debates/debates2025-10-22b conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-10-22)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-10-22b conversation_21

Sarah Dyke:Many in Glastonbury and Somerton are forced to travel hundreds of miles to see an NHS dentist  or suffer in agony, fall into debt to pay for private treatment or turn to DIY dentistry, like Jennifer, who extracted two of her teeth over the weekend. They simply cannot wait for the consultation on the broken NHS contract; they deserve immediate action. Will the Prime Minister outline what measures he is taking to end the dental desert in Somerset for good? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Member for raising that. Added to the list of shocking things  the last Government left us is the shocking state of  NHS dentistry—broken, like everything else under the last Government. We are rolling out extra urgent care appointments. In Somerset, the integrated care board is expected to deliver over 13,000 extra dental appointments  this year; I will give her more details in due course. We are also reforming the dental contract, which will shift focus on to retaining NHS dentists. \p Harpreet Uppal: Ahmad Al Ibrahim was only 16 years old when he was fatally stabbed in Huddersfield. His life was cruelly taken away in what the police described as an “unprovoked” and “motiveless” attack. Following a visit to Netherhall learning campus in my constituency last week, I know how important this issue is for young people. Will the Prime Minister commit to redoubling efforts to tackle serious violence and knife crime through more visible policing, stronger prevention and investment in youth services? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that devastating case. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the family and friends. Through our Crime and Policing Bill, we are increasing penalties for the illegal sale of knives and giving police new powers to seize knives likely to be used for violence or cause harm. We have also launched a coalition to tackle knife crime, to bring together campaigners and community leaders to tackle the root causes of knife crime and help protect the next generation. \p Heidi Alexander: With permission, I will update the House on the steps this Government are taking to realise the benefits of expansion at Heathrow airport, having invited proposals for a third runway earlier this year.

Today I am launching a review of the airports national policy statement. Britain wants to fly, and this Government will act to meet public aspirations. Our review of the ANPS will ensure that while we unlock long-term capacity for more flights at the nation’s only hub airport, we will also meet our obligations to passengers, communities and the environment. Today is a step forward for UK aviation and infrastructure, supporting growth in the economy and enabling a modern, efficient transport system that harnesses international investment, boosts connectivity and strengthens UK competitiveness.

We are committed to making a decision on a third runway at Heathrow within this Parliament, and we are clear in our ambition to see flights taking off on a new runway in 2035. We said we would get on with this, and we have. When the previous Government set up the Davies commission, it took them five years to publish the original draft ANPS. We will get to the same point in 18 months, with the process completed by the end of 2026, showing our commitment to delivering progress swiftly but robustly. When we say we back the builders, not the blockers, we mean it.

But this is not a blank cheque. Expansion at Heathrow must minimise cost for passengers and customers. The taxpayer must not be expected to foot the bill. That is why the scheme will be privately financed—both the core project and the related infrastructure improvements. Extra staff and passengers must be able to get to and from the airport without turning the M4 and M25 into Europe’s largest car park. Crucially, the expansion must align with our legal, environmental and climate commitments. Starting the review of the ANPS is critical to delivering expansion and will provide the basis for decisions on any future planning applications.

The world has changed since the last ANPS review in 2018, which is when it was designated. New environmental and climate obligations have been introduced, and patterns of travel have changed. However, pretty much every UK airport saw its busiest summer on record. We could put our head in the sand and pretend this is not the case, but we would be doing a disservice to our economy and to the next generation. That is why, in carrying out this review, we will consider how any proposed scheme must meet four clear tests: that it contributes to economic growth across the country; that it meets our air quality obligations; that it is consistent with our noise commitments; and, crucially, that it aligns with our legal obligations on climate change, including net zero.

We will seek the independent opinion of the Climate Change Committee, which I will write to shortly to request this advice. While a third runway at Heathrow has been factored into carbon budget 6, it is right that we update our modelling and seek the views of the CCC. Given Heathrow’s national importance, we will also consider naming the airport as critical national priority infrastructure, in line with our approach to low-carbon energy projects. We are further considering  whether to name a statutory undertaker as an appropriate person to carry out the project under the Planning Act 2008, providing additional clarity to stakeholders and the local community. It is clear that this is a large and complex programme that requires a thorough and evidence-led approach. Over the coming months, my Department will develop analysis on economic and environmental impacts of expansion. We will also undertake an appraisal of sustainability, as required by statute, alongside a habitats regulations assessment and other necessary technical work. If amendments are needed to the ANPS as a result of the review, we expect to consult on an amended policy statement by next summer. Communities will be able to have their say and we will shortly publish an updated stakeholder engagement approach to ensure transparency and fairness throughout the process.

Earlier this year, we invited potential promoters to submit proposals for delivering a third runway at Heathrow. Seven proposals were received and were considered by officials from the Department for Transport, the Treasury and expert financial and technical advisers. Following that assessment, two potential schemes remain under active consideration: a proposal from Heathrow Airport Limited and a proposal from the Aurora Group. We know that we must provide as much clarity and certainty for communities, investors and users of Heathrow as soon as possible, so we are seeking further information on the two proposed schemes with a view to reaching a final decision on a single scheme to inform the remainder of the ANPS review by the end of November.

When making that decision, we will consider: the interoperability of the proposed scheme with existing infrastructure; the plans for transport to and from the airport and associated road schemes; the land take and impact on surrounding homes and communities; the evidence that the scheme can be privately financed; and the economic benefits of the scheme. This Government are committed to moving quickly but we will also do this properly.

To deliver the scheme on time, the Government are also pressing ahead with a series of enabling reforms. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will streamline the delivery of major infrastructure, including Heathrow. That includes faster consenting routes and more proportionate consultations. On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects. We are establishing the UK Airspace Design Service to deliver modernised airspace. That will initially prioritise airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and will also make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London. We will initiate slot reform to ensure future allocation maximises benefits of an expanded Heathrow, as well as approved growth at Gatwick and Luton for passengers, local communities and businesses.

Expanding Heathrow will be one of the largest infrastructure projects in the UK. Rigorous and effective cost control will be essential to its success, both in minimising any impact on airline charges and costs to passengers and in maintaining credibility with financial markets. The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for  economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery. We expect the CAA to publish a working paper in November, with a view to that work completing next summer.

This is a landmark opportunity for Heathrow, for the aviation sector and for the UK economy. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring the expansion is delivered in a way that is timely, cost-efficient and environmentally responsible. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State for Transport. \p Richard Holden: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it.

The statement should have been brought to the House months ago. The Secretary of State surely recognises that today marks a delay and an acknowledgment of that, rather than a decisive move forward. The truth is that this whole process has come about the wrong way round. Recent announcements on Gatwick and Heathrow, rather than being any clear plan for the future of British aviation, are not driven by planned and prepared work but by a clear attempt to divert attention from the Government’s growing list of crises, scandals and cover-ups. However, we on these Benches welcome the fact that this statement has finally been brought forward to the House, because both the aviation sector and passengers deserve clarity, as do the local people who will be affected, and we hope that they will see sensible mitigations to these proposals.

Can the Secretary of State confirm what assessment the Government have undertaken so far of the total cost of Heathrow expansion, given that one of the central estimates now stands at almost £50 billion, excluding an extra £10 billion for further surface access works? Those figures would quadruple Heathrow’s current asset base, which is already responsible for some of the highest passenger charges in the world. If Britain is to remain competitive on the global stage, those costs must be kept down, not driven up.

Crucially, how will the Government ensure that the costs are minimised, not maximised? I am sure that, like me, the Secretary of State does not want those costs directly passed on to airlines and then to their passengers in higher fares, because affordability must be at the heart of any credible aviation strategy. Maintaining affordable flights is crucial for passengers, so can she assure the House that the Heathrow expansion will not result in significant pass-through costs, especially with the Government’s rises in air passenger duty, the jobs tax and now real concerns over how business rates will affect the aviation sector?

I understand that the Chancellor has claimed a third runway will be operational by 2035—something the Secretary of State has reflected today—and that she wants to see spades in the ground during this Parliament. Of course, we welcome the reforms that will enable this to happen. Those reforms will not have any teeth, however, unless the Government commit to backing our plan to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008. Otherwise,  Heathrow expansion will face judicial review after judicial review, bogging down the process, driving up costs and delivering further delay. Even Labour’s Mayor of London has said that he “wouldn’t hesitate” to launch legal challenges against a third runway. Can the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that her own Labour colleagues—including those she worked for previously—and allies will not be the ones who prevent this important project from ever seeing the light of day? Can the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that the associated road and rail links not just into London but to the south are included, so that the expansion delivers genuine economic growth and connectivity for the whole of the United Kingdom?

The Conservatives would end the constant threat of judicial review and eco-lawfare to ensure that infrastructure across the country could finally be delivered on time, on budget and in Britain’s national interests. It was great to hear the Secretary of State’s words on this from the Dispatch Box, but will those reforms relating to the judiciary come into force before the decisions on Heathrow and the development consent order are made, or will they be subject to the current situation we are facing?

We on these Benches recognise that greater competition is the most effective way to deliver value for money and reduce costs to consumers, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State acknowledged in her statement that Heathrow expansion must minimise costs, but the only way to achieve that is through real and genuine competition. Heathrow’s current structure has the potential to create perverse incentives that reward higher spending rather than efficiency, pushing up charges for passengers and airlines. I note the commitment that the CAA’s review into economic regulation will begin in November, but that review must look seriously and fundamentally at how to embed competition and reverse perverse incentives. How do the Secretary of State and the CAA intend to bring competition to the heart of delivering this project? She said that the review would be delivered in the summer of next year. Will it be before the summer recess so that the House will have time to scrutinise it?

While this Government continue to splurge cash, hike up taxes and debt and tie Britain up in eco-lawfare with their Green allies, only the Conservatives would restore confidence, break that cycle and deliver a stronger economy with world-class aviation at its heart. Sadly, under this Government, taxes have risen to historic highs. They have imposed a punishing jobs tax, and borrowing has soared to the highest levels since 2010 outside the pandemic, with £100 billion in annual debt interest payments. A third runway alone will not shield the country from the consequences of Labour’s economic mismanagement, but it is a project that must be delivered correctly and responsibly and put passengers at its heart. \p Heidi Alexander: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about our pace of delivery, and I roundly reject his criticisms on this. We are the party that is accelerating Heathrow expansion, today setting out this swift and robust review of the ANPS to help us determine applications swiftly. Previous work to get a final airports national policy statement by the last Government took more than five years. This Government will do it three years faster. We are getting on with the job and taking the important and sometimes difficult  decisions to get Britain building. I gently remind him that when his great ally and mentor, Boris Johnson, was Prime Minister, he went to such lengths to duck decisions on this issue that he ended up in Afghanistan.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to care about consumers and cost control, and that is precisely why we are reviewing the ANPS and why we are starting the work, via the Civil Aviation Authority, on the model of economic regulation. If we fail to plan for future capacity, prices will rise and choice will shrink. This review will be integral to keeping the UK competitive and connected by ensuring sufficient capacity, sustainable growth and fair competition between global hub airports. I agree with him that consumers deserve affordable fares and greener aviation, and that is what we are working to deliver.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about climate change, service access and our reforms to judicial reviews. On service access, I can be clear with him that we expect this project and associated infrastructure improvements to be privately financed. Through the ANPS review, we will be looking holistically at public transport requirements, be that southern rail access, western rail access or how people get to and from central London. He will recall that, in the spending review, we set out the biggest investment in London’s transport for over 10 years, with £2.2 billion enabling Transport for London to buy new rolling stock on the Piccadilly line and 10 extra Elizabeth line trains. We will work closely with our colleague, the Mayor of London, and TfL to ensure that appropriate infrastructure is in place.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the changes that we are making to judicial review, and I would simply say to him that we are acting where his Government had their head in the sand. I am confident that the CAA will look carefully at competition issues in the work that it is doing. I am also confident that, ultimately, we could create 100,000 jobs through expansion at Heathrow. We could boost economic growth as well as opening up new opportunities for trade, tourism and travel. We will do this properly, and that is what we are doing by launching the ANPS review today. I look forward to answering further questions from other hon. Members. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I look forward to the work she does on this ANPS coming to our Committee in due course. A third runway at Heathrow, combined with all the other agreed—or likely to be agreed—expansions of capacity in London and south-east airports would involve an increase of 177 million passengers, which would be 70% more than the number of passengers in London and the south-east from 2024. I look forward to the Climate Change Committee’s response to the proposal, because it has said that a 35% increase in capacity would be the maximum that would keep the UK compliant with our international legal commitments.

To return to the specifics of the statement, the Secretary of State said that she seeks to minimise costs for passengers and customers, but given that the cost of a third runway will be between £25 billion and £49 billion, how exactly  will that cost not be passed on to the airlines and therefore the passengers if the Treasury is not going to fund those costs, which we know it is not? On surface access, ever since the building of the fifth terminal, the local authorities all around Heathrow have been pushing for southern rail access to Heathrow. Heathrow Airport has long said—and has clarified recently—that it will not pay the cost of southern rail access, so how does she expect that to be funded? If the M25 and M4 are not to grind to a halt, and if passengers and workers from the west and south of the airport are to be able to get in and out of the airport, how is that to be achieved? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise these issues. We will give very careful and thorough consideration to them in the airports national policy statement review, which will take place in the coming months. She referred to the Climate Change Committee’s opinion on capacity expansion. We are making rapid progress in cleaning up the fuel that is used in planes, and we are making huge efforts to reform our airspace, so that we can have cleaner and more direct flights. The carbon intensity of flying has to come down if we are to have more planes in the air. She was also right to highlight the importance of the regulatory model. That is why we have asked the Civil Aviation Authority to do this piece of work over the coming months; it is aligned with the review in the airports national policy statement. We will say more on that in due course. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Olly Glover: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which made the Government’s intent of supporting the proposed third runway at Heathrow very clear. It was good to hear her recognise the complexity of all that will be needed to deliver it, including major diversionary works on two of the country’s busiest motorways. We Liberal Democrats continue to support the right infrastructure in the right place, which is why we have always supported schemes such as East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, we need the right infrastructure to tackle the right problems, and there are many unanswered questions about the Heathrow third runway.

The New Economics Foundation has been very clear in its analysis that the environmental impact of airport expansion will erode a lot of our carbon emission reduction plans, and many studies have questioned the economic case for Heathrow expansion. I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State about the dangers of relying solely on the private sector to fund large schemes, as happened in the case of the channel tunnel, which remains an enormously underused asset, partly because of the costs that resulted from the decision to fund it only through the private sector.

It is welcome that the Secretary of State has made her support for Heathrow expansion subject to four tests, but I detect perhaps a slight hint of cognitive dissonance, and a contradiction in the Government setting out timelines for delivering something that they say is subject to four tests. The Secretary of State said that she would hear the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee. If the CCC decides that the preferred option for   the Heathrow third runway is incompatible with our carbon emissions and our net zero targets, will she drop her support for the third runway? \p Heidi Alexander: I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He referred to New Economics Foundation research. I should be clear with him that the Government are absolutely committed to reaching net zero for the whole economy by 2050, and that we will meet our climate change obligations as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We have also been clear repeatedly that any airport expansion proposals will need to demonstrate that they will contribute to economic growth and can be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitment. We will engage with the CCC in the ANPS review.

Heathrow is only one part of the process; the expansion of Heathrow, Luton, Gatwick and Bristol airports was factored into carbon budget 7, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government will publish our updated delivery plan for carbon budgets 4 to 6 in the coming weeks. We should not see economic growth and our climate change commitments as being inconsistent with each another. I believe we can go further, faster, on cleaner fuels and technological developments, but people want to fly, and I do not think that this Government should get on the wrong side of public aspiration. \p John Martin McDonnell: I first of all express my sympathy for the Secretary of State: she knows from past experience that this is like watching a car crash in action, and it has been thrust upon her by the Chancellor. She knows that Heathrow has made the clear commitment that it will not pay for the infrastructure; that landing charges will go up, and passengers will pay for it; and that there is no way that we can meet our climate change targets if the expansion goes ahead. That is why I express my sympathy; she has been given an impossible task.

I have a constituency interest, as the Secretary of State will know, because Heathrow is in my constituency. She mentioned that the stakeholder engagement process will be published shortly. Could she be a bit more precise on the timescale, and on what measures will be included in that? The House needs to know that in my constituency, 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable; 15,000 people will lose their homes; we will lose three schools; and whole communities will go. My constituents want to ask: where are they going to live? Where will their children be educated, and what will their happen to their community? We just need some certainty now—and from my point of view, it is certain that this is a white elephant. It is almost like watching High Speed 2 all over again. \p Heidi Alexander: I am sure it will not come as a surprise to my right hon. Friend to hear that I reject his characterisation of the work I am doing. I see the expansion as an opportunity to improve our connectivity as a nation, to improve UK competitiveness and to ensure that we deliver for businesses and passengers all across the UK. I understand why he raised the interests of his constituents who live closest to the proposed expansion. He asked me for more detail about the consultation timeline. If we make changes to the ANPS through the review, a consultation will take place on  that next year, and we are working on a timeline that would see a new ANPS designated by the end of next year. I give him a commitment to meaningful engagement and consultation. In the document that I referred to in my statement, we will set out a new stakeholder engagement approach, so that people will be treated with fairness. We will act transparently throughout the process. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: I ask colleagues to keep their questions short, so I can get everybody in. \p Lincoln Jopp: I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); my Spelthorne constituency is on the southern side of Heathrow airport, and the residents of Stanwell Moor, a village of some 520 homes, are half a mile away from the southern perimeter. They have put up with a lot, including appalling behaviour by Uber drivers, holiday parking and noise pollution. In the consultation, will the people of Stanwell Moor be engaged with directly? I also ask that we measure air and sound pollution, and use current levels as a baseline, so that we can determine the impact of the Heathrow expansion. \p Heidi Alexander: In the ANPS, there will be a very thorough review of the noise requirements, and mitigations are set out in that document. I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that there will be meaningful engagement with his constituents. \p Andrew Slaughter: Can the Secretary of State confirm that this is not a done deal? As part of the ANPS review process, will there be a full and independent analysis of the economic costs and benefits, the environmental effects, and demand in London and the south-east, given airport expansion elsewhere? As she says, the world has changed since 2018. Can my constituents, who will be seriously detrimentally affected by any further expansion of Heathrow, be assured that the Government have their best interests at heart? \p Heidi Alexander: We will do this properly. As Secretary of State for Transport, and as the person who may ultimately be the decision maker on any future planning application, I assure my hon. Friend that I will approach this issue with an open mind and will apply the highest standards of professionalism and probity to the process that I am overseeing. \p Ben Spencer: Egham in my constituency is five miles from Heathrow, and it is not the fact that it is overflowing that I want to ask about today. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), visited the patch on Monday, and we waited 12 minutes while level crossing barriers were down in Pooley Green. The Secretary of State did not mention whether trains would be part of the consultation. Will they be within scope? If the expansion goes ahead, we will desperately need to deal with our level crossings, and we will need better rail access from Egham to Heathrow to make this work. \p Heidi Alexander: I agree that we need to deal with the issue of level crossings on the rail network. We will look holistically at rail requirements in the ANPS review. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and am pleased to hear that this will be a thorough and meaningful consultation, because even though my constituency is not near the airport, my constituents in Camberwell, Stockwell and Brixton write to me regularly to say that they are suffering from air and noise pollution. The Secretary of State talked about infrastructure; a key point will be ensuring that more people use public transport to get to Heathrow. The reality is that some upgrades to the airport have not had the funding over many years, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), highlighted. I want to tease out more from the Secretary of State on private funding, because in a number of cases, developers commit to something, but then the viability issue comes up, and the money never seems to appear. Will she ensure that there is funding to secure the transport infrastructure that will be vital if there is any new airport runway? \p Heidi Alexander: How people get to and from an airport is as important as the number of planes landing and taking off, so I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will look at these issues closely. I point out that Transport for London is buying a new fleet of Piccadilly line trains that have higher capacity. It is part of a larger fleet replacement programme, and 10 new Elizabeth line trains are also being built. We will look at the whole issue of how people get to and from the airport, because I agree that it is absolutely vital. \p Munira Wilson: The Chancellor has staked her economic credibility and growth strategy on a third runway at Heathrow. The Secretary of State said that she is committed to seeing flights take off from it in 2035, yet at the same time, she talks about taking an evidence-led approach, putting this project to her four tests, taking the advice of the Climate Change Committee and doing a thorough economic and environmental impact assessment. Could she clarify a point for the House, because I fear my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) did not get a straight answer? If the evidence shows that the environmental costs are too great and the economic benefits are too little, will she and, crucially, her Chancellor be prepared to do a U-turn and can this whole project? \p Heidi Alexander: We see the huge opportunities and benefits associated with expanding capacity at Heathrow and having a third runway there. There will be a thorough process, which we are starting today by reviewing the policy framework in which any planning application will be judged. The Planning Inspectorate will look at that and consider all the issues to do with economic need, air quality, noise and carbon, and then a decision will be taken. We have an ambition to see planes taking off from the runway in 2035, but that does not mean that we will not have a thorough process. We are committed to that, and that is what I am setting out today. \p Tan Dhesi: It is abundantly clear that air travel is here to stay; in fact, the amount of it has risen over recent years. We of course   need to take mitigation measures to tackle the noise and environmental impacts, but while we have for decades been debating ad nauseam building a third runway, dozens of runways and, indeed, airports have been built by nations across the globe. I ask my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary to safeguard the thousands of Slough households who are dependent on Heathrow to pay their bills; to boost business and trade; and to maintain our world-leading position in the aviation sector. Will she work at speed to tackle the blockages and finally help to deliver this third runway? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had decades of dither and delay on this issue, and it is right that we crack on and start the process of reviewing the airports national policy statement. He is also right to highlight the huge economic benefit of Heathrow—it is the largest single-site employer anywhere in the UK—and its effect on the livelihoods of and opportunities for his constituents. We will move at speed, but we will also do this properly. \p Kit Malthouse: As the Secretary of State knows from her time at City Hall, Heathrow has been a planning disaster since it was accidentally sited to the west of London, forcing planes to land over millions of heads. While it might be amusing to watch her take the chainsaw to all those trees planted at Sipson by a series of Labour politicians, why she would compound that planning disaster I have no idea. More than that, if this goes ahead, she will also be compounding the Heathrow monopoly on long-haul flights. To her four rules, I suggest that she adds a fifth, which is the impact on direct connectivity to and from regional airports. There is the strong view that the expansion of Heathrow would kill connectivity from Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and elsewhere. \p Heidi Alexander: I actually think the opposite could be true: an expanded Heathrow could provide greater regional connectivity. The right hon. Member is right to highlight that Heathrow is our only hub airport, and it accounts for over 70% of long-haul flights, as well as over 70% of air freight by gross value, so it is an important economic asset. I repeat what I have said to others: we will move at speed and look at economic growth impacts across the entire country. But where he sees a challenge, I see opportunity. \p Danny Beales: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I welcome the mention of the four tests that will be part of the review, but it must be said that scepticism is running high in Hillingdon, where the effects are greatest, and the four tests need to be more transparent. I encourage her to publish clearly what those four tests are and the metrics against which they will be assessed. I ask her for a commitment that the data and information that will be assessed will be fully and transparently shared with communities as early as possible so that it can be interrogated. I echo colleagues’ comments about the need for meaningful engagement with the communities most affected. Can she confirm that the engagement will not just be the formal consultation on the draft statement, but that there will be meaningful early engagement for the communities affected? \p Heidi Alexander: We are moving at pace on this, but I do believe it is possible to have meaningful consultation opportunities as well. If through the review that we are conducting in the next couple of months it becomes apparent that we need to change the ANPS, we will consult on a new draft by the summer of next year. I will ensure that I remain in close contact with my hon. Friend, who is a fearsome advocate for his constituents, because I know that it is important that we not just address concerns about noise, air quality and carbon, but demonstrate the important economic effect that expanding Heathrow could have. \p Monica Harding: My constituents, particularly those along the river in Molesey and Ditton, are concerned about an increase in the noise pollution that already affects us from a third runway at Heathrow. How can they be reassured that their views will be taken into account, unlike in the top-down centralised planning policies that this Government have implemented? Will the four tests be transparent, meaningful and readily available to constituents? Can I please ask again: should it be shown that the climate commitments of the UK will not be met by this expansion, will the Minister U-turn? \p Heidi Alexander: This is the start, not the end, of the process. We will be transparent and clear about those four tests. We will consult on an amended ANPS if that is required following the review. A planning application would then come forward, and there would be consultation around that. There would be a public inquiry led by the planning inspector. There will be ample opportunity for people to make their views known. I refer the hon. Member to the remarks I made earlier about treating this whole process with professionalism and integrity to ensure that we make the right decision for the future of the country. \p Fleur Anderson: Heathrow aircraft noise has a significant detrimental impact on my Putney constituents. Similar hubs in other European countries affect far fewer people: for Schiphol it is 44,000 and for Charles de Gaulle 133,000, while for Heathrow it is more than 680,000 people who are directly impacted by the noise. Currently there are no legal noise limits. I welcome the mentions of noise in the Secretary of State’s statement; will she commit to a binding noise limit within the new strategy, as well as strong environmental limits and full community consultation in the process? \p Heidi Alexander: I can tell my hon. Friend that the current ANPS sets out very clear requirements on noise that any scheme would have to meet. We will review those requirements alongside any necessary mitigation requirements, and we will consult on any changes. I should also say that the rules around the operation of a night flight ban, including the exact timings of such a ban, would be defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders. \p Sarah Olney: The DFT’s own updated appraisal report shows that the economic benefits of a third runway are either exaggerated or misguided. The Labour Government are yet to produce their economic analysis. Meanwhile, Heathrow Airport Ltd is in more than £15 billion-worth of debt and its own proposal has  increased in cost by 50% since 2016. What makes the Secretary of State so confident that private financing will be found not just for the proposals on the table, but for all the surface transport upgrades that will be required? \p Heidi Alexander: The two promoters that remain in the scheme will be responsible for securing private investment, and they have expressed to me confidence that the scheme can go forward. I also gently point out to the hon. Lady that there is huge support for this expansion among the business community: the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce all support Heathrow expansion, as do regional business groups across the UK. \p Toby Perkins: The Environmental Audit Committee has just completed its very detailed work on aviation expansion, which we will announce soon. One thing that came across was that the Climate Change Committee was advising demand management as one of the ways that it should be delivered, consistent with our environmental commitments. I am glad that the Secretary of State has reaffirmed that the expansion will have to be consistent with those commitments, but can she tell us whether demand management will be part of that? What assessment has she made of the aspects that will require Government policy rather than being within Heathrow’s gift, such as the expansion of sustainable aviation fuel? Finally, I am glad to hear that she recognises that this is a 21st-century plan with 20th-century road links and 19th-century rail links, so can she tell us more about how she will reduce the overall carbon emissions contribution that Heathrow makes? \p Heidi Alexander: There were probably three questions in one there. I say to my hon. Friend that I am not prepared to stand in the way of the public’s aspiration to fly. We are not looking at demand management at the moment; our approach to aviation decarbonisation is based on the analysis suggesting that the sector can make a significant contribution to our economy-wide net zero target by 2050 by focusing on new fuels and new technologies. \p Luke Taylor: I have mentioned that the naming of Heathrow as critical national priority infrastructure is vital to ending the disruption to power and systems we have seen over the summer, so I encourage the Government to go forward with that. On the plans for transport to and from the airport and associated road schemes, can the Secretary of State confirm that the costs of the southern and western rail access, the new southern access tunnel that will ease congestion on existing roads and lower emissions, and the rail access to provide reliable public transport links for passengers and staff are included in the estimates we have already seen? I implore her, as others have done, to ensure that those plans are covered as part of the project, and that it is not left to the taxpayer to pick up the bill? \p Heidi Alexander: I am clear that the project will need to be privately financed. That includes both the core project and the associated infrastructure improvements. It will be for the promoter submitting a planning application to set out in that application how it is consistent with  the reviewed ANPS. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks I made earlier; I am clear that we must ensure that the M4 and the M25 do not turn into a car park, because that will not result in the successful operation of the airport. \p Tulip Siddiq: My right hon. Friend knows my constituency well, and she will know that my constituents are very concerned about air quality in London and worried that the expansion of Heathrow will affect air quality in the constituency, especially for future generations. Will she reassure not just me, but local organisations such as Green School Runs and the London Clean Air Initiative, which are campaigning hard to ensure that air quality is not impacted and is at the heart of the review, not ignored by the Government? \p Heidi Alexander: Air quality will be one of the factors looked at through the ANPS review. Obviously, there may have been some changes in baseline conditions compared with when the ANPS was last designated back in 2018, given that the ultra low emission zone is in force now, but we do take the issue seriously and that is why it is one of the four tests. \p Will Forster: About an hour ago, the Prime Minister did not answer my request for a cast-iron guarantee, so I wonder whether the Secretary of State can do a bit better. My constituency is 16 minutes from Heathrow, yet it has no rail link to our country’s busiest airport. Can she give me a cast-iron guarantee that, if this airport is expanded, Woking will finally get the rail link it needs? \p Heidi Alexander: Far be it from me to give a different answer from the one the Prime Minister gave. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be looking at rail in detail through the ANPS review and the public transport requirements, in order to have an expanded Heathrow with a third runway that operates successfully. \p Baggy Shanker: Providing jobs for 800 people and supporting a further 7,000, East Midlands airport is a fantastic example of how aviation powers regional growth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whether it is through Heathrow expansion or at East Midlands airport, delivering sustainable expansion in aviation is not just about flights, but about delivering jobs, apprenticeships and growth, and about securing Britain’s role as a green aerospace and aviation leader? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is right; I know that East Midlands airport plays a particularly important role in air freight, second only to Heathrow. That is something we do not talk about enough, given its importance to the economy, so I welcome the comments he has made. \p Charlie Dewhirst: I am and always will be a proud Yorkshireman, but I lived in west London for a number of years, so I am aware of the diverse range of views on Heathrow expansion. I certainly do not subscribe to the luddite nimbyism of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick  (Andy Slaughter), but may I ask the Secretary of State what consideration she has given to potential Chinese investment into this critical national infrastructure? \p Heidi Alexander: It will be for the promoters of any future scheme to secure financing for the development. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that national security always comes first and foremost for this Government, but we are keen to secure international investment so that we can boost UK competitiveness and improve global connectivity. That is central to everything we are trying to do. \p Alex Mayer: Regarding the new airports national policy statement, can the Secretary of State clarify whether “airports” is in the plural? If so, will she be looking to change the planning process so that it can take into account the cumulative environmental impact of different airport expansions around the country? \p Heidi Alexander: The review of the airports national policy statement is site-specific for Heathrow. The other applications I have dealt with for Luton and Gatwick in the past couple of months were dealt with using the “making best use of runways” policy. The ANPS is specific to Heathrow. \p Siân Berry: Britain wants to thrive, but all I can hear is this Government once again prioritising the needs of the wealthiest, most frequent flyers above those of us on the ground. Can the Secretary of State tell me what crumbs of our carbon budget will remain for the rest of us and our lives after the review is complete? After the fudge on Gatwick, if the tests say no, will she say no as well? \p Heidi Alexander: I refer the hon. Lady to the remarks I have made previously about carbon budgets, but I dispute the statement that it is only the wealthiest in this country who want to fly. This may be sad, but one of the highlights of life for me is the bacon butty on an easyJet flight to a Greek island in the summer. That is an aspiration shared by many of the British public. \p John Slinger: I reassure my right hon. Friend that many of us on the Government Benches want us to get on and build, baby, build. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. While much of the national conversation is understandably London-centric, can she assure the House that regional airports, particularly those in the west midlands, and the communities and businesses that they support, are being considered by the Government? \p Heidi Alexander: I assure my hon. Friend that this Government are ambitious for all airports across the UK, including regional airports. I was with the chief executive of Birmingham airport only yesterday, and I am really excited about the £300 million investment in that airport that they announced at the regional investment summit yesterday. Just as with the expansion of Heathrow, there is huge potential for driving economic growth through our regional airports. \p Sammy Wilson: While most of the comments today have been critical, regions across the United Kingdom need a strong hub airport, and Heathrow provides that. I seek assurances from the  Secretary of State that slots at any expanded airport will be ensured for flights from regional airports. But I also warn her: given the way climate change targets have been used to stop major infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, such as major roads, is she confident that, by sticking by the Climate Change Act 2008, we are not giving a weapon to those who are opposed to this project and will use the courts to ensure that it is stopped? \p Heidi Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the opportunity for other regional airports and the regional connections that an expanded Heathrow could provide. It has been operating at about 95% capacity for much of the past two decades, so we are taking slot reform forward. We will look closely at a range of issues to ensure that we are maximising the contribution of that process to our economy. \p Jacob Collier: I thank the Transport Secretary for her statement and recognise the national importance of this project. As she said, we must ensure that the whole of the United Kingdom benefits from the project, should it go ahead, and I am particularly keen that firms across Staffordshire and the midlands are involved. If she approves the scheme, how will British firms play their part in this nationally significant project? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the very significant supply chain that will exist, and not just in relation to the construction of a third runway, but in terms of the expanded airport and the opportunity that presents to the aviation sector. We will review the economic impacts through the ANPS review, so more detail will be available on all that in due course. \p Vikki Slade: Can the Secretary of State update the House with a bit more detail on the progress of airspace modernisation in relation to noise? Residents in my constituency who are on the flightpath for Bournemouth airport have no night-time restrictions and are seeing massive increases. In places such as Dorset, people are being disturbed in their homes and in their sleep. If regional airports will not be included, can the Secretary of State explain when we can get something further on them? \p Heidi Alexander: This Government have moved with speed to set up the UK airspace design service, and we plan to have that mobilised by the end of the year. The first region we will look at is London—that is partly to do with the connection to expansion schemes in London as well. If the hon. Lady writes to me with the details of what her constituents are experiencing, I will look into the matter further. \p Ben Coleman: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the severe concerns that my constituents in Fulham will have about aspects of this proposal, particularly the noise? They will hence take an interest in ensuring that the four tests are properly adhered to. Can she reassure me that she has no intention of watering down the ANPS to lessen its noise commitments? \p Heidi Alexander: As I said in response to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), we will review the noise requirements set out in the current NPS and the mitigations associated  with that. As I stand here today, I have no intention of diminishing in any way those requirements, but we will look at the new technology associated with new aircraft and new places, and we will do a thorough piece of work. If any changes are made, we will consult on those before next summer. \p Robin Swann: As far back as 2019 there was talk of manufacturing and logistics hubs for the Heathrow hub being sited in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State still give a reassurance that the whole of the UK will be considered in support of the manufacture of the third runway, should it go ahead? Will sites be considered in my constituency, for example, which is critical to Belfast international airport? \p Heidi Alexander: One of the four tests relates to economic growth across the whole of the UK, and when I talk about the whole of the UK, I mean the whole of the UK. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with sufficient reassurance. \p Peter Swallow: My right hon. Friend knows how ambitious I am for improving connectivity from Bracknell to Heathrow airport. Heathrow’s proposals say that it is exploring the option of promoting a new rail scheme that combines the objectives of a western rail link to Heathrow and southern rail access to Heathrow, and there are similar commitments in the Aurora Group’s plans. Will she ensure that the review of the ANPS helps us to hold it to account for those promises so that we can deliver the better surface access that my constituents so badly need? \p Heidi Alexander: The ANPS will provide the policy framework against which any future planning application is assessed. As I have said to other hon. Members, when a planning application comes forward, a thorough consideration process will be associated with that before any decision is taken. Clear conditions will be set out on any planning decision relating to surface access. \p Jim Shannon: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement—her positive words are encouraging. This is an economic advantage for everyone, and I thank her for that. The fact that Heathrow’s numbers look set to surpass last year’s numbers, with 8 million passengers in August 2025 alone, demonstrates abundantly clearly the need for expansion. A fit-for-purpose airport can only increase revenue through tourism and connectivity for business. How can she ensure that the extension will secure regional airport connectivity and enhancement and a streamlined domestic service, as well as international increases? How can she ensure that Northern Ireland contractors can be part of the building of the new third runway? \p Heidi Alexander: We are at the start of this process, and I am as ambitious for the whole UK as the hon. Gentleman is. We will look at the economic impact through the ANPS review. If a scheme comes forward and gets planning consent during this Parliament, all Government Departments and I are absolutely clear that we must make the most of this incredible economic opportunity. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, her leadership, her focus on growth and her commitment to fit this  project within the Paris agreement. I welcome the four tests that it will be judged against, but I have a suggestion for a fifth test—people might not be surprised to hear that it focuses very much on my constituency. In recent years, Edinburgh South West has benefited from fantastic rail connections between Edinburgh and London, and from fantastic direct international flights from Edinburgh airport to overseas. Does she agree that if this project goes ahead, it cannot be to the detriment of places such as Edinburgh? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is a fine champion for his constituency and the fantastic city of Edinburgh. An expanded Heathrow could open up more regional connectivity to cities such as Edinburgh. Improving the rail network between our two capital cities is absolutely essential as well, and we are committed to doing that. \p Tom Hayes: We urgently need to modernise and expand British airspace—it is at capacity, and our growth depends on it. I was at Bournemouth airport last week. We are close to a bus service and a public transport interchange, but Bournemouth airport cannot easily connect with European airspace, as most traffic joins it at a single space. That is particularly problematic, given that I hope the Cherries, who are contesting for European football, get to play European teams next season. Will the Government review and modernise our airspace and back regional airports such as Bournemouth’s? \p Heidi Alexander: As I said in answer to a previous question, the work that the UK airspace design service will do to modernise our airspace will start with the London area. It will not be limited to the London area, but we need to make that a priority. I appreciate the case that my hon. Friend makes with respect to Bournemouth. \p Laurence Turner: I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group. As someone who worked on this issue the last time around, I was astonished to hear the Opposition’s flight of fantasy when they accused others of delay. On their watch, the airports commission was artificially delayed until after a general election, with three more years spent producing the current NPS and a further two years tied up in the courts. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the lessons have been learned from those eight wasted years? \p Heidi Alexander: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Let us be honest—it was not just eight wasted years, it was 14. I repeat what I said earlier: it comes to something that the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, went to such lengths to duck these decisions that he ended up in Kabul. \p Angela Rayner: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal statement.

