debates/debates2025-07-17a conversation_18
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-17)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-17a conversation_18

Ben Maguire:My constituents, Mr and Mrs Greathead, supply specialist industrial products to businesses across the UK and Europe. Since Brexit, they have faced many extra layers of difficulty, delays and costs, and they are in the middle of a three-year battle with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that correct tariffs are charged. Will the Minister please look into the barriers that my constituents face when trading with Europe, and ensure that excessive red tape does not hold them back? \p Gareth Thomas: I sympathise with the hon. Member’s constituents on the difficulties that they face. On the challenges that he says they face with HMRC, he may want to get in contact with my colleague, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who has responsibility for HMRC. \p Amanda Hack: At a panel discussion earlier this year, I joined a group of leading women in the hospitality sector, who repeatedly highlighted that the lack of female representation in leadership roles and ownership is a persistent barrier to progress in the sector. What steps is the Minister taking to support women in the hospitality industry into leadership and ownership roles? \p Gareth Thomas: This is an important issue. The Invest in Women taskforce is looking at some of the very real barriers that women entrepreneurs face, both in hospitality and more generally. Access to finance is one of the challenges that we have heard back about. A fund is being put together to help women entrepreneurs with that, but we need to do more, and our SMEs strategy will set out our plans in that regard. \p John Cooper: We have heard this morning that the review of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 somehow tramples on Holyrood, but in fact, the Government say:

“Devolved Governments will have greater flexibility to set rules”.

Is there not a danger that this invites the SNP Government to introduce change for the sake of change, and divergence for the sake of divergence, thus damaging trade right across the country? \p Douglas Alexander: Well, if I am simultaneously being criticised by the SNP and the Conservative party, I am pretty sure that we have got the balance right.  The UK Internal Market Act seeks to strike the appropriate balance between giving devolved Governments flexibility on policy and avoiding unnecessary barriers for UK businesses. I believe we have got that balance exactly right. \p Ben Goldsborough: The over 1,000 employees at the Lotus plant in South Norfolk and Norwich North are the pride of our constituencies, and I thank the Secretary of State for his support in recent weeks. May I ask for a meeting with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), so that we can talk about our discussions with local employees? \p Jonathan Reynolds: I can absolutely guarantee my hon. Friend that we will have that meeting. I appreciate the work that we have been able to do together, reacting   to the media reports that initially surfaced. There is some clarity from the company, but not the full degree of clarity that we need. I will make sure that we get that meeting set up for him and his colleagues. \p Bobby Dean: We have just had our fifth consecutive month of job losses announced, and research shows that as many as 17% of companies are considering redundancies. What is the Government’s analysis of why this is happening? \p Gareth Thomas: I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that we have had four interest rate cuts, almost 400,000 jobs have been created, our industrial strategy has been hugely welcomed, and we have had three deals, so it is perhaps not a surprise that recent surveys point to a nine-year high in business confidence. \p Paul Holmes: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the new policies announced in the Government’s strategy for elections. \p Rushanara Ali: The Government have today published our strategy for modern and secure elections. When we came into power just over a year ago, the Government committed through our manifesto to bringing forward measures to strengthen our precious democracy and uphold the integrity of our elections. The strategy we have published today sets out how we will legislate and implement provisions to extend the voter franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, increase participation in our elections, tackle the inconsistencies in voter identification rules, and protect our democracy by overhauling our political finance rules.

We recognise that there is a growing and worrying trend of candidates, administrators and electors facing harassment and intimidation, which has a chilling effect on our democracy. We are bringing forward measures to tackle this issue. I thank Mr Speaker and the Speaker’s Conference for the work that is being conducted, and the report that has been published, on harassment and intimidation. We will fix the foundations of how elections operate by taking forward a range of practical measures to ensure that elections continue to be delivered successfully.

Our democracy is central to who we are as a country. We can take pride in its evolution, and in how it continues to inspire. The Government have a responsibility to protect and strengthen it. The plans we have announced today will future-proof our democracy, secure our elections and protect them against interference. We will deliver on these plans during the lifetime of this Parliament through a programme of reforms, which will include an elections Bill that will be introduced in due course. Through this strategy, we will usher in a new chapter in our democracy that reflects our principles and restores faith in our politics. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House on this very important agenda. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Paul Holmes: Yesterday, the Department gave notice of a written ministerial statement on the Government’s new strategy for elections, which is a significant policy document on changes to election law and political finance law—something that affects us all in this House. Instead of the Minister using this democratic Chamber to announce a new and wide-ranging strategy on democracy, the Government chose to announce it to the press in Monday’s No. 10 lobby briefing—typical government by press release. In fact, it has just been announced on “BBC News”. There will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny until September, due to the pending recess.

Why did the Minister not choose to come to the House to announce this policy, despite us having been given word through a written ministerial statement that the Government would do so? Why did she not think it right to come here of her own accord to announce it?  Why has there been no consultation of political parties to date? This is contrary to the approach of the last Government, who actively consulted on changes.

This strategy has finally revealed the Government’s ambition to allow a 16-year-old to vote in an election, but not to stand in it, probably because young people are abandoning the Labour party in droves. Why do they think a 16-year-old should be able vote, but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket or an alcoholic drink, marry, go to war or even stand in the elections they are voting in? Is not the Government’s position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?

Does the Minister agree that, while foreign donations are already illegal and should remain so, steps should be taken to tighten the law to prevent donations from those who are not properly on the electoral roll, including the funnelling of money from impermissible sources? We welcome the U-turn on not scrapping voter ID, but will using bank cards not undermine the security of the ballot box, and what security measures will she bring in now that automatic registration has been announced?

Finally, what steps will the Minister take to tackle the important issue of intimidation in public life? Will the Government still abide by the long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties without proper engagement and discussion? And will they stop announcing constitutional policy by press release? \p Rushanara Ali: This Government were elected on a manifesto that committed us to granting 16-year-olds the right to vote and protecting our democracy from foreign money. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party lost the general election, in the worst general election defeat for decades, so it is no wonder that the Conservatives are scared of the electorate. The truth is that young people deserve to have a stake and have a say in the future of our democracy. Young people can vote for any party they like, and it speaks volumes that he would prefer them to be silenced.

I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman’s party sat in government for 14 years, and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter our system, despite independent experts calling for change. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into UK politics. Both the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission have called for strengthened regulations and greater transparency in political donations, alongside modernised enforcement. We make no apologies for finally taking the tough choices, and protecting Britain’s democracy from malign foreign interference.

The real question for the hon. Gentleman is whether the Conservatives will finally end their addiction to donations from shell companies. Under the new laws, they will not have a choice, and we will not stop there, because they will finally have to update their weak due diligence checks and conduct enhanced checks. We will give the Electoral Commission the power to administer a hefty fine, of up to a maximum of £500,000, to deter bad behaviour. Instead of pointing the finger, the hon. Gentleman should be welcoming these changes, and taking the opportunity to finally clean up his party.

We have published the elections strategy, and we have laid a written statement. I have responded in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I will continue to engage with parliamentary colleagues in the coming days, over the summer recess and in the autumn.

We want to make a series of changes, and I am determined to make sure we get as much cross-party agreement as possible. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, because I believe that there is common ground on a range of issues. He knows all too well the harassment and intimidation, and threats to our lives, that many of us have faced. It is really important that we work on these agendas together.

On moving towards automated voter registration, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we will carefully consider how we implement those changes to ensure they are done safely, and I look forward to working with colleagues on that. We have retained the voter ID changes made under the previous Government, but we recognise that certain groups of legitimate voters, particularly disabled voters, were excluded. We need to address that gap, and I know his party recognises that challenge, so we will ensure that we do not exclude legitimate voters. I look forward to working with him on issues of common interest and agreement. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for the written statement and for her work behind the scenes.

We should welcome the opportunity for more people to be enfranchised. We should be very clear that one person losing the right to vote at the ballot box is one person too many. It is really important that we look at the issues around voter ID, and ensure more opportunities for people to have other forms of voter ID at the ballot box. It is important that we enfranchise our young people to vote. They participate in public life already, so they should also be entitled to vote.

It is really important to have system where it is easier to be registered to vote. When you move home, before you have even unpacked you get a council tax bill—the council already has your details—so it is good that we are looking at a system to ensure people are registered to vote. For far too long we have knocked on doors and people have said that they are interested but not registered to vote, so that is vital.

On ensuring candidates still feel safe, this is a big challenge and a threat to democracy. Will my hon. Friend outline what work she will be doing with the Electoral Commission on the intimidation and abuse faced by candidates? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We do need questions and answers to be short. \p Rushanara Ali: I thank my hon. Friend for her questions; she does important work in her Committee. The changes we are introducing will ensure that elected representatives,  candidates, campaigners and electoral staff, who play a unique role in our democracy, are properly protected. We will give courts the power to increase sentences for those who are hostile to candidates. An aggravated factor for intimidatory offence will be introduced, allowing courts to pass tougher sentences. We will also remove the requirement to publish candidates’ addresses. We will consult with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Sentencing Council and other judicial bodies. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: We are very pleased that the Government have published the strategy, many aspects of which have the support of the Liberal Democrats. We have, for many years, championed votes at 16 and we are really glad that the Government have listened to those calls. We also welcome the measures to tackle dark and illicit money in our politics, and the recent plans to introduce supplementary voting for mayoral elections.

However, I am concerned that the strategy shows nowhere near the kind of ambition that we need to fix a system of elections that has left large swathes of the public feeling like their vote simply does not count. As Members across the House will know, last year’s general election turned out the most disproportionate result in history, with nearly 60% of people who voted not represented in Parliament by the candidate they voted for.

This opportunity cannot be wasted. Will the Government go further? Will they look at scrapping voter ID in its entirety? Will they look at introducing further measures to ensure that foreign oligarchs such as Elon Musk are not able to interfere in British politics, including through party funding? And will they finally scrap first past the post and introduce fair votes via proportional representation? \p Rushanara Ali: The hon. Lady has a lot of questions. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary and local elections. Her party, in the coalition Government, had the opportunity, through a referendum, to campaign and institute the appropriate changes. Our focus is on ensuring we address the manifesto commitments we made, including a voting age of 16. I am grateful to her and her party for their support. We are also taking action to tackle illicit finance and foreign interference. I very much hope that she and her colleagues will work with us on that very important agenda. \p John Slinger: I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which is looking at the security of MPs, candidates and elections. Does my hon. Friend agree that a wide number of behaviours in our democratic system are intimidating candidates and, indeed, Members of this House, and that that is detrimental to our values and democracy? Will she expand on the measures in the strategy that will seek to alleviate those very serious problems? \p Rushanara Ali: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In the 15 years I have been a Member of Parliament, we have seen a rise in hatred and hostility towards candidates and elected officials, and have sadly faced the loss of our dear colleagues, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. This Government are determined to ensure that elected representatives,  candidates and election officials are protected, because this trend is having a devastating chilling effect on our democracy. We need to work together to protect our democracy while protecting freedom of speech. I would be happy to speak to my hon. Friend on the specific proposals as we proceed with their implementation. \p Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for her statement, but I have not heard her say anything about the work of the boundary commissions for local government and constituencies. I think they should form part of this discussion, particularly to ensure that constituencies can be made up of genuine communities by getting rid of the pointless rule that a constituency cannot go beyond a certain region. Areas of Essex near my constituency, for instance, cannot be included within Romford, which only goes into London. Similarly, local council wards would surely be better if they were one-member wards, whereby they could be like mini-constituencies looking after a particular community. Would that not be a better way forward, and would the Minister consider it as part of the review? \p Rushanara Ali: The hon. Gentleman will understand the process and work of the boundary commissions. This strategy is focused on the themes that I spoke to earlier, and that is what we will be focusing on. \p Alex Sobel: As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this policy paper. I think my hon. Friend the Minister and I were much more poorly equipped to vote when we were 18 than today’s 16-year-olds, so I warmly welcome that measure. I also welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, introduced last week, with the Government saying that first past the post

“can lead to individuals being elected with only a small proportion of the total votes cast”,

and that Mayors and police and crime commissioners

“should be elected with a greater consensus among their electors.”

The Government have also claimed that this change will give the local electorate an “increased voice” and will

“better support the democratic mandate of people elected to such positions”.

Given the flawed nature of first past the post, will the Minister consider also reviewing the system for elections to this place? \p Rushanara Ali: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work with the APPG. He is aware of the policy of the Labour party and this Government on first past the post. I refer him to my previous answer on that question. \p Robbie Moore: Fair elections must be elections that we can all trust. The most important element of our electoral system is that it is a secret ballot and that it should be down to the individual to make up their own mind. I am therefore deeply concerned that the widespread use of postal voting across the country is allowing dangerous fraud with many voters still intimidated and coerced into using postal votes on the instruction of somebody else. The review covers many practical aspects of postal voting, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure the accuracy and honesty of the postal voting system? \p Rushanara Ali: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party introduced a series of changes, including on voter ID and other checks as electors register to vote. I am all too aware of the areas that need particular focus. We have retained the protections on postal voting. The hon. Gentleman is aware of a number of issues around postal votes, but I reassure him that there are laws to ensure that forgery and personation do not happen. We will retain the appropriate checks and safeguards that were introduced in the past. \p Rachel Blake: May I put on record my profound thanks to the Minister for her personal commitment to ensuring that we renew confidence in democracy? I warmly welcome proposals around moving away from the first-past-the-post system in regional elections and restoring that part of our democracy. Will she outline how she will tackle the illicit finance that is flowing into our democracy? I have real concerns about how foreign influence damaging our democracy and I would be grateful for more information on how this strategy will deliver for our country. \p Rushanara Ali: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in this area. As I mentioned, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into our politics. We are ensuring that the Electoral Commission will have the appropriate powers to support political parties, making sure that they do “know your donor” checks. Where parties fail in this area, a fine of up to £500,000 can be applied. We will apply that fine proportionately in recognition of the resource issues of smaller parties. \p Christine Jardine: I very much welcome what is in the Government’s policy, particularly votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. We already have this in Scotland for the Scottish parliamentary elections and I have also campaigned for the change to be made for general elections. Will the Minister confirm that this will be in place in time for the next general election, and how the information will be passed out to 16 and 17-year-olds that they will now be able to vote in general elections? \p Rushanara Ali: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. We are looking very closely at the work in Scotland and Wales. We want to make sure that we take the time to implement the appropriate changes in time for the next general election, but we will work with the relevant institutions, including the Electoral Commission, education establishments, the Department for Education, charities, youth organisations and other interested bodies to make sure that we get this right. \p Liam Byrne: I welcome the measures to take out dark money from our politics, but they will mean nothing unless we move forward aggressively to ban cryptocurrency donations in British politics. They are used for money laundering and to disguise dark money. They have no role in British politics. Will the Minister confirm that the elections Bill will ban cryptocurrency donations? \p Rushanara Ali: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his work in this area through his Committee and for raising these issues. There are already a number of rules  in place on political donations and they must be abided by, regardless of the type of donations made—including cryptocurrency donations. Our reforms of political finance to further strengthen our democracy will also apply to all donations, including those in cryptocurrency. \p Bradley Thomas: Democracy is fragile and, here in the United Kingdom, our democracy is strongly in the crosshairs of nefarious states including Russia and China, which do not share our values. We are seeing increasing activity online, particularly to distort the outcome of elections, via platforms including TikTok, which have links to communist regimes in China. Can the Minister update the House on what steps are being taken in particular to protect our democracy from misinformation that vehemently seeks to distort the outcome of elections? \p Rushanara Ali: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. He will be aware that the defending democracy taskforce is leading the work on a range of issues—including, of course, in relation to the points that he has made. We are taking action to bear down on those issues, with a cross-Government approach. The Online Safety Act 2023 is important in relation to some of the points that he has made. As I have pointed out, we are also aware of the dangers of foreign interference and foreign state actors, and these reforms are really important to protect the integrity of our system and our democracy. \p Leigh Ingham: As a member of the Speaker’s Conference, I have heard evidence that has shocked me to my core, so I know how much needed these reforms are.

