would consume the council tax of 43,000 homes, and I have only 44,000 in the whole constituency.

We must act: we must invest in research, support carers, and reform how we fund and deliver care. I call on the Minister to push for faster progress on the Casey report. There is no choice: the cost of inaction is too high for our families, our communities and our country. \p Douglas McAllister: There is no doubt that dementia is the biggest health challenge of our time. It is the leading cause of death in the UK, and there will not be a single family across our country that is not touched by this illness. I suspect that for most of in this House, if not all, it will be no different.

I look to my own experience with my mum, who developed a condition when she was aged 62 or 63. My mum, Phyllis McAllister, a nurse, nursing sister and  midwife—a carer by profession—was also an unpaid carer to my late father, after he suffered a stroke, until she could care no more, with the carer now needing care.

It is often said that it can be a postcode lottery when it comes to the provision of dementia care, both at home and in residential care. My family and I were very fortunate in that our experience was a positive one. The provision of dementia healthcare services is the responsibility of local integrated healthcare boards. That is the case across the UK. My Labour-run administration in West Dunbartonshire provided outstanding home care services on a daily basis to allow my mother to remain in her home for as long as possible. However, the highly dedicated team of home carers are often expected to do more for their clients with reduced times. Those are the consequences of the cuts to local government and health and social care budgets from central Government over the last decade. They are played out on the frontline of dementia care.

I served as a councillor on West Dunbartonshire council for 21 years and I am very proud of our record on the provision of dementia care. As an administration, we took the bold step—the brave yet correct decision—to continue to offer local authority-run residential care homes. We built two large, state-of-the-art care homes: Crosslet House in Dumbarton; and Queens Quay in Clydebank, where my mother now receives quite outstanding care by a highly dedicated team of care staff, which my brother and I are so appreciative of. I refer to that, because it demonstrates what all local authorities and integrated care boards could and should provide, given the correct support and funding from central Government.

I want my UK Labour Government to prioritise a society where every person with dementia receives high-quality, compassionate care, from diagnosis through to end of life care. We must commit to improving dementia care and empower our local leaders with the autonomy they need to provide the best services to their local community. That means the UK Labour Government learning the lessons of SNP failure. Early this year, the Scottish Government formally abandoned their national care service plan, scaling back their flagship policy of centralised control under a single national body, wasting time and money—£30 million wasted, money that could have delivered 1 million extra hours of care, stopped care packages being cut and provided the essential dementia care that families across Scotland are so desperate for.

There is a role for central Government. The Labour Government’s 10-year health plan provides a key opportunity to fix dementia care. It starts with a blueprint for transforming early dementia diagnosis. Diagnosis late in the progression of the disease costs all of us so much more. Early diagnosis is vital to ensure people with dementia can access the treatment and support they need. Our 10-year plan should include bold, brave commitments to funding and providing our NHS with groundbreaking new treatment, medicines and research, including clinical trials of promising new dementia drugs. I urge the Minister to commit our Labour Government to improving dementia care across the board: causes, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, care and support. \p Adam Thompson: I wanted to share some of my experiences and, with her support, the experiences of my office manager, Becca. Becca and I agreed that the issue we wanted to raise in the debate is dignity.

Becca’s nan, Pat, lived with dementia for over a decade. She received care both at home and, later, in a specialist dementia care home. At home, the care she received was poor. When carers visited, Pat was left in inappropriate clothing, unwashed or not taken to the toilet. Her husband, then in his late 80s, and their daughters were left to care for her. When Pat moved into a care home, the quality of care improved. The staff clearly cared for her, and over time she became one of the longest-residing residents. Some carers treated her like family. But even in a good care home, the pressures of understaffing meant that dignity was often the first thing to be compromised.

Pat’s husband and daughter visited her every day. They noticed that she was frequently dressed in clothes that did not belong to her, despite everything being clearly labelled. Sometimes, other residents wore the outfits her family had chosen for Pat. As a result, Pat was often left in ill-fitting clothes. Worse, carers did not always have time to take Pat to the toilet. Pat’s daughter would have to raise that she had to go to the toilet, or that she needed to be cleaned and dressed. Every day, she had to advocate for her mother to ensure that she was treated with the dignity she deserved.

My nan, Hilda Duffield, was born Hilda Caunt in 1918. By the time she was 90, Hilda—nan—was losing mobility and suffering memory loss. Ted, my grandad, had become her devoted carer and took over all the domestic tasks. After some time, nan was diagnosed with dementia. I remember the disease becoming increasingly entangled with and amplifying her already worrisome nature. She started to become angry, flying off the handle with stress over where grandad was—whether he was in the next room or had popped to the shop. The disease took an increasing hold over her as time progressed.

My nan and grandad continued to manage together for several years, but the situation changed rapidly when grandad became ill himself in autumn 2012. When he was admitted to hospital, it was clear that nan needed full-time care. After a few weeks in residential care, she was moved to the same nursing hospital as grandad, and she was present at his bedside when he died in January 2013. They had been married for 73 years.

With my grandad’s death, my nan’s dementia worsened. She was moved to a care home near my uncle Neil in Bolton, as he and my aunt Eileen would be able to spend time with her during the day. I, however, never saw my nan again after she moved to Bolton. By all accounts, by that stage she had no memory of me or of much of my family. She spent her days hallucinating and had become abusive to care home staff; I remember my uncle Neil telling me how he regularly heard her screaming words he did not know she knew at people who were trying to help her. We decided as a family that there was no benefit to me or to several other family members visiting, and that it was better for everyone who could to remember her as she was before her mind was taken by that cruel disease. I do not know if that was the right thing to do. I never will.

By the end, like Pat and so many others who suffer with dementia, my nan had lost her dignity to that disease. She had lost everything and needed those around her to maintain her dignity for her. In Erewash and across the country, so many more have stories like those I have shared today. Not all those suffering have someone who can advocate for them, but I hope I have gone some way towards doing so today, as have my colleagues across the House—my gratitude goes out to all of them. \p Debbie Abrahams: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech, and I wish her father-in-law and cousin all the very best.