When I made my maiden speech over a decade ago, I said that it was the honour of my life to represent Ashton-under-Lyne in this House. Alongside serving in this historic Labour Government, it is still the honour of my life. I promised then to bring determination, commitment and my socialist values to this House while representing my constituents, and I intend to continue doing so. My title may have changed, but the strength and character of the people of my constituency have not.

First, let me address the circumstances under which I left office. The last few weeks have been incredibly tough on my family, with my personal life so much in the public eye. All of us in public life know all too well the toll that the intense scrutiny we face takes on our loved ones, but I have always believed in the highest standards of transparency and accountability—that is what the public expect, and it is the price we pay for the privilege of service. That is why I referred myself to the independent adviser and gave him access to all the information he needed.

As I set out then, parents of a disabled child with a trust who divorce and seek different properties face a complex tax position. If there is one good thing that can come out of this, I hope that other families in that situation may now be aware of that and avoid getting into the position I am now in. I am of course corresponding with HM Revenue and Customs, and it has my full co-operation. There is no excuse not to pay taxes owed, and I will do so. This was an honestly made mistake, but when you make a mistake, you take responsibility.

To serve at the highest level of Government was a privilege—not for the title or the office, but for the chance to change the lives of the people I grew up with and live alongside. Every day, I worked to serve those same working-class communities; in every decision that I made, I thought of them. I know the power of politics to change lives, because it changed my own. The last Labour Government gave me the foundation to build a better life for me and my young son: a council house to support me, Sure Start to help me raise my kids, and the security of a minimum wage. A good job and a decent, secure home is not too much to ask, but for too many it is out of reach. That is what I was determined to change, for the people who all of us on these Benches are fighting for and must keep fighting for.

That is why, despite the fierce criticism and the relentless lobbying from vested interests, I am so proud that, within weeks, our landmark Employment Rights Bill will become law. It is a game changer for millions stuck in insecure and low-paid work. It will give them the dignity and security that they deserve. There are those who say we cannot afford to deliver new rights for working people; I say we cannot afford not to deliver them. Labour is at its best when we are bold, and I have been so proud to work alongside some of the trade unionists who nurtured and supported me to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This is a personal statement, but the trade union movement  taught me that it is not about yourself; it is about us. It is about who we are here for, and everything that I have done has been an endeavour for us—for our people, who elected us and who we serve.

As Secretary of State for Housing, it was my solemn duty to serve the Grenfell Tower inquiry. It is difficult to think of a more humbling experience—a stark reminder of what happens when we forget who we are in this place to serve. It has been a privilege to work on behalf of those families, and it is why this Government will pass a duty of candour. Make no mistake: the Hillsborough law is for the 97 and their families, but it is also for the sub-postmasters who endured the Horizon scandal, the victims of infected blood, and those who died or whose lives were changed forever in the Grenfell Tower fire. It is a line in the sand that says that the public will always come first.

I am also incredibly proud that this Labour Government provided the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a generation. It was the foundation of a decent home that gave me the security to build my life on; now we must provide a safe and decent home to millions of people across this country. When our Renters’ Rights Bill returns to the House this afternoon, we will give a generation of renters the protections, security and rights that they deserve.

From votes at 16 to historic investment in homelessness prevention, from neighbourhood renewal to fair funding for the whole country and putting power back where it belongs, in the hands of working people everywhere, I was proud to lead, but we achieved together, with my hon. Friends on these Benches and the support of our entire movement—the lifeblood of this Labour Government.

When I think back on how far I have come, I remember when at age 16, I was pregnant with my child, needing a job and a home. People wrote me off, assumed that I would be on benefits for the whole of my life, but I wanted to prove them wrong. I have carried that with  me, whether on the Back Benches, at the Dispatch Box, or representing this country abroad. The support and advice of so many friends and colleagues has kept me going.

I want to give a special mention to my excellent ministerial and parliamentary team, my hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen), for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson); my noble Friends Lord Khan and Baroness Taylor; my superb parliamentary and political staff; and the many excellent civil servants. I want to say a special thank you to many of my constituents and the public who have made contact with me. I offer my successor and his new colleagues my congratulations and, of course, my support. I am fortunate to count so many Members as not just honourable Friends but actual friends.

I will finish by saying that in each generation it has fallen to a Labour Government to strengthen the hand of working people. In 1945, it was maternity pay, the NHS and homes for heroes out of the ruins of war; in the 1970s, it was Barbara Castle and the fight for equal pay; and in the 1990s, it was the national minimum wage. Despite the opposition, because of the work of this Labour Government, we have the opportunity to write a new chapter of justice and fairness for working people.

As tough as politics can be, it is nothing—nothing—compared to what thousands of my constituents and many more across this country face every single day. Whether we sit on the Back Benches or on the Front Bench, elected office is not about us. It is about our chance to change the lives of others. From wherever I sit on these Benches, I will fight with everything I have to do exactly that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] \p Ben Obese-Jecty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week I was notified by the Table Office that my Cabinet Office oral question about the £97 billion increase in failing major project spending that this Government have overseen had been selected to be answered by the Government. However, it does not appear on the list of questions to be answered during Cabinet Office oral questions tomorrow. The Cabinet Office has declined to answer, and has removed it from the list of questions, which means that it will not be asked or answered in the Chamber.

I have long suspected that the Government have been manipulating the oral question process in their favour. How can the general public have any confidence in the parliamentary process, or the holding of the Government to account, when the Government can avoid scrutiny by picking and choosing only the questions that they wish to answer? I am sure that the Government would not wish me to submit any more written questions, so what guidance can you give, Mr Speaker, on how I can best ensure that my constituents in Huntingdon get the answers that they deserve? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The transfer of questions between Departments is a matter for the Government rather than the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are now on the record, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have noted what he has said. Let me add that there is always the expectation that Departments will inform Members of such transfers. If there is a continuation, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not leave it there—but please, will he come and let me know? \p Ayoub Khan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told the House, in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv match, that the risk assessment was based

“in no small part on the risk posed to fans attending to support Maccabi Tel Aviv because they are Israeli and because they are Jewish.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 646.]

However, reports last night revealed that the decision to ban away fans was due to intelligence suggesting that the main threat came from extremist Maccabi Tel Aviv fans themselves, and that they were the likely perpetrators of trouble in Amsterdam last year.

The Ministerial Code requires Ministers to give accurate and truthful information to Parliament. If the Secretary of State had that information before her statement, she must correct the record. Can you ask her to clarify the position, Mr Speaker, and to return to the House immediately if she has breached the code that governs all parliamentarians? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Unfortunately I do not have such powers, although perhaps at times I would welcome them. I will say this, however. I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. Ministers are responsible for their words in the House, and the Ministerial Code is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has certainly put his views on the record, and I am sure that—once again—we will find that those on the Treasury Bench have been listening. \p Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of Prime Minister’s questions, I rushed in while a question was being asked, and I want to apologise. I was rushing in from celebrating Diwali and the new year from my local temple in Willesden. On Monday I was celebrating Diwali and the new year at my local temple in Neasden, the largest mandir in the United Kingdom, and the day before that I was celebrating in Kingsbury. I wish everyone who is celebrating today a happy new year and a happy Diwali. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Let me first say that that is probably the worst point of order I have heard in the form of an apology, but let me also say happy Diwali to all the temples that the hon. Lady has visited. She has certainly put that on the record, but I hope that next time she will wait at the Bar of the House until after the question. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Rachael Maskell, supported by Nadia Whittome, Ian Byrne, Kate Osborne, Richard Burgon, Apsana Begum, Brian Leishman, Imran Hussain, Jon Trickett, Cat Eccles, Mary Kelly Foy and Bell Ribeiro-Addy presented a Bill to give the Monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can be done by the Monarch on their own initiative, following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament, or at the request of the person who holds the title; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 317). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of mental health assessments in NHS antenatal care for the purpose of identifying those at risk of perinatal mental health problems and making referrals to appropriate support; and for connected purposes.

We often assume that pregnancy, birth and the year after birth are a time of life to be happy, celebrating the arrival of a new baby and embarking on a new chapter in family life, and for some people that is how it pans out, but for many the reality is much tougher. I have spoken previously in the House about my brilliant friend Sophie, who took her own life after the birth of her third child, who was just 10 weeks old at the time. That was four years ago, and her death remains a huge sadness in my life and for her family, some of whom are in the Gallery today; but the shock of it still sits with me too.

I did not know—and many of us do not—that suicide is the leading cause of death for a woman in that period from six weeks to a year after giving birth, a statistic recently reconfirmed by the latest report from Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK, known as MBRRACE-UK.

Although Sophie’s death is a particularly serious example, I also did not know of the scale and normality of mental illness at that time in a woman’s life. One in four women experience some sort of mental health difficulties during pregnancy or after giving birth. It can be anything from depression to anxiety to obsessive-compulsive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder, and it can be completely debilitating for mums and their families. The consequences ripple out more widely, too: the London School of Economics and the Centre for Mental Health estimate that untreated perinatal mental illness costs the country more than £8 billion a year, largely through the long-term impact on the child’s health, education and future productivity.

In theory, women are asked about their mental health early in pregnancy. The guidance from NICE—the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—specifies that questions about depression and anxiety should form part of a woman’s first contact with health professionals during pregnancy, including at the booking appointment, but in practice women’s experiences vary enormously. Some are asked a few hurried questions between blood pressure checks, while others are not asked at all. Women with a previous history of mental illness may be given more attention, but we know that pregnancy and early motherhood can often be the first times women experience mental illness, so that is not enough. Some GPs and midwives have the training and time to offer support; others are stretched far beyond capacity. Some have established mental health services to which to refer women; some are almost afraid to ask the right questions, because they do not trust that a referral will kick in.

The result is a postcode lottery, whereby a pregnant woman’s access to mental health support can depend on the NHS trust that she happens to fall under, but it is also a lottery that a woman is more likely to lose if she  is black, Asian, young, or experiencing domestic violence, poverty or other forms of deprivation. As in so many areas of healthcare, pre-existing inequalities correlate with poorer outcomes. That is why this Bill matters: every woman, regardless of age, ethnicity, background or postcode, deserves the same standard of care and the same chance to be mentally well at that time in her life.

We are not starting from scratch. In the 10-year health plan, the Government have set out their determination and their plan to reorient our health system—away from treatment towards prevention, and away from hospitals towards the community. Ensuring that pregnant and new mums are mentally well is one of the ultimate acts of prevention, setting them and their children up for a healthy, productive future.

On mental health specifically, including better support for suicidal people, the Government have also made their commitment very clear, and have matched it with action. In the last year an additional 6,700 mental health professionals have been recruited, and £120 million is being invested in dedicated mental health emergency departments, ensuring that those in crisis can get help quickly. We are rolling out best start family hubs, a transformative initiative that will give families a single route into support services, including mental health services. My Bill builds on those commitments, but it focuses the mental health support at the very start of motherhood, when women need it most.

We are not starting from scratch in our understanding of good practice either. At a roundtable that I convened here in Parliament in September—bringing together NHS England, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, the royal colleges, parents with lived experience and other experts—the message was united and clear: professionals want to help, but they need structure, time, and training to do it properly. The Royal College of Midwives has just published a road map for perinatal mental healthcare, which sets out what this could look like and is well worth a read.

Let me now turn to the detailed proposals in the Bill. It sets out a clear, practical framework for mental health assessments, and it has four core pillars. The first is to ensure that every pregnant woman has a structured, evidence-based and compassionate mental health assessment. While mental health check-ins must continue after the birth of a baby too, the evidence shows that outcomes are better when interventions happen sooner. That is why my Bill will focus on improving support in the antenatal period first. The assessment would form part of routine antenatal care; it would not be an extra. It would use validated tools such as the Whooley questions or the Edinburgh post-natal depression scale, adapted for pregnancy, and it would be rooted in NICE guidance, although that might need updating to ensure that better practice was embedded. Crucially, it would be delivered through trauma-informed conversations, not tick-box exercises. Staff would be trained to create a safe space for disclosure, recognising that women may have histories of trauma that affect their mental health during pregnancy, or may have no history of trauma or mental illness at all.

Secondly, the Bill would improve training and supervision for all professionals involved in maternity care. GPs, midwives, obstetricians, health visitors and community mental health practitioners all need the knowledge and confidence to ask the right questions, to do so  compassionately and to recognise when something is not right. This Bill calls for a national training standard that will be endorsed by NICE and the royal colleges, and delivered across NHS trusts and integrated care boards. It should include regular clinical supervision, so that staff are supported to ask questions and make decisions safely. Importantly, the training must equip professionals to recognise and respond to the specific needs of women from diverse backgrounds—understanding cultural differences in how mental health is expressed and experienced, and addressing the stigma and barriers that prevent some women from seeking help.

Thirdly, this Bill sets out the need for clear referral pathways. Although midwives, GPs and others involved in routine maternity care should be equipped and able to identify mental health risks, they should not also be delivering specialist care when it is needed, so clear referral pathways into specialist mental health services are vital. The Maternal Mental Health Alliance recommends that a specialist perinatal mental health midwife be embedded in every maternity service to ensure that risks are identified and referrals made effectively. The appropriate support will be different for every woman, but one important option is the NHS Talking Therapies programme, to which I know the Government are committed. I have seen in my own constituency of Aylesbury how helpful that can be for women, and I urge NHS Talking Therapies services to consider women in the perinatal period a priority group for support. There are also fantastic voluntary services in communities across the country, such as PANDAS and many of those under the umbrella of the Hearts and Minds Partnership, yet many women are not made aware of them through their routine antenatal care, and they should be.

Fourthly, and finally, this Bill calls for clear accountability to ensure effective delivery of perinatal mental health assessments. NHS England and integrated care boards   would be responsible for ensuring that local maternity systems introduce the single standardised assessment process, but then also, crucially, capture data through the maternity services dataset, allowing outcomes to be tracked. There must also be improved oversight of these services from the Care Quality Commission as part of its maternity inspections.

I hope my Bill’s aims are clear, and I hope that the Government and colleagues in this House will look upon them favourably. I know resources are tight across the NHS, and I know there are particularly acute challenges in many of our mental health and maternity services, including the national shortage of midwives, but I also know how transformative the relatively modest measures in this Bill could be for the women at the heart of the Bill and for our society. I believe that it could have made a difference for Sophie, and it could still make a difference for the many women who are struggling with their mental health now or who will do in future.

Ultimately, this Bill is about more than mental health care for women; it is about the kind of country that we want to be. When parents are mentally well, they thrive, their children thrive and our communities become places not of fear and insecurity, but of hope and opportunity. That is the kind of country that we want to be, and improved perinatal mental health care is such an important part of it. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Laura Kyrke-Smith, Paulette Hamilton, Sojan Joseph, Dr Danny Chambers, Liz Twist, Sarah Hall, Maya Ellis, Jen Craft, Michelle Welsh, Anna Sabine, Lee Pitcher, Dr Simon Opher present the Bill.

Laura Kyrke-Smith accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 316). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Matthew Pennycook: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 19B, 19C and 19D. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree with the Lords in their amendments 39B and 39C. \p Matthew Pennycook: Today is a momentous day, because, subject to agreement from this House, the Renters’ Rights Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988—I was just six years old. In the decades since, England’s private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition. It now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life.

The need to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and, in so doing, level decisively the playing field for landlords and tenants is pressing. That is why we introduced the Bill within months of taking office. We promised that we would succeed where the previous Conservative Government had failed by legislating to transform the experience of private renting. I am delighted that we are now within touching distance of seeing the Bill become law. Before I turn to the final amendments agreed to in the other place, I want to put on the record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding through its House of Lords stages. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, welcome the Bill becoming law. Personally, I wish that it also regulated rent levels, but my question is: how quickly will it become law to protect people? While this Bill has been winding its way through Parliament over the last year, many have faced the appalling situation of no-fault eviction. Many have lost their properties as a result, whereas they would have been protected had the Bill become law more quickly. Can the Minister give me some idea—so that I can give some comfort to my constituents who are facing no-fault eviction—of how quickly they will get protection, and will there be any retrospective element to it? \p Matthew Pennycook: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. We want to provide both renters and landlords with certainty about how the new system will be implemented. I will say a bit more on that in the course of my remarks. \p Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way? \p Matthew Pennycook: I am going to make a bit more progress.

As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments to the Bill on 8 September, although the Government were not prepared to accept amendments that would undermine the core principles of the Bill, we were more than willing to make sensible changes in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised. The changes we are proposing today are firmly within the spirt of that commitment. I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and Lord Young of Cookham, and I thank all the noble Lords involved for their willingness to work collaboratively to strengthen the Bill.

Let me briefly set out the purpose and effect of the amendments in question, beginning with those that relate to shared owners. Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D exempt shared owners from the 12-month “no re-let” period in respect of new mandatory possession ground 1A, which allows a landlord to evict a tenant because they intend to sell their property. The exemption is subject to meeting set criteria, to ensure that shared owners have made a genuine attempt to sell their property. The amendments in question also include a delegated power to remove the exemption in the future—for example, once the building safety programme has been completed. \p Jim Shannon: I welcome what the Minister has proposed. More and more of these issues have come to my attention in my constituency. Tenants then have to find alternative and affordable accommodation that is close to their work and close to their children’s education. I know this legislation applies to England and Wales only—I understand that. But the Minister is a good Minister, and he always shares information on the legislation that is put forward with the regional assemblies—in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will he do me and this House the favour of sharing the legislation with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the good things in the Bill can become good things for us in Northern Ireland as well? \p Matthew Pennycook: The Northern Ireland Assembly can access this legislation online, but I will certainly continue to have conversations with Ministers in all the devolved Administrations about what lessons can be learned from what we have done with this Bill, and about what they can take from it.

I once again commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis, and I thank him for tabling his three amendments in lieu. As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments last month, the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. Many are facing unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distress sale. We also appreciate that it is often harder to secure a purchaser for a shared ownership property, and that the sales of shared ownership flats are more likely to fall through due to the additional constraints involved. As such, we have always accepted that the 12 month no re-let period would have placed many shared owners in an extremely challenging position.

The reason why the Government did not feel able to accept Lord Young’s original Lords amendment 19 was that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happened to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. I am therefore pleased to report to the  House that the amendments in lieu deliver the core aims of that original amendment, while also ensuring that three key safeguards are in place to protect tenants.

First, there is a requirement for the shared owner to have informed the assured subtenant in writing at the outset of the tenancy about the exemption and its possible use. This will ensure tenants are aware of the particular circumstances of the tenancy they are entering into and can make an informed choice about whether they wish to enter into a tenancy agreement with the shared owner in question.

Secondly, shared owners must have informed their provider of their intention to sell before obtaining possession of the property from the tenant. This is an essential first step that all shared owners must take to begin the process of selling their property. I am satisfied that it is a proportionate requirement to evidence that a shared owner is genuinely intending to sell their home.

Thirdly, a valuation must be undertaken on the property by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or the shared owner must have advertised the property for sale. This can be done at any point before a property is re-let, recognising the need for flexibility in how shared owners will approach a sale.

Taken together with the protections that are already in place as a result of registered providers having to authorise sub-letting requests and having oversight of what rent levels can be charged, I am satisfied that these safeguards will reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the risk that an exemption from the 12-month no re-let period might otherwise have posed.

Lords amendments 39B and 39C will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. \p Calum Miller: I thank the Minister for listening to Liberal Democrat colleagues who have made these points, as I have along with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), on previous occasions. It is very good that those living in military service accommodation will now have the opportunity to access the decent homes standard. Could the Minister assure me that he will work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that all service families are aware of the decent homes standard—the standard to which they can hold their accommodation providers—so they can live in better homes in my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock and across the country? \p Matthew Pennycook: We have ongoing dialogue with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about this issue, and if the hon. Member will allow me, I will elaborate on how we think these amendments will work in practice and how they interact with what the Ministry of Defence is itself doing. First, however, I once again thank Baroness Grender, Baroness Thornhill and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for their continued support and advocacy for service personnel and their families.

The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that our armed services personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes.  We remain determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate. Alongside the commitment to drive up standards through a record investment of £1.5 billion in service family accommodation over the next five years, the Government will soon publish a defence housing strategy setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lives of those who serve our country. That standard will be published, so service families will be able to see, judge their accommodation against and interact with this new statutory duty.

As I outlined in the previous debate on Lords amendments, the Government acknowledge the need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that the commitments we have made are honoured. The amendments in lieu will place the commitments I made to this House last month on a statutory basis. The Government believe that this, alongside the wider steps I have already set out, will help ensure service personnel and their families have the quality of homes that they deserve. The amendments also include a delegated power allowing the housing quality standards that SFA is assessed against to be updated when the current version of the decent homes standard is no longer considered appropriate—for example, when it has been replaced by a new modernised standard. The Liberal Democrats have indicated their support for these amendments, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting them.

To conclude, I urge the House to support the amendments put forward by the other place, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p James Cleverly: We are considering the Lords amendments in lieu to the Renters’ Rights Bill, and I begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to improve this legislation, and by thanking their lordships for the constructive way in which they have approached this endeavour.

On the amendments themselves, the issue of shared ownership leaseholders was rightly championed in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Young of Cookham, and I pay tribute to him for his persistence. He made a fair and compelling case for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, may be unable to sell their share and should not be penalised for re-letting in those circumstances. The Government’s acceptance of that principle, although through a modified amendment, is a sensible and pragmatic improvement, which we will therefore support.

On the decent homes standard and the service family accommodation estate, the Government have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the conditions of service family accommodation and provide independent oversight. Our armed forces and their families deserve and need decent, well-maintained homes, and we believe that greater transparency will strengthen service families’ confidence in the system. We support this improvement, and we hope that the Government will look at our policy to create an armed forces housing association that would oversee these changes and address the declining recruitment and retention rates that, sadly, we have seen under this Government.