This week I have held my first summer school with 16 and 17-year-olds this week. Twenty of them have been learning about how they can make a change not only in their community, but in the country they live in. Does the Minister agree that they deserve to have their voices heard at the ballot box, too? \p Rushanara Ali: I thank my hon. Friend for her work to support young people to participate in our democracy. Young people can work at 16, pay taxes and join the Army. There is no reason that they should not have the right to a say in who represents them and the right to shape their future. They are passionate about the issues affecting their communities and country; I know that at first hand from the work I have done over the years to support young people in their leadership journeys and in participating in our elections. \p Chris Law: The SNP welcomes that the UK Government are catching up to Scotland, where we have had votes for 16-year-olds for the last nine years. However, it is clear that real change also requires looking at this Parliament’s electoral system. Recent polls have shown that the leading party currently would win a majority of seats in the next election on less than 30% of the vote. Is it not long overdue that this Government reformed the UK Parliament’s broken electoral system and introduced proportional representation, as Welsh Labour is doing in the Senedd? \p Rushanara Ali: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or local elections. \p Scott Arthur: I welcome this announcement, and I can only speculate about why the Conservatives did not decide to clean up party funding when they were in Government. I want to echo some of the comments about proportional representation. Personally, I feel that it is at the heart of many of the problems the country has faced in recent times. I absolutely accept that proportional representation is not part of the Government’s proposals, but will the Minister keep an open mind and look at how other strong democracies around the world have been able to use PR to both strengthen their democracy and create a more collaborative political culture? \p Rushanara Ali: I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer on the Labour party’s position: the Government have no plans to change the electoral system. He is of course right that we should always learn from international experience. We are certainly doing that on a range of different agendas, including some of the themes of this strategy, and we will continue to do so. \p Nick Timothy: The Prime Minister has previously talked about extending the franchise to include additional foreign nationals. Will the Government take this opportunity to rule out ever extending the franchise to foreign nationals beyond existing rules? \p Rushanara Ali: The focus of this strategy is on eligible voters in this country. \p Matt Western: The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has been doing a lot of work on defending democracy. I am sure we will welcome the proposals, particularly on illicit finance and cracking down on unincorporated associations. I gently urge her to look closely at cryptocurrencies, which are clearly the currency of choice for criminals and rogue states. For example, one individual has routed £13 million into political organisations in this country through such a currency. \p Rushanara Ali: My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about new challenges in relation to crypto, and I refer him to my previous answer on this point. We will look very closely at these issues to make sure that loopholes are closed, but I reassure him that the current powers cover donations through crypto and the changes we are making will also include crypto. \p Tom Gordon: There is lots in the strategy that the Liberal Democrats and I welcome. Could the Minister explain why there is a difference between Westminster elections and combined mayoral elections? We know that the majority of the British public want to see the scrapping of first past the post, and we know from when we had a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject during this Parliament that the majority of Members in this place want to see the scrapping of first past the post—indeed, we know that a  majority of Labour Members want to see the scrapping of first past the post. So why is there a difference between the different types of elections? \p Rushanara Ali: The hon. Member may have critiques of the first-past-the-post system, but it provides a direct relationship between Members of the legislature and local constituencies, which is really important. The Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives for five years, had the opportunity to introduce a referendum, but they lost that referendum. The supplementary voting system was implemented on the introduction of both mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. We believe that it is more appropriate for selecting single-person executives. \p Kevin Bonavia: I declare a former interest as a lawyer specialising in election law. I can say from that previous life that the previous Tory Government left our election law in an unfair and dangerous state: unfair in that they made it harder for people to vote, and dangerous in that they did nothing to prevent foreign actors from spending millions of pounds, roubles or dollars to interfere with our democracy. Does the Minister agree that it is high time to take robust action to make our democracy safe and fair for everyone, and will she assure the House that this will be a speedy and fair process? \p Rushanara Ali: I look forward to using the expertise of colleagues—not only in my party but in others—so that we get this right. It is in all our interests to close the loopholes that are so dangerous and damaging for our democracy. \p Richard Tice: There is much to welcome in these proposals to enhance our democracy, particularly on the safety of candidates. Reform is very much against votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, who, it is interesting to note, are completely split down the middle on this issue. However, I urge the Minister to consider our grave concerns with particular regard to postal voting, its security and the risks of personation. I have seen people carrying bag loads of postal votes to a polling station on election day. Surely that is completely wrong. \p Rushanara Ali: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take those issues very seriously. Personating another voter is a deliberate act of fraud. It completely undermines our democracy and is a serious criminal offence that will continue to be prosecuted. If he has examples, he should report them to the police. \p Joe Morris: For 14 years, young people in my constituency were frustrated by politicians who simply did not listen to their concerns on affordable housing, on the climate crisis or on good local jobs. Does the Minister agree that listening to young people and engaging them in the process is a key first step in rebuilding some of the damage done to our democracy over the 14 years of incompetence we saw from the Tories? \p Rushanara Ali: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for giving young people, from the age of 16, the right to vote and participate in our democracy. Young people are the future, and it is vital that we all work  together to ensure that they learn about, and can participate in, our political system and our democracy. That is how we will ensure that our democracy is appreciated and that its value and influence, both in this country and globally, is shared by the next generation. \p Sarah Coombes: The Conservative Government seemingly tried to do everything possible to destroy trust in politics and to make it harder for people to vote. In my constituency, that led to just a 49% turnout at the last election. Will the Minister set out more about how the announcement will make it easier for people to engage in our democracy and how the Government will give the next generation a say in the future of our country through giving votes at 16? \p Rushanara Ali: It is crucial that we engage electors—both young electors and the millions who are not registered to vote. We will do careful work to move towards automated voter registration and to ensure that it is a success. It is about making sure that every citizen who is eligible to vote registers and is able to vote. \p Robin Swann: A previous parliamentary inquiry into the funding of Northern Ireland political parties expressed a concern about the lack of visibility on how cross-border parties—the likes of Sinn Féin—manage their fundraising and the difficulty for regulators in verifying that no Republic of Ireland, or indeed US-based, funds were used in UK elections. It recommended stronger audit requirements and a clear separation of cross-jurisdictional finances. Will the Minister assure me that these measures will apply equally across all parts of the United Kingdom and that regulators outside the United Kingdom will work together to ensure that we do not have those cross-jurisdictional moneys? \p Rushanara Ali: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are working through the interministerial group, which includes the relevant Northern Ireland Minister, to ensure that we introduce changes that are consistent with the Good Friday agreement and that recognise specific issues affecting different parts of the United Kingdom? I would be very happy to discuss our proposals further with him. \p Chris Kane: In Scotland, where we have votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in council and Scottish Parliament elections, I have found that some of the most engaging, respectful and searching questions have come from those in that age group, whereas in general elections a 16 or 17-year-old’s response is often, “I’ll go and see if my mum or dad are in”, or occasionally, “My dad’s told me to tell you that he’s not in.” Given how respectful and engaged 16 and 17-year-olds are, does the Minister agree that they should have the right to express that engagement at the ballot box? \p Rushanara Ali: I could not agree more. As my hon. Friend says, young people are passionate, engaged and interested in the issues that affect their lives. It is right that they should have the opportunity to participate in our democracy. \p Shockat Adam: According to the latest British social attitudes survey, 60% of the British public now support proportional representation.  Given that mayors will be elected under this system from 2027 onwards, why does the Minister refuse even to consider that fairer system so that by the time the next general election comes along, voters will have their views more fully and fairly represented? \p Rushanara Ali: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers on the same question. \p Patricia Ferguson: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that my experience of being elected under three electoral systems—additional member system, single transferable vote and first past the post—suggests that none of them are perfect? However, there are advantages to first past the post that we should be very careful about doing away with. The other two systems that I have been elected with served my constituents far worse than first past the post does.

Voting for 16 and 17-year-olds was passed by the Scottish Parliament a number of years ago and enabled young people to vote in elections as of 2016 in Scotland. I was delighted to vote for that measure, as were all members of the Scottish Parliament, so will the Scottish Conservatives give a lesson to their colleagues at Westminster about why they voted for it in 2016? \p Rushanara Ali: I very much hope that the Scottish Conservatives will join us in supporting votes at 16. \p Jim Shannon: Given that Northern Ireland has been used to photo ID for voting since the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, I have seen the benefits there of that simple form of accountability. However, difficulty remains with the abuse of the postal vote system. Looking to Northern Ireland as an evidential example of that, does the Minister intend to make changes to ensure that the ability to vote by post is not abused, as it currently is in some parts of Northern Ireland? \p Rushanara Ali: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am working with ministerial colleagues, including the Northern Ireland Minister, and we are sensitive to the differences in different contexts. I am happy to continue the dialogue with him. \p Phil Brickell: Having spent more than a decade tackling financial crime before I came to this place, I welcome the Minister’s remarks and the strategy on elections, which will protect our hard-won democracy from foreign interference and which also incorporates demands from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, along with asks from the Electoral Commission on political finance rules. Does the Minister expect the forthcoming elections Bill to be in force before the local elections next May? Will company donations be permitted only from firms with UK ultimate beneficial owners? What guidance does she envisage being made available to political parties to fulfil their “know your donor” obligations? On enforcement, does she foresee that the Electoral   Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service will require additional resources to fulfil potential obligations under the forthcoming elections Bill? \p Rushanara Ali: My hon. Friend has huge expertise in this area. I am happy to write to him on his specific questions, of which there were a number, but I want to reassure him that we will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission. We want to ensure that the powers the commission is given go hand in hand with the support it provides to political parties on “know your donor” checks and on ensuring that we have put in place the appropriate safeguards. \p Luke Myer: I welcome this strategy from the Government. Under the previous Government, we saw serious issues with MPs taking thousands of pounds from a Russia-linked entity, despite the Ministry of Defence raising “significant security concerns”. I am concerned that we are still seeing such issues today. We have seen reports of Reform UK taking tens of thousands of pounds from a company whose owner is apparently based overseas. Does the Minister agree that this raises the urgent need to tighten donation rules and protect our democracy? \p Rushanara Ali: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; foreign interference in British politics is a growing danger to our democracy and it is right that we tackle it. Our changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing the loopholes that allow foreign funding to influence our politics and elections. This evolving and sophisticated threat has made it all too easy to funnel illicit money from abroad to political parties, which is why we are introducing these checks. We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows, in this Parliament. \p Florence Eshalomi: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is really important that Members of Parliament are accurate in our statements, and I just want some clarity. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) mentioned bags of postal votes, but you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that under the Elections Act 2022 and a subsequent statutory instrument—I served on its Committee as the shadow Minister for democracy—people handling postal votes will now be limited to handling no more than five postal votes for elections, plus their own postal votes. Does the hon. Member want to reflect on his statement about people carrying multiple bags of postal votes? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I take it that she has notified the hon. Member mentioned. \p Florence Eshalomi: indicated assent. \p Nusrat Ghani: Obviously, the hon. Member’s point of order is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put it on the record. \p Luke Evans: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on NHS pensions and the impact of administrative delays on frontline patient care. \p Karin Smyth: As the House knows, the NHS pension scheme is administered by the NHS Business Services Authority, which is facing challenges, as are all public sector pension schemes, as a result of the coalition Government’s public sector pension reforms in 2015, which in 2018 were found to have been discriminatory—known as the McCloud remedy. The work to remedy that is complex, and much of that I have already detailed in a written ministerial statement on 31 March and a subsequent urgent question. It is complex, technical work, and as the NHSBSA began to produce individual statements, it became clear that its initial estimate of the time needed for each one was too low. My written statement of 1 July updated the House that the NHSBSA did not meet its deadline to deliver statements to certain classes of member by that date and set out the actions that I was taking.

Let me be clear that this Government remain absolutely committed to providing affected members with their statements at the earliest opportunity, and that is what we are doing. The authority is developing a revised plan, and I will hold it to account against the new deadlines. I met the chief executive of the authority and was very clear about my disappointment in the progress, my expectation for the authority to remedy the situation for members, and the need to have a more robust assessment of the delivery plan. I also ensured that the independent chair of the NHS pension board is ready to set up an independent review of the delivery plans. I met her yesterday and was clear that I expect a thorough review of the process and a realistic assessment of delivery, and to hear her initial assessment. She will give her full report after the summer recess.

I will set new deadlines, including for members who are expecting statements this month. I will update the House as soon as possible, of course, both on the progress with the assessment and on the revised deadlines. Let me be clear that members will not face further financial detriment as a consequence of remediable service statement delays, interest on related pension arrears will be paid at 8%, and my Department and the authority have already put in place compensation arrangements for direct financial losses that members may have incurred.

People who have served in our NHS deserve their dues, and we will prioritise members based on need. Let me end by reassuring the House that there will be no direct impact on frontline care. I will continue to update the House. \p Luke Evans: I declare an interest, for myself and on behalf of the shadow Front-Bench team, as we all have NHS pensions.