I have been the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia for the past 10 years. Like my co-chair, Baroness Angela Browning, I became involved because of a loved one who had acquired the disease. In my case, it was my mum, who was also called Angela and who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease at 64; along with my stepfather and brother, I cared for her until she died in 2012. After her death, I became a dementia friends champion—the first MP to do so—which allowed me to do a number of dementia friends sessions. As a consequence, we have hundreds of people involved in Oldham, and have set up a dementia-friendly Oldham, with an annual memory walk and lots of other groups that support families affected by dementia. I am very proud of that.

I appreciate that the Government have yet to publish any plans on dementia, but given that dementia, as we have heard today, is the leading cause of death in the UK—above heart disease and above cancer—and affects nearly 1 million people, with an equivalent number of carers, I know that the Minister will give it the focus and attention it deserves. We have also heard that a quarter of NHS beds are occupied by someone with dementia who is fit and able to be discharged, but who cannot be discharged because of the crisis in social care. \p Helen Maguire: People with degenerative conditions stay under consultant care, but after 18 months my constituent with Alzheimer’s was discharged with no monitoring and no access to specialist nurses unless referred by a very lengthy GP process. He told me that he feels abandoned. Does the hon. Lady agree that dementia must be treated as seriously as other long-term conditions, and that everyone with dementia should have access to a specialist nurse and an annual health and care review? \p Debbie Abrahams: That is a very long question. I certainly believe that we need to improve care. Dementia is obviously an umbrella term for several different diseases, and we cannot make recommendations that apply to each specific disease; I think that has unfortunately not had the airing that it might have.

The APPG has undertaken a number of inquiries of which I am incredibly proud. A few years ago, we published “Workforce Matters”, which is still very relevant today. We have heard some of the recommendations around specialist care. Unfortunately, we have a postcode lottery; the APPG heard some fantastic examples of care,  but also some not-so-great examples. There was also a survey of nearly 2,000 people. There is still lots to do there, and I hope the Minister will look at those recommendations. Our “Raising the Barriers” report around the inequalities in dementia diagnosis also needs further attention. Those inequalities are not just by geography, but by different cohorts of people.

In my last minute or so, I will talk about prevention, as we have heard only a little reference to that. With young-onset dementia, we are able to track the start of changes in people’s brains from the age of 30 that are associated with different cognitive diseases. What is good for our heart is also good for our head, but there are other things to consider, including reducing air pollution. We know that smoking and heart disease is a real no-no, as is obesity and high blood pressure. It is also important to be on top of hearing loss and related issues. Excess alcohol consumption is another factor; fewer than 14 units a week is the guidance for a healthy life, but 18 is excessive.

Social isolation is really bad for dementia, as is traumatic brain injury. I am supporting Football Families for Justice, which is run by Nobby Stiles’s son, to try to get compensation and support for footballers who have been affected by their sport throughout their careers and are suffering from brain diseases as a consequence. We are calling on football authorities to take responsibility. Footballers are now paid fantastically well, but that was not the case in the past and we need to make sure that those players are cared for; this is an occupational disease. \p Peter Prinsley: I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. We have heard many moving speeches this afternoon, and it has been a great honour to sit and listen to them.

We must remember that dementia is not a fact of life, or something that everyone must face as they get older. It is not inevitable as a part of ageing. Dementia is a disease— a dreadful disease at that. Some 1.5 million people will be living with dementia in this country by 2040, so let us treat dementia with the same seriousness that we treat all other deadly conditions. Let us not neglect dementia simply because it disproportionately affects older people.

At present, we have a fragmented and complex health system that does not provide a clear enough route for people with dementia. Let us improve specialist dementia support in hospitals and in the community. It is simply our duty to do so. The estimated economic impact of dementia in the UK last year was £42.5 billion. By contrast, we learned yesterday that the defence budget is £58 billion. It is suggested that, by 2040, the dementia budget will be £90 billion, so something must be done.

Improving the treatment of dementia in our communities and in primary care settings will certainly help to free up hospitals and care systems, because, as we have heard, people with dementia occupy a quarter of all the hospital beds in the country. Let us move dementia treatment into the communities, with specialist nurses in communities to ease the pressure. Dementia is not inevitable. We must be bold, optimistic and forward-thinking, and prepared to deploy radical advances in science to tackle the condition. Let us support our  scientists and researchers as they strive to develop more effective treatments and make progress towards curing the disease.

Let us support research by enabling the NHS to empower its clinicians to conduct research and to use patient data. That would help to facilitate medical research and increase the number of clinical academics, whose number has been declining for much too long.

I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talk about hearing loss. Many members will know that I am an ear, nose and throat surgeon. Hearing loss is absolutely central to the problem of people withdrawing from the society in which they live. The simple testing of hearing and the provision of hearing aids will do much to help. I urge Members of a certain age to consider having a hearing test.

I am interested to know what we can do with patient data. If researchers across the country ran studies on 67 million people, we would accelerate progress towards a cure. Artificial intelligence could be set to work analysing datasets and providing rich sources of longitudinal data to inform future research and cures. Artificial intelligence already models the folding of proteins that cause the disease, so to secure those benefits, let us do something about the collection of medical information, and let us prioritise openness by giving patients access to their medical records, allowing them to see how the information is being used to support the NHS. That is something we could do to help. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Danny Chambers: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. Listening to the stories from Members on all sides of the House, it is clear that this is not simply a political debate; it is deeply personal to pretty much everyone here.

My father had dementia. He was a typical Irish farmer; he was very strong-willed, physically tough and fiercely independent, and he was used to working all hours of the day. Watching that man slip away, becoming increasingly confused, anxious and very often unreasonably angry, was one of the most heartbreaking experiences of my life. I know I am not alone in experiencing that, as we have heard very similar stories.