While we support these improvements, I fear the Bill in its current form will in some areas be counterproductive, and drive landlords from the market as well as putting up rents for tenants. Labour’s own impact assessment for this Bill supports that concern, stating that

“landlords can pass through some, but not all, of their cost increases to their tenants in the form of higher rent”

due to new costs. Under the Bill, all tenancies will continue until either the tenant gives notice or the landlord obtains a court order for possession on specific grounds. The Government have committed to ending section 21 evictions, but they must also ensure matching court reform so that the system works for both tenants and responsible landlords. We need clarity about when and how these changes will be implemented, because uncertainty helps no one. Local councils must have the means to enforce the new rules effectively, and the Government should set out a clear and workable plan to that end.

The Lords amendments represent a sensible set of adjustments that I would say make this Bill slightly more workable, but sufficient challenges remain in how it will operate in practice. We recognise the value of the scrutiny that has taken place in both Houses, and the constructive way that many of the concerns have been addressed, but the uncertainty in this sector is seeing landlords leave the market at an alarming rate. \p Jim McMahon: The shadow Secretary of State knows that I have a great deal of time for him as a person, but he must reflect on how all of his speech is about the rights of the landlord with absolutely nothing about the rights of tenants. In my own constituency, 600 children are in temporary accommodation, having largely been driven out of their private rented accommodation because of no-fault evictions. Does he have anything to say about the rights of tenants? \p James Cleverly: I can only assume that the hon. Member has been asleep through the last couple of paragraphs I have read out, in which I specifically spoke about the rights of tenants in the military estate, for example, so I reject his characterisation of our position. The simple fact is that tenants’ rights are all well and good, but if accommodation for those tenants does not exist, they are no better off.

We have seen an estimated 18% of new homes for sale that were previously in the private rental market estate, and in London that figure is 29%. A reduction in the private rented sector market harms, not helps, people seeking to rent in the private sector. Labour Members will say, “Well, we are going to deliver 1.5 million new houses,” but no one—I doubt even their own Front Benchers—actually believes they have any chance of delivering that figure. The Office for Budget Responsibility certainly does not believe that they have any credible chance of doing it, so the housing and rental situation is likely to get worse.

I confirm that the official Opposition will support the Lords amendments, for the reasons that I have set out. We urge the Government to implement them professionally and swiftly, and to focus on delivering a fair and effective system for tenants, for the landlords that provide accommodation for those tenants, and for the wider housing market. However, there are still a number of flaws in the Bill—it does not do enough to protect  renters or ensure a stable rental market, as it will reduce supply and, perversely, push up rents—which is why, having committed to not opposing the amendments, we will hold the Government to account on the Bill’s consequences. \p Kevin Bonavia: I fully support my hon. Friend the Minister’s motion to agree with Lords amendments 19 and 39, and I thank him for all his work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for piloting this momentous legislation through the House. If I may, I add my own thanks to the noble Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who has been a doughty champion in the other place and, of course, in my constituency of Stevenage.

Some 7,000 households rent privately in Stevenage. They fear their tenancies coming to an end for no good reason. I was knocking on doors in the ward of Roebuck last weekend. A young mother opened her door, and I noticed that the window next to the front door was broken and patched up with a wooden board. I asked whether it was a council property, and she said, “No, I rent privately. He’s a good landlord.” I said, “Okay, so will he fix that window?” She replied, “Oh, no. He has given me this bit of wood. I am a bit worried that if I ask, he will throw me out.” That is what a “good” landlord is assumed to be. It must come to an end.

Renters like that young mother have been waiting 40 years for change. Today, should the House agree, the Bill will go for Royal Assent, and that fear will come to an end, so I support the motion. I thank the Minister. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Gideon Amos: I look forward to Parliament finally passing legislation that will bring long-overdue protections to tenants. We do not believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), that tenants’ rights are “all well and good”. They are not all well and good. No-fault evictions are not all well and good, and the previous Government’s failure to outlaw them is unacceptable. It is a good thing that this legislation will finally change that.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for—and stood on a manifesto that included—ending no-fault evictions of tenants, longer and more stable tenancies, a register of landlords, and decent homes for our forces families. Thanks to the Government agreeing to our proposals, all those things are to become law through the Bill and in MOD service accommodation. For too long, renters across the board have had a bad deal. It is time to redress the balance after years of Conservative government failing to deliver both on no fault evictions and on decent homes for our military families.

I warmly welcome Government amendment 39, which will make service family accommodation subject to the decent homes standard. I am glad that Ministers have listened to the calls from the Liberal Democrats and service families. I thank the Minister for doing the hard yards pragmatically in his negotiations on the Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble Friends Baroness Grender and Baroness Thornhill for their work to secure those important changes. The state of housing that service families have had to endure is a disgrace. The Defence Committee  heard of dire conditions, with pest infestations, black mould, damp, flooding and unreliable heating and hot water in winter. I have heard similar stories and seen the photographs from constituent service families who were forced to live in damp and mouldy accommodation declared unfit for human habitation. Our soldiers, sailors, air force personnel and Royal Marines—such as those who serve in 40 Commando at Norton Manor Camp in my constituency, the Conservative closure of which I began campaigning against in 2017—sacrifice so much for our country. The very least that they deserve is a decent home for them and their family.

This is not an isolated issue. Research we obtained earlier this year found that, on Victory in Europe Day alone, more than 400 service families were forced to apply for emergency repairs. While the country celebrated our veterans, too many forces families were struggling with housing that falls far short of the standards that we rightly expect elsewhere. Their new decent home standard—which comes a year after my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) tried and failed to get the Conservative Government to deliver it, and 18 years after Sir Menzies Campbell began the Liberal Democrat campaign for decent homes for our military—is a matter of fairness, as I hope the House will agree. This is a great first step, and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have had a hand in securing it.

Decent homes for service families should be not just reported on but acted on. Defence Ministers have assured the House that housing standards are on an upward trajectory. We will hold the Government to account on that commitment. Can the Minister give any assurances that resources will be put in place to ensure that that happens? Nobody wants to see an annual report that leads to no progress. I also ask him to ensure that service family accommodation meets the commitments made in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consumer charter—most notably the requirement to complete urgent repairs within a timeline consistent with Awaab’s law. That would ensure that Lords amendment 39 strengthens a Bill that already delivers vital reforms for renters and rightly includes protections for service families. It delivers broader transformation in renters’ rights by ending no-fault evictions, creating more secure tenancies and raising standards across the private rented sector. Amendment 19 would also allow shared owners to re-let if a sale falls through. As such, we support it.

Of course, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need to build a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 per year. This week shows that determination, persistence and principle can deliver real change. Our forces families will now have statutory protections for their homes, tenants across the country will gain greater rights, and every step like this brings us closer to the fairer housing system that we all want. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this change, particularly the forces families who have contacted me. More secure homes are what private renters need, and decent homes are the least our military deserve. \p Helena Dollimore: Let us be clear: the Bill is the biggest uplift to renters’ rights in a generation. It will make a huge difference for  so many people in my constituency. Before I come to the amendments, I place on the record my thanks to the Minister stewarding the Bill through Parliament, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her remarks as a champion of renters and social housing in this country.

I also place on the record my anger that the Bill has taken so long to pass through Parliament. It is an absolute disgrace that it has been slowed down—bogged down in amendments—by the other place, which has delayed these vital rights reaching my constituents. Opposition parties tabled 450 amendments, so our colleagues in the other place had to sit for a very long time to get the Bill through. In that time, my constituents have been stuck in damp and mouldy housing and subject to section 21 evictions, and many children have been growing up in temporary accommodation, because of the delays to the legislation in the other place. Opposition parties whose Lords placed so many amendments should be ashamed for slowing down the legislation.

This House gave the Bill its Third Reading in January. Ten months later, my constituents in Hastings and Rye are still waiting for its vital rights and protections to become law. They are not the only ones waiting: 11 million renters up and down the country need this legislation. It will make a huge difference to their lives, and we are very proud to support it, but in the 10 months that we have been waiting since Third Reading, too many people in my constituency have been stuck in damp and mouldy privately rented housing, without the rights they need. They have been unable to speak up about poor-quality accommodation because of that lack of rights, and because they are worried about being evicted under section 21. It is absolutely right that the Bill extends Awaab’s law and its vital rights to private tenants, so that they can speak up when they are living in damp and mouldy accommodation.

In the last 10 months in my constituency of Hastings and Rye, hundreds of section 21 eviction notices have been issued, and many of those affected have gone on to the homeless register, and have gone to the council for housing help. Indeed, my council tells me that 30% of people in temporary accommodation are there as a result of section 21 evictions. It is shameful that that has been happening in the time it has taken for the Bill to progress.

Lords amendment 19 refers to social housing. It is vital that social tenants, as well as private tenants, get access to good-quality accommodation, and to good-quality repairs, without delay. Just as we are asking private landlords to do more to ensure that their tenants are in good-quality accommodation, it is vital that we continue to ask housing associations to step up and ensure that they are not leaving people in poor-quality accommodation.

I recently visited a new social housing development in my constituency, Holmhurst St Mary, where many social homes have been built that are 100% social rent. It was amazing to speak to residents who have gone from being on the homeless register to having a roof over their head. We need more developments like that, with 100% social rent, and I hope that we will see more. I am really pleased that the Government are putting more money into social housing, because the gratitude and  relief of those residents, who have a roof over their head for the first time, certainly outweighs a lot of the opposition that we see when we seek to build more homes.

Lords amendment 39 refers to improving the standard of armed services accommodation. I fully support the Government’s efforts to improve the standard of that accommodation. It is vital to do more to help veterans. So many come out of the forces only to fall homeless. I really welcome the work that the Labour Government are doing to support veterans and ensure that they do not become homeless. I pay tribute to the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub in my constituency for its work on that issue.

To conclude, my constituents cannot wait any longer for these vital protections. They need a ban on section 21 evictions, they need a right for private renters to speak up against bad landlords, and they need these long-overdue rights granted. My generation in particular, which has been stuck in private rented accommodation for so long, really needs those rights. I fully support the Renters’ Rights Bill. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief, because this is a time-limited debate. I welcome the Bill, although it has deficiencies, because it does not regulate the amount of rent that is charged. In my constituency, a two-bedroom flat in the private rented sector goes for about £2,000 a month, which is way above what most people can afford. There is a desperate need, in inner-city areas in particular, for rent regulation.

I am pleased that we are ending no-fault eviction, but I absolutely agree with the points made by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the extraordinary way in which the Bill has been delayed. Thousands of tenants all over the country have lost a home that the Bill, had it become law, would have prevented them from losing. It is outrageous, the number of people who have become homeless or been forced to move to an even more expensive place. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the no-fault eviction protection will come in immediately when the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that there will be no delay. Some of us are concerned that there has been too long a delay.

There are two quick points that I want to put to the Minister. The Bill requires local authorities to play a much greater role in the private rented sector, but they lack the resources to do that. Is there a guarantee that they will get the resources to ensure proper monitoring of the Bill, and proper support for tenants? In the same vein, the provision of housing advice has disappeared in many parts of the country, so the demand grows on local authorities and organisations such as Citizens Advice for advice for tenants. Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If they are unaware of their rights, they can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—and sadly often are. \p Matthew Pennycook: With the leave of the House, I will close this brief but thoughtful debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time available, I will respond to as many of the issues raised as I can.

Let me start by saying that I welcome the broad support for the Lords amendments expressed by both shadow Front Benchers. In our view, the amendments  are reasonable and proportionate, and respond to legitimate concerns that were raised. They have the safeguards in place that we felt were needed, and we are happy that they are being incorporated into the Bill.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), raised the issue of supply. We acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build-to-rent providers but also landlords of any type, to adjust to this significant change in regulation, but we do not believe that the legislation will have a destabilising effect on the rental market, or a harmful impact on future rental supply, which, it should be noted, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build-to-rent sector.

According to the English housing survey, the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. Landlords have been aware of successive Governments’ plans to reform the sector since 2019. It is worth noting that a study from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence looked at whether regulation of the PRS over the past 25 years, in the UK and internationally, had affected PRS supply. It concluded that there was no evidence to support the assertion that non-price regulation impacts supply. We will, of course, continue to work with landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme, and we will, of course, continue to monitor trends across the PRS, including the supply of properties, to understand how the market is responding to our reforms.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of rent controls. He knows that the Government are opposed to introducing rent controls. As I have made clear on many previous occasions, we do not support them, including rent stabilisation measures, because we believe that they could make life more difficult for private renters, both by incentivising landlords to increase rents routinely to a cap, where they might not otherwise have done so, and by pushing many landlords out of the market, thereby making it even harder for renters to find a home that they can afford.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about implementation. Following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules, and ensure the sector has enough time to prepare. As he is aware, the Bill will ensure that the new tenancy system for the private rented sector is introduced in one stage. At that point, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancy signed off on or after that date will be governed by the new rules.

As I said, I am glad that there is broad support for the Lords amendments relating to shared owners. It is worth saying that the Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have an opportunity to provide the information in question to the tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take the time to get this right, and find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do that using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by clause 147.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), asked about various issues relating to the amendments about service family accommodation. In particular, he asked about investment. As I outlined in my opening speech, the Ministry of Defence has announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in SFA as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years to improving and modernising defence housing. That investment will unlock rapid work to tackle the poor state of forces housing, helping to support recruitment, retention and morale. As I mentioned, the defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, will also set out wider plans to improve service family homes.

It is also worth saying that redress is already available to service personnel, who already have a robust system in place for raising a complaint about the standard of their accommodation and receiving remedy or reimbursement. If not resolved, complaints can be escalated to a service complaint, for which there are further powers of reimbursement, charge reduction and policy redress, and ultimately to the employment tribunal in cases of potential discrimination. \p Sam Carling: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the delays to the Bill. I served on the Bill Committee more than a year ago now, and since then, so many tenants have experienced no-fault evictions. I encourage the Minister to move as quickly as possible to implement the Bill, so that I can tell my constituents how soon their assured shorthold tenancies will become rolling tenancies, and so they can benefit from that as quickly as possible. \p Matthew Pennycook: I thank my hon. Friend for that point well made, which I will respond to directly as I wind up. We know that many tenants out there want the great security, rights and protections afforded by the Bill in place as soon as possible.

We promised in our manifesto to overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and this Bill delivers on that commitment. It will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections, so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of private rented housing, giving renters access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course, and it will allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters. The Bill will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to  their tenants, not only improving the reputation of the sector as a whole, but ensuring that good landlords enjoy simpler regulation and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.

As I have argued many times throughout the passage of the Bill, the current system for private renting is broken. In abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions and modernising the regulation of the sector, the Bill will improve the lives of England’s 11 million private renters. It is a transformational piece of legislation and, if you will allow me a brief personal word, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take great pride in having developed and shepherded it through Parliament.

It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking a number of people. I would like to express my gratitude to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers in the other place who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage; the expertise and insight that have been brought to bear in both Houses have strengthened the Bill in a number of important respects. I particularly want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who was and remains one of the Bill’s biggest supporters. She was instrumental in ensuring that it was introduced so quickly after the formation of the Government.

I also thank all the stakeholders who have worked closely with the Government to ensure that the Bill will work for landlord and tenant alike. I cannot possibly credit them all in the time I have available, but I will put on the record my thanks to Generation Rent, Shelter, Crisis, Citizens Advice and the other members of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, as well as the National Residential Landlords Association, the shared ownership network and Propertymark. I will say a final thanks to all the officials in my Department who have devoted so much time and energy to developing and progressing the Bill, particularly the Bill team, Aidan Hilton, James Kennedy, our lawyers and many more, and my private office, specifically Will Gaby and Grace Doody, who provided me with invaluable support throughout the Bill’s passage.

Completing the Bill’s final stage today is obviously only the beginning; once the Bill becomes law, we need to implement its provisions. In doing so, we will balance the need to act quickly, so that tenants can soon benefit from the new rights and protections introduced by the Bill, with ensuring that the sector has sufficient time to adjust and prepare for a significant change in regulation. The Government understand the need for certainty, and we will set out our implementation plans as soon as possible. I very much look forward to working with hon. and right hon. Members, as well as all stakeholders, as we take forward that progress.

Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D agreed to.

Lords amendments 39B and 39C agreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: If everyone is in their places, in particular Mr Anderson, who seems to have sat on every Bench in the Chamber this afternoon— \p Callum Anderson: Not the Opposition Benches. \p Nusrat Ghani: Well, quite. In that case, I call the Minister to move the motion. Is this your first time at the Dispatch Box, Minister? \p Kanishka Narayan: Not quite. \p Nusrat Ghani: Well, congratulations and welcome. \p Kanishka Narayan: I beg to move,

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake payments, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in excess of £30 million to any successful applicant to the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund, launched on 30 October 2024, up to a cumulative total of £520 million.

Thank you for calling me on this none the less memorable occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is the first occasion on which I seek the Chamber’s authority.

The life sciences sector is a jewel in the crown of our economy—a national asset that plays a unique role in both the health and the wealth of the United Kingdom. The sector drives jobs, investment and innovation right across the country, from cutting-edge research laboratories in Cheshire to—close to my heart—advanced manufacturing sites in south Wales. Life sciences manufacturing is the critical link between our world-class research and real-world patient benefit. It ensures that scientific breakthroughs translate into tangible improvements in care, while underpinning economic growth and strengthening the resilience of our NHS.

Yet despite the UK’s global leadership in many areas of life sciences manufacturing, we must acknowledge that, in recent years, growth in manufacturing sites and jobs has not kept pace with the expansion of the life sciences sector as a whole. That is why this summer the Government published the life sciences sector plan—a comprehensive strategy to ensure growth in all parts of the sector. The plan sets out the UK’s ambition to secure more life sciences foreign direct investment than any other European economy by 2030, behind only the US and China globally by 2035.

Central to that ambition is boosting manufacturing through delivery of the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, one of six headline commitments in the sector plan. Launched last October, the fund demonstrates this Government’s commitment to the continued growth of our life sciences sector, with up to £520 million of funding available to support private sector capital investments until 2030. \p Jim Allister: Northern Ireland has a vibrant life sciences manufacturing sector. I am looking to the Minister for an assurance relating to article 10 of the Windsor framework, which subjects Northern Ireland to EU state aid rules. Can the Minister assure us that there is no impediment arising therein that would impede successful applications to the fund from Northern Ireland manufacturers? That could also have a knock-on effect on GB, because if the goods produced are transported to Northern Ireland, they, too, come under the state aid rules. Has the Department examined that? What assurance can the Government give us on the protection against EU state aid rules for the fund? \p Kanishka Narayan: The talent and ability of people in Northern Ireland are very much at the forefront of our minds, and we want to ensure that everything we are doing to support the life sciences sector is taking a whole-UK approach. I am very happy to write to the hon. and learned Member on his questions about Northern Irish eligibility. \p Robin Swann: Will the Minister give way? \p Kanishka Narayan: I will make some progress for now.

The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund directly supports two of the Government’s key missions: to kick-start economic growth and to build an NHS fit for the future. The scheme is projected to attract nearly £4 billion in private investment, creating more than 7,000 jobs and safeguarding more than 5,000 existing ones.

However, the scheme’s impact is not just economic. The pandemic proved that we cannot take our critical supply chains for granted, and supporting the onshoring of life sciences manufacturing through the fund is therefore critical to strengthening our national resilience and preparedness for future health emergencies. \p Robin Swann: Will the Minister give way? \p Kanishka Narayan: I will make some progress.

This week we announced the first two grant awards through the scheme, marking a major milestone in the fund’s roll-out. This will unlock substantial private investment, showcasing the UK’s appeal to valuable, globally mobile life sciences manufacturers. As delivery of the scheme progresses, we expect to announce more grant winners in the coming months. Each project supported through the grant will further strengthen health resilience and drive economic growth across all nations and regions in the UK. \p James Wild: Since the Minister has been talking about taxpayers’ money, I would be grateful if he could let us know what the minimum leverage is. For every pound of taxpayers’ money put in, what is the minimum that has to be put in by the private sector? \p Kanishka Narayan: My understanding is that these are grant capital investments that the Government will be making, and I am sure we will be looking at the leverage at a whole-fund level. If there are particular  requirements at an individual investment level, I am happy to write to the hon. Member on that particular point. \p Robin Swann: Will the Minister give way? \p Kanishka Narayan: I feel that, out of parity, I must give way to the hon. Member too. \p Robin Swann: Third time lucky. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the fund for life sciences with regard to the companies we have in North Antrim and South Antrim. Could the Minister also ensure that any research and development tax credits that companies can apply for are fully supported, utilised and brought forward at speed so that companies are able to utilise not just the fund but the tax credits that come through R&D as well? \p Kanishka Narayan: I thank the hon. Member for his important point. I am happy to take a full look at the R&D tax credit system and how it will support our ambitions to back our private sector partners in both R&D and subsequent commercialisation.

The Government are clear that the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is a strategic investment in our future. It is a vital step in delivering the Government’s commitment to supporting the UK’s life sciences sector and ensuring that our country remains at the forefront of the sector. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Julia Lopez: I thank the Minister for his statement—or perhaps I should call him October’s cover star for The House magazine.

The Conservatives back today’s motion on the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. It is a no-brainer, because the fund was established by us in government when my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) made £520 million available for life sciences manufacturing over five years—from 2025 to 2030. Funnily enough, it is the exact same amount that is being reheated today.

That fund built on a series of smaller, highly successful interventions that managed to attract £850 million of private investment for the £64 million of taxpayers’ money that we deployed. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry called the fund a step change in ambition and something that would strengthen our manufacturing base, addressing the weaknesses we saw during the pandemic in our supply chains. It was good for jobs, for health security, for our life sciences and for Britain. So yes, we support this fund because we designed it.

Let us be clear about what is happening here. The Minister is simply uprating for inflation the threshold at which payments must be approved by Parliament. That is fine and all very sensible, but what it is not is anything new. It is not new money. It is not Labour innovation or a sign that this Government are suddenly getting really serious about growth, and it is not the route to dealing with the crisis facing life sciences right now. It is what we were doing but in different wrapping paper. They have plonked a bow on it and called it a new strategy.

Let me tell you what I reckon has happened here, Madam Deputy Speaker. An edict has gone bouncing around Whitehall from the Treasury and No. 10 as the November Budget disaster looms, saying: “We need some growth announcements. Departments, please feed the comms grid. We need to give the markets and the OBR some confidence that we are serious about growth.” It is worth reminding the House what happened yesterday. UK Government borrowing figures in September hit the highest level for the month in five years. This is truly terrifying stuff.

I think the Secretary of State has gone and asked her officials, “What have we got in the cupboard to announce?”, and they have said, “Minister, we have a statutory instrument to table at some point. Do you want us to shove a bit of lipstick on it?” We have the spectacle of Ministers coming to the Chamber to tell us that a humble statutory instrument to uprate for inflation something already in the pipeline is a grand plan. In no way at all does it shift the dial on life sciences, because it is already baked in.

This is not a Government who are serious about growth. Let us look at what happened to the life sciences manufacturing fund when Labour took office. In early 2024 we used it to negotiate a £450 million vaccine manufacturing investment by AstraZeneca in Speke, Liverpool. That meant real jobs, real regional investment and greater resilience for our country. After that, AstraZeneca announced another £200 million investment in Cambridge, which meant 1,000 jobs. To drive that investment and growth, we also delivered one of the most competitive business tax regimes through policies such as full expensing.

Then the general election happened and our new Chancellor, in her infinite wisdom, put a pause on that investment—supposedly to get better value for money and fill the fantasy £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We all know what happened next. AstraZeneca pulled the £450 million investment, despite issuing private warnings to the Government that it needed certainty for business planning. But do not just take my word for it. When announcing Speke’s culling, AstraZeneca said that

“the timing and reduction of the final offer compared to the previous Government’s proposal”

was critical to losing that £450 million investment.

What else has happened since Labour took office? AstraZeneca paused the £200 million Cambridge investment. We lost Merck’s £1 billion King’s Cross R&D hub, which was cancelled after eight years in development. That is £1 billion, and the Secretary of State had nothing to say about it—diddly squat. Eli Lilly has put its £279 million research incubator in London on hold. Sanofi has said that it will not consider “any substantial investment” in UK R&D under current conditions. In fact, industry has warned that the UK is becoming uninvestable for the life sciences.

Does the Minister know how many meetings the Secretary of State has had with life sciences companies in the past month? As I understand it, the answer is very few. What has she been doing to rally colleagues across Government and make clear to the Chancellor, the Health Secretary and Prime Minister the scale of the peril? I have been looking at her statements, and it is not at all clear to me that she has been doing anything.

The fund, which we support, is a capital manufacturing fund. It helps de-risk certain projects and reduces borrowing for companies, but it does not fix the fundamental problem of the commercial environment for medicines in the UK. We all know that Labour has made the commercial environment worse in many ways, such as through national insurance rises and other tax increases, and that has also made successful people not want to base themselves here.

There are also long-standing issues that need fixing here, including drug pricing and the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—VPAG—rebate, which risks becoming a tax on innovation. But the Labour Government have screwed the public finances so badly that they have nowhere to go on these issues, not least because the NHS has had to spend a large chunk of the money that the Government have taken from our constituents. They took a lot of money from our constituents and told us that it would make this big difference to the NHS, but the money went on wage deals in the NHS and national insurance rises. [Interruption.] Labour likes to talk about the tough choices it has made to the NHS, but I would ask Government Members to ask their constituents whether they are really seeing a tangible difference in the NHS. The Government have taken a hell of a lot of money from everybody and it is not working.

Normally I would be glad for the ability of the NHS to use its collective bargaining power to keep drug prices low, but there is now a real risk that life sciences companies will not be bringing new medicines to market in our country. That means my constituents and your constituents not getting cutting-edge treatments. It means pain, heartache and ill health, and it means that the life sciences industry that has served us so well is ebbing away and taking the high-quality, high-value jobs with them. This is a crisis. I must ask the Minister: can this fund succeed when the wider tax environment stands as is?

The issue of medicine pricing is fast coming to a head as President Trump plays hardball on drug costs. The US Administration have alighted on the UK’s low drug prices and are using them as a bargaining tool against the threat of tariffs. This Government have boasted of their special relationship with the US, and we have had endless excruciating shots of the Prime Minister prostrating himself before the President. Can the Minister tell us how that relationship is benefiting the life sciences, because I cannot see it for myself?

Can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State is aware that it looks as though His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has decided that companies providing medicines for clinical trials or compassionate use under the early access to medicines scheme should now be billed for VAT? That is a tax on medicines that are being provided for free. Apparently, one company has already received a bill and more are on their way for others. This could affect trials and people’s access to medicine. Will the Minister please commit to looking into that urgently as Labour scrabbles around for more revenue? Will he also ask HMRC to publish guidance confirming that in fact the early access to medicines scheme falls outside the VAT deemed supply rules?

Will the Minister tell us how much of the £520 million has been spent to date? What is the current investment pipeline? How does it compare to the one he inherited?  Will he update the House on the current state of negotiations between industry and Government on the VPAG scheme and medicine pricing, and with the US on tariffs? What conversations—if the Minister knows—has the Secretary of State had personally with the Health Secretary and the Chancellor on these issues? This is an extremely perilous situation for our life sciences firms and for patients’ access to new drugs.

Britain’s life sciences sector is worth over £100 billion to our economy and supports about 300,000 jobs. It is massive. It is one of our defining national strengths: a source of innovation, prosperity and national pride. Of course, it is also the key to better health for our constituents and people across the world. The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund remains a Conservative achievement, but unless the Government act swiftly to restore competitiveness and rebuild investor confidence, we risk losing our place at the forefront of global life sciences. I am afraid that no amount of rebadging, repackaging or recycled announcements will change that. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. A tip for Members: if the word “you” or “your” is in your speech, just cross it out. You are speaking through the Chair. I cannot repeat myself day in, day out.

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. \p Chi Onwurah: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak to you on this occasion to welcome the ambition behind the life sciences innovation manufacturing fund and, indeed, the Government’s positive support for life sciences, with their belief that Government can act to support industry in general; it is not simply a matter of getting out of the way. That is in sharp contrast to the last Conservative Government’s approach to industry, allowing a gentle decline and deindustrialisation in our nation. To be fair, the series of Conservative Governments chopped and changed their approach to industrial strategy so often it was difficult to know exactly where they stood. Unlike them, Labour is committed to the life sciences sector.

Labour published its plan for life sciences in opposition, which included 10-year funding commitments for key research bodies aimed at putting an end to the short-termism that undermines economic growth and scientific success. Now in government, I welcome Labour’s commitment to the life sciences sector plan—developed in close co-ordination with the Government’s 10-year health plan—which aims to support cutting-edge research and turn that into real-world results, with new treatments, faster diagnoses and more lives saved. It is about making sure that breakthroughs happen here in this country, creating jobs, improving lives in every part of the country and driving growth.

As the Minister said, the life sciences are a strength of our country—they are often described as a jewel in the crown of the British economy—and we all know that  success in life sciences leads to positive, wide-reaching benefits across the country for the economy and our health. \p Sorcha Eastwood: You mentioned the sector’s relevance and benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom. Would you agree that Northern Ireland has a rich manufacturing and life sciences heritage and that we have a huge role to play? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Ms Eastwood, it was only at the start of the week that I had to reprimand you twice for using the word “you”, and it has come up twice again. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I apologise. \p Chi Onwurah: Let me thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which pre-empts something I will say in a few minutes. She is absolutely right: Northern Ireland already plays an important role in the life sciences sector and life sciences manufacturing, and it will have an important role to play in the future.

It is an incredibly exciting time to be involved in life sciences. I often think that if I were a young engineer now—I studied electrical engineering—I would be fascinated by the life sciences and, in particular, synthetic biology, which offers so many potential opportunities for growth and wellbeing. It is an enabling technology across so many different sectors.

In Newcastle, including in my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, the life sciences contribute £1.7 billion and employ over 8,000 people across more than 200 companies. We are home to the National Innovation Centre for Ageing, Newcastle Helix and The Biosphere. Our city is one star in a constellation of excellent life sciences clusters across the north of England.