In April, Mr Speaker granted us an urgent question because the Government have no real plan for NHS pension statements. Today we return because the Government have now admitted in writing that a new plan is failing—  deadlines were missed, then pushed back, and now we have no idea what they are. Just 1,359 statements have been issued out of a required total of 381,920—just 0.35%. Further still, there is no comment on the remediable pension savings statements. Has the Government’s own delayed deadline of July been met or discussed?

This matters. Hundreds of thousands of frontline doctors are not getting their pension statements. The British Medical Association is clear that senior doctors are stepping back from extra work for fear of unexpected tax liabilities. In short, taking on extra work risks an extra tax bill of thousands of pounds. When I raised this in April, the Minister retorted that I could have asked about the impact on services of cancelling the strikes. Well, I will do so now, as the strikes are back on. It will be the senior doctors who have to pick up the slack—the very doctors who are avoiding extra shifts for fear of the tax. If they will not take on the extra work for fear of the heavy tax burden, we have a huge problem.

This should be a priority for the Government, especially as we plan for winter pressures. What will the Minister do to remedy the situation with RSS? What will she do regarding RPSS? Ministers cannot just announce new deadlines and then miss them, so would she be kind enough to publish a delivery plan? Finally, she said that the Government have faith in the NHS Business Services Authority. Is that still the case? Will she demand that the Pensions Regulator steps up and expedites its investigation, given that the referral was made in December 2024? In the end, doctors are counting on her, and so are their patients. \p Karin Smyth: As I outlined in my initial response and further to the written ministerial statement, we have asked for an independent review of the process and will report back as soon as possible with a realistic deadline for that. With regard to the strikes, we will continue to be open to discussing the avoidance of those strikes, and I hope that the Opposition will support us in that. \p John Slinger: Given that the summer recess is imminent, will the Minister use this opportunity to update the House on the number of additional appointments and, more importantly, the number by which the NHS waiting lists have fallen under this Government? Does she agree that it would be very nice if the Conservative party addressed the crisis in which they left our NHS? It is a mess that this Labour Government are proud to be clearing up. \p Karin Smyth: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a superb advocate for his constituents. I met him again yesterday as he advocated for services in his constituency—that is the focus of Labour Members. He is absolutely right; as I said in my statement, this is part of the overall mess that we inherited from the Conservatives. As I said in my previous response on this issue, the problems outlined by Lord Darzi are wide and deep. It is still shocking, after a year in government, to be faced with the level of disaster that was left to us after a complete abdication of responsibility for sorting out the problems. We will continue to focus on getting more of the appointments that people so need and on reducing waiting lists, which is what our constituents expect. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to answer this urgent question. These administrative delays are deeply worrying. They make financial planning for those affected very difficult and, more importantly, stop doctors taking on additional work for the NHS as they could face large and unknown tax penalties. That was highlighted at the start of the year, when 4,000 NHS staff missed out on pension tax compensation after administrative failings.

This is having a direct impact on patient care, so how will the Minister reassure NHS staff regarding their pension entitlements, and when can they expect to see the compensation the Minister mentioned to encourage them back into the workforce? Can she assure the House that the Government are taking steps to prevent doctors with missing pension records from being unfairly penalised? Can she tell us how the Government will address the 156,000 years of missing pension data for GPs? Finally, will the major reorganisation of the NHS—especially the 50% cut to the organisations that oversee local health services—potentially compound this problem? \p Karin Smyth: I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. She highlights a number of important issues regarding the complexity for the NHS Business Services Authority of dealing with this. There is a large number of high earners in this scheme. With regard to tax liabilities, that makes the system complex, as does the movement of doctors throughout the system in their career.

One issue I discussed with the independent reviewer yesterday is the need to ensure there is a technical look at solutions to issues such as missing years. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that changes make a difference to following people’s careers through the system. There are wider lessons, which I have already started to discuss with the reviewer, about how we make the best use of technology so that we can track people through their careers and give confidence to the current workforce that we are addressing this not just for the cohort who have immediate issues but for the future. That is the sort of action this Government are taking. We do not do sticking plasters. We are looking at this very seriously. \p Harriett Baldwin: I declare an interest, as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund.. Many people in the public sector receive a significant pension contribution, but they are not aware of its value. The Pension Schemes Bill currently going through Parliament presents an opportunity to place on someone’s pay cheque and pay offer the annual value of that incredibly important contribution to a public sector pension fund. That is something that very few people in the private sector are now able to enjoy, and it feels like it is undervalued by those who benefit from it. Will she consider taking that opportunity? \p Karin Smyth: I thank the hon. Lady for that really constructive suggestion. In my discussions with the NHSBSA, the reviewer and officials at the Department, I have raised similar issues. I am a member of the NHS pension scheme and the parliamentary pension scheme. I tell my young people that this is a really valuable asset, and I encourage my constituents who are looking for jobs in the NHS to consider the pension scheme, because people sometimes do not look at it immediately. We should look at ways to encourage people to take part in  the pension scheme—particularly for lower earners, it is a really valuable and stable contribution—and the value of it from the public purse should be well known.

I am not across the detail of the hon. Lady’s point on the Pension Schemes Bill, but I will talk with my colleagues across Government about how we can look to do that and come back to her, because I agree that it is a really valuable thing—it rewards the contribution of public service, and we should make the most of it. \p Tom Gordon: I would like to take this opportunity to put my thanks on the record to the Minister. I have spoken to her outside this place about the money we have secured for removing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete at Harrogate district hospital, which I have been campaigning on for years.

It is great having state-of-the-art hospital facilities, but if we do not have the staff there, it is all a bit moot. I want to press the Minister on the concerns raised by colleagues that people might not come back or take on additional hours in the NHS as a result of this issue. Will she commit to updating Members throughout the recess on progress on this matter? \p Karin Smyth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on, yet again, shoehorning in a reference to his local hospital, for which he does a great job.

People are determined to work in and support the national health service. We take remedying confidence in pensions seriously. I will not give further deadlines before we hear from the assessor. I have asked her to come back and make a very clear statement as soon as possible after the summer recess. I will then be happy to update the House.

Coming forward to work in the NHS is a matter of choice for individuals, and we particularly want to work with consultants to ensure that their career progression is the best it can be. We very much value their work in the service. \p James Wild: With the British Medical Association set to strike, and with the Health Secretary reduced to pleading with it not to, thousands of patients are set to have their appointments cancelled. Can the Minister assure the House that she will grip this issue so that senior doctors do not also reduce their hours? And will she rule out bonuses for NHS Business Services Authority executives? \p Karin Smyth: We are working very closely to ensure that resident doctors do not go on strike. We are very clear that we cannot negotiate on pay this year, but we will work with everybody to improve conditions. Some of those conditions are shocking, and we want to work constructively with them to avoid disruptive strike action. \p Robbie Moore: The Daily Telegraph reported in April that a quarter of doctors have reduced their overtime to avoid potential five-figure tax bills, and NHS capacity has been reduced by about 10% as a result. This has been raised many times when I have been out and about door-knocking across Keighley and Ilkley. What steps will the Government take to rectify this absurd situation, which is preventing doctors from working more to reduce waiting lists? \p Karin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman highlights yet another mess that we inherited due to his party’s lack of proper engagement with the workforce over the last decade to resolve the disincentives to making the system work more effectively.

Making the system work more efficiently and more effectively is a key part of our 10-year plan announced, I think, only last week—the days keep rolling by. We not only involved the public in those conversations but had valuable conversations and received insights from all staff groups. There is a real spirit of optimism that everyone wants to pull together to ensure that the incentives are right for staff at all levels—over 1.5 million of them—to make the NHS fit for the future, and that is what we are focused on. \p Blake Stephenson: The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in NHS reorganisation and the impact on frontline services, particularly in Mid Bedfordshire. Given the failures of NHSBSA, has consideration been given to reorganising that authority? I also repeat the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild): given the failures, will the Minister rule out bonuses for the NHSBSA’s leadership? \p Karin Smyth: I am totally focused on remedying this situation and learning from the mistakes. If further action is required, I will happily update the House at that point. My absolute focus at the moment is on getting everybody in that organisation and the independent review focused on sorting out the pension situation for those who have already lost out. \p Jim Shannon: As always, I thank the Minister very much for her answers. I recently read an article that referred to the mechanism of the NHS pension scheme as a “Ponzi scheme”, which gives me great concern about the scheme’s ability to cope in 20 years’ time. How do the Government and the Minister intend to convert the transitional arrangement in place since 2019—of topping up pensions from another source—into permanent and transparent arrangements so that we can stop robbing Peter to pay Paul and ensure that those who are working 70 hours a week in 2025 have a real pension and retirement fund in 2065? \p Karin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray further from the urgent question, but he raises an important point, further to the one raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who is a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund.

The NHS pension scheme is an extremely important part of the reward package that NHS staff at all levels absolutely deserve. We want to ensure that it, like the rest of the NHS, is fit for the future. If hon. Members have suggestions for how to make it work better, as part of ongoing discussions, I am happy to hear them. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business? \p Lucy Powell: The business for the week commencing 21 July includes:

Monday 21 July—General debate on the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan.

Tuesday 22 July—The Sir David Amess summer adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 22 July and return on Monday 1 September.

The business for the week commencing 1 September will include:

Monday 1 September—General debate on regional transport inequality, followed by general debate on devolution in Scotland. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 2 September—Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

Wednesday 3 September—Opposition day (10th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 4 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

Friday 5 September—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 8 September includes:

Monday 8 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill. Further to the dates that have already been announced for the conference recess, when the House will rise at the close of business on Tuesday 16 September and return on Monday 13 October, Members may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the November recess at the close of business on Wednesday 5 November and return on Tuesday 11 November.

The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Thursday 18 December and return on Monday 5 January.

The House will rise for the February recess at the close of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February.

The House will rise for the Easter recess at the close of business on Thursday 26 March and return on Monday 13 April.

The House will rise for the early May bank holiday at the close of business on Thursday 30 April and return on Tuesday 5 May.

The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the close of business on Thursday 21 May and return on Monday 1 June.

And the House will rise for the summer recess at the close of business on Thursday 16 July 2026. \p Nusrat Ghani: Where do we go from there? I call the shadow Leader of the House. \p Jesse Norman: I doubt if the Leader of the House has ever given a more popular statement to the House of Commons. More seriously, this is a welcome development as it will give guidance to colleagues and their families, and I am sure it will be widely welcomed across the House, so I thank her for that.

I understand that Robert Gibbs, the acting director of catering services, will be leaving on Friday, after 25 years in this House. One shudders to think of the thousands of Members of the House of Commons and their staff whose lives will have been enriched by the joy of eating the food of the catering services under his command, and we thank him very much for his service. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking him for his work.

We are getting close to the end of term and I want to thank all the staff for their service, and, of course, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, and the Clerks for the resilience, courage, determination and poker faces that they have kept through all the business questions that we have had since the beginning of the year.

It may come as slightly more of a surprise to the House that I also want to thank the Leader of the House. No one who has not held that position understands the amount of work that is involved in scheduling and managing the business of this House, let alone the amount of work involved in scheduling and managing the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues. The Leader of the House distinguished herself with her very graceful response to my remarks about my father some months ago, and I thank her again for that. I also thank her for her engagement and humour and, I must say, more than a few groan-inducing puns, of which we will undoubtedly see considerably more this morning and with which she has dealt with questions from colleagues across all parts of this House.

I hope I may register that it is a slight sadness to me that the Leader of the House has not been willing to answer my own questions in the same spirit. I ask these questions not in a personal capacity, but as the spokesman for His Majesty’s official Opposition, whose function is, after all, to hold the Government to account. The refusal to answer genuine, sensible questions is actually a discourtesy not just to the House, but to our wider constitutional framework and ultimately the supreme source of sovereign authority in this country: the King in Parliament. I think any fair-minded person reviewing our exchanges would conclude that my questions are almost always directed at some public purpose, and it would undoubtedly improve business questions and the accountability and authority of the Leader of the House if she were able to engage with them.

In the same spirit, I will raise some serious questions about what the Government’s position is with regard to Northern Ireland veterans. As the Leader of the House will know, hundreds and thousands of men and women went to Northern Ireland not of their own accord, but under orders and in a chain of command on the Queen’s business, to combat the most serious terrorist organisation in the world at the time and to protect human lives and   human society. Many of those veterans, including many members of the special forces, cannot respond to the terrible injustice being done to them.

Almost exactly a year ago, barely three weeks after the election, the Government decided to abandon the appeals to the Supreme Court to uphold the key sections of the legacy Act against a High Court judgment in Northern Ireland. In the veterans debate on Monday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that those sections were “unlawful” as a result of the judgment. Yesterday, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister himself said twice that the legacy Act had been “struck down”. Unfortunately, those statements are both untrue and misleading.

There can be no doubt what the law is on this topic. A succession of the most senior judges in recent British history—Judges Steyn, Hope, Bingham, Hale and Reed among them—have made it absolutely clear that a declaration of incompatibility does not mean that the law is unlawful or has been struck down. As the then Senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, said in 2004, in such cases the validity of the law “remains unaffected”.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is no lawyer, but he should understand that basic point, given his job. The Prime Minister, however, has been a barrister for 38 years, and a human rights lawyer for most of that time. It is inconceivable that he did not understand the distinction. To that extent, he was, whether deliberately or inadvertently, misleading the House.

The Secretary of State appeared to say that he had abandoned these appeals on political grounds. It is plain that the Government are split and have been unable to develop a satisfactory legal remedy in the 12 months since they abandoned the appeals, leaving thousands of veterans, many in their 70s and older, exposed to legal harassment, anxiety and trauma.

I put two serious and substantive questions to the Leader of the House. As the Leader of the House, in upholding the practices, tradition and honour of this House, will she ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister to correct those false and misleading statements to the House? When will we see legislation to address the legal gap that the Government’s decision to abandon these legacy Act appeals has created? \p Nusrat Ghani: Before the Leader of the House responds, in case I misheard, let me say that the shadow Leader of the House knows we do not accuse colleagues of misleading the House. “Inadvertent” is the language. \p Lucy Powell: I was very pleased to announce the recess dates for the whole of the next academic year. That is one modernisation that I said I would bring in to give colleagues more certainty a year in advance, and I am pleased that we have been able to announce those dates today. As the House goes into recess next week, I join the shadow Leader of the House in thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers and all the House staff, for all the incredible work they do for us all year round.