Many Members have said that with dementia we lose the person we love twice—first slowly, piece by piece, and then again at the end. The final loss can feel like a relief, because it is a prolonged bereavement; the grief starts sometimes years before. Dementia is a brutal disease, not just for those who are experiencing it but for those who are caring. For spouses, children and families, it is relentless emotional toil, sleepless nights and endless juggling of tasks. \p Sarah Dyke: My hon. Friend shares his experience of losing his father. I lost my father in the same way, and he too was a proud farming man. I want to raise an issue from a constituent who contacted me about her father James. He is currently alone in a room in a hospital, and he is scared to mix with other violent  dementia patients. He wants to be at home, and the family want him to be at home, but there are barriers in social care in Somerset at the moment. Does my hon. Friend agree that dementia patients should be able to live independently at home, with dignity, and receive the care— \p Judith Cummins: Order. \p Danny Chambers: Yes, I agree that empowering people to live as independently as possible is hugely important.

For me, there was guilt—for many years actually. I felt guilty about the moments of resentment at how my job and career were affected, and for losing patience when faced with the anger of someone you are trying to care for. I remember that my dad did not really understand that all we were trying to do was help. I want to mention the very insightful piece of advice from the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) not to argue with people who have dementia. I wish I had understood when we were caring for my father that there was no need to correct his current understanding of the world. My grandfather was born in 1870, and my father kept asking where he was. We tried to explain that he would have been aged 130 if he had still been alive, but I wonder why we had those discussions. That was a hugely important and emotive piece of advice. \p James Naish: When I led a district council, one thing we tried to do was take initiatives to make us more dementia-friendly. There is some excellent training run by the Alzheimer’s Society. Does the hon. Member agree that all MPs’ offices should be seeking to take such initiatives so that we can be compassionate in the way that he describes? \p Danny Chambers: I completely agree with what the hon. Member has just suggested. There is no way that we can approach dementia without a huge amount of compassion and empathy. \p Joe Robertson: I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to the issue of not seeking to correct those with dementia on where they think they are. In that respect, dementia care and understanding have come a long way, and in fact it is now standard not to try to do that. I thank the hon. Member, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), for raising that issue in the Chamber. \p Danny Chambers: I remember trying to explain to my father about the sheepdog, which he loved to train but which he did not recognise as his own any more. That is unusual for a farmer. There was no need to have that discussion; it was heartbreaking. The dog loved my dad and dad not recognising him any more was very upsetting. This all still feels very raw, but as we have heard today, my story is not in any way unique. There are so many families in Winchester and around the country who are experiencing that similar, heartbreaking journey.

Caring for my father is one of the hardest things that my family has ever done. I pay tribute to my mother, who bore the brunt of caring for my father for many years; to my sister Irene, who helped hugely for years and years; to my cousin Patrick; and to our neighbours James and Deborah Hodgson—we could not have managed  without them. However, especially nearer the end, we could not have done without the extraordinary support of the care workers who came to help on a regular basis. Their compassion, skill and dedication helped get us through some of the darkest days.

That dedication was extraordinary. Dad loved singing and one of our care workers had printed out some of the songs that he knew—some old Methodist hymns, “The Old Rugged Cross” and “Danny Boy”, which was his favourite song and the song that I am named after. He might not have remembered our dog, but he could remember every word of “Danny Boy” when he was singing it. The dedication of the care workers, to find out someone’s favourite song and then sing it with them, was quite extraordinary.

Care workers, who are vital and skilled, are often underpaid, undervalued and stretched beyond endurance. We just cannot allow that to continue. That is why the Liberal Democrats call for urgent and meaningful reform of social care—reform that starts with recognising and properly rewarding and supporting the workforce who underpin it. We have been calling for a national social care workforce plan—not for the can to be kicked further down the road, but a real plan to address recruitment, retention and training, with practical steps to fix the staffing crisis. We want to establish a royal college of care workers to give care professionals the recognition and career development that they deserve. I pay tribute to Liz Blacklock from Winchester, who runs Lapis Care based in Bishop’s Waltham, where I went on some visits a few weeks ago. Liz has long been calling for a formal register of care workers, which would be one of the functions of any new royal college of care workers.

Liberal Democrats also call for a national carers register, so that all unpaid family carers can be better supported, for example with statutory respite care. We also call for a higher carer’s minimum wage, because paying poverty wages for such emotionally and physically demanding work is not only unjust but short-sighted and drives burnout, turnover and, ultimately, worse care.

Let us be clear: dementia is not going away. One in three people born today will develop dementia. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with her public health experience, was insightful in her advice on how we can help to prevent it from developing.

The financial pressures on local authorities, driven in large part by adult social care, are among the most urgent political challenges of this decade. In Winchester, the Chesil Lodge day centre provides essential care for older adults, including those with dementia, and importantly provides respite care for family members. Hampshire county council is threatening to withdraw funding. That could overwhelm unpaid carers, forcing loved ones into residential care, which in the end will cost the council and taxpayers more.

With the political will, proper investment and genuine commitment to value and care work, we can build a system that supports people with dementia with dignity and gives their families the help and hope they so desperately need. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Luke Evans: I think we have established that dementia is a thief, not once but twice: first of the mind, then of the memories, leaving the greatest pain not with the sufferer but with those who remember. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing such an important debate and for speaking so passionately and openly about her story, as did many across this House. I also thank the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK, Dementia UK and all those people who advocate for dementia and their families. As we have heard, there are 1 million people living with dementia in the UK, and that figure is projected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. One in six hospital beds are occupied by dementia patients, and dementia sufferers are three times more likely to see their GP. Modelling suggests that 70% of care home residents are people living with dementia.

In this House I often enjoyed the tired lines from the then Opposition about how the Conservatives never did enough on x or y or z. As Labour Members are ably demonstrating, it is easy to stand across the aisle and say that nothing is ever enough, but as they are learning, delivering in the real world is far harder than demanding from the sidelines. On dementia, the Conservative Government led from the front with more funding, better diagnosis and a national commitment to change lives. We all agree that we must continue to do more, but to do that we need direction and action, and that is what we are exploring here today, almost one year on from the introduction of a Labour Government. \p Debbie Abrahams: Can the shadow Minister remind us about the commitment in the 2019 Conservative manifesto on the dementia moonshot and tell us if and when that was delivered? \p Luke Evans: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I am going to canter through what we have done in the past 14 years, because it was, after all, under the premiership of Lord Cameron that the challenge on dementia set the ambition for England to be

“the best country in the world for dementia care and support and for people with dementia, their carers and families to live”.