I really welcome the ambition of the innovation manufacturing fund. I ask the Minister in his response for more clarity in three particular areas. First, in regard to the size of the fund, in the face of increased competition, and as the shadow Secretary of State described—this will be in less sensationalist terms—we are seeing some reduction in investment in the UK. Is £520 million enough to ensure that the UK is an attractive prospect for internationally mobile businesses? By contrast, a manufacturing plant such as Moderna’s recently opened vaccine centre in Oxfordshire might cost in the region of £150 million to £200 million. Is the fund the right size?

Secondly, the Select Committee recently held a one-off session on life sciences investment, which was of such interest that we have decided to hold another one-off session next week on the same subject. We heard evidence from the pharma sector, including significant support for the life sciences sector plan and for the Government’s approach, but I think it is fair to say that we were told that, although NHS pricing is not the only factor in investment decisions, it is a significant one. We heard evidence that the UK spends less proportionately on medicines than other comparable countries and that that reduces the pull-through for innovative medicines. It would clearly be a difficult decision to spend more on medicines, as that would mean spending less elsewhere in our NHS.

Does the Minister see the manufacturing fund as support in some way for investment decisions in the absence of progress on the NHS pricing discussions? Could he tell us whether the Secretary of State is involved in discussions between the Health Secretary and the pharma sector with regard to NHS pricing? I understand that discussions are ongoing, and I see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), conferring with him. Perhaps he can confirm that those discussions are ongoing. \p Lincoln Jopp: When the Committee held its one-off session on investment in life sciences, did it unearth the reasons why Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Merck have recently chosen to disinvest in life sciences in the UK? \p Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The Committee’s work is fascinating, so I certainly recommend he read the transcript. To summarise, we were looking specifically at the reasons for investment being pulled and, as I said, we asked the question in a number of different ways. The message that came back was significant support for the life sciences sector plan and the Government approach, but lack of certainty and clarity over NHS pricing and dismay about some aspects of NHS pricing and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decisions. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to point out that there was concern over the current and likely future pricing of innovative medicines, but that was not the only factor in those investment decisions. I ask the Minister to give us an update on those negotiations to the extent that he is able to do so, and to say whether this manufacturing fund is seen as potential compensation for investment in medicines and pricing as part of the NHS future plan. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making some interesting points about investment decisions. Has her Committee also investigated why some decisions have been made to bring investment into the UK, such as the recent decision about investment in Oxfordshire? As part of that, is there a parallel need to explore where more could be done to attract further investment through perhaps greater supply of trained workers, better transport, better access to land for development, and so on? \p Chi Onwurah: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My Committee has looked at some of the reasons for investments, such as those he sets out, and it is worth emphasising the strengths of the UK, some of which I have mentioned. We have a really strong life sciences sector, and specifically skills at every stage in the UK life sciences ecosystem, together with R&D tax credits, which is another point of incentivisation, and the fact that our NHS offers a fantastic opportunity to test and trial new medicines with a population that is heterogeneous and with population data records that are second to none. So there are many reasons why pharma and life sciences companies are continuing to invest in our country, and we have a fantastic ecosystem of life sciences start-ups and scale-ups.

That brings me to the final question I want to put to the Minister, which is on the regional impact of the fund. The Minister mentioned on a number of occasions that the fund will drive investment and growth across  our country. As part of the Committee’s inquiry into innovation and regional growth, we heard of significant disparities in investment, particularly in access to capital and research funding from UK Research and Innovation and in funding and investment between the regions of our country and the greater south-east, otherwise known as the golden triangle. Manufacturing is well distributed across the United Kingdom; we heard earlier about the opportunities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a regional dimension to how the funds are disbursed? I hope that the extent to which the funds are regionally distributed will be monitored, but does he expect that this funding will be distributed across the country to drive growth in every corner of the country as he said, and that it will not perpetuate existing regional inequalities? \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Pippa Heylings: It is my huge privilege to be the MP for South Cambridgeshire, which is home to Europe’s largest biomedical campus and the UK’s world-leading tech and life sciences sectors, and one of the largest contributors to the UK economy.

The Liberal Democrats have long recognised that strategic investment in life sciences manufacturing is essential to our economic future and our national health security. Central to the delivery of the life sciences sector plan as part of the wider new industrial strategy, the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is welcome and exactly the kind of targeted intervention the research and development sector has needed for a long time. While boosting economic opportunity, the fund also aims to increase the UK’s health resilience and ability to withstand and recover from health emergencies such as pandemics, long-term healthcare challenges and system shocks such as supply shock disruption. \p Steffan Aquarone: Scientists at the Norwich research park and Quadram Institute are doing incredible work in the field of agri-science, which could transform the future of food for the better; in fact, the Quadram Institute will be visiting Parliament and briefing MPs during evidence week next month about this work. This research is perfectly located to create jobs in my constituency, both directly and in the supply chain. Does my hon. Friend agree that investment in exciting life sciences projects such as those in North Norfolk is particularly crucial to unlocking growth in the rural economy? \p Pippa Heylings: Absolutely. Investment in the life science sector in the rural economy is critical, and that is why we are concerned that this motion comes at a time when our life science sector is in crisis—and, frankly, I am not hearing yet from the Minister that the Government are grasping the scale of the crisis. I have heard consistent concerns from the life science sector about this, with Novartis saying that the UK is becoming “largely uninvestable”. We have seen signs of this, and heard of it today, with the loss of planned investment by Merck MSD in life science and vaccination manufacturing facilities to the tune of £1 billion and also £450 million-worth of investment by AstraZeneca. That comes on top of AstraZeneca pausing the planned  £200 million expansion of its research centre in my constituency. This is obviously ringing alarm bells across the Chamber.

Additionally, in a report by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, “Delivering a voluntary scheme for health and growth”, life science leaders are warning that the Government growth plan will not succeed unless Ministers commit to fixing a scheme known as VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—which unexpectedly now requires companies to pay record clawback rates of up to a quarter or even a third of their revenue from sales of branded medicines to the NHS.

The Liberal Democrats would commit to raising R&D spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2034, a decade-long commitment that gives businesses the certainty they are asking for. We would introduce proof of concept funding to help researchers develop their early-stage ideas and empower local authorities to develop regional spin-out ecosystems so innovation can drive growth and high paying jobs right across the country, as well as where I am in my constituency in the golden triangle. I therefore ask the Minister to set out, in addition to this much-awaited manufacturing fund, the status of the last-minute negotiations with companies and their investments, such as AstraZeneca and Merck MSD, and also what the Government are doing particularly on VPAG to restore confidence to pharmaceutical companies that the UK is a competitive place, attractive to investment, that values research, development and manufacturing. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I will try to get my words correct this time, Madam Deputy Speaker—the second time.

I simply want to say, Minister, that I really do believe that we in Northern Ireland have a huge role to play—not just in Northern Ireland, but across the UK—for many, many reasons. Other Members have mentioned a number of things including R&D tax credits and the skills ecosystem, which is really relevant to all this. I am perfectly well aware that we in Northern Ireland are obviously part of a devolved settlement, but there is an opportunity to re-engage how we drive forward opportunities for skilling people for these sectors through the likes of apprenticeships and how we interface with businesses.

This might sound a bit left-field, but I genuinely believe that this sector is hugely significant in terms of national resilience, national security and national propriety of our own intellectual property within the UK. This is a huge sector and it has the potential to make sure that we are self-sustaining and that we also work with companies over a long and sustained period of time to ensure that, in an era of antimicrobial resistance for example, we have the tools at our disposal should—God forbid—anything ever come down the tracks again in terms of pandemics or challenges to our supply chain.

I know that that was probably a lot to take in. I just reiterate our potential in Northern Ireland. We have a huge heritage that goes back decades and we stand ready. Others have mentioned the headwinds coming down the line, not just in the UK but as we try and navigate our way through this global turmoil of tariffs and trade and what that means. We now have a golden opportunity to get this right. \p Nusrat Ghani: Wonderfully done. I call Minister Narayan. \p Kanishka Narayan: I want to be in your good books, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will proceed at pace in answering some of the questions raised.

I first thank the Members on the shadow Front Benches and in particular the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). I was sad that her generous welcome to me was not extended to this particular announcement. In particular, I was sad that she did not welcome the fact that out of their Tory fiscal wreckage we have managed to get £520 million for the British life sciences sector, that out of the economic damage they did to this country we have still managed to secure over £1 billion in investment from Moderna in the British life sciences sector, and that out of what we inherited from the Tory context we have managed to secure over £1 billion from BioNTech. Right across the board, there is a picture of stability, good jobs in the life sciences and broader technology sectors, optimism and, above all, an energy shared across Government, the private sector and academia. \p Lincoln Jopp: Will the Minister give way? \p Kanishka Narayan: I must proceed because, as I said, I need to be in Madam Deputy Speaker’s good books.

A particular concern has been raised about VPAG, another part of a longer-standing legacy from a Tory Chancellor’s austerity rampage for the life sciences sector in this country. The Government’s position is very clear: we will always put patients and taxpayers first. This Government are open to working collaboratively with the pharmaceutical industry, which is exactly why we have put forward a generous and unprecedented offer worth approximately £1 billion over three years as part of a review of VPAG, which ultimately industry did not take a vote on.

We remain confident in the life sciences as a driver of both economic growth and better health outcomes and our door remains open to future engagement. I know that regular conversations go on and while I will not update Members on the shadow Front Benches on every single meeting the Secretary of State takes, I can assure them that she is involved in both the particular conversations around VPAG and more general engagement with the life sciences sector.

I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), whose depth of experience in engineering prior to this House and extensive experience in this House, in particular through leadership of the Science and Technology Committee, is one that I take considerable inspiration from. \p Lincoln Jopp: Will the Minister give way? \p Kanishka Narayan: I will make some progress for now. My hon. Friend raised a particular point around synthetic biology, which is very close to my heart because I think that Britain has a particular opportunity in the convergence of engineering, AI and life sciences, and we are keen on seizing that to its fullest extent.

On the three particular questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, foremost of which was about the size of the funding available, I will say a couple of things: first, that this is the largest fund of this nature announced in the history of the UK Government, to my understanding, with capital grants worth £520 million altogether; and secondly, that it is but one part of the overall funding package across Government if one considers the investments across Innovate UK, UKRI, the British Business Bank and beyond. I hope that some of the assurances around VPAG have answered the particular question posed there, and on regional impact, I point out that the first two grants from the scheme were made out to firms in Birmingham and Keele. I hope that is a starting indicator of my long-term hope; we will certainly monitor it. \p Lincoln Jopp: On that, will he give way? \p Kanishka Narayan: I am afraid I will not; I believe I have been relatively generous in welcoming contributions from across the House. On the point of regional impact, in addition to the midlands, may I join the shadow Front Benchers in welcoming—they do so with laughter and amusement—the collective efforts of our entire Northern Irish contingent? I will take away the strong point about Northern Ireland’s strengths in the life sciences sector; it will be embedded on my mind.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for South Cambridgeshire for talking about investments. The only thing I will say on some of the announcements is that they have to be taken in the context of the wider global context for those firms, MSD in particular. \p Lincoln Jopp: On the point of global context, will he give way? \p Kanishka Narayan: If the Member listens, he may feel that his point is addressed in my claims. In at least one of those cases, a pause, rather than a cancellation, was announced and in the other, there have been a series of announcements globally regarding thousands of jobs, not only in the UK but beyond. As I said, I hope that the two announcements I mentioned, by Moderna and BioNTech, will give us some assurance that the life sciences sector in the British context is firing on all cylinders with Government support.

Finally, I note with thanks the important point on national security and IP made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). It is top of mind for me in ensuring that we are not just powering economic growth and not just jobs and good health for people across this country, but doing the first job of Government to protect our national security.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake payments, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in excess of £30 million to any successful applicant to the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund, launched on 30 October 2024, up to a cumulative total of £520 million. \p Zubir Ahmed: I beg to move,

That the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.

I am here on behalf of the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). It is an honour to represent the Government as we bring forward this important secondary legislation, and it is right that it should be given the full scrutiny of the House today.

Slavery is one of the greatest evils in human history. This Government cannot and will not accept that we could be supporting forced labour or human trafficking through our supply chains, however inadvertently. Before I continue, I acknowledge the cross-party support on this issue, both in this House and in the other place. I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers of the realm, such as Lord Alton, who have worked tirelessly to put modern slavery at the forefront of our national conversation.

I begin by setting out why we need the regulations. Many people are taken aback when they are told that there are more enslaved people now, in absolute terms, than at any point in human history. It is estimated that around 50 million people worldwide are living in some form of modern slavery. Globalisation has provided near-limitless opportunities for trade in goods and services, but also, unfortunately, in human beings. Though we on these isles would like to think that we are insulated from the highways of human trafficking, we are not.

In late 2023, the previous Government published a review into NHS supply chains that covered 60% of medical consumables. It accounted for £7 billion of spend across 1,300 suppliers, representing 600,000 products, and a fifth of those suppliers were deemed to be high risk. Imagine my horror when I read that some of the tools of my trade—surgical instruments, facemasks—could be contaminated by modern slavery. As someone who still practises as a surgeon, I know that I share that revulsion with my colleagues across the national health service. I ask my colleagues in this place to keep all our NHS staff in mind over the course of our proceedings.

The review also recognised the wider benefits to the NHS of a better understanding of how our supply chains work, noting how we could improve the quality of products supplied and the resilience of supply. It gave us clear recommendations for us to act on and today I am proud to come to the House with landmark modern slavery legislation to put those policies into practice. This is a first on these isles and I sincerely hope that our colleagues across the devolved Governments can follow suit soon.

I now turn to what the regulations will do. The NHS is one of the largest public sector procurers in the world, with an annual spend of £35 billion, doing business with over 80,000 suppliers. We have a duty to ensure that no products we procure could be tainted by forced labour, and an opportunity to use our immense purchasing power for global good.

The regulations we bring forward today will require all public bodies to assess modern slavery risks in their supply chains when procuring goods and services for the health service in England. They give effect to a duty established by the Health and Care Act 2022, which requires the Secretary of State to eradicate modern slavery wherever it is found in NHS procurement processes. We are asking public bodies to take reasonable steps to address and eliminate modern slavery risks, especially when designing procurement procedures, awarding and managing contracts and setting up frameworks or dynamic markets.

Reasonable steps may include enforcing robust conditions of participation in our supply chains, with assessment criteria built into every stage of that process. They may include monitoring suppliers’ compliance and reassessing risk throughout the lifetime of a contract. They can also include writing terms that require immediate mitigation where instances of modern slavery are discovered. The regulations will also require public bodies to have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Care or NHS England for consistency and accountability across the system. The updated version of the guidance has now been published by NHS England and is publicly available.

Colleagues might be worried about legislative overlap. They might ask themselves why we need new regulations when modern slavery is already illegal, but these regulations have been carefully drafted to fit with existing statute, and I can assure the House that contradictory duties have been avoided. We are building on existing measures, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023, not replacing them. We are bringing all NHS England’s procurement into scope and creating a stronger legislative footing for enforcement. The point is to introduce a single, enforceable risk management approach to modern slavery across the NHS, and we will continue to review our arrangements to ensure that they remain effective for years to come.

I do not pretend that this will be easy. If there was a button somewhere in Whitehall or inside the national health service that could eliminate modern slavery at a stroke, I do not doubt that all of us would push it, but our supply chains are vast, making it difficult to fully assess the scale. Although the 2023 review was just a snapshot in time, it is likely that more than a fifth of our supply chains are still at high risk of modern slavery. Items include cotton-based products, surgical instruments and PPE gloves—all products that are vital for the day-to-day functioning of hospitals and clinics up and down the country. That is why we will back NHS organisations with clear guidance and support to root out the scourge of modern slavery wherever we find it.

There is an argument that we could procure these items on the cheap if we could just turn a blind eye, but that way of thinking is abhorrent and fundamentally un-British. We cannot simply weigh such things on the scale of a tradesman behind a counter, and we must remember our historical responsibility in eliminating slavery wherever we find it. But even if we could do that, ethical supply chains have been proven to be cost effective in the long term. There is a strong case that they help to avoid litigation and, more important, supplier collapse. Even if that were not the case, I know the will of the British people, and I have not a shred of doubt that decent people across our country will not think  modern slavery a price tag worth paying. This place, the mother of Parliaments, is here to answer a call today and to send a message to all enslaved people across the world: what is happening to you is unjust, but we have not forgotten, and we will do our utmost to ensure that our money does not go to those that exploit you and keep you in chains. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), for bringing forward the regulations and welcome him to his place at the Dispatch Box.

This important issue goes to the very heart of the values that underpin our national health service. It is a vast organisation—one of the largest in the world—with supply chains that reach across many sectors and many countries. With that scale comes a responsibility to ensure that the products and services we rely on to care for patients are sourced ethically, and that the health service does not, even inadvertently, contribute to exploitation or modern slavery.

As an NHS consultant, I know that the idea that any item used in the care of patients, from surgical gloves to hospital linen, could have been produced through exploitation or forced labour is abhorrent to all of us. These regulations seek to strengthen the NHS’s ability to identify, prevent and address such risks—an ambition that I am sure commands support right across the House. Indeed, this work began under the last Conservative Government. The Health and Care Act 2022 passed new regulations to address the risk of modern slavery in NHS supply chains, and in December 2023 we delivered a review into those risks, supported by NHS England, which examined where the greatest risks lay and how they could be mitigated. Although we welcome the direction of travel, there are, however, some important questions about how the regulations will work in practice and how we will ensure that the regulations deliver what is intended in a fair way.

First, what demands do we expect that the regulations will place on the NHS? They apply to all public bodies procuring goods and services for the NHS in England, including NHS England, hospital trusts and integrated care boards. Will each organisation have to make its own separate risk assessment? Has an estimation been made of the time that that is expected to take? How many people are expected to be required for organisations to fulfil the requirement, and what will be the associated cost? Will any mechanisms be put in place to prevent duplication, for example, where suppliers are already reporting under the Modern Slavery Act 2015?

Secondly, I turn to implementation and support. Regulations are not enough on their own; they must be embedded in practice. What steps will NHS England take to support procurement teams in applying these rules consistently and effectively and in maintaining the  same standards across all the public sector bodies that are covered by these regulations? The regulations require NHS England to issue guidance, which is welcome, but how comprehensive will that guidance be? With NHS England being abolished, who will produce it? Will there be accompanying training and practical support for procurement teams to ensure consistency across the system? What will happen to a supplier if they are found to be non-compliant? Will the consequences be decided by NHS England centrally, or by individual trusts or ICBs? Will there be independent oversight to assess progress? With all the churn in NHS England and ICBs and the cuts to their budgets, how will they have the time and space to do that?

Next, I turn to the impact on business. The NHS relies on a wide range of suppliers, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses that bring innovation, flexibility and local expertise. Can the Minister confirm that the new requirements will not place undue burdens on suppliers or deter small businesses from bidding for NHS contracts? We must uphold the highest ethical standards, but we must also avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy that excludes capable businesses from contributing to patient care.

Finally, I turn to the issue of co-ordination across Government. Many NHS goods are sourced internationally from complex and often opaque global supply chains. It is crucial, therefore, that our framework aligns with the broader cross-Government effort to tackle modern slavery, including at the Home Office and the Foreign Office. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how those links are maintained in practice.

The question of co-ordination is not new. During the passage of the Great British Energy Act 2025, an amendment was introduced in the Lords to stop GB Energy from sourcing panels linked to forced labour. The Government’s initial position was that existing laws already addressed that risk, but later down the road, the Government heeded those calls by introducing their own amendment to block GB Energy from using slavery-linked solar. That episode shows how important it is to have clear and joined-up action across Government when addressing the risks of modern slavery.

The NHS should be a beacon of integrity as well as excellence. Patients and the public rightly expect that the care provided in our hospitals is not, however indirectly, tainted by the exploitation of others. The regulations are a step forward in ensuring that our health service lives up to that ideal. We welcome the intent and the ambition behind the regulations, but we will continue to push to ensure that they work in practice and without unintended consequences. \p Zubir Ahmed: I am grateful for the comments of the Opposition health spokesperson. Proportionality is the theme of the day when it comes to anything that we implement in the NHS at a global scale. The appropriate training will be provided. As the hon. Lady well knows from her time in government, conversations across Departments, particularly on these issues, are always ongoing. We are always willing and able to flex as we learn and as we feel our way through these regulations. The hon. Lady will recognise their importance and primacy when engaging in supplier contract negotiations, and therefore businesses both small and large can feel  confident that, if they follow ethical procurement practices, their business is most welcome in the national health service.

I want to end by reminding colleagues that these regulations are not just about what we can do on these isles but what we can do to eliminate modern slavery across the globe. NHS England is one of the biggest buying organisations in the UK. We have a golden opportunity at the moment to leverage its purchasing power to influence supply chains not only in the UK and Europe but right across the world. Today, Parliament can send a clear signal to the world that we will not tolerate human rights abuses and that, if a company wants to do business with the NHS, they must get their house in order. Under this Government, there will be no compromise with the evil of slavery. I ask colleagues from all sides to help us to keep that promise, to back our NHS and its staff and to help us to keep this country’s conscience clean. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved. \p Jamie Stone: I beg to move,

That this House has considered devolution in Scotland.

I am jolly glad I came to the Chamber when I did. [Laughter.]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for recognising that it is a debate that holds great significance for the whole House. I thank those Members who supported my application to the Committee for the debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who chairs the Scottish Affairs Committee and who has been a personal friend of mine since our time together in the Scottish Parliament.

I begin by making no secret of the fact that I lead this debate as someone who believes in the strength of our family of nations and that we can make people’s lives better through co-operation and partnership by pooling and sharing resources. I believe that my credentials as one of the first of my party’s Members of the Scottish Parliament and now as a Scottish Member of the UK Parliament make it clear that I am a devolutionist to my core, one who will always believe in the value of the Scottish Parliament and its potential to work best for the people of Scotland when it works constructively alongside Westminster. I will not have it said here today, or anywhere or ever, that I am against devolution—I am not. I truly believe in it and also know that the Scottish Parliament is comparatively young, hence why I am here today, initiating what I hope will be a civil and valuable discussion into the successes and failures so far of our system of what one might term “multi-level governance”.

I am proud to have been a founding member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention responsible for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I am proud to say in my own way that my name is on the historic claim of right for Scotland—I do not think that any other Member of this place can say that. Of course, I was then elected to the Scottish Parliament in the first elections in 1999, and I witnessed the way that it developed over the next 12 years. Crucially, during those first years, I became a member of the Holyrood progress group, which oversaw the building of the Parliament. People like me and others saw the Scottish Parliament as, to quote the late, great John Smith, the

“settled will of the Scottish people”.

I say that to reassure the House that my thoughts come from a place, I believe, of true experience.

Let us remember that the scheme for the devolved Parliament, as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, was about the concept of there being no need for a second Chamber in Edinburgh because the Committees of the Scottish Parliament were intended to fill the role of holding the Executive to account. That could have entailed, where necessary, amending or initiating legislation in a fashion similar to the House of Lords today. As an example, I highlight the role of the education Committee in the first Parliament, of which I was a member, in tweaking and amending the then Scottish Government’s  first education Act. Was that a reflection of the consensual attitude that many MSPs displayed during the first term of the Scottish Parliament? Very possibly—perhaps the hon. Member could comment on that.

A few initial thoughts come to mind. Although the Committees did largely fulfil some of that function during the first 12 years of the Parliament, I am bound to add that the advent of the SNP Government in 2011, which controlled not only the Chamber but all the Committees, changed that dynamic. I would argue that, after that year, the failure of some Committees to show any real teeth meant that some bad legislation came to be. I need only quote one example, and that is the ill-fated deposit return scheme—I rest my case. \p John Lamont: The hon. Member is making a very good speech. As a fellow Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, I concur completely with his comments regarding the Committee structure. There are many faults about the other place, but it is significantly better at scrutinising Government, holding Government to account and improving legislation than the Committees in the Scottish Parliament, so I agree with him. \p Jamie Stone: I thank the hon. Member, who, like me, was an MSP all those years ago. Why, to take up his point, is the Scottish Parliament not working the way it is intended to? I think part of the answer lies in the fact that making someone the Chair of a Committee in the Scottish Parliament is in the gift of the party leaders. That can lead to Committee Chairs, particularly those in the Government party, feeling somewhat beholden to their party’s leadership and being, I would suggest, sometimes rather less than willing to say boo to a goose when it comes to challenging or amending legislation.

In Westminster, Committee Chairs are chosen via a secret ballot of the whole House. I would say that the independent-mindedness of Committees and those who lead them is very much a strength. In that respect, we have in Westminster a certain safeguard against the risk of passing completely unworkable legislation. My purpose in making this assessment is not in any way to enlarge on the proposals for a second Chamber in Scotland; the Scotland Act 1998 was very clear that the Scottish Parliament would be unicameral.

Similarly, we can see that there are grounds for Westminster to learn lessons from Edinburgh. I have had the honour, as I said, of being a Member of both the Scottish and UK Parliaments. When people ask me, as they often do, how the two compare, I often say that we MPs are deeply envious of the access to Ministers that MSPs enjoy. The direct and frequent communication between the Scottish Government and their opposition strikes me as a very positive facet of Scottish democracy.

Furthermore, the fact that there are only 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament means that the Members all know each other—or at least know each other an awful lot better than would be normal here. There is recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of those 129 individuals. How should I put this, Madam Deputy Speaker? That is not necessarily something that we can perceive in Westminster, where we have a great number of Members.  In fact, I am afraid we can all think—no names, no pack-drill—of Members who somehow slip under the radar; let us just put it that way. I do not intend to be one of them.

The Scottish Parliament has become much more powerful than it was when I was there—just look at the tax and social security powers—but as an MP from the far north of Scotland, I am constantly reminded of just how centralised Scotland has become. Decisions are too often not taken close to the communities that they affect. There has been devolution from Westminster to Holyrood, but practically nothing from Holyrood down to councils or communities. In fact, when it comes to police and fire services, power has simply been grabbed by Edinburgh.

One of the most interesting academics to comment on the matter, and one of the first to scrutinise devolution, James G. Kellas, emphasised that merely establishing new institutions such as the Scottish Parliament cannot fundamentally alter the efficiency of decision-making norms. Instead, he said, we must respect the interplay between respective institutions and their political behaviours. That is what he prescribed to modernisers like me, who hoped that devolution would bring longer-term stability to British politics and give it a new lease of life. In recent years, however, we have seen just the opposite: a breakdown of constructive intergovernmental relations and a move towards polarisation that has pitted the Scottish Government against the UK Government as rivals, rather than partners. That has been clear on multiple occasions over the past decade. Scotland needs Governments in Edinburgh and London that are capable of working together, and of ironing out differences of opinion, where they exist, maturely, within proper frameworks, and without always resorting to legal action and court battles.

That leads me to the elephant in the Chamber, if I can get away with that expression. Most significantly, and perhaps least surprisingly, the chasm in our system of governance was most strongly pronounced during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The subsequent repeated calls for a second referendum have coloured the relationship between our two Parliaments ever since. I am a proud Scot—I always have been and I always will be—so for me these have, alas, been dark times, with too much grievance, too much aggression and too much resentment. On top of that, I humbly suggest that the people of Scotland are tired and frustrated—and they have a case. They see their household bills soaring. They have long waits to see their GP, they have the ferry fiasco, and they have a Scottish education that we all know simply is not what it used to be. Scotland deserves better, and the Scottish Parliament needs to show people that it can respond to the challenge at hand and change people’s lives for the better.

I think back to what my party, when it was in coalition, delivered in its first terms in government, including free personal care, eye tests, dental checks, bus passes, the smoking ban and fair votes for local government. Indeed, it was the signature of my then party leader Jim Wallace that broke the ground on freedom of information. We collectively cared about getting the basics right, and were determined to show that devolution could deliver the change that people wanted to see. I do not suggest that that was just the attitude of the governing parties  in the coalition; there was co-operation with the Scottish National party and the Conservatives, from time to time.

I touched earlier on the works of James G. Kellas, and I return to his predictions in 2001. He warned that observers of devolution might develop an “expectations gap”, as Scots could develop resentment, feeling that the potential of the Scottish Parliament was unfulfilled, or limited by a system of multi-level governance. There could be truth in that, but we still have a chance to rectify it. With last year’s change of government in Westminster and the Holyrood elections next year, this is surely the perfect time to revise our approach to our system of multi-level governance in the UK in order to engage with those feelings of discontent and negotiate a better way forward—together, not apart.

No legislation is forever, including our beloved Scotland Act. All legislation is from time to time re-examined and amended; that is how we do things in the UK. That is surely one of the foundation stones of British democracy. To put it simply, we can come together to better understand how to make our Union more workable and acknowledge what needs to change. Governmental co-operation and multi-level governance can improve, and I strongly believe that the vision of the founding members of our devolved Governments can and does endure. There is still hope that our Parliaments can build a stronger relationship for the future, in the face of increasing uncertainty and threats from beyond the seas.

I conclude with one simple request. The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for an independence referendum without Westminster consent. I touch on that issue in the hope that this debate will not be wasted, and co-opted into a debate revising and exhausting the legality of that decision. Instead, I invite all Members from every corner of the House to engage in a constructive debate about how we can improve what we do. That is essential, particularly in the face of increasing uncertainty and—let us be honest—threats from across the seas to the way in which we do things in our precious democracy. \p Caroline Nokes: Beautifully timed, Mr Stone. I call Patricia Ferguson. \p Patricia Ferguson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I nearly lapsed into old habits and called you Deputy Presiding Officer, but that is a title for another place some 500 miles up the road. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for procuring this debate, and for arriving when he did; some of us were becoming rather anxious. I do not think I have ever been more pleased to see him enter any room.

On a more serious note, 25 years ago this month, Donald Dewar—MP, MSP and the first First Minister of Scotland—died prematurely. Donald had worked hard, both in our party and beyond, to promote the idea of a Scottish Parliament. It was a huge loss when he passed away only 17 months into the life of that new Parliament, but his legacy—the Parliament he played such an important part in establishing—lives on.