In the spirit of the shadow Leader of the House’s comments, I also thank him. We work closely behind the scenes on a number of boards and committees, and I always find his contributions to be valuable and considered. I share his comments about Robert Gibbs.  As the shadow Leader of the House said, he is the acting director of catering services, and will be leaving the House after 25 years of service. He has definitely kept us all very well fed—perhaps, at times, too well fed—and I wish him all the best.

I will also take this opportunity to mention that I know many Members across the House are deeply concerned by the use of a super-injunction that had the effect of keeping important policy and Government developments from this House. As Leader of the House of Commons, the fact that this situation continued for so long makes me deeply uncomfortable and concerned. We have long-established mechanisms and Committees for scrutinising secret and sensitive information in such cases, and as the Prime Minister said yesterday, the previous Government have some serious questions to answer, including about why the House was kept in the dark. I look forward to the Defence Committee and other Committees looking into these issues.

The shadow Leader of the House asked me to answer his questions. I am always happy to do so when he brings them to me, and he has raised some questions today about the Northern Ireland legacy Act. It is important that these issues are discussed sensitively, and that we work together on them without raising the temperature or using irresponsible rhetoric about them, because we all have profound respect for our veterans and owe a debt to them.

This is a complex situation, and we need to resolve it. The shadow Leader of the House might disagree, but the previous Government’s legacy Act was found to be unlawful and unworkable, and is now subject to further court action. That means that currently no one is protected by that Act; neither does it give people the justice they want, because there would be so much legal uncertainty about doing so. That is why our priority is finding a way forward that gives veterans, survivors and communities confidence in the process. We will take our time to do this, and of course we will regularly update the House as we consider how to do so.

Today marks the year’s anniversary of the first Labour monarch’s speech in 15 years. The story of our Labour Government is told through the legislation we have already brought in. We are standing up for ordinary working people against the vested interests that hold our country back, giving people powers, new rights and opportunities and making the powerful more accountable. This has already led to real change and real-life impacts, and if you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House might want to think about a few of those today.

We have stopped water bosses taking bonuses for polluting our waters; we have brought South Western Railway back into public ownership, with more to come; we have saved the jobs of steelworkers in Scunthorpe; and we have banned zombie knives and ninja swords. Soon, off-road vehicles will be seized and crushed, and shoplifting will once again be taken seriously.

We have put fans and communities back at the heart of our national game. We are ending no-fault evictions and ensuring renters have rights over their landlords. We are capping the cost of school uniforms and have introduced free breakfast clubs, and we have changed the right to buy so that councils can build more social homes. We are ensuring that buses are run for people, not for profit, and we have capped bus fares. We have increased the national living wage—the biggest increase  since it was introduced—and very soon, we will see an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts and it will be against the law to fire and rehire. There is much more, but I will not go on.

It has also been a year since my first business questions. In that time, I have answered over 1,700 questions. I have had countless invitations to cafés and pubs—more of those, please. I have also had some invitations to sporting events and runs—less of those, thank you very much. We have heard about the wonderful people in communities in all corners of our country, who we are all here to represent. There is healthy competition about who represents the most beautiful, most active, most charitable, most visited, worst connected and most congested constituency, but I am sure colleagues will allow me to abuse my position at the Dispatch Box today to say that Manchester Central is obviously the best constituency overall.

Talking of which, I could not let this opportunity pass without telling the House that Manchester is buzzing right now with its bucket hats, its music and even parkas in this hot weather, as we have all come together to celebrate the Oasis reunion. As we say, “Manchester vibes in the area!” Let us not forget that when Oasis were last performing at Heaton Park, it was under a Labour Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The shadow Leader of the House invited me to give the House a few more groaning puns, so if he will forgive me, “Some Might Say” that this Government have “The Masterplan” for change. I know it has not been a great year for the Conservatives since their biggest election defeat in history, but perhaps they need to “Stop Crying Your Heart Out”, “Don’t Look Back in Anger” and hope that Reform “Fade Away”.

Talking of which, in the past year we have seen Reform come on the scene in the House of Commons. Some of their MPs have had better attendance rates than others. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is, as usual, probably on a beach “Half the World Away”. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] No? There is more. [Interruption.] Come on, there is one last one. Let us hope that this Labour Government “Live Forever”. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Well, that was interesting. [Laughter.] To correct the record, Sussex Weald is the greatest constituency on Earth. I call Perran Moon. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Cornwall, the word dreckly means at some unspecified time in the future—a bit like mañana. I have learned since arriving in this place that there is an equivalent parliamentary expression: “in due course”. Of the five Celtic languages, which include Manx Gaelic, only the Cornish language does not have part III minority language status. Can the Leader of the House advise me how I can get a Minister to tell me—without using the words dreckly, mañana or in due course—when this ridiculous Cornish language anomaly will be rectified? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is a powerful representative for Cornwall and his constituency. I will not use that phrase for him, but I will ensure that a Minister gives him a more immediate response about when we can see action on the Cornish language. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I join the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House in thanking you, the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker, as well as the Clerks of the House and the House staff, for all the amazing work that they do to support us in our jobs. It is not an exaggeration to say that we would not be able to do it without all of them and all of you.

I also join the shadow Leader of the House in thanking the Leader of the House for the responses that she gives to business questions, which I see every single week. It has been a pleasure to get to know both of them on the various Committees and boards that we serve on, and I thank them for that.

Turning to a slightly more serious matter, last week the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government have cancelled the A12 widening scheme between Chelmsford and Colchester. That is incredibly disappointing news and a real blow to my Chelmsford constituents, Essex residents and the east of England as a whole. The A12 is a crucial link for communities across Essex, which supports logistics to the major international ports and airports in the region. It is also dangerously congested.

The scheme would have addressed both of those problems and improved the journeys of the approximately 90,000 vehicles that travel on the road every day. More critically, the cancellation’s impact on house building could be profound. Local plans, including that of Chelmsford city council, are reliant on the A12 widening scheme going ahead. The cancellation could severely hamper the building of an estimated 55,000 new homes in the area.

With Labour pledging to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament, this issue cuts across party lines. While I appreciate the financial constraints under which the Treasury is operating, it is notable that the two major road schemes that were cancelled in the recent announcement were both in the east of England, yet this region is a net contributor to the UK economy and has huge growth potential. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Housing, Communities and Local Government to meet me and a cross-party group of MPs so that we can discuss how we might still find ways to move forward with this vital project that will help the Government to deliver on their promises? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for working with me over the last year in her role as the shadow Leader of the House for the Liberal Democrats. We work very closely together on the Modernisation Committee, the House of Commons Commission and a number of other Committees and boards, and I feel like she has been here for a long time, because she has really got into the detail of some of the issues, particularly the restoration and renewal programme. She has dedicated a huge amount of her time and energy to that, and I thank her for that. Hopefully, it can finally move forward. Now that she is shadow Leader of the House for the Liberal Democrats, I hope we see a change in MO over the recess, and that we do not get the first press release calling for a recall of Parliament a week yesterday, as we generally do. If she could arrange that, I am sure that she would be very popular with the House.

The hon. Lady raises a really important issue. We must make sure that we have the transport infrastructure that we need in our communities, especially to deliver our ambitious house building programme. She will be aware that the previous Government announced a raft of projects—including some in her constituency and in Essex—without having any plan to pay for them. We have had to look at all those projects and make sure that only those that are fully costed and affordable are given the green light. I hope she understands that, but I recognise that she, her constituents and many in the surrounding area will be frustrated about A12 expansion not progressing as they had hoped. I am very happy to arrange for her to have a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss options for the way forward. \p Chris Kane: Sometimes, when the puns keep coming, you just have to “Roll With It”.

In my constituency, Braehead community garden is a remarkable 2-acre, community-led project where residents grow fruit and vegetables in raised beds and polytunnels. It also has an apiary, a workshop and a 30 kW solar array. It hosts pumpkin festivals and flower shows, and it was once called the UK’s “best community space” by the Society of Garden Designers. This year, it celebrates its 10th birthday. Just 2 miles away, in Fallin, a new community garden opened this year and is off to a strong start. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the remarkable volunteers at both projects for all that they do, and will she make time for a debate on the value of community gardens to wellbeing, food education and local life? I suspect that I know the answer to my next question: volunteers are now weeding, so will she join me to do a spot of weeding, in order to give them a break? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend has given a very good audition for parliamentary pun of the year. It was probably better than most of mine—but that is not hard, is it? I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved in the Braehead community garden project. It sounds like a really wonderful project, and he is absolutely right to say that gardening, and getting people outdoors and active, brings so much to our communities, in terms of wellbeing and tackling issues around food poverty and the like. I may be up for a bit of weeding, when I have time. Maybe I will go on gardening leave at some point in the future. \p Judith Cummins: I call Martin Vickers to speak on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Martin Vickers: The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee sends his apologies, and has asked me to report on his behalf. The Leader of the House has already drawn attention to next week’s debates, particularly the Sir David Amess debate, which I urge Members to participate in. Sir David used to rattle off about 20 issues in the space of 10 minutes, and that provided him with a press release for every other day of the recess. It is a tactic that I can recommend to Members.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving Government time for the Victory over Japan Day debate; that debate was originally applied for through the Backbench Business  Committee. She drew attention to the debates in the Chamber on 1 September. I also draw attention to the fact that in Westminster Hall that week, there will be debates on defibrillator access, the adoption and special guardian support fund, and the future of terrestrial television.

Turning to my question, I am sure that the Leader of the House will be familiar with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. If she is not, may I ask her to look at them? They affect a major business in my constituency. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) has already prayed against the regulations, and I have added my name to that prayer. May I ask the Leader of the House to approach the relevant Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ask for a delay to the implementation of the regulations to allow greater consultation with the industry? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for deputising for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. He and the Chair are both regular attenders; until today, I think the Chair had not missed any of my sessions, apart from the one after Tottenham won the Europa league, which was a once-in-a-lifetime event for him.

The hon. Member is absolutely right to draw hon. Members’ attention to the Sir David Amess debate. I strongly recommend that those who were not in the House with Sir David look back through Hansard at his speeches in those debates, or view them. The pre-summer Adjournment debate carries his name for a reason. He really did make the very best use of it, and he is a role model that I am sure many will want to follow next week.

The hon. Member asked me about the statutory instrument brought forward under, I think, the welfare of animals legislation. I have not studied that statutory instrument, but I will ensure that a Minister is in touch with him directly to discuss his concerns and make sure they are addressed. \p Leigh Ingham: Members who are frequent flyers at business questions may contradict me when I say that Stafford is the best constituency, but I do not think that any would contradict its being the most gridlocked, so I thank the Leader of the House for her answer last week.

I have recently seen a huge surge in casework from constituents who are unable to access blood tests; there are long delays. There are 20 venues in north Staffordshire at which to get blood tests, but only one in south Staffordshire. Our area is being left behind, and it is just not fair on my constituents. Please could we have a debate in Government time on access to primary care? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for being a regular attender; she uses these sessions to great effect on behalf of her constituents. I am sorry to hear about the difficulties that her constituents face in accessing basic services such as routine blood tests; that is clearly not good enough. Our 10-year plan will expand the availability of appointments—we got in another 4 million GP appointments since the election last year—as well as opening hours and community diagnostic services. I hope her constituents will see an improvement soon. \p Andrew Rosindell: I would like to make the Leader of the House aware of the serious delays to cladding remediation faced by residents of the Axis apartments in Mercury Gardens, Romford. It is a common problem across the country. Residents of the Axis apartments have endured years of uncertainty since fire safety issues were identified nearly four years ago, following the Grenfell Tower fire. Despite the building’s management agent applying for permission for remediation works over a year ago, the Building Safety Regulator has still not approved the application. This regulatory delay has left leaseholders trapped; they are unable to remortgage or sell their homes, and face ever-increasing insurance premiums and unaffordable safety costs. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make an urgent statement on this matter, so that my constituents, and others across the country facing similar problems, can escape financial ruin and move on with their lives? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Member’s constituency. It is one with which I am extremely familiar; in my constituency, dozens and dozens of buildings face many of the same problems. As he says, there have been very serious teething challenges for the Building Safety Regulator in processing its caseload. That is why the Secretary of State recently announced some quite big changes to its leadership, capacity and management; they were laid before this House two or three weeks ago. I am confident that will speed up the cases he describes. We have a remediation action plan as well, and the Secretary of State will come to the House soon to keep us updated. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: In April, I raised the issue of the need for blood donations, and of people from diverse communities being turned away. In response to parliamentary questions about diversity and blood referrals, I initially received data, provided by NHS Blood and Transplant, stating that 70% of black blood donors were being turned away for low haemoglobin levels. The Department of Health and Social Care withdrew that data, stating that it was incorrect. Two months and a point of order later, I received new data saying that 40% of black and mixed-heritage blood donors were being turned away for low haemoglobin levels, but that data was not even for the same period.