So, on to the point. In 2012, the then Prime Minister set the challenge to make us a global leader and increase awareness and research. This included the dementia friends initiative—a public campaign to boost understanding, over 1 million dementia friends trained by 2015 and increased research funding, which doubled from 2010 to 2015. In 2015, the Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia 2020 set national goals for diagnosis rates, care quality and research impact, including a national target for dementia diagnosis rates of 66.7%, which was met in 2015.

In 2016 and 2017, the UK Dementia Research Institute, launched under Theresa May, was a flagship initiative backed by £290 million from the Government and charities. This actually delivered £300 million in dementia research and innovation by March 2020, a full year ahead of schedule. We had the NHS long-term plan in 2019, which committed to enhancing diagnosis. In 2019 we also had the dementia moonshot pledge from Boris Johnson, with an extra £160 million. This was followed up in 2022 with the Dame Barbara Windsor dementia mission—a £95 million fund to accelerate research into  treatment and early diagnosis. Of course, the pandemic hit and we had the recovery, and that is why the Government set out the 2023 major conditions strategy, which would have included dementia.

There is therefore a question for this Government as to the priority they have given to dementia since taking office, and it is worth looking at why concerns are being raised. This Government, rightly so in their own right, did not opt to proceed with the major conditions strategy. That might surprise some Members, as we heard the current Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who is in her place, call for a dedicated dementia strategy a number of times when she was in opposition. Only last year, she said the following in a Westminster Hall debate on new dementia treatments:

“As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, it is disappointing that the Government shelved the plans for a dedicated dementia strategy. England remains the only nation without a specific dementia plan. That is very short-term thinking, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister about that. In 2022, I said:

‘We cannot give confidence to people suffering with dementia and their carers without a much clearer plan that is in place very quickly.’—[Official Report, 14 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 141.]

That remains the case today.” —[Official Report, 11 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 192WH.]

So I would like to ask the Minister: does he stand by these comments and can we therefore expect a dedicated dementia strategy? It is easy for the Conservative side of the House to understand that governing is difficult. Good intentions make fine Opposition speeches until they collide with reality. Does the Minister plan to carry on with a dedicated strategy, and would he be kind enough to confirm that today?

On the topic of strategies and comments made by Labour Ministers before they took office, I note that in a Westminster Hall debate on inequalities in dementia services only in May last year, less than a week before the general election was called, the shadow Health Minister and now the independent hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) promised a carers strategy. He said that carers are

“a vital part of the fight against dementia, and they will be at the heart of Labour’s plans in Government. There will be a carers strategy under the next Labour Government, because we value the vital work our carers do. It will be a cross-Government strategy with the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education and the future of work review all feeding into it along with the Department of Health and Social Care. There is a brighter future for those living with dementia and their families and carers. Labour will deliver it.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 228WH.]

That is a laudable aim.

However, since the election, it appears that all is not quite as it seems. In an oral question in the other place in November, Baroness Merron made it clear that she had

“not committed to a national carers strategy”,

stating,

“I do have to say to the noble Baroness that I have not committed to a national carers strategy. However, in our joined-up approach, we will certainly be looking at what is needed. That will be very much part of our considerations on the workforce strategy, which Minister Karin Smyth will be leading on. It is crucial to the delivery of services.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 107.]

I therefore ask the Minister today whether specific plans are still in place for a national care strategy. \p Joe Robertson: As my hon. Friend knows, at the beginning of the year, the Government and NHS England removed dementia from their planning guidance, which sets their priorities for the year ahead. Crucially, they removed the diagnosis targets. That was a cruel blow to people living with dementia and their families. Will the Minister give his view on the Government removing dementia from their targets and priorities? \p Luke Evans: I am grateful, first, for my hon. Friend promoting me and, secondly, for his expertise in this area because I understand that he has worked with Dementia UK. He is absolutely right—he has beaten me to the chase. One of the real concerns that charities and patients have raised is exactly that: the removal of this crucial diagnosis target. We only need to look at Wales where that was not the case. The national diagnosis rate is 56%—10% lower than in England.

On top of that, the Government are presiding over a major top-down restructuring with cuts to integrated care boards and NHS England, while forcing through devolution on the 21 county-run authorities responsible for social care, while raising taxes in the employment national insurance contribution on care providers, which will get passed on to local councils, while raising taxes on the very dementia charities and others that provide support, while ditching the fast-track social work scheme as we learned last week, while terminating the NHS and care volunteers response that helps support care, and while scrapping the cross-party talks on social care and instead swapping it to an independent commission led by Baroness Casey, who still seconded to the Home Office. We can all see what is being taken away and taxed. It is what is going to benefit dementia support and care that is much harder to spot.

In the rough and tumble of this place, it is not lost on me how much this issue touches the Minister himself. He has spoken bravely and openly about his family’s struggle, and I have the utmost respect for him and what he has been through, and I have been through similar with my grandmother Dot. I do not question his heart; I simply gently challenge the Government on their policies to achieve better dementia care for all.

To that end, I have a couple of questions. Will the Government commit to setting a new target to increase dementia diagnosis rates across England? With integrated care systems facing restructuring and budget resolutions, how does the Government plan to hold local systems to account on dementia diagnosis, especially across the NHS and social care? We have seen in Wales how irregular data collection on dementia diagnosis affects overall diagnosis rates. What steps will the Government take to improve the quality of data in dementia diagnosis, particularly when it comes to follow up? Given the growing prevalence of dementia in our care homes, what steps will the Government take to support providers and ensure that the social care workforce is trained effectively to meet the needs of care users?

With the upcoming spending review and the long-awaited 10-year plan for the NHS expected in the next couple of months, I trust the Minister sitting in front of me. He is the right person to highlight to the Government the seriousness and importance of tackling dementia, just like the last Government understood.

I return to where I started: dementia steals the most from those left remembering, because the greatest heartbreak is losing someone who is still here. But with compassion for families, dignity for those who suffer and the relentless pursuit of a cure, we can offer not just care, but hope. \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate, and I commend her for her work as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. It has been a thoughtful and constructive debate, with a number of truly powerful and moving personal contributions from Members across the Chamber.