Despite the disappointment of the 1979 referendum, devolution remained firmly on the agenda of the Labour party through the long years of Conservative rule.  The idea was kept alive by Donald, his great friend John Smith, Labour party and trade union members across the country, and colleagues in the Liberal Democrats and some other parties. “A Claim of Right for Scotland” in 1988 and the Scottish constitutional convention were significant markers on the long road to the successful 1997 referendum. I am pleased to recount that when Labour was returned to power in 1997, one of its first acts was to pass the Scotland Act, which paved the way for the Scottish Parliament just two years later. It is quite remarkable that a party was returned to power in May 1997, held a referendum just two or three months later on the Scottish Parliament and whether we should have devolution, and delivered that Parliament within two years.

I was proud to campaign, along with many others, for a Scottish Parliament over many years. I believe that such subsidiarity is sensible and is a democratic imperative, and as one of the first MSPs elected in 1999—alongside my colleague, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—I was privileged to see at first hand the challenges and successes of the Labour-Liberal Executive, which steered our country through the first years of devolution. We did not call ourselves a Government then; “Executive” was good enough for us. As my colleague said, it is my conviction that co-operation between the coalition partners, and sometimes across all parties, was key to the progress of devolution, as was joint working between the Scottish and UK Governments.

Many positive initiatives were implemented during that early period, some of which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. I apologise to the House if I repeat one or two, but I would like to list some of the ones that come most easily to mind. They included free personal care for the elderly; free university tuition; the banning of smoking in enclosed public places, which has led to verifiable health benefits—Scotland led the way for the rest of the UK on this issue, and we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ban this year—the repeal of the discriminatory clause 2A; bringing the Golden Jubilee hospital into the NHS; the Fresh Talent initiative; the creation of an international development fund; the creation of the National Theatre of Scotland; and submitting a successful bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games, to name but a very few.

The Scottish Parliament’s approach was modern, with family-friendly hours and a willingness to use technology to the advantage of Members and the public. Our electronic voting system and the public petitions process were seen—I think rightly—as efficient, businesslike and inclusive. I sincerely hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider those examples during its investigation—especially electronic voting, please. \p Harriet Cross: I sometimes find myself watching Holyrood TV, and most of what happens after the electronic voting is endless people checking whether they have voted—wanting to clarify whether the machine has worked. Given that there are 120-odd Members in Holyrood and 650-odd Members in this place, I am not entirely sure that that is the best plan for Westminster voting. \p Patricia Ferguson: My recollection of the system is that it worked very well indeed. I do not know whether standards have slipped since the days when I and other hon. Members present were Members of the Scottish Parliament.  What the hon. Lady describes did happen—I admit that—but very rarely. I was for some time in the Chair, announcing those decisions, and I genuinely do not remember that happening very often at all. \p John Lamont: I think the recollection that the hon. Lady and I will have of our time in the Scottish Parliament was of voting physically, albeit electronically, together in the Scottish Parliament Chamber. The difference now, of course, is that some Members of the Scottish Parliament are voting in the Chamber, while others are voting at home, sitting at their kitchen table, by pressing a button. That is where the connectivity issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) arise, and that is why it is important that we maintain physical voting in this place. \p Patricia Ferguson: I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am not in favour of voting remotely either, except perhaps in very rare and exceptional circumstances. However, please believe me that electronic voting is the way forward. Members would not have to spend some 20 minutes walking through the Lobby. Votes would be cast, and a result declared, within roughly one minute. That is definitely a better use of Members’ time, and a much more efficient way to do things. \p Stephen Gethins: I think the hon. Lady has made a good point. She may be up against it if she is trying to talk to those on the Opposition Benches about modernisation in any fashion, but when, during the pandemic, Members were forced to go through the Lobby when they were unwell, that affected Members throughout the House. I think—and I shall say more about this later—that there are always places where legislatures can learn from each other. \p Patricia Ferguson: It is undoubtedly true that we have to learn from one another, and from international examples too. If I can give one example that I would like colleagues to learn from, it is that electronic voting has a place, and a place from which I think this House could benefit greatly. \p David Davis: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Patricia Ferguson: Before I give way, may I just say that I really did not imagine that that one line would create such a response? \p David Davis: I cannot really comment on electronic voting, but I was going to make a comment in the other direction—about learning in both directions. I believe that Donald Dewar, in his heroic struggle to bring about devolution, wanted a strong Scottish Parliament, in terms of privilege, in terms of the right to summon Ministers— \p Stephen Gethins: Powers? \p David Davis: Powers, yes, in terms of order and the balance of power between Parliament and Government, which he wanted to be much stronger as well. Does the hon. Lady think that that would be a good thing? \p Patricia Ferguson: I think we have to realise that the Parliament in Scotland is very much smaller than this Parliament, which makes a great difference to many of the ways in which it operates. As we heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, it is much easier to speak to a Minister there than it is here. It is a regular occurrence. There is a saying in the Scottish Parliament: you only have to sit in the Garden Lobby for half an hour, and every other parliamentarian will have passed you by at one point or another. That is a huge advantage, and it is one of the aspects of the Scottish Parliament that I personally preferred: we did have that access, not just to Ministers but to other colleagues across parties, and we could develop relationships that enabled us to work in a cross-party way very easily with them. That, I think, was a great thing. I also think that the Scottish Parliament has, perhaps, a better balance of power between Members and the Government, but we have to accept that the scale is an influencing factor at the very least.

I would not suggest for a moment that the years from 2007 onwards—when the SNP first formed a Government through a deal with the Tories, when they then formed a majority Government, and even when they were in coalition with the Greens—have been a complete failure, but there has been a great deal of wasted time and opportunity. \p Stephen Gethins: Is the hon. Member aware that in that 2007 Parliament, the Labour party voted with the SNP more often than the Conservatives did? \p Patricia Ferguson: The Labour party did not vote with the SNP on the Budget. The SNP needed the Tories to get Budgets through, and that was the basis on which they did a deal. Sadly, those Budgets very much reflected Tory values, and that is why Labour could not vote for them; nor could friends in other parties that are represented in this Chamber.

I have to say, though, that time has been wasted by people obsessing about the constitution and creating grievances with Westminster. We could have been in a very different place if the Scottish Government had continued to focus on the issues that mattered to people in their everyday lives, and also if they had been more constructive in their engagement with Members of the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross cited the ill-fated deposit return scheme as an example of when there was not that cross-party working to make legislation appropriate and fit for purpose; I would cite as another example the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, which was passed in 2012 only to be repealed in 2018. Again, I would not suggest for a minute that Scotland does not sometimes have a problem with football matches, and with some of the sectarian and offensive behaviour that goes on in connection with them, but that Act was badly thought out. People tried to say so at the time, but they were not listened to. I think it is always important for us to listen to one another and hear what others have to say.

Sadly, it has to be said that recent Scottish Governments have been found wanting when it comes to the measurements of success that they have set for themselves on NHS waiting time guarantees, climate targets or  educational attainment, and the premise of the Parliament —allowing for the delivery of Scottish solutions to Scottish problems—has fallen some way short. For a Parliament that is devolved, it has had the most centralising agenda in recent years, which has not been to Scotland’s advantage. Scotland is made up of peoples, cities, towns and villages, and what works in my constituency of Glasgow West will not necessarily work in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. It is important that those differences are reflected, and that the agencies and public organisations that support and serve our populations reflect local bias, local need and local interest. Sadly, that is no longer the case in some places.

As the Scottish Parliament progresses into its second quarter-century, we have an opportunity to look back, to mark both the successes and the shortcomings, and to recall the words of Donald Dewar at the Parliament’s opening on 1 July 1999, which are as relevant today as they were then. He said that we will

“never lose sight of what brought us here—the striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal.”

In recalling those words, we should look forward to the future, to how the Scottish Parliament can do right by the people of Scotland, and to how we Members of this Parliament can play a constructive part in making that so. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I currently have no plans to put a time limit on contributions, but Members might like to reflect on how many colleagues are here and adjust their remarks accordingly. \p John Cooper: Devolution is not working. Instead of two Governments working in harness, Scotland has one in Westminster with its back turned to the one in Holyrood, which daily plots to break up Britain. Labour took power convinced that they were the grown-ups who would reset relations with the SNP at Holyrood. The harsh reality is that the SNP Government have no interest in joint working, for if devolution is a success, they lose the argument that independence is a necessity. They are aided in their mission by Labour’s “devolve and forget”.

This Government trolly billions of pounds north to Edinburgh via the block grant, but what happens after it disappears into the SNP black hole, where we can see what goes in but not what comes out? Well, no one on the Government Benches seems to care overmuch. The sleekit SNP is running rings around them. The Chancellor appeared in a smart video saying that she was delivering investment in Scotland. The backdrop was Lossiemouth, a key RAF base for protecting the High North, yet the SNP actively undermines British defence. There has been ludicrous talk of deploying “Scottish forces” as peacekeepers in Ukraine. There are many Scots men and women in Britain’s forces, but there are no Scottish forces. Ironically, the SNP denies defence firms vital investment because of childish opposition to ordnance—the shells, bombs, bullets and missiles that keep us all safe in a dangerous world. That is pulling apart, not pulling together.

Under the previous Administration, the Scotland Office was the guardian of devolution. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, adroitly deployed section 35 of the Scotland Act to prevent the unlamented Nicola Sturgeon’s gender recognition reform from trampling on the rights of women and girls across the entire UK. That was not some assault on Holyrood’s powers, but a judicious application of the law as it stood to prevent devolution from being abused, to prevent Scotland from becoming a different country bit by bit, and to stop devolution being used as a battering ram to smash the Union. Would that happen now?

Today’s Scotland Office is, we are told, “Scotland’s window on the world”. Rather than nurturing the Scotland Act, it looks increasingly like Dover House has been annexed by the Department for Business and Trade as a pop-up shop for salmon and whisky. Perhaps a bit less looking out the window and a bit more attention to what is going on at John Swinney’s Bute House is in order, for Scottish Ministers seem to have more foreign breaks than Galloway Travel Service in Stranraer, in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway. They have gone to Malawi, Zambia, Canada and Washington DC. Despite having no role in international affairs, Scottish Ministers have racked up more air miles than Biggles, at taxpayers’ expense. What are they discussing, given that trade policy is reserved? Let us take China, for example: Scottish Business Minister Richard Lochhead sloped off on a low-key visit to Beijing, and I asked what occurred, but the Foreign Office did not have eyes on it, in another display of “devolve and forget”.

There are many siren voices calling for Holyrood’s abolition as Supreme Court judgments on gender are ignored; its Committee system, as we have heard, is neutered so that genuine scrutiny is near impossible; and the First Minister spends more time pronouncing on Gaza and boycotting Israel—foreign affairs are outwith his bailiwick—while Scots’ taxes rise with no improvement in public services. \p Seamus Logan: The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to many issues that he says are the fault of the Scottish Government’s creating difference between Scotland and England. What would he say about the Brexit vote in 2016 creating such difference? \p John Cooper: I just gently point out that I think more Scots voted for Brexit than for anything else in the history of Scotland. \p Stephen Gethins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p John Cooper: Sorry, but I will not give way, because I want to make some progress.

John Swinney—not so much yesterday’s man as the day before yesterday’s man—is a pound-shop Parnell trying to suborn British institutions to undermine Britain. Devolution is not working, but it is not broken beyond repair. My noble Friend Lord Offord of Garvel, who sits in the other place, has challenged Holyrood to do better in a series of essays entitled “Wealthy Nation, Healthy Nation”. That is predicated on Holyrood parking its constitutional obsession to deliver what it was intended to do—to better the lives of those living in Scotland. Amen, but it will require the Scottish Government to respect democracy, not least the clearcut decision in  the 2014 independence referendum to remain part of the UK, and it will take this House finding the courage to confront what the SNP Government are up to. It is not about putting them in their place or keeping them in their lane. No, it is merely about both Governments respecting the Scotland Act.

If Holyrood is to have another 25 years, John Swinney needs to comport himself as First Minister, not “First Agitator”. The present Secretary for State for Scotland once told Harvard University of the need

“to more closely align accountability with decision-making authority.”

Hear, hear. The chink of ice in the whisky cocktails in far-flung embassies is seductive, but while the Scottish Secretary is distracted, the SNP plots, and it is our constituents who will pay the bar bill and face the hangover. \p Chris Kane: When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, there was an expectation that devolution would not stop at Holyrood, but would build stronger systems of local government. Donald Dewar put it best in his first speech:

“A Scottish Parliament. Not an end: a means to greater ends.”

We should celebrate Holyrood’s achievements over the past 25 years, but we must also face a truth: devolution has stalled or even gone backwards when it comes to local government. The first phase moved power from London to Edinburgh, but the second phase—transferring power from Holyrood to our local communities—never came. Instead, powers have been stripped away. Business rates, water, further education, police, fire and local enterprise were all once local responsibilities that have now been centralised. The principle of devolution is simple: the best decisions are made closest to the people affected by those decisions, yet in Edinburgh we have a Government run by the Scottish National party, and no one could accuse it of being the Scottish local party.

Before I came here, I was the leader of Stirling council. About 80% of our budget came from a Scottish Government grant, with the rest from council tax, which is the only fiscal lever left to councils. It should be set locally, but for most of the last 18 years the SNP Government have frozen or capped it. Arguments for and against tax rises should be made in town halls, not dictated from Holyrood. For devolution to work there must be respect between different levels of government. I welcome efforts by the UK Government to reset that relationship. I only wish the Scottish Government would show the same respect to local authorities.

Meanwhile, England has raced ahead. Metro mayors and combined authorities are transforming the landscape. We have seen the next step in English devolution in recent weeks and months, with exciting reforms pushing power outwards. By contrast, a tired SNP Government are pulling power inwards through quangos and direction from the centre. \p Alistair Carmichael: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was struck by what the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), said about the roots of the Scottish Parliament and the constitutional convention. Those of us who were part  of that movement believed that there was a better way for Scotland to be governed, but things have moved on, and now the Parliament is seen as an exercise merely in asserting national identity. Does he agree that if we got back to the Scottish Parliament being about a better delivery of Scottish services for Scottish people, the difficulties that he is identifying would very quickly be solved? \p Chris Kane: I completely agree—that goes back to what I was saying. Donald Dewar said:

“A Scottish Parliament. Not an end: a means to greater ends.”

If we all remembered to think about the evolution of devolution, and strived to make it as good as it can be, we would all be doing the people of Scotland a service.

The risk of divergence between Scottish devolution and English devolution is stark. Glasgow is the UK’s fourth largest city, yet without a metro mayor or combined authority, it has no mechanism to secure trailblazer deals, as Greater Manchester and the West Midlands have. If Glasgow performed at the level of its peers, Scotland’s GDP could rise by an amount equivalent to our entire oil and gas sector—that is the real prize of real devolution. Scotland’s eight cities, including Stirling, should be able to debate what greater devolution would mean for our economies and communities.

Partnership requires honesty, however. The Verity House agreement promised “no surprises” but within months, Ministers imposed another national council tax freeze without consultation. That is not partnership; it is central direction. If we are serious about devolution, we must be serious about accountability. Audit Scotland and the National Audit Office should deepen collaboration. Joint funding streams must be scrutinised coherently. Public trust depends on transparency.

Devolution was never meant to be a one-off event. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has long warned that Scotland is now one of the most centralised countries in Europe. While England powers ahead, our councils are squeezed, our communities feel remote from decision making, and our cities risk falling behind. What Scotland needs is a new phase of devolution: more fiscal autonomy for councils, genuine partnership with national Government, more powers for communities through development trusts, community councils and other bodies, and the option of combined authorities or mayors where local people want them. \p Graham Leadbitter: Back in the early ’90s, I was just out of school and getting involved in politics. It was an exciting time, with a constitutional convention, excitement about a new Parliament, and decision making coming closer to home. People in Scotland had the right to decide on whether to have devolution with a Scottish Parliament or keep power at Westminster—and they chose well!

The Scottish Parliament’s early years featured some of the most well-known names in Scottish politics: Donald Dewar, Winnie Ewing, Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Jack McConnell, Annabel Goldie, Jim Wallace and, of course, our current First Minister and SNP leader John Swinney, whose public service and commitment to Scotland remains second to none. I add to those  names George Reid, who sadly passed away recently. He was respected right across this House and the Scottish Parliament.

The formation of the Scottish Parliament marked my first employment in politics, for former MP and MSP Alasdair Morgan, who retired in 2011 after a distinguished period as Deputy Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament. My introduction to politics—working for an MP and MSP, as many in the Scottish Parliament were in its first couple of years—fired up my own desire to go further in politics and become an elected councillor, then a council leader and now a parliamentarian in this place. I did that because of my desire to improve the lives of the people I represent and the people right across Scotland, which is the same reason that colleagues right across the House got into politics.

The Scottish Parliament has led the way in many areas of policy. On tackling child poverty, it is the only part of the UK in which child poverty has fallen. The Scottish child payment of £27.15 a week, introduced by the SNP, has been praised by numerous highly respected charities and organisations in tackling child poverty. On social security, the formation of social security— \p Scott Arthur: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but the Scottish child payment is not just praised by charities; it was their idea. The Child Poverty Action Group campaigned for it for a long time and the Scottish Government opposed it. It was parties in Opposition and charities who made it happen, so they do not just praise it. We should congratulate them on their long campaign that made it happen, and I hope he will join me in that. \p Graham Leadbitter: The point made is entirely reasonable and I commend the work done by charities and third sector organisations over many years in highlighting that and a wide range of issues. I am grateful that the hon. Member acknowledges that the Scottish Government responded to those concerns and took action, demonstrating exactly the power the Scottish Parliament can have and the difference it can make.

On social security, we introduced the carer’s allowance supplement. We mitigated the bedroom tax and increased the employment rate for disabled people, without resorting to cutting vital welfare support. \p Richard Baker: I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech reflecting on the many experiences of devolution that have inspired us, but on the point around employment and disabled people, will join me in saying that it is regrettable that the Scottish Government decided to cut employability funding for disability schemes in 2024-25? \p Graham Leadbitter: I take the hon. Member’s point, but the fact remains that the personal independence payment is currently under threat from the UK Government. That will have a devastating impact on disabled people, and many Labour Members on the Government Benches would agree with that.

On the economy and taxation, we have a more progressive income tax system. More than 50% of people working in Scotland pay less tax than they do elsewhere in the UK. I fully support that as a higher rate taxpayer. \p Melanie Ward: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he accept the fact that PIP is devolved in Scotland? \p Graham Leadbitter: It is the adult disability payment in Scotland, rather than PIP. Fundamentally—I am sure the hon. Lady knows this—if the UK Government decide to cut a vast amount out of the social security system, that will have a really significant impact on the Scottish budget. Week after week, Labour Members call for more money to be spent on certain things in Scotland, but at the same time they seem to be suggesting a substantial cut to the Scottish budget with the change to the social security budget. \p Johanna Baxter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Graham Leadbitter: Can I respond to the first intervention first?

If a substantial budget cut comes through on the back of that, that will have a serious impact on what the Scottish Government can do, whatever colour that Scottish Government may be following the next elections. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He talks about a budget cut to the Scottish Government, but does he not recognise that this Westminster Government have actually given the Scottish Government the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution? What has happened to the money? \p Graham Leadbitter: I gently remind Labour Members that every single year should be the largest devolution budget, because inflation goes up every year. There has not been a negative inflationary year in my lifetime, so it should be going up every year. There should be a record settlement every single year. That is just inflation. That is basic economics. I know those on the Government Benches struggle with that sometimes.

On council tax and water charges, we have the lowest in the UK. We are, for over a decade, the top destination outside London for foreign investment. Since the SNP came to power in 2007, GDP per capita has grown in Scotland by 10.3% and by 6.1% for the rest of the UK.

There are things that have been done, both by the Labour and Liberal Executive in the first few years of the Parliament and by the SNP Government since 2007, that have delivered substantial benefits for the people of Scotland. On health, briefly, we have had more GPs per head than any other part of the UK for the past five years; they are also the best paid, recognising the challenge and importance of that role. Scotland’s core A&Es have been the best performing in the UK for nine years, with lower average waiting times. We have abolished prescription charges and, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to, we have free eye examinations as well. In addition, more than 1,000 school building projects have been completed since 2007, and 96% of our school leavers go into further training, further education or workplaces.

In his submission to the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross described this place as the parent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but I would describe the Scottish people as the parent of the Scottish  Parliament and the Scottish Government through the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I very much commend the hon. Member for his work in that role. Fundamentally, I would say that the parent of the Scottish Parliament is the Scottish people who voted for it and who continue to back it and elect it and the Government.

That brings me to my final point. The Scottish Parliament is on a journey. It was formed in 1999 and has continued on a journey. \p Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman will have heard other people make the point about that journey and the need for it to go from the Scottish Parliament down to communities. One of the most clamant cases for that journey to continue relates to the administration of the Crown Estate. We now see Crown Estate Scotland behaving in exactly the same way that the Crown Estate did when it was answerable to the Treasury here in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his colleagues in the Scottish Government should be devolving control of the Crown Estate—especially the marine estate—to communities like mine in Shetland? \p Graham Leadbitter: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think the point he is making is reasonable up to a point. We need to be very careful when talking about energy being a matter of national security— \p Alistair Carmichael: No, this is about the seabed. \p Graham Leadbitter: Well, the seabed is very important for our energy infrastructure, so we need to be really careful about how we deal with that and how we handle that. I would not be averse to having a fuller debate and discussion about the devolution of Crown Estate assets to local communities, but we do need to be careful around the energy links to that and how that could play out to ensure that we maintain the national security of our energy and grid infrastructure. \p Alistair Carmichael: What the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying is that Shetland could not control our own seabed. Does he maybe think we are too wee and too poor for that? \p Graham Leadbitter: I think the right hon. Gentleman is twisting what I am saying a bit. We are in the realms of getting into a debate about an entirely different subject. I agree with him to an extent—having been a council leader, I have always argued very strongly for more devolution to local government. I made that point very strongly when I attended the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders meeting, and I will continue to do so. I am sure there are many other internal debates within other parties over where powers should rest on particular issues, too. I will continue to make those arguments with colleagues.

I started off by saying that the people of Scotland made the decision—what I believe to be the right decision —to form the Scottish Parliament, and we are now on a journey. My colleagues in the SNP and I believe that that journey will reach independence, and that will then be a new journey with where we go from there.  Fundamentally, it is for the people of Scotland to decide. Ministers and others across the House have recognised that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that it is their right to choose and decide; what they have not set out is how they can choose and decide. That is the responsibility of the current UK Government. \p Katrina Murray: I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.

Before devolution, Scotland-specific Bills in this place were few and far between—often single digits per year—even though our health, education and legal systems have been completely different for centuries. Decisions that shaped people’s lives in Scotland were made elsewhere, without the understanding or accountability that they deserved. That is why so many of us, myself included, campaigned passionately for devolution. Like others in the Chamber, my belief in devolution was forged in the 90s in the run up to the ’97 referendum. My memories of the campaign, polling day and result will be with me for the rest of my life. The feeling of hope that we had will also stay with me for the rest of my life.

We wanted decisions about Scotland’s schools, hospitals and communities to be made by a Parliament rooted in Scotland but still part of the wider United Kingdom. It was about giving Scots a stronger voice within our Union, bringing democracy closer to the people, improving accountability and delivering better government. It was also about pooling and sharing and being grown-ups. For a time, that promise felt real. It felt good. But the promise has been squandered. Even with extra powers over the years and a record £52 billion settlement this year from the Labour Government at Westminster, the SNP Scottish Government have failed to make devolution work for the people it was created to serve.

I look at my own constituency and the evidence is stark. Many of my constituents are still languishing on NHS waiting lists. It is shocking that in NHS Lanarkshire alone, more people have waited over two years for treatment than in the entirety of England. \p Seamus Logan: What I find distressing is how Labour Members are always talking down the health service in Scotland, but you avoid mentioning— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. “You” would be me. \p Seamus Logan: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member and other Labour colleagues often refer to problems in the health service in Scotland, but they never point to the fact that Scotland’s waiting times for cancer from diagnosis to treatment are better than in any other part of the UK. They do not point to the fact that waiting lists in Scotland are falling while waiting lists in England are rising and have been for three months now. There are many, many other problems— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Gentleman could have chosen to contribute by making a speech. \p Katrina Murray: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my life experience before coming to this place as a member of staff within the health service. I worked through the pandemic when we used the red, amber and green statuses to indicate how waiting lists were. We did not just have red, amber and green stages. We created a purple status for when there were serious capacity issues that warranted more than a red status. We then moved to black status if it got too serious for status purple. One of the reasons I am in this place is the 14 months that I worked with colleagues through that. Nobody who is trying to provide healthcare should have to do so when working in situations that go way beyond an emergency.

The situation within the health service was highlighted several weeks in a women’s lowland league football match in my constituency, when a Linlithgow Rose player who was injured during a match with Cumbernauld United Ladies lay with a broken leg for five hours on a Sunday while waiting for an ambulance to be dispatched. \p Melanie Ward: With reference to the previous intervention, I wonder what my hon. Friend, who knows so much about the NHS in Scotland, makes of the fact that the Scottish Government’s target for cancer treatment —that 95% of patients are treated within 62 days of an urgent referral—has not been met since 2012. \p Katrina Murray: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Certainly, the experience was that the Scottish Government were good at setting targets but never good at making sure those targets were met. I see the toll of that every week, with people living in pain, losing mobility and struggling with their mental health. They look at the improving picture south of the border and ask, “How much longer do we have to wait?” What they are hearing is, “Actually, this crisis is business as usual.”

NHS staff are being failed by the very system that devolution was meant to strengthen. [Interruption.] I heard a heckle from a sedentary position. NHS staff in Scotland pay higher rates of income tax and significantly higher rates of pension contributions, so the take-home pay of an NHS band 6 nurse in Scotland is not necessarily different from a band 6 nurse in England.

The problems do not end with health. Across Scotland, the fire and rescue service is consulting on cuts that firefighters, their unions and the public fear will cost lives. The service faces a capital backlog of £800 million. That is not just a Government asleep at the wheel but one who are failing to protect one of our most vital public services. My constituents know too well the threat that fire poses from the serious fire at Blairlinn industrial estate that injured six people and the destruction by fire of the iconic St Mungo’s church: a listed building and landmark seen from across the constituency that is now gone. That is a failing of scrutiny and a failure of priorities.

The SNP Government are distracted. They are more interested in constitutional division than in fixing the problems that our communities face. The Labour Government have delivered record investment for Scotland’s public services, but ask anyone on the ground—no one can see what the SNP has done with the money.

I remember the hope of 1999 when the Scottish Parliament was first elected. It was full of passion, full of debate and full of co-operation. Members disagreed—  often strongly—but they shared a common purpose to make Scotland fairer, healthier and more prosperous. They passed legislation; as we have heard, some of it was groundbreaking. That is the spirit that Scotland needs again.

The need for change is clear. Scotland is full of ambition, potential and opportunity. We have world-leading businesses, unique natural resources and global brands that command respect across the world. We are world leaders in renewable technology and home to cutting-edge scientific and tech institutions and renowned research-intensive universities. We need a Scottish Government who share the same hopes and aspirations for the future as we do on the Labour Benches to make devolution work and to take full advantage of everything Scotland has going for it. We face a clear choice: do we keep circling the constitutional cul-de-sac that the SNP have led us down or do we choose to move forward with the strongest devolution settlement and a new direction for Scotland? \p Harriet Cross: Devolution sounds like, and should be, a fantastic opportunity. It should bring decisions closer to home with policies that fit the uniqueness of local areas and communities such as mine, where accountability and impact are more closely linked. That is the theory but in practice, certainly in Scotland’s case, the reality is very different. Devolution has become a fight for power—for the power, but not for the responsibility—and it has become about pushing party and personal ideology rather than what is actually best for the public and the businesses which we are meant to serve.

Since 1999, we have seen so much power, indeed more power than any other devolved nation in the world, devolved to Scotland, or more specifically, as others have mentioned, to Holyrood, because that is where in Scotland devolution ends. What we see in Scotland is a level of bureaucracy, red tape and top-down decision making that stifles any opportunity for devolution to properly trickle down to benefit all regions and communities across Scotland.

We can look at the evidence. In Scotland, 53% of planning decisions appealed to the Scottish Government are overturned by Ministers; in England, by contrast, local decisions are upheld 70% of the time. On policing, the SNP merged eight regional police forces into one nationalised central body. In doing so, it scrapped local police boards run by local councils and replaced them with a single national authority appointed by, and accountable to, Scottish Ministers. The result is that since its creation over 140 stations have closed, creating what the Scottish Police Federation has itself called policing deserts and an “almost invisible policing presence” across great parts of the country.

There are also of course endless examples of devolution putting our businesses at a disadvantage compared with others across the UK, including on business rates. Business rates are devolved and when the last Conservative Government introduced 75% rate relief for hospitality south of the border, that was not replicated in Scotland. Businesses in Scotland had to wait years for a similar relief, which, when it was finally introduced, was less generous than elsewhere.

In education we have seen years of decline in Scottish standards. In 2006, Scotland proudly had students who were the best in the UK at maths. But now, after years of the SNP curriculum for apparent excellence, our PISA score has plummeted by 35 points and we are trailing well behind England. That is a generation of young Scots being failed by the SNP. Why in Scotland, after almost 20 years in office, has the SNP seemingly been so content to let education standards slip and slip while over the past decade, when Conservatives were in government at Westminster, we saw standards and international rankings rise south of the border? Why, other than for the need to just do things differently, would we not look at the rising standards elsewhere in the UK and think for just one minute that maybe for the sake of the next generation of Scots we could learn from what is happening elsewhere in the UK?

There is also a huge amount of incoherence between different policies in devolved areas. Pensioners in Scotland with an income of £35,000 are considered to have a low enough income to be eligible for the winter fuel payment, which of course is welcome after Labour decided to balance their books on the back of our poorest pensioners, but how does this square with the SNP Government considering workers on a salary as modest as £30,000 to be wealthy enough to be taxed more than those in the rest of the UK? Was devolution really set up as a vehicle to see teachers and doctors and police officers based and working in Scotland taxed more and taking home less pay than those doing the same job in the rest of the UK?