The NHS needs three blood donations every single minute for people in emergency situations, women who have given birth, and people with blood cancer and conditions such as sickle cell, the fastest growing genetic condition in the country, whose sufferers require specifically matched blood, if they receive donations. On NHS Blood and Transplant’s website, it indicates that it can meet that demand only 50% of the time. When we return from recess, may we have an urgent debate in Government time on what happens the other 50% of the time? Receiving mismatched blood is very, very serious. With increasing demand, we simply cannot afford to turn away blood donors, particularly those from diverse communities. \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that incredibly important issue. I am really sorry to hear that she has had confusing, incorrect or slow responses to parliamentary questions or correspondence from the  Department of Health and Social Care. I will certainly take that up for her. She is right that we need as many people as possible giving blood, especially from diverse communities, because we have blood supply shortages. We need to break down the barriers to doing so, which is why her question is so important. I will ensure that she gets a full response. \p Wendy Morton: With no garden waste or recycling collections since the start of the year, all-out bin collection strikes now entering day 129, and no sign of an agreement, Birmingham’s bin strike is having an impact on not just the residents and reputation of the UK’s second city, but on the broader west midlands. We have had radio silence from the Deputy Prime Minister and those on the Labour Benches, and not a squeak from Mayor Parker. Before the House rises for the summer recess, and given the incredibly hot weather, will the Leader of the House urge her ministerial colleagues to make a statement to the House, and to update us on how we will fix the problem? Perhaps she will do better than me, because I have been trying and failing to secure an urgent question all week. \p Lucy Powell: This is an issue of great concern to the right hon. Lady, her constituents and many others across the House. The Government’s priority is, and has always been, Birmingham’s residents and dealing with the issue. We have worked closely and intensively with the council to ensure rubbish collections have continued, and to clean up the streets for residents and in the interests of public health. We remain in close contact with the council. We want an end to the dispute as soon as possible, which is why we continue to urge the unions to come to the table and engage in conversations constructively. \p Liz Twist: This morning, we heard the incredible news that a novel in vitro fertilisation procedure, developed at Newcastle University, has resulted in eight babies being born free from mitochondrial disease. That is life-changing for families affected by this devastating and previously incurable condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) and I pay tribute to all the academics and clinicians who, over many years, have played a vital role in developing these treatments and supporting patients. In the course of my work on rare diseases, I have had the chance to visit the centre, and to see the research and clinical work that it does on mitochondrial disease, which affects so many conditions. May we have a debate in Government time, please, on the north-east’s role in advancing world-leading, patient-led, life science research? \p Lucy Powell: First of all, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), for all the campaigning and excellent work that they have done on this issue. I am sure it brought a smile to every Member, as it did to me last night and this morning, to have good news on the airwaves for a change. It just goes to show, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett says, how world-leading we are in this country, and in the north-east, on some of  these issues. The mitochondrial donation treatment is groundbreaking. I remember when we discussed the issue in Parliament; we grappled with the ethical issues, but seeing the results come through years later, I think we can all be pleased that we took the right decision back then. \p Lincoln Jopp: The Leader of the House mentioned the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence about the super-injunction. The Defence Committee will undoubtedly embark on an inquiry, but before we do, can the Leader of the House state very clearly the Government’s position? Is it ever right to use a super-injunction? \p Lucy Powell: As I said, the Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister, the rest of the Government and I are deeply uncomfortable about how the situation unfolded. Many of us did not even know about this until this week. The House was kept in the dark, which it should not be at any time. I understand the intention, which was to try to keep people safe, but I think some of the actions could have been different, and the House could have been informed of some of the issues. We look at things on a case-by-case basis, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are deeply uncomfortable and concerned about how the matter progressed. \p David Smith: I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that grassroots community football clubs, such as North Sunderland and Berwick Rangers in my constituency, play a vital role in the development of elite footballers, such as Lucy Bronze, who hopefully tonight will go “Supersonic” in her game for the Lionesses in the quarter-finals of the Euros. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating players such as Lucy Bronze, who started out at another football club in my constituency, Alnwick Town, and grant a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that the money from elite football gets to grassroots football to develop the Lucy Bronzes of the future? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Lucy Bronze and the rest of the women’s Euros team. We are all getting behind them in the coming days. He is absolutely right that our grassroots clubs, whether in men’s or women’s football, are the engine of the football pyramid. That is why I am really pleased, and I am sure the whole House—well, those of us on the Labour Benches, anyway—will be pleased that the Football Governance Bill has now passed all its stages and will hopefully soon receive Royal Assent. We are putting fans and community clubs right back at the heart of the football pyramid, which is as it should be. \p Tom Gordon: A couple of weeks ago at a Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network event in Harrogate, I met constituents who came to the UK from Afghanistan under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy scheme, and who still have family living in Afghanistan. They showed me photos of their loved ones, some smiling and some a lot more brutal and bleak after attacks they had faced. The statement earlier this week focused rightly on the Afghanistan Response Route scheme and the associated super-injunction. Will the Leader of the House liaise  with her Cabinet colleagues and look for further opportunities for MPs to meet relevant Ministers to discuss existing applications under the ARAP scheme, such as those of my constituents and their families? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue on behalf of the Afghan refugees in his constituency. He is absolutely right that the UK made a commitment—the right commitment—to honour our moral obligation that we owe to those Afghans who stood with us through all those years of conflict and terror. He will be aware that, to date, around 36,000 Afghans have resettled in the UK under Government schemes—a significant number. We have to keep the schemes under constant review and assess the risks to those in countries such as Afghanistan. That is why we have taken the decisions we have to close some of the schemes recently, but I will ensure he gets a response from a Minister. \p Lee Barron: On Monday, I hosted the second Corby and East Northamptonshire special educational needs roundtable, and on Tuesday we had SENDS 4 Dad in Parliament. Parents and professionals keep telling me how important early years support and intervention is for children with special educational needs. With the Government rightly rolling out Best Start family hubs across the country, including one in Corby and one in East Northamptonshire, will the Leader of the House back those calls to make sure the hubs give real early intervention and support for families with special educational needs? \p Lucy Powell: I think special educational needs is the issue that has been raised most with me in the year of business questions I have answered. I thank my hon. Friend for raising it today. He is absolutely right that early intervention, early diagnosis and early support are absolutely critical, and that is what the Best Start family hubs are all about. At the moment, the special educational needs system is adversarial, and it takes far too long for people to get the kind of support that they need. In the end, that does not give us good outcomes; it costs more, and it means we have to take more serious interventions later on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter today. \p John Lamont: The SNP Government’s fire and rescue service is consulting on plans to downgrade Hawick fire station from 24/7 cover to weekday daytime hours only. Thousands of people locally have signed a petition, with residents concerned that these proposals could put lives at risk. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the hard-working local fire crews and in calling on the SNP Government to properly fund the Scottish fire and rescue service so that fire stations like Hawick are not put at risk? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being such a doughty champion for his constituency and for the many invitations I have had to his constituency over the past year, which I will take him up on at some stage. He has previously raised with me the shocking situation with the Scottish fire and rescue service, and I am sorry to hear of this downgrade today. I absolutely join him in pressing the Scottish Government to take heed of his  calls. They were given their biggest ever settlement in the recent Budget; there really are no excuses for not properly supporting and funding the Scottish fire and rescue service. \p Uma Kumaran: I am happy and so proud that the Dialogue Express Café has recently opened in my constituency on the Carpenters estate. Operating out of a refurbished train carriage, the café is a vibrant community hub that combines the experience of enjoying a great coffee with learning and interacting through British Sign Language. Customers will see a video of how to order a drink in sign language, and can then communicate with the baristas, some of whom are deaf and some of whom are hearing.

As one of the first ever Labour candidates to make a video in sign language more than a decade ago, it is something close to my heart. British Sign Language is not just a language, but a gateway to learning and opportunity for thousands. It is part of deaf identity and culture—one we should all embrace and be part of. I am so pleased that in Stratford and Bow and Newham council, we see this at first hand. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Dialogue Express Café, its founder Hakan, as well as Karissa, Victor and the whole team, and agree that theirs is a trailblazing example of how to celebrate BSL and to celebrate and create visibility of deaf culture and deaf pride? \p Lucy Powell: I could not have put that better myself. What a great tribute my hon. Friend has paid to the Dialogue Express Café in her constituency and to its work in bringing people together, breaking down barriers, creating opportunity for those from the deaf community, celebrating deaf culture and identity and celebrating BSL. I will dig out her video—perhaps we could all have a bit of training on how to order a coffee in sign language. \p Robbie Moore: In a few weeks’ time, more than 500 Kate Bush fans from up and down the UK and across the world will descend on to the moors near Haworth for what is billed as the “The Most Wuthering Heights Day Ever”. This year, the mass wuther is doubling up as a protest against environmentally damaging proposals to place a huge onshore wind farm at the very heart of Brontë country, damaging protected peatland. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a Kate Bush fan, but will she consider joining the hundreds on the moors for “The Most Wuthering Heights Day Ever”, and does she agree with me, climate experts, nature organisations and the Brontë Society that destroying carbon-rich peatland in the name of net zero makes net zero sense? \p Lucy Powell: Well, maybe we will be coming up that hill—is that one of Kate Bush’s songs? I do not know; I have just thought of that on the hoof, so it might be wrong. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, which gets raised with me a lot, about the balance we need to strike between our goal to be a clean energy superpower, ensuring that we have energy independence and security going forward—that has meant lifting the moratorium on onshore wind—and, at the same time, the need to protect our nature and communities. We are seeking to get that balance right. I will ensure the hon. Gentleman gets an update from the relevant Minister. \p Claire Hughes: This week I joined the Youth Futures Foundation for the launch of a new report, which reveals the root causes of declining mental health among young people. The report identified four key factors: not just social media and smartphone use, but financial insecurity, declining sleep quality and cuts to youth services. Given the urgent need to address this crisis among young people, including the links with unemployment, would the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time, after recess, on young people’s mental health? Will she also join me in wishing all the young people finishing school in Bangor Aberconwy this week a very brilliant summer? \p Lucy Powell: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in wishing all the young people and children finishing school this week in her constituency and elsewhere a full and happy summer, which I hope they will get. She rightly raises the issue of children’s mental health. She will know that we inherited a dire situation, especially post covid, and that a whole generation of our children have been let down on mental health support. We are determined to put that right; it is a priority for this Government. That is why we are putting in specialist mental health professionals in every school and ensuring support for a million more children this year. We will be doing a lot more to tackle this issue in coming months. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: I refer the House to my registered interest as co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Substantial changes to skilled worker visa thresholds will automatically come into effect on 22 July under a procedural anomaly that permits no opportunity for debate. Trade unions have warned that thousands of the UK Government’s own staff could face deportation because their pay will now be too low. That includes prison officers, whose going rate appears to fall short by at least £3,000. I note my early-day motion xx-xxxx-xxxx, which I tabled against the statement of changes.

[That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 July, be disapproved.]

Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to scrutinise those decisions? Otherwise, how will that scrutiny be done? \p Lucy Powell: These issues are laid before the House and scrutinised by the House, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister responds to the right hon. Lady. We have had to get net migration down from record levels of nearly a million a year over the last year of the previous Conservative Government, which was unacceptably high and put pressure on our housing and services. That is why we have had to look at the appropriate levels of pay and income and the skills that this country needs in order to ensure we are giving skilled worker visas to people in the areas we need and not giving visas where British workers could fill those roles. \p Michael Wheeler: Last week I had the privilege of visiting the outstanding Red Watch at Eccles fire station, where officers’ professionalism and dedication were plain to see as they talked me through their lifesaving work. The station is home to one of only two specialist water incident units across  Greater Manchester, which can often be called upon as a national asset, and officers raised the challenges posed by surging demand for water rescue services during the hot weather. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to their service, and will she consider a debate in Government time on the importance of properly funded water rescue services, including whether it should be a statutory service? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of water rescue services, especially at this time of year, when people—particularly young people—are out and about. I am pleased to hear he had such a good time visiting the Red Watch firefighting service in his constituency. I think that would actually make a very good topic for debate—maybe when we get back after the summer. \p Mark Pritchard: If I asked the Leader of the House, “1666—what happened in that year?”, I am not quite sure—[Interruption.] There we are: the great fire of London. In fact, it was also the last time anyone in Parliament was fined for lying to Parliament. Of course, there is the ministerial code, the Nolan principles and the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there has not been a fine since that year. For Members and non-Members alike, where is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? Ministers, of course, can be brought back to the House to correct the record, but for people giving evidence to Select Committees, for instance, there really is a gap at the moment. Is it not time we put fines on a statutory basis for Members and non-Members alike so that we can be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth and, should they be tempted not to tell the truth, there is a deterrent? \p Lucy Powell: The right hon. Member obviously did not see me on last year’s Christmas special of “University Challenge”, where I did answer a question on 1666—which, for the record, I got right. That aside, he raises a very serious issue. He knows that knowingly misleading Parliament and this House carries with it the most serious of consequences. We found that out in the last Parliament, when a sitting Prime Minister found to have misled the House and was forced out of office as a result. No higher punishment could have been found. That investigation was done by the Committee of Privileges. There are many ways for Members to hold Ministers to account for the things that they say at the Dispatch Box, and for other Members to hold people to account—whether that is through points of orders, questions, interrogation, requiring people to correct the record, or, indeed, making complaints to our very high standards regime and, of course, to the Privileges Committee. \p Joe Morris: A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting St Matthew’s Catholic primary school in my constituency and to meet all the students. I particularly enjoyed meeting the pupils in year 1, who have since written to me with some of their concerns about global debt and its impact on poorer countries and the citizens living there. Will she join me in recognising the incredible initiative and dedication of those students in that class, and commend them and their teachers for taking such an interest in global affairs? Can we also have a debate about global debt, perhaps when we come back from the summer recess? \p Lucy Powell: It is pretty amazing that year 1 students, who would be five, six—maybe seven at the most—are taking such a keen interest in issues around global debt and global affairs. It is a testament to my hon. Friend’s constituents and the teachers in that school that they are taking such a keen interest. This is a matter of importance to the House and I thank him for raising it today. I think it would make a very good topic for a debate. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: Starting a family is a huge moment for all who choose to start one, and for those facing fertility issues a time that can be fraught with difficulties. IVF offers a beacon of light for those who cannot conceive without help. My constituents in Chichester will no doubt be disappointed that NHS Sussex has chosen to reduce its offering of IVF cycles from three down to just one, citing financial difficulties, when data clearly shows that multiple cycles are more likely to result in a positive outcome. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on introducing a national strategy for IVF, so that those who want to start a family do not face barriers based on their postcode? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of the IVF postcode lottery. It has been raised with me before, and I know that it can be very distressing for those seeking to conceive a child and those with fertility issues when these things are changed and access to treatment is reduced. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing the fertility guidelines, and will consider whether the current recommendations for access to NHS-funded treatment are still appropriate. I would hope the information would apply across all areas, meaning people were not subject to a postcode lottery. I know that this is an issue of importance to the House, so when those guidelines are reviewed, I will ensure that a Minister comes here. \p James Asser: I recently visited Richard House hospice in west Beckton in my constituency. It is the first dedicated children’s hospice in London, and currently supports more than 300 families every year. This summer, it is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the hospice on its silver jubilee? Does she agree that, when we discuss hospices in this place, as we often do, we need to make sure that we put time aside specifically to discuss children’s hospices, which do such important work supporting families, children and parents in what is often the most difficult time of their family’s life? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those at Richard House children’s hospice and everybody around the country who works in and with children’s hospices. It is a job that I personally would not be able to do. We are incredibly grateful for all the people who work in children’s hospices, who support children and their families at one of the most difficult times in their lives—and who actually make that experience a happy one. As I say, it is a job that I just would not be able to do myself. \p Harriett Baldwin: Further to the previous question, people the beautiful constituency of West Worcestershire look back in anger at some of the decisions made by Labour during its first  year in office—not least the decision in the Budget to bring in a tax on my local children’s hospice, Acorns, which has added £400,000 to its bills. Will the Leader of the House find time between now and recess to schedule a debate, or a statement from a Health Minister, on renewing the children’s hospice grant from 2026 onwards? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue of Acorns children’s hospice in her constituency, which I am sure does an amazing job, along with all those other children’s hospices. I know that this is an issue of concern; it is raised in the House a lot. We have had many debates on the subject. We have increased the revenue for children’s hospices by £26 million, and have provided some capital funding for all hospices. Through our 10-year health plan and our plans for the NHS, we are supporting hospices and others as best we can. We have taken decisions, which I am not sure the hon. Lady agrees with, to support the NHS through tax rises, but we have had to make those decisions to pay for the healthcare and hospice care that she describes. I will ensure that the House is updated on these issues. \p Alex Baker: For more than 200 years, the Gurkhas have served our country with extraordinary loyalty alongside our British forces, yet thousands who enlisted in or before 1993 remain on an inferior pension scheme that leaves too many of them living in poverty, including in my constituency of Aldershot and Farnborough. I know just how deeply this injustice is felt across the community from the many meetings that I have held as chair of the Nepal all-party parliamentary group, including with the G10 in Parliament a fortnight ago. I am delighted to hear that the Ministry of Defence has started Government-to-Government talks, but will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on honouring the service and the sacrifice of the Gurkhas, so that this House can properly consider how we can do right by those who have stood by us? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend has been a great campaigner on this matter as Chair of the Nepal all-party parliamentary group. She will know—and share with us, I am sure—that we greatly value the Gurkhas’ long and distinguished history of service in our armed forces, and we remain committed to supporting the welfare of Gurkha veterans and their families both in the UK and in Nepal. The Secretary of State for Defence was in his place as she asked her question, so I am sure that he will take up those issues, but if he does not, I will make sure that he does. \p Robin Swann: The shadow Leader of the House referenced Monday’s Westminster Hall debate on Northern Ireland veterans. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ran out of time before he could give his full response. There seems to be a difference in the Government’s response between the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office on how legacy matters can be progressed. Has the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland given the Leader of the House notification that he intends to make a statement to the House next Monday on how legacy matters in Northern Ireland will proceed? If he has, can she give this House an assurance that it will be made in this place, and not at a press conference in Belfast? \p Lucy Powell: First, may I repeat what I said earlier and acknowledge the outstanding service given to this country by our British service personnel who worked in Northern Ireland over many, many years? As I said earlier, this is a complicated issue, which is now subject to a great deal of legal uncertainty and legal challenge, and that is why we need to get it right—and we are keen to work together to get it right. I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State takes seriously his obligation makes statements on these kind of matters to this House, and to this House first. He will bring forward those statements as he progresses that dialogue to get these issues right over the coming weeks. \p David Williams: In 1942, 57 men and boys were killed in the Sneyd colliery disaster while serving King and country. Their work helped to power our country and the war effort. I recently spoke at a memorial service led by Father Andrew Swift at the Holy Trinity church in Burslem, in my constituency of Stok-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Father Swift and all who organised the service memory of those who were killed? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the House’s attention to the Sneyd colliery disaster and the tragedy that unfolded. The aftermath of the disaster saw great acts of generosity and selflessness, bringing people together. I pay tribute to Father Andrew Swift at the Holy Trinity church for putting on the service of remembrance. \p Luke Evans: On Tuesday, the second phase of health investment happened at the planning meeting in Hinckley. The planning for the £10 million day case unit was approved, but with a condition after a third party put in an appeal about a listing that had been declined twice before. Often when we come to this Chamber, it is to raise a complaint, but I would like to offer some congratulations. I have contacted the planning department and the NHS, and spoken to the CEO of the council, but I see that the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) is in his place, and his Department deserves recognition, because I have heard today that the designation review team have already looked at the application and said that the old one stands. That means that we now have a green light. Will the Leader of the House thank all those involved, from the NHS to the Department itself, the planning department and all the people who have got behind this effort—1,600 people in two weeks signed my petition—to get this over the line? It has now got the green light, so will she congratulate them and urge them forward, because if we do not get on with it, we lose the funding by 2026? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for his leadership and for bringing everyone together to get the green light for the project. I am sure that his constituents will be very grateful for the role he has played in ensuring that all those various agencies pull together to get this over the line. For that he should be congratulated. \p Jonathan Pearce: I am so proud that High Peak’s very own George Bloor has qualified for the golf Open championship and will be playing his  first round this afternoon. This is a tremendous achievement. It was George’s childhood dream, and all his hard work and dedication is paying off. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating George and wishing him every success in the Open? Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can make sports accessible, particularly golf and tennis, so that all children can achieve their childhood dreams? \p Lucy Powell: I of course join my hon. Friend in congratulating George Bloor on qualifying for the golf Open championship, and what an achievement—it is a very high bar to attain. I will watch out for him later, when he will hopefully get a few under par golf things—whatever they are called—under his belt and maybe beat Rory McIlroy in the Open. [Laughter.] \p Wera Hobhouse: I had to talk about cricket the other day and could not quite remember what bowling is, so instead I said, “throw a ball”!