This is a cause that is close to my heart. I thank all Members for their kind words about my own family, but our history is far from unique. We know that one in two of us will be affected by dementia in our lifetime—by caring for someone with the condition, developing it ourselves, or both. It is predicted that just under 1.5 million people in England will be living with dementia by 2040. Each person, along with their loved ones and carers, has a unique journey and their own heartbreaking stories. On behalf of the Government, I thank everyone working to support people with dementia, as well as their friends, families and carers. This Government will back them every step of the way. We are also backing our scientists to deliver new treatments and ways to care for people living with dementia, and I recently had the pleasure of visiting the UK Dementia Research Institute’s centre for care and technology, where I saw some of its innovative smart-home tools.

A timely diagnosis is vital to ensure that everyone can access the advice, information and support that can help them to live well with dementia and remain independent for as long as possible. This Government remain committed to the national ambition for two thirds of people living with dementia to receive a formal diagnosis. We are funding evidence-based improvement projects to pilot the diagnosing advanced dementia mandate in 14 trusts. I am delighted that best practice is currently being shared and promoted with regional and local partners, following an impact assessment of the pilots.

Dementia can impact anyone, but there is varying and unequal access to health services. That is why the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is working to make our country fairer by developing a tool that provides a clear assessment of population characteristics, such as rurality and socioeconomic deprivation. \p Joe Robertson: I welcome the Minister’s confirmation of his commitment to the diagnosis target of two thirds. Will he put that in a key document—the equivalent of the planning guidance for NHS England? Will he ensure that that is well documented and set out in a strategic document, so that we can be absolutely clear and are not relying on his oral assertions in this Chamber? \p Stephen Kinnock: We are absolutely on the record with the 66.7% target.

I want to take this opportunity to set out what appears to be a philosophical difference between this Government’s approach to our health and care system and that of many Opposition Members. We believe in  devolution, we believe in decentralisation, and we believe in empowering those who are closest to the citizen to make the decisions that need to be made. If others have a more centralising and deeply anachronistic approach to managing our health and care system, which I heard from Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, that is up to them, but we believe in modernising our system, not micromanaging or having shopping lists of targets. It is about providing support and agreeing on outcomes, but leaving those who are best placed at the coalface to decide how best to meet the unmet needs of their communities. That is a very clear dividing line between us.

On research, it is worth pointing out that we have done studies with UK Research and Innovation, the Alzheimer’s Society and the People’s Postcode Lottery. We have found that through our investment, ADAPT and READ-OUT are working to produce clinical and economic data that could bring blood tests to the NHS within five years to support the diagnosis of dementia. All of this means that the rate of diagnosis is improving. The latest data from April shows that the diagnosis rate has inched up to 65.5%, up 0.3% since July 2024, and it is worth noting that the 66.7% ambition has not been met since 2020.

The quality and availability of care services is variable, as Members have pointed out. We are empowering local leaders with the autonomy they need. We are supporting integrated care boards. I am pleased to say that we recently published the Dementia 100 pathway assessment tool, which brings together multiple resources into a single, consolidated training tool. That launched last month, and there has been huge interest and support from the sector, with 1,000 people registering to attend the launch webinar. We have the dementia care pathway full implementation guidance, and we are supporting the implementation of that guidance through a dashboard, to enable targeted support where it is needed.

All those who have dementia deserve to receive high-quality care. We must have a workforce that is equipped with the skills that are needed. We are incredibly proud of everyone who works in the care sector, and they deserve the training that many Members have mentioned. The care workforce pathway provides guidance for progression and development for professionals across adult social care with the knowledge, skills, values and behaviours that our carers need. It links learning outcomes to existing frameworks, including the dementia training standards framework.

Some of those learning outcomes can be achieved through the training and qualifications eligible for funding under the learning and development support scheme. That scheme, launched in September last year, supports adult social care employers to invest in their workforce through funded training opportunities, including a range of dementia-related qualifications. I am pleased to confirm that we have backed the scheme with a £12 million investment. Pay and conditions are also vital elements of our workforce strategy, so I am sure Members across the House will welcome our groundbreaking fair pay agreement legislation in the Employment Rights Bill for adult social care workers, which is hugely significant in this context.

On the question of our care workforce, a number of Members have highlighted the vital role that unpaid carers play. To support them, on 7 April the Government  increased the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit from £151 a week to £196 a week, which is the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage—the largest increase in the earnings limit since the carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976. We are very proud of that change.

I understand that every person with dementia, alongside their friends, families and carers, has their own unique and important story of living with dementia. I know that I am not alone in this fight. I want to pay tribute to the Alzheimer’s Society, Dementia UK and Alzheimer’s Research UK for all their vital work. Together, we will build a society where every person with dementia receives high-quality care from diagnosis through to the end of life. I once again thank the hon. Member for South Devon for raising this vital topic. \p Caroline Voaden: I do not think there is much to add, but I want to thank all the Members who have come here today and shared their personal experiences of dementia affecting family members and loved ones. I know it is not an easy thing to do, and we all have really difficult experiences. It has been very moving to hear those personal stories. We have a Minister who deeply feels these issues and understands what dementia means and the impact on the wider family.