For devolution to be considered a success, we should be able to see it and feel it, but even objectively these benefits are very hard to find. I know there have always been those saying and pointing out that we get things for free, like free prescriptions or certain bus travel or university education, but these are not free; they are taxpayer-funded—funded at the expense of something else and funded at the cost of higher taxes for people and businesses across Scotland.

The Scottish Government are receiving from the UK Government over £2,500 more per person to spend than is the case in England. Why then are our outcomes not streaks ahead of those south of the border? Why is our education system failing children? Why are universities almost at the point of collapse? Why is life expectancy lower in Scotland and our drug deaths the highest in Europe? Why are NHS capital projects being paused, including the Ellon health centre in my constituency? There is chronic underfunding and under-investment in our roads, including the A96 and the A90 in Gordon and Buchan. Scotland’s employment rates are lower than those in the rest of the UK. Why are local authorities on their knees due to a lack of funding? If devolution had been made to work for Scotland, it would surely be at least equal to the rest of the UK in all those regards. If successive Scottish Governments had focused on their job and on actual devolved competences, maybe—just maybe—Scotland would have outperformed the rest of the UK, but it has not. Why? Because since devolution, successive Scottish Governments have not wanted to take the responsibility as well as the power. They have preferred to point fingers to cover their own incompetence, rather than hold themselves accountable. If what I  describe had happened, or even begun to happen, over the last 25 years, maybe devolution could be seen as a success for Scotland. Until that does happen, I struggle to accept that it has been. \p Kenneth Stevenson: I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate. As a Labour politician, I am immensely proud of my party’s commitment to devolution and our delivery of the Scottish Parliament, and I will always be grateful to those who have gone before us, such as my constituency predecessor John Smith, who fought tirelessly to bring the decision-making process closer to home.

In the formative years of the Scottish Parliament, it was the Labour-Liberal coalition that delivered the smoking ban—an innovative policy that considerably improved the public health of the Scottish population and reduced the number of primary-aged children inhaling second-hand smoke by 39% within a year. The same coalition oversaw an education system that was recognised as being one of Europe’s best. Indeed, in those formative years, £3 million of initial funding was set aside for international development, particularly in Malawi. That developed an already strong relationship between the people of Scotland and that country, and committed the Labour-Liberal coalition to tackling global health and wealth inequality, reducing infant mortality rates in Malawi and improving educational standards. The delivery of free personal care for the elderly was a transformative domestic policy that set Scotland on a path to being a more compassionate society, and it secured dignity for our elderly population. It was us putting the principles of devolution into action.

That was always the change that devolution was intended to make, and it is pretty telling that even though significant time has since passed, the policies I mention remain to this day some of the most significant achievements of the Scottish Parliament. The reality is that the SNP, Conservatives and now Reform UK thrive when Scotland is divided. Their record of poor delivery, incompetent governance, money wasted and vanity projects is clear to see, yet they are all as comfortable as one other in hiding behind the constitutional question. \p Richard Baker: My hon. Friend has mentioned Reform UK, which is apparently a recent convert to devolution. Does it tell us all we need to know about how much it values devolution, Scotland and its future that there is not one Member from that party in the Chamber this afternoon? \p Kenneth Stevenson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Devolution opened the door for the delivery of good legislation. It was an opportunity for devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, whose politicians were closer to home, to deliver positive change for the people they represented. However, for almost two decades, Scotland has been held back. Eye-watering amounts of public money have been wasted, our once-great education system has seen standards plummet, and the poverty-related attainment gap remains stubbornly wide, with the gap between pupils achieving an A to C grade at higher level sitting at 17.1 percentage points this year.

Like my Labour colleagues, I want devolution to succeed. I want the Scottish Parliament to deliver for Scottish people. I want the people of Scotland to look at their Parliament and recognise it as a place where good things get done in the interests of working people. However, under nationalist leadership, it has increasingly become a talking shop, where blame gets passed and responsibility and accountability are avoided.

It saddens me to say it, but through no fault of our public sector workforce—it is a consequence of SNP incompetence—those who live in Scotland have a one in six chance of being on an NHS waiting list. GP appointments in towns such as Shotts in my constituency are hard to come by. Rail fares are exorbitant. Those who are educators, as I was, are working with diminishing resources, and pupils from poorer backgrounds still face greater barriers to educational and vocational success. Indeed, with the opportunities now afforded to young people as a result of this Government embracing the potential of artificial intelligence, the SNP’s political choice to neglect our further education and vocational sector becomes increasingly inexcusable.

This is not the Scotland we envisaged when we held the devolution referendum and the first set of Scottish parliamentary elections. This is a Scotland that has been stopped in its tracks, due to the lack of ambition shown by its SNP Government, and their unwillingness to do anything about growing the economy, increasing investment or showcasing Scotland as a proud part of the United Kingdom. \p Melanie Ward: My hon. Friend rightly mentions the crucial role that further education plays, both in our communities and in our economy. Does he recognise that the reality is that, in my area, Fife colleges are receiving real-terms cuts from the SNP Scottish Government, whereas colleges in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen are receiving increases? Those areas are having their funding increased, whereas Fife is having its funding cut. \p Kenneth Stevenson: The whole further education system across Scotland needs to be looked at rather rapidly. Things are moving quickly, and we are now becoming a skills economy, with skills not just in AI, but in other things. A lot of companies want to move into Scotland, and they want a good, well-funded further education college close to the place they locate to.

I am immensely proud of the investment that this Labour Government have put into Scotland. The largest financial settlement in the history of devolution is being delivered to improve the lives of working Scots in Airdrie and Shotts and beyond. This reaffirms Labour’s commitment to devolution, and its pride and passion for Scotland’s potential. This debate has reflected on the past and the progress of devolution, but this historic settlement could define its future. The people of Scotland will have the opportunity to elect a Scottish Labour Government next year, to invest in our NHS and to grow our economy, so that it works once again for working men and women. \p Stephen Gethins: I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing forward this debate, and for the way in which he did so. This is always a  useful exercise: let me start off by being consensual. [Interruption.] I know that will astonish my Conservatives colleagues. There is always a place for legislators learning from one another. In my time working in the European institutions, that is what we used to do, and the same goes for these islands. To be fair, the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), also touched on that point, and it was good to hear about her experiences of Holyrood, as well as those of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; it enriched the debate. \p Chris Kane: rose— \p Stephen Gethins: I have barely started. Let me make a bit of progress, and maybe I can take the hon. Gentleman’s point shortly.

There is so much that we can learn, and there is always a way to learn. I know from my experiences here that there may be something that this place could learn from Holyrood. I remember taking part in seizing control of the Order Paper, simply so that Members could have a say. That is something we never have to do in Holyrood. I can remember a minority Government—only just a minority—in 2017 nearly keeling over because they were just short of a majority and yet refused to speak to the other parties, the Democratic Unionist party notwithstanding. They spoke to the DUP, but that was pretty much it. We have seen the catastrophe caused by the culture in this place, and the damage that did. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have acknowledged that. \p Harriet Cross: I want to pick up on the point about working with other parties to get a majority. The first thing that comes to mind is the SNP’s venture with the Scottish Greens after the last election in Scotland. Would the hon. Member reflect on how damaging that was, particularly for north-east Scotland, whether we are talking about upgrades to our roads, or the impact on our oil and gas sector? \p Stephen Gethins: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention.

What I find more surprising is that we have had only one majority Government during the period of devolution, yet every Government, regardless of their colour, and every party that has been a part of government—except the Conservatives, who struggle electorally in Scotland, which speaks to the wisdom of the Scottish electorate—have served their full term. In my time as an MP, we have one minority Government, led by the Conservatives. It collapsed in a heap and cost the taxpayer £40 billion a year—there was more waste emanating from this place than the Scottish Government’s entire budget, and the Conservatives bear huge responsibility for that.

On accountability, we sit in a Parliament where we have to pass an Act of Parliament just to get rid of a Member of the House of Lords. I have heard Members complain about those who sit in the House of Lords, be it Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone. Are they accountable? Are they accountable to the electorate in the way that every single Member of the Scottish Parliament is? [Interruption.] I will happily give way on the point  about Peter Mandelson if the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) wants to come in. No? Okay.

Every single Member of the Scottish Parliament is elected, and we could learn from that enormously in this place. It is a disgrace that it needs an Act of Parliament to remove a Member of the legislature, who has got a job for life, and I would love it if Labour would at long last deliver its 115-year-old manifesto commitment, but I fear we will be waiting at least another 115 years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross on his speech, but I beg to differ with him on one area, and today I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter): I do not think we should present the idea that the parent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should be minding its disappointing children. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross would agree, on reflection, that the parent of the Scottish Parliament was in fact the Scottish people in the referendum; that has been acknowledged by all sides. I am sure that he will reflect on that.

To be fair, Westminster has not been much of a parent these past few years. We saw austerity during the Labour and Conservative years; we saw Brexit; and we see that our neighbours have much more powerful legislatures at sub-state level. The Faroe Islands, the Åland Islands and Greenland are sub-state, non-independent actors that can determine their relationship with the European Union, and can even determine whether they want an independence referendum.

The Scottish Parliament is a relatively weak legislature compared with others in Europe, but despite that, child poverty is reducing, and social security is dealt with respectfully. When the Labour Government made the woeful mistake in their opening days in government of getting rid of the winter fuel payment, the Scottish Government, with their limited resources, stepped up. The Labour Government have criticised the fact that Scottish Water is in public hands; that astonishes me, but it remains in public hands because of devolution, and the move towards 100% renewables came about because of devolution.

There are some areas where we can learn from Westminster. I have served on Committees in this place, and they work well. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will be aware that, because of the structure that was put in place, Committees are part of the legislative process. There are always things to learn, and we need to acknowledge that. \p Chris Kane: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the need for different legislatures to learn from each other. Ater 10 years of COSLA saying to the Scottish Government that funding for local government has been stripped to the bone, libraries are closing, swimming pools are closing, schools are underfunded, our teachers are at their wits’ end in the classroom, and the ones who want to be in the classroom cannot get a job because there is not enough money. What has his party learned from COSLA, after 10 years of its pleas for local government to be funded better? \p Stephen Gethins: The hon. Member sounds very helpless, but there is quite a lot he could do about things, since the overwhelming majority of the Scottish Government’s finances still come from Westminster and the Chancellor. He will find that Scottish local government is in a better situation than its counterpart down in England, which has seen tremendous cuts from the Conservatives, and then from the Labour party as well.

Let me conclude on this. We should learn from each other. I look at all parts of these isles to see what we can learn. I have talked about Westminster, so let me touch on Wales. Members such as the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) were right to talk about Reform. Tomorrow there is a by-election in Caerphilly, which will reflect how people feel about what happens when Labour is in control of the devolved Administration in Wales. Looking at those polls, it is not for me to tell the people of Caerphilly how they should vote, but the hon. Member is right that Reform is a threat to devolution. I hope that Plaid Cymru wins in that election tomorrow given the threat from Reform and given that the other parties—Labour included—are so uncompetitive on that.

In this family of nations, Members are right to talk about a new relationship. Taking us out of the EU against our will was a profound change in that relationship. I was grateful to hear the concessions from the Secretary of State for Scotland today around an independence referendum.

Finally, I will reflect on the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross saying that nothing is forever. Nothing is forever. This place could not be forever in its control over Scotland, so let me finally bring this up: Labour and Liberal Democrat Members mentioned the claim of right for Scotland. The claim of right—I took this from a House of Commons Library paper—acknowledges the

“sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”.

That is something we would call for each and every day. \p Melanie Ward: Hon. Members may be aware that in May the people of Scotland sent 37 Scottish Labour MPs to this place—and a diverse bunch we are. It probably ages me to note that when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) speaks shortly, he may talk about the referendum, and he will mean the one in 2014, when he was just too young to vote, whereas when I talk about the referendum, I mean the one in 1997, for which I was just too young to vote.

Of course, that 1997 referendum asked whether there should be a Scottish Parliament and if it should have tax-varying powers. At the time, I remember feeling that if I had been old enough to do so I would have voted yes to both. It was a long-held Labour manifesto commitment to bring decision making on hugely important issues—our health, education, community safety and economy—into the hands of the Scottish people. I still remember being in the car with my mum the day after the vote, listening to the news coverage and feeling excited that the result had been “yes, yes”. It felt like such a huge opportunity for all of us.

In his speech at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Scotland’s then First Minister, the late great Donald Dewar, said that the Scottish Parliament was

“first a hope, then a belief, then a promise. Now”

it is

“a reality.”

The question today is whether the SNP Scottish Government are using the reality of those significant powers they hold, together with record levels of funding —an extra £5.2 billion this year alone—to make the greatest possible difference to the lives of our people. I believe the answer is clearly no, whether through incompetence or by design.

The Labour-led Scottish executives, as they were when the Scottish Parliament was first formed, took bold decisions: banning smoking in public places, the fresh talent initiative and action on sectarianism—something that too often is overlooked in Scotland. They took action and, crucially, delivered results, and we need far more of that in our politics in Scotland.

Today’s reality for many in my constituency, and across Fife and Scotland as a whole, has been bitterly disappointing after almost two decades of SNP division, diversion and failure. One in six Scots languish in pain on NHS waiting lists—over 40,000 of them in Fife. Indeed, more people are waiting over two years for NHS treatment in Glasgow alone than they are in the whole of England. A third of ambulances wait at hospitals for more than an hour while the patients in them wait for a bed. Last winter, medics at my local hospital, the Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy, had to set up a makeshift ward outside the hospital, because the queues of ambulances were so great. SNP Members may not think that that matters—they may think it is a record to be proud of—but that is not what my constituents feel at all. \p Wendy Chamberlain: The Victoria hospital is not in my constituency, but it serves my constituents. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the proposed downgrading of the neonatal intensive care units in both Dundee and Fife will means that our constituents will have to travel much further for critical need, and that their premature babies will be far away from home? \p Melanie Ward: I thank the hon. Member; I have seen the work she has been doing on this issue. It is essential that the special intensive care treatment available for premature and sick babies at the Victoria hospital does not change in any way. I wish the Scottish Government would get on and act to put at rest the concerns that our constituents no doubt share about that. \p Jamie Stone: May I offer a warning from history? During the time of the coalition Government in Edinburgh, I pled the case for maintaining consultant-led maternity services based in Wick. No sooner did the SNP Government get in than the service was downgraded. Now mums have to travel huge distances to give birth, and the grisly fact is that one mother of twins gave birth to one child in Golspie and the other in Inverness. That is intolerable in this day and age. \p Melanie Ward: I can feel the horror that the hon. Member feels for what his constituents have been put through because of that downgrade. \p Johanna Baxter: My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the pressures on the health services in Scotland under the SNP Government. Does she share my concern about the dental deserts that now exist in Scotland? Just yesterday, a constituent contacted me to say that they had been told that their daughter would have to wait three years for an orthodontist appointment—or they could pay more than £2,000 and receive a private appointment in two weeks. \p Melanie Ward: My hon. Friend makes an important point about something we see too frequently across Scotland: our people being forced to opt in to private healthcare because they cannot get treatment under the SNP’s NHS. That is completely unacceptable. I know that similar waits exist for assessments for autism and for mental health support. There is a crisis across Fife and the Scottish Government are refusing to give NHS Fife the support needed to try to make a difference.

The problems do not just exist in our health system; sadly, they also exist in our education system. Our educational outcomes in Scotland worsened this year, with the gap in attainment between the richest and poorest students growing, including in Fife; that happened after Nicola Sturgeon said that eradicating that attainment gap was the priority on which she wanted her record as First Minister to be judged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said earlier, Scottish Government failure on the targets they set for themselves is a hallmark of their time in office. The same Nicola Sturgeon proclaims her love of literature at book festivals, yet she was part of successive Governments who have presided over the closure of almost 100 libraries in Scotland.

On skills, we saw the UK Government having to step in recently to save a welding skills centre because the SNP Government refused to do so. The SNP Government’s indifference and often opposition to the highly skilled, highly paid jobs that the defence industry provides across Scotland and in constituencies such as mine has meant young workers missing out on the opportunity of a secure, highly paid job. It is also deeply irresponsible at such a dangerous time in the world, with Russian aggression in Europe right on our doorstep.

All those cuts stack up, while the bill to the taxpayer for SNP waste becomes ever more eye-watering: nearly £1 billion spent on Barlinnie prison, almost double the original cost; more than £400 million or four times the original estimate spent on two ferries, with one ferry still not in service eight years later; and let us not forget the costly shambles that was the deposit return scheme, flunked by the SNP and the Greens and described by the SNP’s leader in Westminster, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), as a “self-inflicted wound”.

The purpose of devolution is supposed to be to take action in Scotland on Scotland’s problems, and to help to make our nation the best it can be. Yet too often that is not the reality under this Scottish Government, as a couple of examples from my own constituency show. At the peak of summer this year, when many businesses in Kinghorn and Burntisland were looking forward to making the most of tourism season, because we are blessed by beautiful beaches, the beaches were closed because sewage spills made the water unsafe to swim.  Some of my constituents became physically sick because they had swum among sewage, yet the chief executive of publicly owned Scottish Water said over the summer that the concerns of my constituents “should not be overblown”. This issue has a real social and economic impact on people in my constituency, not to mention a health impact. It is the direct result of the SNP’s failure to invest in our sewerage network and in regular water-quality monitoring.

I wrote to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy in August and received a response that began with a comparison between Scottish and English bathing waters. We are familiar with that: if we raise a problem in Scotland, we hear, “Well, it is worse in England.” Even if that were true, that is exactly why this Labour Government are taking tough measures to crack down on polluting water companies. Yet water quality is another devolved issue, creating significant problems that the SNP Scottish Government seem completely disinterested in solving. \p Scott Arthur: My hon. Friend represents my home town, so it is always great to hear what is happening there. The UK Government inherited an awful situation from the Conservatives on water quality in rivers—that is beyond doubt—but in the UK we know how much sewage goes from sewerage systems into rivers. In my constituency, I have had dog owners concerned about what their dogs are eating on river banks, if I can put it politely. When I contacted Scottish Water, it could not even tell me the volume of sewage going into the rivers. Does she agree that this whole situation is unacceptable and that we have to discuss it more? \p Melanie Ward: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The experience of dog owners in his seat has also been raised with me locally. In Kinghorn, some of my residents were promised action from Scottish Water five years ago, and nothing has happened. There is no justifiable explanation for that.

Another serious example is that of antisocial behaviour. Across Fife, this seems to be a growing problem. Just last week, some of my constituents were left terrified by appalling disorder involving up to 50 young people in Cowdenbeath. A police officer was assaulted, and residents in Cowdenbeath have said that they are scared to go out at night. I know my local police are doing their best to get on top of the issue and have a plan to try to deal with disorder that might take place over the Hallowe’en period, which residents are worried about. I have raised the issue with the local police inspector and discussed it with him, but the disorder was not an isolated incident. Surely it cannot be just a coincidence that this comes as police numbers across Scotland last year fell to their lowest since 2008. It is increasingly clear that more devolved action is needed in Scotland to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour, because it makes lives miserable. We have to ask why it is not being taken seriously and why more is not being done about it by the Scottish Government.

I must say something about the number of tragic drug deaths in Scotland, which last year was the highest in Europe for the seventh year in a row. The National Records of Scotland has said that the total number of people dying from drug misuse in Scotland was more  than 10,000 over the past decade. Drug deaths in Fife last year were almost double what they were in 2010, each one of them a tragic waste of life.

I has a meeting recently with some of the residents of Linktown in Kirkcaldy, who have a particular problem with that issue. Residents are deeply worried; they told me about families in which mothers had had four children, but only one child now remained alive because of the scale of drug deaths and the problem that we have. That is one example of why it is so frustrating to hear the SNP continuing to chunter on about independence and trying to distract from the very real problems across our communities, rather than getting on and solving them.

We were told that the referendum on Scottish independence was a once-in-a-generation referendum, and the Scottish people gave their verdict very clearly. There are so many issues that the SNP’s mismanagement, neglect and under-investment have caused over the last almost two decades, yet the SNP continues to show almost no interest in fixing them and tackling the problems that it already has the powers to solve. It is long past time that the SNP took devolution seriously and used it to improve the lives of our people. \p Scott Arthur: I start by thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing the debate—it took us two goes to get here, but I thank him. I was inspired by his bravery in admitting that he was on the committee that oversaw the building of the Scottish Parliament, because I think it was 10 times over budget, but perhaps those are skills we can deploy to build ferries in Scotland. Perhaps they are already; I do not know.

It has now been 26 years since the Scottish Parliament was established with the promise of empowering our nation. For that to work, it has always been the case that the Government in Scotland need to have a can-do attitude. In the early years under Scottish Labour, the Government made significant progress, as we have already heard. We abolished tuition fees. We introduced a smoking ban, free personal care, and free bus passes for older people—that is one of my favourite ones—and we reintroduced the rail link to the Borders. One of the most amazing things that I read today was that during the 1999 to 2007 Parliaments, life expectancy in Scotland increased by 2.3 years. These are the wonders of a Labour Government. Of course, we also oversaw a vital expansion of social housing in Scotland, something that is needed today.

The pace of change during that era was incredible, as Scotland was finding its feet with its new Parliament, which felt like a bit of an experiment at the time but is now here to stay. In the two decades since then, however, the SNP Government have overseen a period of stagnation and decline across all of the same areas. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman on including some positivity in his speech. Does he agree that we do not want my Gaelic brothers and cousins, the SNP Members who are sitting in front of me, to leave the Union? I want them to stay in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forever, because we are better together. It is the money that comes centrally from Westminster that keeps the Scottish Parliament and its people going.

Something that perhaps has not been mentioned yet is that one of the advantages of devolution has been the tourism connections between Northern Ireland and Scotland—our cousins across the straits. Does the hon. Member agree that that is one of the things that is positive and good in the relationship between people from Ulster and people from Scotland? I am descended from the Stewarts of the lowlands of Scotland, so I am probably Scottish, maybe from before some people were— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Mr Shannon, I am sure we are all fascinated by from whom you are descended, but could I respectfully point out that Members who have not been in the Chamber for the bulk of this debate should not be making lengthy interventions? \p Scott Arthur: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Earlier, we heard about how the Scottish child payment has cut child poverty in Scotland. That is something that we all welcome, but it has only happened because of the Barnett consequentials that come to Scotland—because of those, public spending in Scotland is higher. If they were to go overnight, which some people want, Scotland as a whole would be poorer. I am convinced that Scotland will never vote to be poorer.

Getting back to the speech and my positivity, over the past year in this place, we have seen a real enthusiasm and energy about devolving powers to local democracy in England. That is something I see every single week on the Transport Committee—a lot of the powers being rolled out relate to transport—and we can see the difference that Andy Burnham is making in Manchester. It is a real shame that in Scotland, we do not see the same transfer of powers from the centre, Holyrood, into local authorities. Without a doubt, that is what is holding Scotland back.

The situation of housing in Scotland is particularly disheartening. After the Scottish Government declared a national housing emergency—one that they created through their cuts, but they did declare a housing emergency none the less—I expected to see a major and concerted effort to reverse the awful trend in the housing situation. Instead, the number of completed affordable homes fell this year by 22%, and new housing starts are also falling. There is a human cost to this. It is not just about statistics. In Scotland 10,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, and more people are living in temporary accommodation in Glasgow than in the whole of Wales. Those are incredible statistics, but we have to be careful: this is not a failure of devolution, but a failure of government.

Tourism, which was mentioned a few seconds ago, is a vital part of the Scottish economy, and a vital part of Edinburgh’s economy—it must employ at least one person in every street. However, the lack of decisive action has been clear. The Scottish Government are too focused on accumulating powers rather than using them. I love Edinburgh, and I am proud that people come from all over the world to see it, but I am sometimes ashamed of what they see. The amount of tourism coming into the city does have an impact, and the city itself gains very little direct cash benefit from the tourism industry. The solution was, of course, a tourist tax—about which I know my Conservative friends have their concerns.

I was on Edinburgh council between 2017 and 2024, and throughout that time we campaigned for a tourist tax power. Indeed, I think the council campaigned for it for nearly 10 years in the run-up to that. However, for reasons unclear to me, the SNP Government opposed it. Since then, they have started to support it, and more recently they have tried to take the credit for giving Edinburgh a power for which it had fought for years. They should be apologising instead, because their dithering has cost Edinburgh millions of pounds that could have been invested in our city to make it better for its residents and for the tourists who choose to come here. The prolonged guddle around the tourist tax raises serious questions about the SNP Government’s use of devolved powers.

Another fantastic example is the Scottish Government’s powers relating to the use of fireworks. I accept that the powers on fireworks are divided between this place and Holyrood, but I have met police officers in Edinburgh who have lasting injuries caused by fireworks, and indeed I have met police officers and fire brigade personnel who have had fireworks fired at them. I have met someone who runs a care home that was besieged by young adults with fireworks. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government say that there is insufficient evidence for them to take action on the use of fireworks in Edinburgh. It is absolutely mind-boggling: they could act, but they choose not to do so.

However, the most concerning issue relating to the use of powers in Scotland is healthcare, which others have already mentioned. As we heard earlier, this is not about NHS staff—such as my wife—but about how the NHS has been resourced and supported. Cancer waiting times were mentioned a few minutes ago; in Scotland they have never been worse. The situation is quite incredible for people who are waiting and waiting for a diagnosis, and it should shame us all. As of June 2025, 7,800 patients in Scotland have been waiting for in-patient or day-case treatment for more than two years, and in Edinburgh the number is 979. That figure stands in sharp contrast to the NHS England figure, which I think has also been mentioned: only 161 people, in a nation of about 50 million people, have been waiting for more than two years. Is that not incredible?

Devolution was never simply about giving Scotland more powers. It was always about wielding those powers with accountability—that important word—and competence, which is another important word, to improve the lives of people in Scotland. Rather than just being held on to, the powers should be used, and should be deployed to local authorities. Talking of local authorities, another issue is council tax. One of the reasons the SNP won the election in 2007 was its pledge to scrap council tax, but we are still waiting for that to happen. “Scrap the hated council tax” is the slogan that we have seen on billboards.

The current SNP Government have demonstrated a complete inability to meet their fundamental responsibility. Another example is shipbuilding. That Government own a shipyard in Scotland, which is fantastic, but they choose to send their own shipbuilding contracts to Poland and Turkey. Meanwhile, it is left to the UK Government—and let us give credit to the great work done by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in this regard—to go to Norway to bring contracts to those Scottish yards. Where is the Scottish Government’s priority when it comes to shipbuilding? It is non-existent. \p Patricia Ferguson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that it is only because BAE Systems won the contract with Norway that it is able to give work to Ferguson Marine, which is owned by the Scottish Government, to keep it going? At the time, the Scottish Government were saying, “We will not have anything to do with defence procurement.” The irony of that is appalling, given that people’s jobs are at stake. \p Scott Arthur: Yes, I do. It is fantastic that the contracts came from Norway to the UK, and they will keep households in jobs for many years to come. It is a fantastic vote of confidence in that workforce and the whole supply chain, but the very, very quiet thank you from the Scottish Government was utterly shameful.

It is time for a new Government who will not just set ambitious targets, but deliver them and improve the lives of people in Scotland. People will not be surprised to hear that I think that new Government should be led by Anas Sarwar.

I want to make one last point. We have spoken about parent and child Parliaments, and about levels of government. There is nothing that we can do here today to improve the relationship between the Scottish Government and councils in Scotland, but when we talk about the issues in Scotland, we have to remember that there is not a hierarchy of councillors, MSPs and MPs. We are all elected by the same people, we are all equal and we are all here to serve those people. If we use that kind of language more in our constituencies, residents will come with us on the argument about empowering our councils to make a real difference in our communities. That is the devolution that Scotland needs. \p Maureen Burke: I welcome this debate and thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing it. I am acutely aware that this debate is not just an opportunity for reflection on the past, but a chance to look forward.

Over the past two decades, the Scottish Parliament has grown, matured and become a symbol of Scottish life. Its importance and impact on the people of Scotland is just as relevant as the day-to-day activities in this place, and perhaps even more so. When it comes to policy on education, housing and the NHS—what people might consider bread-and-butter issues—decisions are now made in Edinburgh.

When the Labour Government passed the Scotland Act 1998, it was an opportunity for us to tailor policy and solutions to Scotland, recognising its distinct identity and character, and bringing power closer to the people as part of our Union of nations. Devolution is one of my party’s greatest achievements, and I am pleased that this Government are working to renew the settlement.

The success of devolution can be judged on two tests. The first is a technical test of its structure and principles. Devolution renews the UK constitution, rejecting an old, centralised model of politics that was and is unfit for a modern United Kingdom. On that first test, devolution has been an overwhelming success, but power for power’s sake is not enough.

The second test is very simple: what has devolution delivered? The past 25 years must be judged on whether people in constituencies like mine feel that a positive and material difference has been made to their lives. There are many success stories from the last 25 years—stories that are an argument in favour of power being shared and spread out across the UK. We were the first UK nation to ban indoor smoking and the first country in the world to legislate for the right to access free period products, as already mentioned. But although there are successes, those holding devolved power have not always used it for good.

I was a councillor in Glasgow before I took up my place in this House, and I witnessed how, year on year, the Scottish Government would centralise power and cut funding for local authorities. In this respect, resources were pulled up, not pushed down. To be clear, the outcome of the second test of delivery is not a failure of devolution, but a failure of the SNP in power. \p Pete Wishart: Just to explain why Labour is not in power and we are, I will list a few things we have done for the Scottish people and see what the hon. Member thinks: free tuition, free personal care, 1,100— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. An intervention is not a list of items. What is the question? Is there a question? \p Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Member recognise the over 100 SNP achievements? I could list them if she wants, but I am not going to be allowed to do so. Does she recognise the real gains and progress that we have made in Scotland? [Interruption.] I know Labour Members like to shout down SNP Members—they are sitting here doing their usual gurn fest—but our substantial achievements surely should be recognised by the Labour party. \p Maureen Burke: I do recognise the achievements of the Labour Government. [Interruption.] Can I carry on, please?