One of my young constituents has had virtually no meaningful education since year 1. Now nearly at the end of his primary education, he cannot cope with being at school at all, as he is traumatised by repeated failures in the special educational needs and disabilities system. I know that the Government are planning long-term transformation of the SEND system and early intervention —that is all very welcome—but the crisis is now. The Leader of the House knows, as I do, that long-term transformation takes years to take hold, and people need help now. Can we have a statement from the Government on how they are dealing with the immediate crisis so that the people who are immediately facing all these difficulties can get immediate answers? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Lady raises the important issue of SEND, and the case she outlines explains the challenges that many families face in navigating the current SEND system. Support comes far too late, outcomes are poor, and it is very costly to all concerned. That is why we need to take a proper, concerted and long-term look over time at how we can reform the SEND system. To her question about immediate support, we have put in an extra £1 billion for this financial year, and we hope that that will reach the frontline so that constituents like hers can get the support that they need. \p Sonia Kumar: Residents of the new Goodrich Mews estate in Gornal, which was completed in 2013, have been dealing with a collapsed retaining wall for years now. The management agency originally confessed that it was poorly constructed, and it was repaired. It should have had a 60-year lifespan after that, but it has once again collapsed, and the management agency is demanding £6,000 from local residents to repair the wall. This is simply disgraceful and completely unjust. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on holding builders, housing developers and management agencies to account to protect residents and deliver value for money for residents? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the ongoing situation on the estate in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She is right that the buck is being passed for too long from developers to freeholders and others, with no action being taken. This Government are absolutely committed to putting power and agency back into the  hands of leaseholders, homeowners and residents, so that they can hold people to account and get remediation works done quicky. \p Shockat Adam: Autism and other neurodiversity conditions in children present challenges to any parents, but sadly stigma and ignorance remain particularly high in some communities, including some parts of the South Asian community. This already adds deep emotional strain to families suffering and navigating complex journeys. That is why the Leader of the House will join me, I am sure, in congratulating sisters Shamina and Hawa Khan, who have just opened Café Neuro in Leicester South. It is a warm welcoming space that is offering not just tea, samosas and sweet treats but training, advocacy and community support. If the Leader of the House is ever in Leicester South, I would be delighted to share a masala chai and samosa with her there. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for his question. As a regular attendee at these sessions for a year now, he has raised issues around autism with me before, so I know it is a keen interest of his. Café Neuro sounds like a great spot, and I will certainly check it out next time I am in Leicester South. NHS England has established a cross-sector taskforce to look at how we can better support people with autism and ADHD, and I will ensure that he is kept updated on that. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement, and for the good humour and patience that she has brought to the Dispatch Box over the last year. Last week Mike and Clare, two climate activists from Edinburgh South West, brought to this place dozens of climate change posters created by children in primary 4 at Bonaly primary school in my constituency. The posters were absolutely fantastic, covering everything from supporting bees and planting trees to encouraging their parents to drive less and perhaps install solar panels. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the children for the leadership they are showing? They are not waiting for us to take action but are demanding that we do so. Will she also wish them well for the summer holiday, which is under way already in Scotland, and for their coming academic year in primary 5? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about business questions. I join him in congratulating Mike and Clare and all those from Bonaly primary school. Their posters sound like an education and ones that we should all look at. The children are right to say that the climate and nature emergency is happening now, and we all need educating and training on how we can take steps to deal with it. \p Ann Davies: Coming from a rural background and constituency, and having visited London only a handful of times before becoming an MP, it was a massive culture shock to come here last July. Representing our constituents would not be possible without the kindness and consideration of the whole of the House, including the Speaker’s Office, the Table Office, the Vote Office, the Tea Room, the catering staff and those who ensure our offices are clean and tidy in the morning. All the staff play their part in ensuring that we are able to  do our work. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) and myself from Plaid Cymru, as well as all the 2024 intake, I thank them for all the help we have received over the past year. I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in thanking everybody who ensures that the cogs of this place run so efficiently. Diolch yn fawr iawn. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for that lovely appreciation of the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, the Doorkeepers, all the House staff and all those who make our jobs in this place possible. I did not realise that the hon. Lady was from the 2024 intake. Because she does such an excellent job, I thought she had been here for a lot longer than that. She represents her constituents brilliantly and is a regular attender at these sessions. Notwithstanding that—I might sound like Bruce Forsyth now—I think the 2024 intake are my favourite intake. \p Melanie Ward: I am not the only Member who is deeply concerned by reports this week of armed police in Kent threatening a peaceful protester with arrest for holding a Palestinian flag and having signs saying, “Free Gaza” and, “Israel is committing genocide”. Many people across our country, and Members across the House, are rightly horrified by Israel’s actions against Palestinians, which this morning appeared to include bombing Gaza’s only Catholic church, where people with special needs were sheltering. People want to exercise their legal right to protest against what is happening, and they must be free to do so without police harassment. Will the Leader of the House please ask Home Office Ministers to meet with concerned MPs about this? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. What we see happening in Gaza right now is truly horrifying. I do not think there is any Member of the House, or indeed the public, who is not moved to want to see action taken to stop what is happening in Gaza, with the killing of innocent civilians and children, the withholding of aid from distribution and the withholding of much-needed hospital care. It is absolutely right that we say loudly and clearly that people who want to protest and make their views known—whether against this Government, the Israeli Government or whoever else—should be able to do so freely, without fear of arrest or action being taken. I will ensure that she gets a ministerial meeting on that. \p Jim Shannon: First, as this is the last business questions before recess, I give my sincere thanks to the Leader of the House for all her answers. More importantly, I give thanks on behalf of all the voiceless people across the world who have a voice through this Chamber and, ultimately, the Leader of the House, who conveys all the requests that I and others give directly to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

There are reports of rising economic discrimination against Christians in northern and central Nigeria, including destruction of Christian-owned businesses and denial of employment on religious grounds, with widespread impunity. Given the UK’s incredibly strong trade and development ties with Nigeria, will the Leader of the House ask the FCDO to update the House on its  assessment of those concerns and on what steps the UK has taken to ensure that its partnerships promote religious freedom and protect the livelihoods of minority communities, giving that voice to the voiceless today in this Chamber? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I think he is the only person who has never missed a business questions session since I began in this role. In fact, I am not sure he has missed any Adjournment debate in the House over the last year. Whether he or I have the highest number of speaking contributions, he should win the award anyway because every day in this place he gives a voice to those around the world and his constituents. I thank him for that.

We have previously discussed the issues in Nigeria. I will ensure that the Foreign Office updates the hon. Gentleman on that, but, as he knows, those conversations are ongoing, and we do ask the Nigerian Government to take action. \p Patricia Ferguson: Residents in areas of my constituency have raised the poor postal service they have been receiving in recent weeks, which has led to their not receiving important financial information on time and missing hospital appointments. I realise that that issue is often raised with the Leader of the House, but will she join me in saying that Royal Mail and Ofcom really do need to get their act together and ensure that my constituents do not continue to receive such a second-class service? \p Lucy Powell: This issue is often raised in these sessions. There have been systematic problems at Royal Mail over recent years, which is why Ofcom has recently sanctioned it twice over its service levels and is further investigating it. I know from meetings for my constituents that under Royal Mail’s new ownership and new leadership we are seeing some improvements to services. I implore my hon. Friend to arrange such meetings in her constituency as well. I think this topic would make for a very popular and well-attended debate. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting Martyn Waters to discuss the closure of Cublington’s only and much-loved pub, the Unicorn. Martyn is working hard with the community to buy it and to give it a future, and I have told him that he has my full support. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making space to debate and progress our manifesto pledge to introduce a community right to buy. Will she share more about how that will help protect places like the Unicorn pub in Cublington? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of the proposed closure of the Unicorn pub in her constituency. On the community efforts to keep it open, last week we introduced the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which will bring a generational shift in community empowerment including the community right to buy, which she rightly mentioned, so that communities such as hers can take over assets like the Unicorn. I just announced the Second Reading of that Bill for when we return, and I am sure that she will raise those issues. \p Gregor Poynton: In my constituency, East Calder has been let down by the SNP Scottish Government’s repeated failure to deliver a long promised health centre. Despite record funding, including £5.8 billion in Barnett consequentials for health, the SNP Scottish Government have failed in their promises to the people of East Calder. Meanwhile, the UK Labour Government are showing how public money can be used to rebuild, reform and reinvest in our NHS right across the country. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time for a debate on how the SNP Scottish Government can learn from that approach and that places like East Calder deserve better than the SNP’s dither and delay? \p Lucy Powell: I could not have put it better myself. The contrast between the NHS in England and the NHS in Scotland under the SNP Government could not be clearer. As my hon. Friend said, they have just had a record Budget settlement, so there really is no excuse. They should definitely learn some lessons from what we are doing here. \p Johanna Baxter: Under the previous Conservative Government, changes were made to how claimants access the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, which is designed to compensate those with rare asbestos-related lung cancers. Those changes forced claimants to use outdated paper forms instead of online applications. As a result, people facing terminal illness experienced unacceptable delays in receiving the support they were rightly entitled to, including my constituent Carolanne’s husband Jack—sadly no longer with us—who was left waiting months because of that bureaucracy. Will the Leader of the House help to facilitate a meeting between me, my constituent and the relevant Minister to ensure that the process is streamlined to better support those who need it? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about that case. Those who suffered with mesothelioma still suffer a great injustice. I will absolutely ensure that my hon. Friend gets a full response from a Minister, and hopefully a meeting on the matter. \p Luke Myer: I welcome the Government’s commitment to provide homes for heroes, but some social housing providers are focusing on those with very recent service only. My constituent Arthur is a veteran with 12 years’ service, but he is living in an overcrowded property; in fact, he is sleeping on the floor in the living room so that his children can have a bed. Will the Leader of the House ensure that I can obtain a meeting with the relevant Minister to ensure that veterans like Arthur get the housing they need? \p Lucy Powell: The levels of homelessness and housing need among our veterans is shocking and a wake-up call for all of us, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend has a meeting with the Minister. That is why we are taking steps to ensure that there is more housing provision for veterans and everybody else. \p John Slinger: In July 2023, two Warwickshire police officers stationed in my constituency, PC Mateusz Dabrowski and PC Dominic Strange, courageously rescued someone from a burning car, risking  their lives in the process, before attempting to save the person’s life with immediate first aid. Recently, the chief constable of Warwickshire police awarded the two officers the chief constable’s commendation and described their actions as

“an act of bravery of the highest degree.”