I would like to see properly trained dementia nurses in every GP surgery and acute hospital trust in this country, so that we can keep these people at home, look after them, look after their carers, and support the people who love them and do an incredible job. I pay tribute to the hundreds of organisations all over the country that are doing amazing work, many of them on a voluntary basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered dementia care. \p Debbie Abrahams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his response to my question about the dementia moonshot, I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), might have got his figures wrong. Could you advise me on how we can correct the record? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for raising that point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point on the record. \p Liam Byrne: I rise to present this petition on behalf of residents of Garretts Green ward in Birmingham. The petition, assisted by local councillor Saddak Miah, has the full support of residents, whose quality of life has been badly affected by the lack of access to general waste bins. Although recycling bins are provided, Birmingham city council says that there is “red tape” that affects  residents’ right to a general waste bin. They have to put their black bags straight out on to the streets, which has attracted fly-tipping and vermin. I do not think residents should have to live like that, treading over rats on their way to work and school, so I am laying this petition to call for action. My constituent Yasmeen Bhatti spoke for many when she told me that the constant rubbish is severely impacting families with young children and those with mobility issues, and that a solution is urgently needed. The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham Council to take immediate action to ensure that all residents on Lea Hall road, in the Garretts Green ward have access to general waste bins, and that these bins are collected by Birmingham city council.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the Garretts Green Ward, Birmingham,

Declares that residents in Garretts Green who reside on top of a grass verge need to have access to a general waste bin; further that Birmingham Council must remove the red tape that is stopping the existence of general waste bins on Lea Hall Road, in the Garretts Green area.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham Council to take immediate action to ensure that all residents on Lea Hall Road, in the Garretts Green Ward have access to general waste bins, and that these bins are collected by Birmingham City Council.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003077] \p Calum Miller: I rise to present this petition from the residents of Bicester who want a replacement for the level crossing at London road, which will close with the introduction of east-west rail services, cutting the town in two. I am grateful to the 4,526 residents who have individually signed this petition, and to those who worked so hard to gather the signatures, many of whom are sitting in the Gallery tonight. The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the construction of an underpass at the London Road level crossing in Bicester that could accommodate car users as well as cyclists and pedestrians.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Bicester,

Declares that proposals to close the London Road Level Crossing as part of the East West Rail development have failed to reflect the strong local preference for an underpass that accommodates light vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians; and notes that widespread community support for such an underpass has been expressed through public meetings, correspondence and local engagement.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the construction of an underpass at the London Road level crossing in Bicester that could accommodate car users as well as cyclists and pedestrians.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003078] \p John Lamont: I rise to present this petition from my constituents in the Scottish Borders to the House of Commons. It calls on LINK to set up a banking hub for Selkirk and Eyemouth. I want to record my thanks to the many local residents who have signed this petition.

The petition states:

The petition of the residents of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk,

Declares that residents of Selkirk and Eyemouth are being left without proper access to cash and banking facilities. This is causing significant concern and worry for the local community, and that LINK should take the necessary steps to tackle this by setting up a banking hub in each of the towns. Further that a separate online petition on the same issue has generated 1,456 signatures.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that the residents of Selkirk and Eyemouth have access to a Banking Hub, with proper access to cash and banking facilities.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003079] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Adam Dance: I start by thanking the fantastic staff at Yeovil district hospital’s maternity unit and paediatric staff across the country for their hard work. I also thank the Minister for Secondary Care for coming to the Chamber this evening to respond to the issues raised, which are important for Yeovil and South Somerset.

In January, the Care Quality Commission inspected paediatric services at Yeovil district hospital. It issued a section 29A notice because it assessed that the hospital failed to meet regulations relating to staffing and governance, and therefore required significant improvement. On Monday 12 May, the hospital trust decided to temporarily close the special care baby unit at YDH from 19 May, initially for six months. That means that the hospital will also be unable to safely provide care during labour and birth at the maternity unit, meaning that the unit is effectively closed. Care of pregnant people due to give birth will now be transferred to Musgrove Park in Taunton, Dorchester county hospital, the Royal united hospital in Bath or Salisbury hospital. \p Rachel Gilmour: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows about the problems that we have had at Tiverton district hospital. I was lucky enough to have had my three sons at the old Tiverton hospital. I am sure that people not being able to go to Yeovil hospital to give birth will push down—literally—into Tiverton hospital, but I remind my hon. Friend that there was an incident a couple of years ago when one of my constituents delivered her fifth child in a pub car park, because Tiverton hospital did not have the capacity to take her in. Does he agree that the closure of maternity services at Yeovil hospital impacts not just Dorset and Somerset, but the hospital in my constituency? \p Adam Dance: I agree with my hon. Friend and I will come to that point later in my remarks.

In letters and at meetings, I have directly asked senior leaders at the trust for reassurance that the service will reopen after six months, but they have been unable to give it. My No. 1 priority is my constituents’ health and safety. I appreciate that the decision was difficult and that patient safety was at its heart. The safety of mothers and their babies must come first, but the way in which the decision was reached and implemented has been disgraceful. It has created huge fear and anger in Yeovil and may put people’s health at risk.

The hospital trust’s leadership team says that high levels of sickness among senior hospital staff caused gaps in the rota, but I have been informed that those staff are off sick because of work-related stress that was reportedly caused by a lack of support, a toxic work culture and bullying from management. That is not good enough. Clinicians have been working desperately hard to provide quality care and have been trying to work alongside management to improve the service, but they have found management to be unsupportive. It seems that the real issue is about management and about supporting and retaining staff.

After the CQC inspection, it was up to the hospital trust to plan a clear response and to ensure safe maternity services at Yeovil hospital. Despite money apparently not being a problem, there was a lacklustre attempt at recruitment and locums were brought in. The hospital leadership team waited until the last minute to reach a decision, and closed the maternity unit with little or no consultation with staff, patients and stakeholders, such as Somerset council and MPs like me. It is an insult that the hard-working staff knew about the closure only six days before it was due to happen. Some of them were told on Teams and others found out on social media—that is not how to treat staff.

It is a disgrace that expectant parents were given such short notice and that the hospital trust did not provide them with advanced and detailed information about the temporary closure. Yeovil hospital charity has been fundraising over the last few months for the maternity unit. It had already raised £2,000 and was due to have another huge fundraiser this month. The charity does great work for the hospital, but it too was left in the dark, which is not good enough.

It is especially worrying that a decision made to protect people may put their health at risk. Many expectant parents have told me about their fears about capacity at other hospitals and about travel times to Taunton, Dorchester or Bath. Last year there were approximately 1,300 births at Yeovil hospital. Most of the patients who would have been cared for at Yeovil hospital will go to Musgrove Park in Taunton, where staff have already raised concerns about not having enough capacity to manage their own patient numbers. \p Ashley Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Many women in my constituency choose to give birth in Musgrove Park hospital, and with the closure at Yeovil—where, as he said, 1,200 babies are born each year—there is a grave concern about whether Taunton will have the capacity to cope. In fact, mothers across Somerset will suffer as a result of this closure. \p Adam Dance: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to that point now.