When the SNP Government took power in 2007, they promised to eradicate child poverty, but child poverty rates are just as bad today as they were then. The inequality gap has widened in other areas, too. The gap in positive outcomes for school leavers from the most and the least deprived areas has grown. This is driven by a failure in our schools, where the attainment gap between the richest and the poorest pupils has also widened. A record 10,000 children, too many of whom are from my city of Glasgow, are trapped without a permanent home and are growing up in temporary accommodation as Scotland’s housing crisis deepens. One in six Scots are waiting on an NHS waiting list, with at least 100,000 waiting for over a year for treatment—disgusting! Compare that with how this Labour Government are bringing down waiting times in England.

Against a backdrop of failure, next year’s Scottish Parliament elections are crucial to Scotland’s future. The year 2026 represents a chance to ensure that the next chapter of devolution is defined by delivery. \p Seamus Logan: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Maureen Burke: I will carry on, if the hon. Member does not mind, as I have nearly finished.

As I said at the start, the success of devolution can be judged on two tests. The first is about its structure and principles. I am pleased to say that devolution is now woven into the fabric of our nation, an achievement of which my party is very proud. However, on the second test—how devolved power has been exercised—I have concerns. That is why I am convinced that the only way to protect and enhance devolved power is for that power to be exercised by a Scottish Labour Government of vision and drive. The promise of devolution is the promise of a better Scotland, and I hope the people will vote for that next May. \p Chris Murray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate on the 25th anniversary of devolution.

My constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh is home to many of Scotland’s jewels. It is a privilege to represent Edinburgh castle, Holyrood palace and the Edinburgh festivals and fringe, although I think the performers are safe given some of the jokes we have heard from Opposition Members. However, the most important building in my seat—indeed, in the whole of Scotland—is at the foot of the Royal Mile. Not only is it architecturally a huge addition to Edinburgh’s scenery, but it is where the Scottish political heart beats. Calling the Scottish Parliament the centre of Scottish political life may sound like a bland truism, but it is not. It is a huge achievement, and not to think so would be to underestimate the achievement of devolution. Before 1999, critics of devolution said that it would amount to an overgrown town council, cause a brain drain, or be of interest only to the political class, not ordinary Scots.

I am of the devolution generation: for as long as I can remember, devolution has simply existed. That devolution generation is now reluctantly facing middle age, but for us it has become a fact of life that the Scottish Parliament is the primary Parliament in which decisions that affect our lives are taken. The community groups and local businesses that I speak to orient themselves towards Holyrood. When they say “the Parliament,” they mean that place, not this one. That is testament to the Scottish Parliament’s success in establishing itself as the fulcrum of Scottish political life.

However, we should consider a counterfactual. Imagine if devolution had been thwarted. Our health service, education and justice systems and housing policy would all receive only scraps of parliamentary time, with little scrutiny and even less reform. That would be a democratic affront even now, when the Government have 37 Scottish MPs, but it would have been an outrage over the 14 years under the last Conservative Administration, with little Scottish representation. The Scottish Parliament has its flaws, but it has undeniably remedied that democratic deficit, and in so doing, has removed one of the greatest threats to constitutional stability in Scotland. \p Torcuil Crichton: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for organising this debate—he is as much an institution as the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) speaks about the Scottish Parliament being the heartbeat of  Scottish politics. Is it not time, in the next 25 years, to devolve power from Edinburgh to regions like mine and the highlands, to super-charge the Highlands and Islands Enterprise into a highland development agency, cutting out—shut your ears—those dynamos of economic activity, Inverness and the Moray firth, and to focus devolved power on transport, housing, depopulation and economic and cultural growth in rural areas of Scotland? Powers have been pulled back from them into a centralised Edinburgh. \p Chris Murray: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The concentration of power in the Scottish Parliament does not work for cities, rural areas, the central belt or the highlands and islands, because it treats Scotland as one monolithic whole and does not address the differences in its communities.

That brings me to my next point. Although devolution has been successful in establishing the Scottish Parliament, we have to be honest about where it has fallen short. Many hon. Members have laid out a litany of failures: poorer health outcomes, falling schools standards that were once the envy of Europe, a housing emergency and stubbornly high poverty, and the drugs crisis, which shames us all. We once led the world in setting climate targets, but we now lead the world in ditching them. We must understand why that happened.

If we think of devolution only as the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, we get it wrong. In 1999, another institution was created—the Scottish Government, then the Scottish Executive. \p Scott Arthur: I envy the jewels in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Scottish Government—and the Greens, who were complicit—really got climate targets wrong. The targets were set in law and endorsed via an election, but they dumped them overnight. Is that not one of the most shameful things to have happened in Holyrood? \p Chris Murray: My hon. Friend gets exactly to the nub of the issue. We have seen good debate, gestures and discussion in Scotland, but we have not seen the concomitant focus on policy, delivery and outcomes. The Scottish Parliament has been a success; the Scottish Government have not. It is important to draw that distinction.

A highly centralised structure has concentrated decision-making in St Andrew’s House, to the detriment of local communities. As we have heard, councils have had their funding and influence hollowed out. There has been a proliferation of quangos and agencies; there are now more quangos in Scotland than there are Members of the Scottish Parliament. That breeds a clientelism and elitism that shut ordinary people out of decision-making processes. \p Wendy Chamberlain: The hon. Member is making a very strong and powerful point. Does he agree that, as a result of those quangos and the things he is describing, we have actually seen a loss of power to the Scottish Parliament, where MSPs are not getting the opportunity to put things forward? Often, that is because the Scottish Government are bringing forward framework Bills that do not have proper policy decisions, which is why the implementation of so many pieces of legislation ultimately fails. \p Chris Murray: I think the hon. Lady may be psychic, because she makes exactly the point I am about to make. I could not agree with her more. What this breeds is a culture of gesture and tokenism. That means we side-step tough choices in Scotland. We duck the trade-offs that are required to implement policy change. We now have roundtables and co-production as substitutes for reform, and consultations and strategies as substitutes for action.

I would take that argument one step further. When Labour came to power in 1999, it set about tackling Scotland’s pressing problems, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), referred to: free bus passes; banning smoking in public places; repealing section 28, for which I will personally be forever grateful; and pursuing radical homelessness and housing reforms. But fundamentally, that policy agenda had been developed in the 1990s and the Government set about implementing it when they got in.

When the SNP took office in 2007 with its fundamental policy goal of independence, all policy development was shaped around that objective. I have to say that the fact that independence has not been realised has become the alibi for every policy failure on its watch. What that means is that the Scottish Parliament never became the policy development hub in Scottish political life. It was denuded of its ability to form ideas and for those to be turned into action, and to do the full spectrum of policy development in Scotland, such as identifying social problems, working through how reforms would work, weighing up the trade-offs, brokering the consent among the people and then turning those ideas into tangible reality in people’s lives.

I am a devolutionist not just because I believe in Scottish representation, but because I believe in the power of the state to change Scottish lives. The Scottish Parliament gave us the locus to debate that, but the Scottish Government have failed to give us the mechanism to operationalise and turn it into reality. It is my assertion that the Scottish Parliament now stands, along with Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Good Friday agreement, as a firmament of the British constitutional set-up. Donald Dewar said it should be not just an end, but a means to a greater end. We have the means now, but it is lamentable that we have not used them to achieve those ends.

The last 18 years have been heavy on argument, short on policy delivery. A different direction is needed to fulfil the promise of devolution, which is the devolved Government using the power of the state not to further their own ambitions, but to materially improve the lives of Scotland’s people. \p Richard Baker: I congratulate my good friend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate, which he led with the same erudition and success with which he led the victorious Scottish Parliament “University Challenge” team against our dear colleagues in the Welsh Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, this was an early win for Scottish devolution. I know that this debate is particularly close to his heart, as it is to the heart of my hon. Friend the  Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and to mine, as former Members of the Scottish Parliament, where we had the privilege to serve.

Today, more than 25 years after the Parliament opened in 1999, it is an appropriate point to look back over what has been accomplished through devolution. I remain proud that it was the 1997 Labour Government, through the Scotland Act, who paved the way to our Parliament. Since that principle has been established in Scotland, so many regions and cities across the UK have also embraced the principle of devolution with great success. As we look to the future of our constitutional settlement and reforms of this Parliament—independence for Scotland or further devolution is not the only constitutional debate we have—I hope we will see a greater role still for our nations and regions here, along the lines envisioned by Gordon Brown in the excellent report by his Commission on the UK’s Future.

That we have seen devolution of power across the UK since the foundation of the Scottish Parliament is, I believe, a positive reflection on devolution in Scotland being the settled and tested will of the Scottish people. Since 1999, significant additional powers have been devolved to Holyrood, not least around income tax. It is so disappointing, therefore, that while the Scottish National party has been quick to demand greater devolution of powers to Scotland, it has been unable and unwilling to devolve power to local communities in Scotland. This debate is titled “Devolution in Scotland”, but the sad fact is that there has been precious little devolution in Scotland under the SNP. Ministers in Edinburgh have centralised power at every turn and eviscerated the budgets of our local authorities.

What have the Scottish Government achieved with the powers they have so ruthlessly retained for themselves, instead of devolving them to local communities, and with the £5.2 billion additional funding given to the Scottish Government in the Budget this year? The SNP has presided over a rate of economic growth in Scotland that has lagged behind that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and it has failed to support our teachers and pupils. The reputation of our education system in Scotland —once the great pride of our country—has been battered because of the incompetence of SNP Ministers.

While NHS waiting lists in England are shrinking thanks to the investment secured by the Chancellor, and the successful stewardship of health services by the Secretary of State, Ministers in Scotland are squandering billions of pounds extra on our health services. In Fife, we face some of the longest waiting times for surgery anywhere in Scotland. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) mentioned the sorry statistics on drug deaths in Scotland. The issue is taking a tragic toll on many communities and families in my constituency. On the wider provision of health services, particularly with regard to primary care, it was frankly beyond belief to hear some of the promises made by John Swinney on walk-in appointments at GP surgeries. Lochgelly in my constituency is still waiting for any indication that work will begin on a new health centre that is badly needed by the local community. SNP Ministers first promised it more than 15 years ago.

We have also discussed the centralisation of police and fire services in Scotland. What has been its result? Certainly in my constituency, police numbers are being cut in the face of rising concerns about antisocial behaviour.  On fire and rescue services, Lochgelly faces the removal of a fire engine and a reduced number of firefighters, and another appliance is to be removed in either Glenrothes or Methil. It is no wonder that in a debate on devolution, SNP Members want only to talk about independence, given their woeful record in government under devolution.

What a contrast with what Labour Ministers in Westminster are delivering for Scotland, and what Scottish Labour offers next year—not a tired Government out of ideas, but a Government who will fix our NHS, restore our schools, close the opportunity gap, grow our economy and bring back community policing for safer communities. Labour will ensure that the record funding in public services in Scotland is not wasted, but actually results in the improvements that people expect, need and deserve. It is Labour Ministers who are actually devolving power on decision making, ensuring that communities have a real say in what will make a difference for them. Two pride in place schemes in Fife are bringing £40 million of investment into the communities where it is most needed.

In his famous address at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, Donald Dewar spoke of the

“shout of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyards”.

This Government have secured the future of 2,000 jobs at the Clyde shipyard with a £10 billion deal with Norway for new frigates. In my constituency, the Methil yard was saved from bankruptcy by the actions of this Government, as Ministers succeeded in ensuring that it was purchased by Navantia UK, along with Arnish in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), saving the jobs of 200 skilled workers and apprentices in Methil, and allowing the yard to look to a bright future. \p Scott Arthur: I fear that my colleague is being far too modest; he played a key role in saving those jobs. I can remember him, just after the election, pacing these corridors, fraught and worried. I pay tribute to him for all his work on this. \p Richard Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. I am renowned for my modesty, as he knows. Equally modest are my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) and Labour Ministers, who did much work on these key issues for our local community.

In May, Scotland will have the chance of a bright future if it elects a new Government, who actually want devolution to work, with Anas Sarwar as First Minister. Scotland should replace a tired Scottish Government who have run out of ideas with new leadership that has already shown that it is ambitious for Scotland and ready to deliver on the promise of devolution. \p Nusrat Ghani: “Modesty” and “politicians” are not two words that you often hear in the same sentence. I call Brian Leishman—and I hope your cough is better. \p Brian Leishman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate it. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.

The intense animosity that the Thatcher and Major Governments created made the prospect of more political power being based in Scotland highly attractive, but devolution has—so far, at least—been a let-down. The goal of taking meaningful decisions locally has not been realised, and that is pure political failure. Since devolution, local authorities’ ability to be vehicles for driving meaningful improvements to communities has been reduced because of underfunding. Power has been concentrated in big government in Edinburgh, and ironically the SNP has ended up repeating what happened under Thatcher and Major by diluting the influence of local councillors. Quite simply, communities need councils to be properly funded by the Scottish Government.

De-industrialisation, insecure employment, low wages and child poverty were all features of life in Scotland back in 1999, and they still are, because this year Scotland lost its oil refining capacity, meaning that hundreds of jobs are gone—and Grangemouth has pockets of the worst poverty in the country, according to statistics from the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. Elsewhere, 25% of children in Clackmannanshire will go to bed tonight living in poverty. Imagine being born into poverty, and existing—not living—in poverty, unable to escape it. That is the reality of life for millions of Scots today.

Another thing that negatively impacts life chances and the possibility of social mobility in working-class communities like mine is the collapse of the Scottish further education sector under this SNP Government, which other Members have mentioned. We have seen flat cash settlements, and funding for colleges reduced by 20% over the last five years. The principal of Forth Valley college says that if funding does not change, the Alloa campus will close in 2026, with Stirling set to close in 2027, and Falkirk more than likely to close in 2028.

Living standards and life chances are plummeting in Scotland. The SNP Government have been in charge for nearly two decades. This is on them. If any nationalist dares say, “What about Wales?” or “The statistics are worse in England”, then they are showing themselves up. By using someone else’s poverty and hardship as some sort of perverse justification for the abject failure of governance in Holyrood, they show that they are not the bastions of socialism that they say they are. Socialists know that poverty is a political failure when it impacts any and every community.

The report card for the Scottish Parliament says that it must do better, but let us be honest: the fact that councils are underfunded and colleges are in crisis is ultimately not because of a failure of devolution. The failures are down to the people in charge: this SNP Government. For the sake of devolution and for the sake of Scotland, we need a change next May. \p Euan Stainbank: I welcome the debate, brought forward by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). As my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) pointed out, I am a member of the devolution generation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said, some of us in that generation are still in our 20s.  To the best of my knowledge, I am the first of Scotland’s national elected representatives to be born after the founding of the Scottish Parliament. Reflections on the successes and failures of devolution over the last 25 years are critical to the devolution generation.

The constitutional settlement may still be under debate in some corners, but I hope that one thing that unites us across the House is support for a Scottish Parliament, democratically elected by the people of Scotland. The eternal words of the Scotland Act 1998—

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament”—

echo proudly; they are not just the long-won prize of campaigning by politicians from this place and across Scotland, but a definitive decision by the Scottish people that there will be an institution governing many of our priorities that is directly representative of the Scottish people.

The Scottish Parliament’s existence has a far greater mandate than any individual politician or Government ever has or will have. In 1997, 80% of voters in Falkirk backed devolution. The first Scottish Parliament returned Cathy Peattie and Dennis Canavan as the two constituency MSPs for the Falkirk area—both people who have made an immense contribution to our public life. Devolution brought with it an electoral system that permitted a far preferable, if not perfect, representative voting system.

However, I say as a proud devolutionist that we cannot get caught in the trap of nostalgia, or defence of the status quo. Scotland’s Parliaments and two Governments must always do better in the interests of the Scottish people. That is not only their core purpose, but an essential antidote to the enemies of democracy, especially now.

The perception of my generation, who have only ever known devolution, and have not known a world before the Scottish Parliament, is at a critical juncture. One of the most remarkable conversations I had recently was with a group of young carers in my constituency. They were buzzing with remarkable suggestions and clear, pragmatic ideas about how their community could be improved. Those included ideas for, yes, support for carers, but also for more accessible high streets, for safety for women and girls, and for public transport—all core competencies of their local council or the Scottish Parliament.

We should strongly welcome the fact that there is a burgeoning generation of young representatives and leaders in Falkirk and across Scotland, and many of them have direct life experience of the systems that the devolved legislature has governed for the last 25 years. The question for us and our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament is: how, in this next phase of devolution, will we empower that generation to lead, and to make better decisions than those who came before them?

What sticks out to me when I have these refreshing conversations with bright, young Falkirk bairns is how much young people tend to agree on the priorities; on how politicians should collaborate to deliver them; and on how Governments should do things. I see how reasonable young people are when holding politicians to account, and how much of what they want to do and see is relevant to their area. One of the greatest assets that we have in the devolution generation is a generation  who are engaged in their area, and who have the political language and skills to fight their community’s corner. That is progress. Votes at 16, secured in 2016 for Scottish parliamentary elections, are now to be delivered here, under this Labour Government.

However, an element of trust in our politics is being eroded, uniquely in Scotland. The issue is structural and long-term. I have no qualms about stating that Tory austerity was a predominant factor in the decline that we have seen on various fronts in Scotland and across the UK, but my constituents see that the devolved settlement has not manoeuvred strategically or effectively to maintain an achievable rate of progress under those circumstances. The challenge faced under devolution is common to this place, too: it is a lack of delivery that my constituents can see and feel.

Over 10 years ago, the former First Minister said that she wanted to prioritise, and be judged on, closing the attainment gap, but she barely made a dent in it. That gap between rhetoric and delivery undermines the public’s faith in Parliament as an institution, as does the lack of accountability afterwards, or the willingness to be held directly accountable for that failure. \p Llinos Medi: After a quarter of a century of Labour rule, child poverty in Wales is the worse than in all other nations of the UK. Is that the reason for the collapse in support for Labour in Caerphilly, and why, tomorrow, people will turn to Plaid Cymru? \p Euan Stainbank: I imagine the people of Wales choose to vote in the same ways as the Scottish people do for the Scots. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) put it very well: simply picking a different nation in the UK to tackle our policy issues is getting exhausting, especially on the nationalist Benches.

Not all but part of the problem with the failure to close the attainment gap, as many Members have mentioned, and a broader loss of trust in our politics, were due to disproportionate budget cuts that have landed at the door of local authorities. Having been a councillor for two and a half years, I know that they are at the coalface delivering the services in which our constituents have most acutely seen the evidence of decline. Even though council tax had been frozen for 11 out of the last 17 years of budget settlements, I was completely surprised at the stunt at the 2023 SNP conference which left councils with both arms tied behind their backs. The challenges we see in social care and infrastructure are tied in with local authorities. This is where politics is most tangibly felt by our constituents and it is currently failing them. Even with a £5.2 billion increase secured by us on these Benches for Scotland, Falkirk Council was allocated only an additional £5 million in revenue funding this year from the Scottish Government. Where has the rest of the money gone, John?

Colleges in Scotland, as again my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth touched upon, are at crisis point. With years of systematic underfunding from the Scottish Government seeing a 20% real-terms cut in funding over the past five years, many colleges have now shrunk their staff numbers and offered fewer courses for working-class students at a time when the skills they provide are at their most valuable. Forth Valley college has been put in the position of being an  essential provider of training and skills, while Grangemouth undergoes an industrial crisis and requires major investment for transition. It is a hugely valuable local provider of jobs, opportunities and training, yet it is now consulting on the closure of its Alloa campus. Things are going in the wrong direction. Scotland’s civic infrastructure should have been enhanced and resilient and protected by devolution, but in too many places it has not been protected.

On the situation at Alexander Dennis, when it announced its consultation on 400 jobs and closing its only site in Scotland, there was, to their credit, engagement eventually from the Scottish Government, but that was 10 months after the company initially suggested it was going to depart Scotland if something was not done about the scandalous ScotZEB 2 scheme— Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund—sending less than 20% of orders to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. However, there have been improvements in how we in this place, under this Labour Government, work with the Administration in Edinburgh. As the Deputy First Minister accurately pointed out recently, the swift engagement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in his time as Scottish Secretary was invaluable in ensuring that the conversation progressed quickly.

The truth is that when that sort of crisis arrives in one of our industrial assets—something we should all intrinsically value: a bus manufacturer that has existed long before the inception of the Scottish Parliament and long before any of us were around—action should have been taken much earlier, at strategic level, designing procurement through the powers the Scottish Parliament have to retain a pipeline of orders funded by taxpayer money for buses built in Scotland, not built in China. \p Chris Murray: My hon. Friend is eloquently setting out a whole host of policy challenges that we face in Scotland, whether they are in industrial strategy, opportunities for the young or the provision of further education. Does he agree that when the Government of Scotland say that the answer to every single one of those challenges is independence, that shuts down any thinking on what we actually need to do to tackle the challenges and denudes Scotland of the ability to think through how we deal with the real issues that we face in our communities? \p Euan Stainbank: I agree. It also undermines the message in section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 that there shall be a Scottish Parliament with the powers to fix policy challenges. It is the reason we are proud devolutionists in this place: we want a Scottish Parliament that can address the issues under its competency. I agree that that reaction does shut down debate; it shuts down the idea that there is something better that we can achieve in all of our constituents’ interests.

As I said on Alexander Dennis, we should never have been in a position where a company warned about the loss of a critical and necessary industry in Scotland, especially as we seek to achieve our net zero goals, and it took over a year for decisive action to be taken to prevent it, albeit I welcome that. A devolved Government with a serious interest in standing up for Scotland beyond its being a slogan would not and should not have let it get to that point. Across this place, in the Scottish Government and in our councils that have been hard-pressed for far too many years under a  Government who I hope get replaced next year, we must do better. Scotland demands better and Falkirk demands better. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.

The last Labour Government had many remarkable achievements, including Sure Start, the national minimum wage and the Human Rights Act 1998, but right up there among our proudest was delivering devolution to Scotland. That was our vision, rooted in the belief that communities are best placed to make local decisions that shape their lives. I know this might age me somewhat, but I was proud to be active in the campaign for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and campaign for a Parliament that had tax-varying powers. Indeed, I still have my “Yes-Yes” t-shirt to prove it.

We have seen the success of devolution in London, Manchester and Liverpool, with better transport, more house building and more investment in grassroots sports. When power is put in the hands of those who know their communities best, devolution delivers. Yet I fear that the obsession of the SNP Government in Holyrood with seeking to rerun referendum after referendum has paralysed Government north of the border. Their endless fixation on independence has come at the expense of delivery. They promised more homes but built a housing crisis; they pledged to strengthen our NHS but put party politics over patients; and instead of serving Scotland they have sunk to sleaze and scandal.

Councils across our country are on their knees after funding cuts year after year. Local government funding in Scotland over the last 18 years has fallen by 42%, which is less than it would have been had it kept up with inflation. In a summer interview promoting her catalogue of career failures, Nicola Sturgeon admitted that she might leave Scotland “for a wee while”—the great champion for independence now fleeing the wreck her party has created. While London, Manchester and Liverpool reap the rewards of devolution done properly, for the last 18 years Scotland has been left with a Government more interested in constitutional games than the real business of governing. Although that might be a game to some of those on the Opposition Benches, the consequences for my constituents are very real, and I will speak to one example.

While the Scottish Government have been handed the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution by this Labour Government, in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-run health and social care partnership is swinging the axe on vital frontline services to plug a £19 million black hole in its budget that it created. Right now, it is holding voluntary severance talks across the partnership, cutting jobs and gutting and hollowing out services that have already been stripped to the bone.

Users of the Disability Resource Centre, which is a lifeline for people living with physical disabilities, many of whom reside in my constituency, now face a review of their fees and transport costs backdated to April. That potentially means bills of more than £1,000 hitting the doorsteps of some of the most vulnerable people in  our community, driving them out the back door and slamming it shut on the vital services that they rely on across Renfrewshire.

Last year, the SNP locally was humiliated into a U-turn on a proposed merger of the Mirin and Milldale day centres after brave campaigners stood up to say no to cuts to the vital services their families rely on. Yet last month, the SNP dragged back the same cruel proposal, putting the same families through the same anguish all over again. It is cynical, it is calculated and it is downright cruel. Hon. Members need not just take my word for it. These are the words of Linda Murray, a member of the Renfrewshire Learning Disability Carers Group, who said last month:

“We knew it wasn’t a done deal last year. We basically got a stay of execution…We’re tired, we’re exhausted, it took a lot out of all of us and we expected to at least get a couple of years’ grace”.

We have seen it all before. Just like its endless independence obsession, the SNP ignores the will of the people and grinds our communities down until exhaustion delivers it the outcome it demands. That is not democracy; it is harassment of vulnerable families. The result is that the most vulnerable people in my community are robbed of the care that they rely on. That is not just a failure of leadership; it is a disgrace. The SNP lead for the local integrated joint board said:

“The IJB’s financial challenges have been well documented”.

I rarely say this of the SNP, but I happen to agree with her. Those financial challenges have been well documented, so why have the local SNP representatives not challenged their own Government in Holyrood to get them the money that they rely on, especially when the Government have been given such a generous financial settlement from this Labour Government?

In truth, it has been 18 wasted years—years of scandal, years of sleaze and years of division—while schools in my communities have been subject to decline, our hospitals struggle and our services face collapse. This is not about money, because the Scottish Government have the money. This is not about powers, because they have the powers. This is about excuses, and for the SNP Government in Holyrood, they have no excuses left. Scotland deserves better, our NHS deserves better, our local people deserve better, and next year, the people of Scotland can choose a new and fresh direction with a Scottish Labour Government led by Anas Sarwar. \p Martin Rhodes: I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate and for his thoughtful and reflective opening speech. Although the Scottish Parliament may be a place of hotly debated politics, the importance of Scottish devolution is unquestionable. It is right to refer to devolution and the Scottish Parliament as the “settled will” of the Scottish people. As predicted, it has become a cornerstone for Scottish democracy in the UK, but closing the political and social gap between the decision makers and the people those decisions impact upon cannot and should not stop at devolution from London to Edinburgh—from this place to Holyrood.

In recent years we have seen the benefits of further devolving power and funding to city regions across the UK, with the ability at local level to create and tailor policies to better serve communities. In Scotland, however, devolution appears to have stalled at Holyrood. In recent years, the SNP has followed the principle of “devolution for me and not for thee”. There seems to have been little appetite from the Scottish Government to pass power and more funding to the Glasgow city region and other communities across Scotland.

Devolution has effectively stalled. This is even though further devolution is the logical continuation of the principles of power sharing, representation and accountability that were pivotal in the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the first place. Such a continuation of devolution is important for the Glasgow metropolitan region—a city region with a well developed and established collaboration system. This includes the city deal—one of the largest in the UK—the UK Government’s shared prosperity fund and the city region innovation accelerator, to name just a few. These investments have already delivered jobs and major regeneration for areas across Glasgow city region. This is proof that the Glasgow region can handle more responsibility while also creating a case for more necessary accountability and governance.

The Glasgow city region is now at a point where the Scottish Government and the city region need to look at a range of policy areas and levers, including powers over transport, housing, skills, economic development and public service reform, and to devolve those appropriate powers to allow the Glasgow city region to tailor its policies to the needs of our communities. For our communities, this could mean better buses that turn up on time, people no longer on housing waiting lists for years and years, and more opportunities for neglected communities.

The devolution of powers and responsibilities must be based on strategic aims, providing the processes to deliver the policies to achieve those aims, and those processes must be accountable and transparent with robust governance, but all of this must be rooted in the outcomes that we want to achieve: to reduce inequality and poverty; to improve access to healthcare and improve health outcomes; and to create new jobs and opportunities.

A recent report by the Centre for Cities makes this case for further devolution, too. It estimates that if Glasgow performed in line with cities of comparable size, Scotland’s economy could be 4.6% larger. When I campaigned with so many others during the referendum in 1997 for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, it was to devolve powers from this place as appropriate to the Scottish Parliament. It was not for those powers and responsibilities then to be hoarded by Holyrood; it was part of a wider process to devolve power down through local government and to communities and citizens.

During next year’s Scottish election, the Scottish people again have an opportunity to revitalise devolution. By electing a Scottish Labour Government with Anas Sarwar as First Minister, they can have a Government who are committed to the principle of devolution and who will deliver on the priorities of the Scottish people, instead of continuing with constitutional posturing. We can build on the successes of the Scottish Parliament and develop a stronger Scottish Parliament. It will be made stronger not by grasping on to powers but by devolving powers further. We can renew the commitment  to devolution, renew the commitment to empower communities and renew our direction—all of that in the service of the Scottish people. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Susan Murray: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing attention to the matter. As my colleagues have made clear, the Liberal Democrats believe in devolution. Our votes pushed it over the line in 1999, delivering a Scottish Parliament and taking decision making closer to the people.

We remain proud of that achievement, and we want that devolution to extend to councils and to communities, yet the sad reality is that the opportunities presented to Scotland by devolution have been squandered. Years of financial mismanagement, failed education reforms and endless NHS recovery plans have let Scots down. After nearly two decades in office, the SNP have proved every bit as adept at failing the people of Scotland as they have accused the Conservatives of being. We have watched the SNP divert half a billion pounds from green energy initiatives simply to plug budget gaps; through mismanagement, we have seen the squandering of another half a billion on ferries that were originally promised for less than £100 million; and worryingly, we have seen the party’s own finances called into question. Conservative curtains and cupboards are clearly a no-go, but the SNP motorhomes are all right.

Despite those failures and the clear rejection of independence, the SNP continues to demand referenda. In 2014, the “time was right” and the people of Scotland said no. In 2016, the “time was right” again and the courts rejected it. In 2025, it repeats the same mantra. A vote once described as once in a generation has become once in a Parliament. Instead of working for the Scottish people, it flogs the same tired cause.

The Liberal Democrats offer a different vision: a fair deal for Scotland within a strong federal United Kingdom. We want decisions taken as close to local communities as possible, empowering them to shape their future, but co-operation at the federal level is vital to tackle the challenges we face as a nation. This is why the Liberal Democrats want a joint council of the nations to drive innovation and co-ordinated action to tackle the climate emergency. We want to secure agreement through the common frameworks and a fair dispute resolution process so that differences between Administrations are resolved maturely, not through endless political games. We want stronger joint ministerial work on issues such as the industrial strategy to ensure that every nation’s voice is heard in shaping our economy.