They have both been nominated for the national police bravery awards 2025. Will the Leader of the House join me in honouring the brave actions of those police officers? Does she agree that their actions epitomise the very best of our police service: selfless dedication to protecting the public? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in giving our heartfelt thanks to PC Dabrowski and PC Strange for their heroic efforts. I hope their nomination for the national police bravery awards is taken forward and that they are given one of those awards, because it sounds like they are deserved winners. \p Anna Gelderd: Following the recent Channel 4 documentary “Poisoned: Killer in the Post”, may we have a statement from the Ministry of Justice on the action being taken to tackle a specific and growing threat of online content promoting chemical methods of suicide? One of my constituents in south-east Cornwall was tragically affected by that and I know they are not alone. This is a serious failure of online safety, and we need clarity on how platforms are being held accountable, how victims are being supported and what steps are being taken to prevent further harm. \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of that case. My hon. Friend will be aware that the content duties in the Online Safety Act 2023 require platforms to tackle illegal suicide and self-harm content and activity. The Act is now coming into force, with new guidance being put forward regularly. We will keep those matters under review, however, and if we need to strengthen the law, we will. \p Phil Brickell: I thank the Leader of the House for confirming the recess dates for the next 12 months, which my wife has already messaged me about to say thanks.

The Leader of the House will be aware that, despite important draft Government legislation banning single-use vapes, vape shops masquerading as candy stores continue to spring up everywhere across my Bolton West constituency. A new shop has just popped up in Horwich near Saint Joseph’s Roman Catholic high school. The school has done excellent work in tackling vape use among children but it is fighting a rising tide. Will the Leader of the House set aside Government time to debate how the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and other measures are implemented to improve public health and prevent stores from being used as front businesses by organised crime gangs? \p Lucy Powell: I am pleased to have announced the full year of recess dates. I feel like that is my most important key performance indicator as Leader of the House.

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the proliferation and use of vapes, and the challenge that that brings to our high streets and for young people, public health and many other areas. We have already  banned single-use vapes through a statutory instrument and our flagship Tobacco and Vapes Bill is progressing through this House and will shortly make further progress. \p Emma Foody: I recently had a meeting with one of my constituents, Sian from Palmersville, who is one of the founders of the Safe Clicks foundation. The foundation calls for greater accountability of social media companies to tackle bullying online and to ensure that digital spaces are safe, respectful and rooted in responsibility. It has also recently launched a parliamentary petition. Can we have a debate about the action that the Government are taking to protect online spaces and ensure that social media companies take action to stamp out bullying and harassment online? \p Lucy Powell: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that tackling online abuse and hate is one of the biggest challenges of our time. The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) is in his place. The Online Safety Act 2023 has been an important first step, but tech platforms need to do more and we will hold them to account for that. The Government want to go further and we will keep the House updated. \p Douglas McAllister: May I thank the Leader of the House for her courtesy and generosity over the past year during business question sessions? She deserves a well-earned rest and holiday during recess—for which I suggest no better place than my constituency. There, she can enjoy a round of golf at Dalmuir golf course, run by a community trust, visit the bonnie banks of Loch Lomond, or accept my invitation to join me at the Scottish pipe band championships in Dumbarton on Saturday 26 July. Admission is free. \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend; I am looking forward to a well-earned rest. He is very much on-theme today in inviting me to his favourite spots in his constituency, and he has done that very well. The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms sitting next to me just said about my hon. Friend’s constituency, “It is very, very nice.” Maybe one day I will visit Loch Lomond and perhaps do better at golf than I did in answering the previous question. \p Paul Waugh: Hanson Springs in Rochdale was founded 62 years ago by Malcolm Hanson, and it has gone from strength to strength. This year the company is investing £3 million in new plant, machinery and expanded factory space. Malcolm turns 80 next month, but still works 40 hours a week and his granddaughter Lucy joined the firm only this week, straight from Rochdale sixth-form college. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Malcolm a very happy 80th birthday, because he is exactly the sort of grafter and entrepreneur that makes our town and this country such a special place? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in wishing Malcolm Hanson a very good 80th birthday. His granddaughter has a very good name; I will say that. It is great to see that he is offering great job opportunities to young people in his constituency, and Hanson Springs sounds like it is going from strength to strength. \p Allison Gardner: For the past year, I have been working with the Midlands Partnership University NHS foundation trust to secure and unlock the funds to build a new neighbourhood health centre in Longton, which, incidentally, is the home of Gladstone pottery museum featured in “The Great Pottery Throw Down”—the Leader of the House is welcome to come and visit. The plan is to deliver better joined-up healthcare in the community. Naturally, I am delighted to see this Government’s commitment to moving healthcare from hospital to community in the 10-year plan. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on how we can deliver a neighbourhood health service as quickly as possible? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituency. “The Great Pottery Throw Down” is one of my favourite shows, so maybe I will visit her constituency. She is absolutely right to call for more healthcare provision in her constituency—an integrated care hub in Longton. I will happily work with her to get that off the ground. \p Mark Sewards: Last Friday, I met business owners who operate in Morley Bottoms and who have managed to turn one of the most undesirable parts of our town into one of the destinations that people travel into Morley to experience. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have an invitation to come along and join me any time, as does the Leader of the House, and the first round is on me.

Those business owners are, however, victims of their own success. Unfortunately, a spate of burglaries over the past few years has affected the businesses. We have met the police and are working with them to sort it out. I welcome the Government’s move to ensure that our town centres are protected this summer with increased police presence. However, we have to go further, we have to go faster, we have to increase the number of police and we have to increase the powers available to them, too. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on   that in Government time, and perhaps encourage the other place to send our Crime and Policing Bill back as soon as possible so that we can do just what I have mentioned? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. We have introduced our neighbourhood policing guarantee to put more neighbourhood police on the streets, along with our Crime and Policing Bill and the many other measures that we are taking, so that town centres such as Morley can thrive and businesses can go about their work without fear of the blight of antisocial behaviour, shoplifting or crime. \p Frank McNally: As the final person to ask a question of the Leader of the House today, may I join the thanks to all in the House and to the Leader of the House for her commitment to these sessions?

The Motor Neurone Disease Association is holding a day of action in Parliament Square today to raise awareness of Tofersen, a groundbreaking precision therapy for SOD1 MND. The association’s aim is to highlight the growing number of patients eligible to access the drug, but who are unable to do so due to a lack of capacity and clinical support. Will my right hon. Friend provide Government time for a debate to explore what more can be done to break down the barriers to that MND treatment, and what more Government can do in partnership with scientists, researchers and clinicians to find a cure ultimately for this devastating disease? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for his thanks. It has been my absolute pleasure to answer all the hundreds of questions that I have answered over the last year, and he raises another important one, too. He is absolutely right that motor neurone disease is an utterly devastating disease that is currently incurable. I wish all those well who are here for the day of action. I know that Tofersen is currently being reviewed. That review is happening rapidly, so that we can get these innovative new treatments in use as quickly as possible and end this devastating disease once and for all. \p John Healey: With permission, I wish to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.

Today is day 1,239 since President Putin launched his full-scale invasion and it is more than a decade since the Ukrainians have known peace in their homeland. They have had homes destroyed, lands seized, children abducted and loved ones killed by Putin’s forces. Yet the Ukrainian people still fight with remarkable determination—military and civilian alike. Almost three and a half years on, I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine. Britain remains united for Ukraine, too. Polling shows that we retain the strongest public support for Ukraine of any European nation. Our solidarity is grounded in our deep respect for the Ukrainian people’s courage, and in recognition of the fact that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine—because we know that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop with Ukraine.

Let me begin by providing a battlefield update. Russia is maintaining pressure along the whole length of the frontline, with a special focus on Sumy in the north-east and Pokrovsk in the south-east, as well as in Kursk. Last month, Russian ground forces seized approximately 550 sq km of Ukrainian territory—an area greater than the size of Greater Manchester—yet they face continuing difficulties attempting to take fortified towns and cities, and they have not taken a significant town for months. Indeed, they have tried without success to seize Pokrovsk for nearly a year. What ground they do gain comes at great cost. Last month, the number of Russian troops killed and wounded surpassed more than 1 million. This year alone, Russia has sustained 240,000 casualties.

Despite those catastrophic Russian losses, Putin’s ruthless ambitions do not appear to be waning. Russia is escalating the high numbers of one-way attack drones launched at Ukraine: 1,900 in April, 4,000 in May, 5,000 in June and already 3,200 in July. On 9 July, a week ago today, the largest aerial strike of the war was recorded when Russia launched more than 700 attack drones in a single night.

Despite the onslaught, Ukrainians are taking the fight to Putin, striking military targets in Russia that his people see and know about. Spider Web was an operation of remarkable precision and extraordinary success that dealt a fierce blow to Putin. After one year of meticulous planning, it resulted in the damage of 41 long-range bombers—planes that threaten not only Ukraine but NATO.

We must now step up efforts to get further military support to the frontline. Last month, on the eve of the NATO summit, we welcomed President Zelensky to No. 10 Downing Street, where the Prime Minister signed a UK-Ukraine agreement to share advanced battlefield capabilities and technologies—a deal that means our defence industry can rapidly develop cutting-edge technologies from Ukraine, and step up production for Ukraine. At the NATO summit that followed, 32 nations came together to sign a new investment pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defence and national security by 2035. Those 32 nations reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine, with €40 billion pledged in security assistance for this year. It was a good summit for Ukraine, for Britain and for NATO; it was a bad summit for Putin.

On the basis of those commitments at NATO, President Trump signalled a significant shift this week on Ukraine: he announced NATO weapons transfers, and a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace. Together with the NATO Secretary-General, President Trump agreed to large-scale purchases by NATO allies of US military equipment, including Patriot missiles and other air defence systems and munitions, which he committed to getting

“quickly distributed to the battlefield”.

The UK backs the scheme, and we plan to play our full part. On Monday, we will discuss this further when I chair the next meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside my German counterpart, Minister Boris Pistorius. The contact group continues to be the forum through which more than 50 nations provide Ukraine with what it needs to fight back against Putin’s war machine. I am pleased that Monday’s meeting will be attended by US Secretary Hegseth; NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte; and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Grynkewich.

Britain is providing more than £4.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine this year—more than ever before. At the UDCG, I will provide the following updates. First, on the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, two thirds of the UK’s ERA total of £2.26 billion has now been disbursed, including £700 million on artillery shells, long- range rockets and air defence missiles—exactly what Ukraine needs most. Secondly, on drones, since March the UK has supplied nearly 50,000 drones to Ukraine. This helps us to meet our commitment to increasing tenfold our supply this year. Thirdly, on air defence, the UK and Germany have agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine. Fourthly, on the NATO comprehensive assistance package, the UK will donate a further £40 million, which Ukraine can use, through a range of programmes, on anything from de-mining to rehabilitating its wounded.

It is four months since President Zelensky responded to President Trump’s peace negotiations with Ukraine’s full commitment to an unconditional ceasefire. President Putin has shown no such interest in an end to the fighting, but peace in Ukraine is possible, and we must be ready for when that peace comes. Since March, the UK and France have led the coalition of the willing on planning new security arrangements to support Ukraine in any ceasefire. More than 200 military planners from 30 nations have worked intensively for weeks with Ukraine; that includes work on reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.

Last week, at the summit, President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer said that this initial phase of detailed military planning had concluded. I can confirm that the military command and control structures have been agreed for a future Multinational Force Ukraine. The force’s mission will be to strengthen Ukraine’s defences on the land, at sea and in the air, because the Ukrainian armed forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression. The force will include a three-star multinational command headquarters in Paris, rotating to London after the first 12 months. When the force deploys, there will be a co-ordination HQ in Kyiv, headed by a UK two-star military officer. It will regenerate land forces by providing logistics, armament and training experts. It will secure Ukraine’s skies by using aircraft to deliver a level of support similar to that used for  NATO’s air policing mission, and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black sea taskforce with additional specialist teams.

When peace comes, we will be ready, and we will play our part in securing it for the long term. Next month, on 24 August, Ukrainians will gather to celebrate their independence day. For another year, the anniversary of Ukraine’s liberation will be marked under the pain of occupation. Whatever else commands the world’s attention, we must never lose sight of this war. We must never lose sight of Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion of that proud and sovereign nation, and we must never forget the price that Ukraine is paying in fighting for its own freedom and the security of all free nations, including ours. The UK will stand with the Ukrainian people today, tomorrow, the day after, and for as long it takes for Ukraine to prevail. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p James Cartlidge: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

It was less than a month ago that the United States undertook a bombing raid on Iranian nuclear facilities—one of the most significant military actions undertaken anywhere in the world for years. With such developments understandably dominating the headlines, and almost three and a half years having elapsed since Russia first launched its unprovoked and illegal all-out invasion, it is right that the Government regularly update the House—as we did—on developments in Ukraine.

The reality is that there has been no let-up in Russian aggression. As the Secretary of State confirmed, 9 July saw the largest drone attack of the war by Russia, and there were reports yesterday of Russia using 400 drones to target energy infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. That indiscriminate barbarism has inevitably led to further civilian casualties, but on the military side, can the Secretary of State confirm that Russia has suffered by far the greatest losses? He confirmed that last month, Russian battlefield casualties surpassed 1 million. Does that not show the extent to which Putin has nothing but callous disregard for the human impact of his actions on either side?

I am proud of the decisive assistance that we provided to Ukraine when we were in office. We continue to stand with the Government in seeking to provide all possible support, but it is vital that all our allies play their part. On France, and what was previously called the coalition of the willing, I agree that we need to be ready for when that peace comes, so can the Secretary of State confirm how many other nations will provide fighter jets to the Multinational Force Ukraine? Can he confirm that there is no longer any planning for a land combat element to the MNFU?

We welcome the additional provision of military hardware by the US, but the Secretary of State said that

“we plan to play our full part.”