In September last year, reports described Musgrove Park’s maternity unit as “traumatic, super-hot and overcrowded”. Measures such as extra beds are being put in place. Expecting that overstretched service safely to take on extra cases from Yeovil is not realistic and risks putting even more pressure on the hard-working staff, who are already at breaking point. I am also concerned that the staff in Dorchester and Bath will be put under serious pressure and that, despite their best efforts, services may suffer there too.

I am particularly worried about mothers who are at high risk or who may expect complications at birth. Many parents in my constituency who experienced complications during the birth of their children, such as Louise and Rob, have told me that their children are alive because of the tireless work and dedication of the team at Yeovil and that their children may not have survived if they had been forced to travel to Taunton, Dorchester or Bath, which are 45 minutes from most of my constituents on a good day. Experts have told me they are worried that emergencies such as late pregnancy  per vaginal bleeds require immediate medical attention and can cause death for mothers and babies in the worst-case scenario.

It is not just parents and paediatrics who are at risk; I am seriously concerned about the knock-on effects on Yeovil’s emergency department, which will potentially put more strain on the hospital and on patient care. Sadly, other constituents who were hoping to have children have told me that they are now reconsidering because of the stress and risks posed by potentially not having proper maternity services in Yeovil.

While I appreciate that this is a local issue, trust in the hospital leadership has broken down. I believe that central Government have a duty of care to the people of Yeovil and that they can take steps to help. I ask the Minister urgently to undertake a review of the decision-making process at the Somerset NHS foundation trust on the closure of maternity services. \p Anna Sabine: My hon. Friend mentions the Somerset NHS foundation trust, which made a decision recently to reduce the number of beds and associated staff at Frome community hospital. Does he agree that those decisions really need wide consultation, allowing for boundaries and relationships with hospitals such as the RUH, as well as proper consultation with staff and the community before they are undertaken? \p Adam Dance: I totally agree; it really is just not good enough. [Interruption.] I hope the Minister is listening.

I urge the Department of Health and Social Care to do all it can to maintain and support NHS Somerset in ensuring the return of safe maternity services to Yeovil district hospital. Just as with the closure of its hyper-acute stroke unit, many worry that this is a sign that Yeovil district hospital will be turned into a cottage hospital. As such, I also ask the Minister to join NHS Somerset integrated care board in committing to maintaining a fully functioning district general hospital in Yeovil that provides safe, high-quality and sustainable services.

However, Yeovil is not alone in this: we face a crisis in maternity services, particularly in rural areas. The CQC has raised safety concerns about a lack of training, limited engagement with communities, inadequate risk assessments and poor management and culture among senior leadership. The CQC national review of maternity services in England for 2022-24 found that 47% of maternity services were rated as requiring improvement for safety. As of May 2025, 56% of maternity units in the south-west had an overall rating of “requires improvement” or “inadequate”.

Given that, can the Minister detail the Government’s plans for funding and improving the provision, management and staffing of maternity services in hospital trusts that cover large rural geographies? Can she provide a timeline for implementing those plans? I again urge her and the Secretary of State to meet with hon. Members from Somerset and Dorset to further discuss this issue and to come to Yeovil and talk to those impacted by this decision.

In conclusion, the closure of Yeovil district hospital’s maternity unit, initially for six months, was done for the right reasons, but it was done disgracefully. People in Yeovil are not just worried; they are scared and angry. We care deeply about supporting our fantastic NHS  staff and the lifesaving work that they do. Hundreds of people joined me at a rally outside the hospital on the day that the maternity service closed, and many more have written to me. Nearly 6,000 people already have signed petitions calling for the safe return of Yeovil’s maternity unit. We will campaign tirelessly to ensure that we can restore local maternity services in Yeovil safely. I hope that the Minister will join us in that battle, because everyone deserves access to safe, local maternity care, regardless of where they live. \p Sarah Dyke: I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for allowing me to speak, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The closure of Yeovil special baby unit and maternity unit has shocked many of my residents across Glastonbury and Somerton, as it did my hon. Friend. After the announcement, I immediately set up a petition to gather evidence of the strength of feeling regarding these vital services. Since then, I have been inundated with responses.

I begin by echoing my hon. Friend’s sentiments in thanking the staff at Yeovil for their incredible work and care. Rob from Limington, a resident in my constituency, told me that his family would not be a family without the work of Yeovil staff. That is a compelling piece of information. Somerset NHS foundation trust made the decision following a clinical assessment that services could not continue operating safely. That is a damning indictment. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on their campaign. To reinforce the point evidentially on the closure of Yeovil hospital maternity unit, the impact on the community will be great; it happened to me at Ards hospital, where GP services were overrun with the work that had to be done. Midwives complained that the impact on the community was great, and the effect was not just on the maternity unit, but on NHS services overall. \p Sarah Dyke: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the impact is not just within the county, but causes a huge knock-on effect on wider services.

The decision is a damning indictment of how our health services have been treated, and how they have been run into the ground following the Conservatives’ regular cuts. Residents in Glastonbury and Somerton are devastated, and are concerned that this six-month temporary closure could then become permanent. I have had many examples of residents contacting me, including Ben. He and his wife are from Martock, and are expecting their first child in September. They have planned a home birth with support from the Yeovil midwifery team. They can still access those services, but if complications arise, they will no longer be able to rely on Yeovil hospital services, which are only a 15-minute drive away. They will have to go a lot further, driving at least 45 minutes to access Taunton, Royal United hospital, Dorchester or Salisbury. There are so many unanswered questions, especially on how the closure will affect the capacity of Taunton’s Musgrove Park hospital, or Dorchester or Bath’s maternity units.

We need clarity now. Our residents deserve that. Will the Minister give us and our constituents that clarity, so that those who are looking forward to starting a new family or who are growing their family can know that the journey through their pregnancy will be safe and that they will have a family beyond that? \p Karin Smyth: I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate about the temporary closure of maternity services at Yeovil district hospital. I know, having given birth to three myself, that choosing where to give birth and the planning of that journey, as has been outlined, is incredibly important for women. We are determined that all women are given choice over their care and are listened to and supported with compassion. The hon. Member is an advocate for the Yeovil community, and I welcome his representations, ensuring that his constituents’ voices are heard. That is an important role for Members of Parliament.