That kind of co-operation delivers results. We should draw on the strengths of all four nations, not tear them apart and play politics with people’s futures. Scotland deserves better than the uncertainty it has experienced. It deserves co-operation, certainty and a Government who listen. I look forward to the Scottish elections next year, with more Liberal Democrat MSPs entering the Scottish Parliament to work hard in the interests of Scottish people of all ages. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. \p Andrew Bowie: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate—at the second attempt. I know how important devolution in Scotland is to him, a signatory of the claim of right and a founder Member of the Scottish Parliament, and that he wants to see it work better for the people of Scotland. I remember the day the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, in the words of Winnie Ewing. I was not quite as young as some of today’s contributors, but I was still at primary school. It was a seminal moment. I am from one of those generations of Scots who cannot really remember a time before there being a Scottish Parliament. As somebody who has worked in the Scottish Parliament, it is a place for which I have great fondness.

The machinery of devolution, set in motion over a quarter of a century ago, was intended to bring decision making closer to the people, to empower communities and to enhance accountability. It was never meant to be a stepping stone to separation, nor a shield for poor governance. When we assess devolution, we must consider whether it has brought power closer to communities, whether it fosters accountability and whether it delivers essential services for Scots and across Scotland to a high standard.

Under the Scottish nationalists, the system is not delivering for Scotland. The creeping transfer of powers from communities to Holyrood undermines the core ambition of delivering power into local hands. While the civil service in Edinburgh is fed to the point of bloating, power is usurped from local authorities and delivered to centralised decision makers. In 1995, the Labour shadow Secretary of State for Scotland predicted that devolution would kill separatism “stone dead”, that delivering power to the Scottish Executive, then creating a Scottish Parliament, would satiate the separatist appetite. Sadly, that has turned out not to be the case.

In 2015, in the wake of the failed bid for independence, the Smith review was commissioned to set out provisions for greater devolution. From that experiment, we now know that it matters not how much is given; it will never be enough for the nationalists. The nationalists in Scotland bray out for more, more, more while delivering less and less and less. Today I implore the Minister, the Secretary of State and this Government to be brave and stand firm in support of our United Kingdom and move away from the “devolve and forget” mentality. \p Stephen Gethins: The Labour party did some analysis that showed that Liz Truss’s mini-Budget cost homeowners in the UK £336 billion—about five or six times the budget of the Scottish Parliament. What impact does the hon. Member think that had on devolution and trust in this institution? \p Andrew Bowie: When the Scottish Parliament was established, and when the Scottish Executive, now Government, were created, I think the Scottish people expected it to do a bit better than continually comparing its record and role to the role of the UK Government. People are frankly fed up of, “England is doing worse,” and would like some accountability and responsibility to be held by those who have been elected to Holyrood and, indeed, hold power over vast swathes of life in Scotland.

We all agree that some mistakes were made under the last Conservative Administration—some—but that does not in any way excuse the hon. Member for never once standing in this place and resiling from or showing any contrition about the litany of mistakes and the sheer disaster that has befallen some of the public services that our constituents, represented by most of the MPs in this room, have to suffer day in, day out. That includes falling standards in education and Scotland’s NHS, fewer local services, libraries closing and transport infrastructure failing to meet even the level at which it was at in 1997 when the referendum was held. We acknowledge our mistakes and acknowledge that we did not get everything right over the last 14 years. It would be quite nice if one day a Scottish National party Member of Parliament was able to do the same about their Administration in Edinburgh.

Scots face the highest tax burden anywhere in the UK, with little to show for it. Under the Scottish nationalists, the standard of services—education, healthcare, policing—has taken a severe blow. Waiting lists grow longer, Police Scotland faces cuts, violence in schools is rising, and outcomes in education and health lag behind those in England. Despite more funding per child, Scottish pupils are falling behind. Despite higher per capita spending on healthcare, life expectancy is lower and more patients wait over two years for treatment. The NHS in Scotland has recovered less well from the pandemic. The challenges of rurality and deprivation are real, but they are not excuses. Under the Scottish nationalists, Scots pay more and get less.

Let us be absolutely clear: devolution is not the problem. The problem is the party in power in Edinburgh—a party that clamours for more powers, more control and more devolution, yet fails to deliver on the powers it already holds; a party that centralises, duplicates and bloats the civil service in Edinburgh while outcomes deteriorate. Just last week we heard the broken record of the SNP regurgitating plans to tear apart our United Kingdom, including reports of £10,000 of taxpayers’ money spent on a pro-independence propaganda campaign. I would like to ask the Government whether they plan to get a grip on that and prevent the Scottish Government from spending UK taxpayer money on research and advertising on their obsession with independence. It is time for the SNP to focus on the priorities that matter to Scots.

Devolution of greater powers over welfare were implemented through the Scotland Act 2016, yet here we are, nearly a decade later, still seeing statutory instruments coming through Westminster to tidy up the unfinished business of devolved welfare responsibilities. The duplication, the inefficiency and the inefficacy are staggering, and that is only the beginning.

The failures of the Scottish Government under the nationalists are not a foreign concern. One of the problems that has resulted from devolution is that Scottish, Welsh and the majority of Northern Irish issues fail to be debated on the Floor of this House. School performance crashing down the international tables; rising antisocial behaviour; falling police numbers—these are not just Scottish issues, but issues for all of us in this United Kingdom.

The Conservatives will no longer accept a “devolve and forget” mentality. It has allowed the Scottish Government to evade scrutiny and accountability for far too long. My MSP colleagues, led fantastically by Russell Findlay in the Scottish Conservatives, work tirelessly in Holyrood to hold the SNP to account, but it is also our job here, in the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, to do that.

Were it not for bold and correct decision of the Conservative Secretary of State, Alister Jack and the now Leader of the Opposition to stand up to the absurd Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we would have biological men in women’s spaces—prisons, refuges, bathrooms and changing spaces. By the way, although the Bill was implemented and brought forward by the Scottish National party, it was supported by Scottish Labour. It also appears to be supported by the Reform party, according to their justice adviser. The Labour party has since conceded it was wrong to support the Bill, which prompts the question of whether they read it at the time.

We in the Conservative party will not stand by in this place while drugs deaths ravage communities in Glasgow, while children from deprived backgrounds suffer the most from poor educational opportunities in a schooling system that was once the envy of the world, or while the concerns and safety of women and girls in prisons and protected spaces is ignored and trivialised. We will not stand idly by and allow the Scottish nationalists to fail Scots so tremendously. We refuse to devolve and forget.

Twenty-five years on from the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it is time to take stock and reflect on the successes, but also on the failures, of that institution and its Government. It is time to evaluate not just the structure of devolution, but the performance of those entrusted with its powers. We remain committed to devolution, but the Conservatives will not shy away from asking whether the current settlement is delivering for Scots. \p Kirsty McNeill: I welcome today’s debate on devolution. At its heart, it is really a discussion of how we deliver better outcomes for the people of Scotland. That objective has long animated the public service of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). I am grateful to them for securing this debate, and particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West for the very moving tribute she paid to our departed friends Donald Dewar and John Smith.

I am incredibly proud that Labour is the party of devolution and that it was a Labour Government that delivered the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I do not wish to pay tribute or give thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) or for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for their trolling about the fact that they did not, like so many of us, come of age during that devolution debate. I am proud to say that a vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament was the first ballot I ever cast, and since that time I have never wavered in my belief that Scotland’s interests are well served by being part of our Union of  nations, while at the same time having a Parliament in Scotland that can reflect the distinctive interests and needs of Scotland.

Those of you who can cast your minds back to the beginning of this debate some hours ago may remember that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West made some important points about what we might be able to learn from the operations and procedures of each Parliament. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned that he would like Ministers to be more accessible, so I give the undertaking on the Floor of the House that I hope in myself and the Secretary of State you will always find Scotland Office Ministers accessible to you— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. “You” is me. \p Kirsty McNeill: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope Members across this House will always find us accessible to them and willing to make their constituents’ case across Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West said she felt that we should spend less time in the Lobby. I underscore that I am delighted to be spending so much time with you all in the Lobby— \p Caroline Nokes: Them all! \p Kirsty McNeill: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—my mistake.

The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said that he would like to focus some of this debate on the state of the health service in Scotland, and we would be delighted to address that. As we have heard repeatedly on the Floor of the House today, if people live south of the border, they experience more and more appointments being available and waiting lists going down; if they live up the road, one in six of them is on a waiting list. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who I thank for her service in the NHS, relayed that so movingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) did likewise and spoke movingly about the experience of patients in her area.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) talked about paused capital health spending in her constituency, and I am very sorry to hear that. I advise her to ask the SNP Government about the record settlement they had in the devolution area and where the money, which could have been put to good use for patients in her area, has gone.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), asked this Government to be unequivocal in our support for the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm that we are, but we recognise that support for this family of nations is partly dependent on the delivery of this Government in Westminster. We are resolutely focused on delivering for Scots and cleaning up the mess that his party left.

The shadow Secretary of State’s party colleague, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), accused us of focusing too much on trade promotion—  guilty as charged. We could almost taste the envy about the three trade deals secured under this Government. I am pleased to confirm that we will continue to promote Scotland’s world-class products and services to the world, and we will do so proudly and without apology. \p John Cooper: The Minister will agree that the work on those trade deals was begun under the previous Administration. \p Kirsty McNeill: Credit for those trade deals sits with those who got them over the line. This is a Labour Government who have delivered comprehensively for Scotland’s world-class producers and services, and we are delighted to have done so.

The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) said that we should really be having a debate about accountability, and I agree with him. We have more quango chiefs than MSPs in Scotland, because it is actually very difficult to hold to account those who deliver public services and spend public money in Scotland. That is why Anas Sarwar is so intent on bringing back accountability to elected Members. \p Stephen Gethins: On the point about accountability, in the Scottish Parliament all parliamentarians are elected. Following that, does the Minister think that all parliamentarians should be elected in this place as well? \p Kirsty McNeill: We are focused on the priorities of the people of Scotland. We constantly have constitutional questions and questions about second-order concerns from the Opposition Benches, but we will resolutely focus on jobs and pay in Scotland, as we were elected to do.

My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Falkirk and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) laid at the SNP’s door the charge, which I agree with, that the SNP is much more interested in devolution to Scotland than devolution inside Scotland. I argue that devolution is a habit of mind—one that the SNP is yet to acquire, so interested is it in centralising power in its own hands in Edinburgh.

Devolution in Scotland has always been about ensuring that our distinctive voice is heard in the United Kingdom, and this Government have continued in that vein since taking office. We have reset the relationship with the Scottish Government to be one based on delivery and partnership, but the question now is about how Scotland’s two Governments, together with our local communities, can best seize the opportunities granted by artificial intelligence, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences, defence and the digital industries. Despite the insistence of Opposition Members, we cannot do that through division or constant constitutional wrangling.

We heard from Opposition Members that they would like to return to the days—the 14 years—when the SNP and the Tories had a symbiotic relationship in which each served the other’s political ends because they were locked in a dance of grievance, rather than having a focus on delivery.

Our approach as a Labour Government is different. We say that we may not agree on everything between different levels of Government, but we can and must agree on more, enough to make a difference to the people we serve. We have already seen results from having a  Labour Government with Scots at its beating heart: the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, with a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots; a new industrial strategy to ensure Scotland takes advantage of the jobs of the future; GB Energy, with investment to drive the clean energy revolution; up to 60,000 clean energy jobs in Scotland by 2030, an increase of 40,000 from 2023; £200 million secured for the industrial future of Grangemouth; a historic deal worth £10 billion to supply Norway with Type 26 frigates; a trade deal with India that is set to grow the Scottish economy by £190 million a year; the highest settlement for the Scottish Government in the devolution era; and a £292 million Pride in Place investment to regenerate Scottish communities. That is what delivery looks like.

Let us contrast that with the record of the SNP, which was so poignantly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). There is much about Scotland’s economy to be proud of, but we on the Labour Benches are under no illusions: it has underperformed, and has particularly underperformed in the service of working people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) and the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) pointed out so eloquently. If Scotland’s growth in the past decade had even matched the sluggish growth of the UK as a whole, our economy would be nearly £10 billion larger today. That is a decade of lost opportunity, lost jobs and lost potential.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was right that we should differentiate failures of devolution from failures that sit squarely at the SNP’s door. We need a new approach, one that involves Scotland’s cities and regions and local government, but the SNP’s desire for highly centralised power instead of responsive and active local government in Scotland has led to the accountability crisis we have already discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) have done a fantastic job of explaining the role and desires of local government. \p Patricia Ferguson: It is very interesting to hear my hon. Friend outline so succinctly how Scotland could be better served if the UK Labour Government’s policies were copied elsewhere. I believe that symbols can sometimes be very important, so does she agree that the fact that there are more Labour Scottish Ministers sitting on the Front Bench than there are SNP Members attending this debate says a lot about people’s priorities, and about the priorities of this Government compared with those of the SNP? \p Kirsty McNeill: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. At the last election, we promised to maximise Scotland’s influence, and this is what that looks like.

The calls we have heard from leaders across Scotland are clear. Local government leaders are not just asking for money, but for powers—powers over skills, transport and growth—to unlock the full potential of their regions. They are really asking for genuine accountability to the  people they serve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross have both highlighted, there are problems with accountability and scrutiny in how the Committee system in Holyrood has evolved away from the desires of those who founded the Scottish Parliament. They have warned that Committees that were intended to be the backbone of scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament are too often dominated by the governing party, and lack the independence needed to really hold the Executive to account. Their view—which, as founding Members of the Scottish Parliament, carries much weight—is that without stronger and more robust Committees, devolution cannot deliver as the architects of the Scotland Act intended.

As has been said many times this afternoon, devolution was never meant to be an end in itself. It was always supposed to be a means to improve lives, not with division, but through co-operation. If we can focus on our common purpose across this House and between all levels of Government—if we focus on stronger growth and fairer opportunities—Scotland can truly be at the heart of UK prosperity. \p Jamie Stone: Looking back to a much younger version of myself going to my first meeting of the Scottish constitutional convention in 1989, I never would have dreamt then that I would lead a debate of this nature in this place, but here we are. I thank from the bottom of my heart all Members who have made contributions, and I hope that from time to time, the present Scottish Government—or any Scottish Government—will look in the mirror and think, “Are we doing things right?” I hope that Hansard is looked at, read and thought about, because there is room for improvement.

I leave you with one last thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, which may take colleagues by surprise. There have been repeated references to someone during this debate. I remember getting into the lift in Holyrood on my first day there after my election in 1999. A tall, gangling figure was in the lift. He looked me up and down and said, “And who exactly—um—are you?” That was Donald Dewar. When I said who I was, he said, “Ah! We had had hopes of that seat, but I am sure we shall work together in a very satisfactory manner.” And we did.

I have had conversations with Labour Members about this, but I am not aware of any image of Donald Dewar in this place. Given that this was a man who made such an extraordinary contribution to the constitution of these islands, that may be something that the Art Committee might want to think about. \p Patricia Ferguson: I am sure you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to tell the hon. Member that unfortunately that request has been rejected by the Art Committee. I am not sure that I will necessarily take that lying down, as he would imagine, but it has been rejected as things stand, and I thought it important for him to know that. \p Jamie Stone: Well, well, well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the hon. Lady well and I doubt very much that she will take it lying down, and I am sure that she will  have the support of others. Whether we see devolution as a means to an end called independence or see it, as I do, as a way of improving services in Scotland, I think we should all honour that particular man. \p Caroline Nokes: I am not sure that it is entirely in order to correct the record, but there are, in fact, images of Donald Dewar in the parliamentary collection.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered devolution in Scotland. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.) \p Paulette Hamilton: I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on a subject that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been discussed on the Floor of the House before.

I often speak of my 25 years as an NHS nurse because that experience has fundamentally shaped my understanding of the hidden struggles within our communities, and it is from that perspective that I raise the urgent and often misunderstood issue of hoarding disorder. Many years ago, as a district nurse serving the Kingstanding community—the same community that I am now proud to represent in Parliament—I entered homes where extreme clutter was not an anomaly but a visible sign of a deep, unaddressed need. Today, we have a name for it. In 2018, hoarding disorder was formally recognised in Britain as a distinct mental health condition. It is defined by persistent difficulty in discarding or parting with possessions, regardless of value, leading to cluttered living spaces and significant distress or impairment in daily life. \p Warinder Juss: My hon. Friend speaks very effectively about hoarding disorder. As she has explained, it is a mental health condition in its own right, although it is often confused with obsessive-compulsive disorder. One of my constituents spoke to me about her husband, who has completely filled the living room with items that he just cannot discard. Does my hon. Friend agree that whether it is related to OCD or to another condition, hoarding not only disrupts the lives of the individual who goes through the anxiety and trauma of the condition, but affects others around that individual?

During Prime Minister’s questions this morning, we heard that one in four of us will suffer from a mental health condition. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to increase mental health support to make it easily accessible and enable it to provide effective treatment, and that such earlier intervention can avoid the deterioration of the condition? \p Paulette Hamilton: My hon. Friend raises a valuable point. I will come on to that later in my speech, but I absolutely agree that hoarding disrupts people’s lives. \p Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady for bringing forward this issue. She is a dear friend of mine, and I always look forward to her contributions to this Chamber and Westminster Hall. I often think of a TV programme on this subject. Perhaps I did not always understand the obsessive behaviour of hoarding, but that TV programme opened our eyes to it, and helped us understand it. The makers of the programme not only showed the problem, but how to bring about a solution. That is what I always loved about the programme: it started off with a problem, but ended up with a solution. \p Paulette Hamilton: The hon. Member is right, but this is not just about a solution. A number of people in our society are living with a mental health condition,   and it needs to be treated. At the moment, there are no strategies in place, but I will answer his question as I go on. I thank him for his contribution. \p Rachael Maskell: I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for securing tonight’s debate. I have met York’s Community Bees, who have developed strategies for supporting people in the community. They dearly need money, because they are not only addressing mental health needs but de-risking a situation. Hoarding risks infection, infestations, fire and structural damage to homes, so they play a really crucial role. \p Paulette Hamilton: Again, my hon. Friend raises a valuable point. The issue of financing is vital, but I will discuss that more as I go on.

Hoarding disorder is a widespread condition affecting between 2% and 5% of the population, which equates to approximately 1.2 million to 3 million people in Britain. Let me be absolutely clear: hoarding is not a lifestyle choice, or a matter of laziness. It is a complex mental health condition, deeply rooted in emotional distress and underlying trauma, often stemming from adverse childhood experiences. For hoarders, it can result in unsafe living conditions, social isolation and a diminished ability to manage day-to-day responsibilities. If left untreated, it has a huge cost for families, the NHS, housing providers and emergency services.

On top of that, hoarding is a long-term condition with few effective treatment options, meaning that behaviours are often left unresolved. My professional experience showed me the heartbreaking reality of individuals drowning in clutter, their mental health deteriorating and their relationships broken. Dealing with hoarding can be very time-consuming and expensive. Providing support falls disproportionately to ill-equipped local authorities and overstretched third-sector organisations, such as Birmingham’s Clouds End CIC, led by the inspirational Heather Matuozzo.

The challenges can be broken down into four key areas. The first area is public health and safety. Hoarding does not just hurt individuals, but has knock-on effects on the entire community. The hazardous living conditions that it creates, from severe fire risks and blocked escape routes to unsanitary and unsafe housing, pose a direct danger not only to the individual, but to their neighbours and the brave professionals, firefighters, social workers and others who are called in to intervene.

The second challenge has to do with public awareness and education. We cannot combat what we do not understand. We urgently need to educate our communities, and our frontline professionals working in social care, housing, health and the emergency services, to recognise hoarding as a mental health issue, so that we can reduce stigma and promote more compassionate and effective intervention.

The third challenge has to do with mental health and support gaps. Mental health services and treatments that address hoarding specifically remain scarce and underfunded. Many people affected feel reluctant to seek help because of stigma, lack of awareness, or fear of eviction or other legal consequences. Closing this support gap is not optional; it is essential.

The final challenge concerns the legal and housing implications. Housing providers can be faced with challenging legal situations in which tenants’ hoarding behaviours lead to breaches of tenancy agreements or safety policies. Unfortunately, these cases are too often handled through eviction or legal action, rather than support being provided, so that the root causes of the problem can be addressed. We need policies that balance legal responsibilities with compassionate mental health support. As a society, we have a responsibility to support those living with hoarding disorder. In Birmingham, the number of people needing support has risen exponentially since the covid pandemic, and the story is the same across the country, as Members have highlighted. The seriousness and scale of this issue demands a co-ordinated national response, led by Government. We need a national strategy to bring consistency, reduce risk and improve lives.

The current legal framework is simply not fit for purpose. The Care Act 2014 recognises that people who hoard may be considered vulnerable or entitled to advocacy. However, there are no national guidelines for the agencies that encounter hoarding in their work. Without guidance, responses to hoarding will remain inconsistent and ineffective. In the absence of national guidelines, agencies are forced to rely on outdated legislation, such as the Public Health Act 1936, which refers to “filthy or verminous premises”. Under these powers, a person can be forced to clear their property, even if they own it. If they cannot afford clearance, it is undertaken on their behalf and charged to the property. This approach is deeply flawed. It treats hoarding purely as a practical or environmental issue, rather than recognising that these are vulnerable human beings in need of help. Failing to recognise hoarding as a mental health condition risks traumatising individuals, worsening hoarding behaviours and, in the most extreme cases, contributing to suicidal thoughts. The human impact should not be understated. Lack of proper support and compassion leads to further trauma, distress and a greater risk of re-accumulation.

National guidelines would provide clarity on what constitutes appropriate and effective practice, a consistent framework for agencies across the UK, a balance between addressing practical risks and meeting underlying mental health needs, and clear routes for advice, support and specialist referral.

That brings me to my central ask of Ministers. We need a co-ordinated national strategy for hoarding disorder. Although the Care Act 2014 provides a foundation by recognising vulnerability, the absence of specific national guidelines leads to a postcode lottery of care, and to inconsistent and often ineffective intervention. A national framework would provide clarity, consistency and compassion by balancing risk management with mental health support and establishing clear pathways for specialist help.

I was proud that the Labour manifesto committed to recruiting 8,500 extra mental health staff, and to delivering a transformative 10-year plan for mental health. It is essential that those welcome initiatives explicitly include and address hoarding disorder. \p Rachael Maskell: My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with her time. Community Bees in York has helped 600 people over the past seven years. It has a lot of expertise, not just in how to sensitively support  people in decluttering, but in upcycling; it makes a positive contribution by selling things on. It has sold 7,000 books, and collected 5,323 items from landfill and passed them on. That not only helps people who have hoarded, but contributes to the future. Does she agree that that should be part of the holistic model? \p Paulette Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely brilliant point. Yes, that should be part of the holistic model, but there is no model in place at the moment. It is like the wild, wild west—everybody is just doing as they see fit. That is why I secured this debate.

I urge the Government to prioritise the development of national guidelines, in order to equip all frontline workers with the tools to identify and address hoarding compassionately and effectively; to ensure a truly integrated, multi-agency approach that brings together mental health services, social care, housing and emergency responders; and to invest in research and data collection, so we can properly understand the scale, causes and economic impact of hoarding in the UK, and ensure that our policies are evidence-based and our resources are allocated wisely. In my nursing career, we were taught that prevention is always better than cure. That holds true for hoarding. Early intervention is more humane and more cost-effective than crisis response.

This issue has remained in the shadows for too long. We have a duty to bring it into the light, to replace judgment with understanding, and to offer a hand up to the millions of our citizens who live with this devastating condition. I look forward to hearing in the Minister’s response how the Government intend to lead this vital change. \p Zubir Ahmed: I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), who is vice-chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her for her work on that Committee, on which she has consistently championed the voices of the unheard, and for her 30 years’ service in the NHS as a district nurse. As she was speaking, I recalled that, as a medical student at the University of Glasgow, I had the pleasure of spending a lot of time shadowing district nurses. I always found them to have the perfect mixture of clinical acumen and a sixth sense of something being not quite right. She displays those attributes in abundance.

My hon. Friend has been true to form in raising the issue of hoarding. This disorder is, by definition, kept from public view. Although it is often overlooked, it has a profound impact on the lives of the affected, their families and their carers, and, of course, on local services. Too many suffer in silence. I thank Hoarding UK, Clouds End and Clutterers Anonymous, to name just a few of the charities that do so much to support people up and down the country.

For too long, hoarding has been seen as something quirky, or perhaps even comical, but the disorder is neither a joke nor a rarity; it is a complex and often misunderstood condition that can have devastating consequences for people’s mental and physical health. Often, it is a portent to investigating further mental wellbeing and illness.

Estimates vary, but research suggests that between 2% and 3% of the UK population, as my hon. Friend adumbrated, may be affected by hoarding behaviours. These are often associated with traumatic life experiences such as bereavement, divorce or eviction. People who hoard can experience deep emotional distress, guilt and anxiety. The clutter in their homes often represents emotional pain, memories or attempts to regain control.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.) \p Zubir Ahmed: The impact of hoarding can be severe. The clutter can compromise hygiene, strain relationships and pose safety risks, so let me be clear: these people deserve compassion and support from this Government and from every corner of society.

My hon. Friend asks whether the Government will introduce a national hoarding strategy. There are no plans for a specific strategy, but we absolutely recognise that people who hoard must have access to the right support. At the moment, that requires more co-ordination than is currently in place. As she knows better than anyone as a district nurse and an independent lay manager, mental health services have been decimated over the last 14 years. This Government are doing the hard yards of rebuilding those services while transforming our mental health system, so people can access the right support at the right time and indeed the right place. Through our 10-year health plan, we have set long-term reforms to make mental health a core priority of the NHS and to move from crisis care to prevention and early intervention.

This transformation will include: investing up to £120 million to expand the number of mental health emergency departments to 85 across England; a modern service framework for severe mental illness to support consistent high-quality and high-value care; and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, recruiting 8,500 new mental health workers across the NHS to increase capacity and make sure help is available where and when needed.

We are already piloting six 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres, which will bring together a range of professionals and imbibe that holistic concept—professionals such as psychologists, peer support workers, housing specialists and employment advisers. The pilots are testing out mechanisms that will enable that whole-team approach to capture people who otherwise remain hidden, including collaborative planning of care and treatment, communication and engagement, single patient records and shared outcome measures. This joined-up approach presents an opportunity for people, including those with hoarding disorder, to be identified and to get holistic support and treatment, and then to better join up between social services and mental health support.

We know, too, that there are people in contact with social care right now who have a suspected hoarding disorder. Digital social care records, which have been implemented by 80% of Care Quality Commission providers, are already improving that quality and safety, and that personalisation of care. We are also investing in the development of a national infrastructure for social care, which will lay the foundations for ensuring greater interoperability and integration between care  and health services, so that, again, fewer people slip through the net, as is often the case with hoarding disorders.

People who hoard may be isolated, may not recognise their behaviour as a problem and may be reluctant to engage with services. That is why safeguarding plays such an important role. The Care Act 2014 and its statutory guidance make clear that self-neglect, which explicitly includes hoarding, is a safeguarding concern. Where a local authority has cause to suspect that an adult appears to be at risk of self-neglect and is unable to protect themselves as a result, that authority must carry out a safeguarding inquiry. The purpose of that inquiry is to establish what action is required and by whom, and to keep that person safe and ultimately get them the support they need. The guidance also advises that each case of self-neglect should be assessed on an individualised case-by-case basis. Professionals, whether social workers, carers, housing officers, emergency services or clinicians, have a responsibility to spot the signs, raise concerns, and support people and direct them towards help.

One of the most effective treatments of hoarding disorder is cognitive behavioural therapy, otherwise known as CBT. CBT is a form of talking therapy that helps individuals to understand the thoughts and feelings that influence their behaviour and supports them gradually to make practical changes to their living environment. Through NHS talking therapies, people with a hoarding disorder can access evidence-based psychological interventions such as CBT.

This Government are expanding access to talking therapies this year and have committed to continuing this expansion over the coming years. We aim to increase the number of people completing a course of talking therapy by 384,000 by the end of this Parliament and to increase the number of sessions someone can access, meaning that more people will be able to access timely and high-quality mental health support in their local area, and that these services can be accessed not only through their GP, but through self-referral.

We know, however, that accessing these services can be difficult for those who feel isolated or who feel shame about their condition. As advised by national charities, therefore, during National Hoarding Awareness Week, we encourage friends and family members of people suspected of having a hoarding disorder to gently encourage them to speak to their GP, who can help to assess their needs and refer them to the appropriate mental health and community support. No one should face this condition alone.

Of course, hoarding can also be associated with serious mental illnesses, including severe depression and obsessive compulsive disorder, which can require more specialist or intensive forms of support. That is why the Government are transforming services for people living with severe mental illnesses by investing in new models of integrated community care, expanding priceless support and increasing access to physical health checks and tailored interventions.

At its heart, this debate is about dignity and compassion. We are talking about members of our own communities who deserve the same compassion, care and support as anyone else with any other illness. The Vice-Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington, deserves real credit for her work on this issue. We will continue to work with her, mental health professionals, voluntary organisations and people with lived experience to smash the stigma while improving access to care. \p Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. From listening to, meeting and engaging with those from York Community Bees, I know that their big cry is for funding. These people are specialists in the work that they do to support my residents, but they need funding. Will the Minister send a message to commissioners to ensure that they commission these support services? \p Zubir Ahmed: My hon. Friend brings a great deal of experience in these matters to this House. I can certainly give her an assurance that as part of this Government’s 10-year health agenda, we encourage all commissioners to commission strategically on the basis of what will prevent ill health in the long term. I believe this issue is an exemplar of where we could think about commissioning mental health services differently to try to pick up the signs earlier.

For too long, people with mental health conditions, including those who hoard, have not received the understanding or support that they deserve. I want to end, however, on a note of optimism. With love from families, patience from friends and the ongoing support of charities and third sector organisations, countless people with hoarding disorder have managed to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives. We will continue to work closely with these partners, local authorities and charities to ensure that this Government are also playing our full part.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.