I will start by acknowledging the concerns that hon. Members have raised on their constituents’ behalf, both in their letter and in this debate, and I hope I can update them on the relevant issues as they stand. In preparing for this debate, I have met the trust and Somerset ICB, and I am grateful for their time and briefing on these issues.

As hon. Members know, the trust cannot safely staff the paediatric service as well as the special care baby unit. This means that it has taken the difficult decision to close the special care baby unit, which also means that it cannot safely provide maternity services—I think that point was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Yeovil.

The hon. Member is concerned about the process followed by Somerset NHS foundation trust in coming to this decision, particularly about it not having consulted the local council, MPs or other stakeholders. He also identified concerns about the information going to staff. In some situations, such as this one, NHS providers may need to make a temporary service change due to a risk to the safety or welfare of patients or staff. Legislation allows them to do so without consulting the scrutiny committee beforehand, provided that that service change is needed for safety or welfare reasons. I understand that the trust briefed Somerset county council’s health overview and scrutiny committee on 15 May, and has committed to further updating the committee in October. The trust has had one-to-one conversations with affected women and families to help them with alternative plans, which have been supported by Somerset Maternity and Neonatal Voices Partnership. \p Adam Dance: Does the Minister agree that the timescale given to our NHS staff, and telling them on Teams or not telling them at all—with them finding out on social media—is not the right way to treat them? Imagine how that makes those staff feel. \p Karin Smyth: I am not aware of the operational details of how the decision was communicated, but I am happy to come back to that. As I have said, when decisions are made for reasons of safety—which is of primary importance—sometimes staff will not be able to be consulted in the usual way. Of course, some staff  will not be working at a given time, or may be on holiday, and organisations have to take particular measures to inform staff. I appreciate that that is very disruptive and personally distressing for staff who have been working in a unit and need to know where to go, but emergency situations sometimes necessitate things not being done as robustly as might be desired.

Local leaders have assured me that this closure is not intended to be permanent—that is very important for hon. Members and their constituents to understand. The trust is committed to reviewing the position in three and six months, and following the three-month review, Somerset ICB will provide an update in September. Finally, once a decision is made, any permanent change would need to be based on clear evidence of better outcomes for patients.

On the wider issue that has been raised this evening, as hon. Members will be aware, the Government’s position is that changes to NHS services should always be locally led and clinically evidenced. Any decision about the next steps for the neonatal and maternity services at Yeovil hospital should be taken by the local NHS, with support from the Care Quality Commission. I understand that work is currently under way to mitigate the impact of the closure and move towards safe operation of services. The NHS England South West regional team is working with the trust and the ICB to mitigate the risk of the closure and ensure that the wider systems work together to provide safe services. The trust is working closely with neighbouring hospitals in Bath, Salisbury, Poole, Dorchester and Exeter to ensure sufficient capacity, which should provide assurance to local people.

Regional team clinical leaders have attended a rapid quality review meeting with ICB and trust clinical leaders, and work continues on mitigating the risks that have been identified. I have been assured that Somerset ICB will monitor progress against improvement plans, formally noting any new or emerging risks and actions required. It will also be monitoring the impact on Musgrove Park maternity unit. I understand that Somerset NHS foundation trust and Somerset ICB have also written to the hon. Member for Yeovil since the closure and that there is due to be a call with local MPs tomorrow. I think that is good progress; as I said to representatives of the trust when I met them, I commend that way of operating with local Members of Parliament. I hope it is helpful in having detailed conversations locally to reassure hon. Members and—more importantly, if I may say so —their constituents at what I appreciate is a really difficult time for women who are either due to give birth, or are thinking about starting a family.

We are committed to tackling staffing challenges that the NHS faces, such as this one. For the maternity workforce, NHS England is undertaking a programme of targeted retention work for midwives. This includes a midwife retention self-assessment tool, a mentoring scheme, strengthened advice and support on pensions, and flexible retirement options.

NHS England has also invested in unit-based retention leaders, who focus on retention and give pastoral support to midwives. This initiative, alongside investment in workforce capacity, has seen a reduction in the number of vacancies and in leaver and turnover rates. Maternity care remains a top priority for providers, as is demonstrated in the planning guidance, in which the NHS was instructed to improve safety in maternity and neonatal services as a priority.

I know that there is concern in Somerset more widely about how this change will affect services in the local area. Let me reassure Members that NHS Somerset is committed to investing in local services for both hospitals there. That includes a commitment to a fully functioning district general hospital in Yeovil. The Yeovil diagnostic centre, which is due to open later this year, will be a modern, three-storey, state-of-the-art centre based at Yeovil district hospital. It will have the capacity to deliver an additional 70,000 diagnostic tests and out-patient appointments each year and to be open seven days a week, providing radiology, endoscopy and cardiology services, audiology tests and out-patient appointments.

I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil again for raising this important issue. I know that he and his colleagues will keep a close eye on progress. I hope that I have responded to his immediate concerns tonight, and I will of course write to him and other Members shortly in response to their letter of 19 May. \p Sarah Dyke: May I raise the issue of maternity services at Musgrove Park hospital, which will be taking on a number of patients? An upgrade that was due has now been pushed back to the mid-2030s. At present, maternity services are provided in a 1940s dormitory-style building. Does that really show mothers-to-be that their needs are being prioritised? \p Karin Smyth: I am of course aware of that, because I lead on the new hospital programme. The Government are committed to a clear timetable for the programme, which includes Musgrove Park. In our Budget last autumn, we announced decisions—which the hon. Lady and her colleagues did not support—involving capital plans and ensuring that that programme is now on a financial footing that it was not on previously.

I am confident that the local NHS is aware of the impact of this change and continues to work hard to improve the situation. Any change in NHS services must be made with the utmost sensitivity to local views, while also prioritising safety. I know that Members will continue to monitor this issue, and I will ensure that they receive a response to the letter of 19 May.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.