Will the UK therefore be purchasing military equipment from the United States to pass on to Ukraine? The Secretary of State did not mention potential sanctions  or tariffs. It has been widely reported that President Trump is considering tariffs of 100% on goods entering the US from any country that imports any product from Russia. Have the Government discussed this plan with the US, and will the UK follow suit? The Times reports today that Andriy Yermak, senior adviser to President Zelensky, has stated that the imposition of secondary sanctions on nations buying oil and gas from Russia could end the war

“before the end of this year.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with that analysis, and again, would the UK join in any secondary sanctions policy directed against countries importing Russian oil and gas?

On Germany, we understand that the Prime Minister is meeting Chancellor Merz today. May I urge the Government to push their German counterparts on provision of Taurus missiles to Ukraine? Alternatively, given that the missiles are, we understand, compatible with Typhoon, will the Government backfill UK stocks to enable the provision of more Storm Shadow missiles?

Turning to the impact of all this on the UK, we understand that Germany will today sign an agreement with the Prime Minister to come to each other’s aid in the event of an attack on the other. Will the Secretary of State outline how that is different from NATO article 5? I have had recent discussions with senior German parliamentarians on the impact on our nations of supporting Ukraine, and the Germans believe, as has been widely reported, that drone overflights of their military bases were linked to nefarious Russian activity. In the context of recent threats to RAF bases, and drone overflights at Suffolk RAF bases and elsewhere last November, can he update us at all—I appreciate the sensitivity of this—on whether there is yet any indication of Russian involvement? In particular, will he update us on progress on the review of security at UK bases, which he launched last month?

When I was Minister for Defence Procurement, I stripped out a whole load of processes and red tape to bring forward the in-service date of our groundbreaking DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to 2027. Given the extraordinary potential for directed energy weapons, will the Secretary of State accelerate adoption even further, and ensure rapid testing of anti-drone defences for our military bases?

On drones more broadly, in a written answer in March, Ministers confirmed that they had ordered just three military drones for our armed forces since the election. I have tabled subsequent written questions on progress, and Ministers are now saying that they cannot answer the question. What is the latest figure? UK small and medium-sized enterprises have provided some of the best drones and counter-drone measures used on the live battlefield in Ukraine, so why are we not ordering the same kit in parallel for our own Army, at scale and at pace, so that it can train today—not years in the future—in how war is fought right now in Ukraine?

After three and half years of war, we must keep reminding the British public of the most important point for our national interest—namely, that the best way to defend our homeland right now is to give all possible support to Ukraine, so that the democracy triumphs over the dictatorship, and to prevent Putin’s aggression from spreading westwards. \p John Healey: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his welcome for the update. I welcome the Opposition’s continued backing for the steps that we are taking to support Ukraine, just as we gave our backing to their Government when we were in opposition.

The shadow Secretary of State is right to point out that the massive scale of Russian casualties shows the contempt that President Putin has for the life of his own people, as well as for the life of those in Ukraine. He is also right to point out that Russian casualties far outnumber those in Ukraine.

On the coalition of the willing, 30 nations are involved in the planning. The military planning is now complete, and we will keep it refreshed until renewed ceasefire negotiations, which we hope to see soon. Under the plans, there will be a land force, and activity in the air and on the sea. I am pleased to hear the shadow Secretary of State back the aid that we are putting into Ukraine. He asks about the coalition of the willing, but I really cannot recall—and I have checked—him backing the coalition. Does his party support Britain’s leadership of the Multinational Force Ukraine?

Discussions on the Trump NATO plan will be developed on Monday at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, which I will co-chair will Boris Pistorius. If sanctions and economic measures play a part in the actions that the international community need to take to bring Putin to the negotiating table, we will of course use them. The shadow Secretary of State’s Government had a good record; we have gone a lot further in the past year. Since July, we have introduced over 500 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships across all the regimes, and as a nation we have now sanctioned over 289 vessels in the Russian shadow fleet.

On base security, I will update the House when the full base security review is complete. On DragonFire, the shadow Secretary of State is right to say that he was instrumental in the UK taking its first steps on that technology, but he left the programme largely unfunded. We are already accelerating it, and will put that technology into four of our naval vessels, not just the one that he planned to put it in.

On drones, the hon. Gentleman knows that what he keeps citing was a very specific answer to a very specific question. He knows that following the strategic defence review, we are doubling to more than £4 billion the amount of money in this Parliament that we will invest in autonomy and drones. He knows that we will establish a new drone centre of excellence. This will mean we can accelerate the use of uncrewed systems or drones in every service. The Army, for instance, will train thousands of operators. This summer, we will start rolling out 3,000 strike drones. That will be followed by more than 1,000 surveillance drones, and we will equip every section with drones for the future. That is what we mean in the strategic defence review when we talk about combining the power of new technology with the heavy metal of platforms like tanks, planes and ships to make Britain the most innovative armed forces in NATO. \p Alex Baker: As the Member for Aldershot, I know how deeply people in my constituency understand the cost of conflict and the value of standing by our allies, so I welcome this statement and thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this issue. Does he agree that the outcome in Ukraine matters for not  just European security but the UK’s standing as a reliable defence partner, and that for us to maintain this reputation, long-term investment in British capabilities and industries in constituencies like mine—where, incidentally, DragonFire was created—is essential to sustaining our support and deterring further aggression? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend is entirely right: the UK has been the most reliable ally for Ukraine since before the full-scale invasion almost three and a half years ago. She is also right to say that a test of this nation is whether we are willing to step up the leadership on Ukraine, as we have; whether we are ready to step up the leadership in NATO, as we have; and, underpinning all, whether we are ready to step up the level of defence investment in this country, which we have. The Prime Minister announced in February that this country would invest 2.5% of GDP in defence by 2027, alongside the £5 billion extra in defence this year—Labour’s first year in government. This is the largest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the additional support to Ukraine, because we must continue to support Ukraine to defend Europe. Russia’s increased attacks are devastating, and we recognise the resilience of the Ukrainians and support them.

President Trump only now seems to be realising what has always been clear: that Russia’s brutal dictator has no interest in peace. While I was surprised and relieved to see the President announce potential secondary sanctions if no ceasefire is agreed within 50 days, we all know that he is as changeable as the wind. No one has forgotten the humiliating ambush he laid for President Zelensky in the Oval Office, and there is no guarantee he will not soon revert to praising Putin again. A 50-day deadline could even encourage Putin to escalate his attacks in the meantime. That is why the UK must go further to support Ukraine and increase pressure on the Kremlin.

Could the Defence Secretary update the House on progress towards seizing the £25 billion in frozen Russian assets here in the UK and deploying them to Ukraine? What discussions are under way with European partners, especially Belgium and Germany, on doing the same across the continent? More must be done to cut off the oil revenues fuelling Russia’s war machine. The Secretary of State spoke about the shadow fleet, but will the Government expand the UK’s designation of vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet, including those that are already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US?

Finally, I turn to the announcement on the Multinational Force Ukraine. We welcome the conclusion of this first phase of planning and the UK’s leading role in shaping the future security architecture for Ukraine, but we need clarity on what this means in practical terms. Can the Defence Secretary confirm what the specific UK armed forces contribution will be to the Multinational Force Ukraine? Will there be any planned deployment of UK personnel on land, at sea or in the air once the mission is operational, and if so, what role will the UK play in that deployment? \p John Healey: First, we stand ready to expand sanctions on the Russian shadow fleet. Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about the coalition of the willing. The military planning is complete. With the prospect of a ceasefire, which we hope to see soon but cannot see immediately, the commitments and the details will be firmed up, and they will be reported appropriately to the House at that stage.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the use of frozen assets. She will know the complexity of this challenge and the interest and will of the Government to work on this, but she will also recognise that the majority of those assets are held outside the UK, so any action on this front must be taken with and alongside others. Therein lies the complexity of the discussions at present. \p Chi Onwurah: I thank the Secretary of State for this statement and for expressing his, and indeed this House’s, unwavering commitment to the Ukrainian people against Putin’s illegal war. I welcome the 50,000 drones that the UK has sent to Ukraine and express my admiration for the Ukrainian people, who are fighting on behalf of all of us.

No one predicted the role of drones in this conflict and the astounding speed of the evolution of that technology in Ukraine, but also in Russia and China. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with our allies to ensure that we maintain or develop technological advantage in key defence capabilities and get it to the frontline? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend is entirely right: for the first time in human conflict history, drones are killing far more and causing far more casualties than heavy artillery. She asks the challenging question that was at the heart of the strategic defence review that we published at the beginning of last month: in learning lessons from Ukraine, how do we recognise the way that the change in warfare is accelerated by the rapidly advancing technology? That is the reason we are making a £4 billion investment in this Parliament alone in the drone technology that she cites and the potential of autonomy to reinforce the warfighting readiness of our forces and therefore the deterrence that we can provide as a nation within NATO. \p Mark Pritchard: Operation Orbital is the UK training programme for the Ukrainian military. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that personal and personnel data is safe at the Ministry of Defence? He mentioned there being 15,000 drone attacks over the last four months, and he referenced meeting with Germans to look at counter-drone munitions and capabilities, but of course, Ukrainians are being attacked right now—today. What thought has been given to the use of the RAF’s Tucano aircraft, which I think are now out of service? I wonder where they are. Could they be redeployed? Could a variant of the Grob turboprop trainer perhaps be provided? These slow-flying aircraft could interdict Shahed drones, for example, and they are low-cost and low-maintenance. \p John Healey: I am not familiar with the Tucano aircraft—if they are still in our inventory, they have not come across my desk—but I will certainly look into that and write to the right hon. Gentleman.

On the Orbital training programme, I am confident that the data relating to those personnel are secure. I am proud of that programme. It did not just follow Putin’s full-scale invasion in February three and a half years ago; it was in place after Russia first took Crimea and had proxy forces move into Donetsk and Luhansk. There was a UK-Canadian training programme supporting Ukrainians well before Putin’s invasion, and since then, we have trained more than 56,000 Ukrainian forces through the UK-led multinational training programme. \p Gregor Poynton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the actions of Russia on 9 July, when it launched the largest aerial bombardment of the war to date, show that Ukrainian civilians and military are still in a fight for their lives and the future of their country, and that this House, our Government and our country must do everything possible to stand with them in that fight? \p John Healey: I do, and my hon. Friend is right to remind the House and the public. These Russian attacks are directed not just at Ukrainian frontline forces, but at Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian civilians and Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. That is a harsh reminder of Putin’s character. His brutal, illegal invasion is entirely contemptuous of the lives of his own people, and he is attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure. \p John Lamont: I fully support the work of the UK Government in providing military assistance to Ukraine.

Like so many voluntary groups across the United Kingdom, the Rotary club of Duns has been actively involved in supporting Ukraine during the war. It has delivered several pick-up trucks loaded with medical equipment and other essential supplies to Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the Rotary club and the other voluntary groups that have been involved? What more support can the Government provide to UK voluntary groups that want to provide assistance to Ukraine? \p John Healey: I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s local Rotary club and the other local groups that reflect the continuing public will to offer support where we can to Ukraine. If those groups, including his local Rotary club, are looking for specific support to get such supplies to Ukraine, I would encourage him to contact me with the details. \p Alex Sobel: I thank the Defence Secretary for his comprehensive statement. As a trade envoy, I was with the UK Government’s mission to last week’s Ukraine recovery conference in Rome, where two of the top asks for civilian recovery were improved air defence and de-mining, so I was very pleased to hear those mentioned. His statement is about our support for Ukraine, but for the long-term security of our own country and the whole of Europe, what lessons are the Ministry of Defence and the UK defence industry learning from Ukraine’s innovation in defence? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend is one of the most energetic and ceaseless supporters of Ukraine, and not just in this House. I know he has gone out with supplies  to support civilians and comrades in Ukraine. I am glad that he was at the Ukraine recovery conference in Italy last week. If he is looking for the lessons that the UK Ministry of Defence is pulling from Ukraine, I will send him a personal copy of the strategic defence review. \p Richard Foord: These plans for a so-called coalition of the willing are contingency plans. They are designed for a time when Putin agrees to a ceasefire in Ukraine, which, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, he shows no sign of doing. How does the prospect of Ukraine’s allies, such as the UK, deploying armed forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire incentivise the Kremlin to sue for peace? \p John Healey: One of the signals that the coalition of the willing underlines to President Putin is that a large number of deeply committed democratic countries are willing to stand with Ukraine in its fight against his invasion, and are willing to stand alongside Ukraine in any peace to secure a long-lasting and just settlement. The single message that Putin should take is that Ukraine will keep fighting, that we will keep supporting it, and that the best way for him is now to accept that he needs to come to the negotiating table to talk and put an end to this fighting. \p Melanie Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for his important update. It is clear that Russia’s growing aggression undermines our security at home. Does he agree that the outcome of the war in Ukraine matters deeply to every one of my constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, as much as it does across the whole country and, indeed, all of Europe? Can he update us any further on the measures he is taking to counter Russian aggression? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend’s constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy share the sentiment across the UK of strong support for Ukraine, three and a half years into this war. [Interruption.] There is a recognition that this matter rises above party politics, and a recognition in general that the UK not only needs to say that we stand with Ukraine, but needs to demonstrate that through our actions. I hope her constituents will support the Government in what we are doing. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. That is the fifth time I have heard a phone go off. Silence is golden. \p John Cooper: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that it was not my phone. My ringtone is “633 Squadron”, which is very distinctive.

It is tremendous that the planning for the coalition of the willing has been put together so quickly, but plans are paper tigers. We need flying tigers. If we are to secure a peace that is eventually secure, we will need air superiority over Ukraine. Can the Secretary of State give us a clue, perhaps not naming individual countries, of how many of the 30 members of the coalition of the willing are prepared to put combat aircraft into this plan? \p John Healey: Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not my phone either.

The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to the more than 200 military planners, from more than 30 nations, who have worked over the last four months on the detail of the military planning. It has not just been an exercise based and led in France and the UK; it has involved detailed reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.

These are serious military plans. They are designed for the circumstances of a ceasefire—circumstances that are not entirely clear now, but that we hope to see. They will be refined regularly between now and any point of peace. They are designed to make sure that, when we get that peace, we are ready to support it as a multinational force for Ukraine. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his update and for his leadership on this issue. In Russia and the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, Russian authorities have introduced military-patriotic training in schools and youth groups, exposing Ukrainian children to military propaganda urging enlistment in the Russian armed forces. There are also reports that Russia is recruiting Ukrainian teenagers and young adults to carry out espionage and sabotage within Ukraine.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ukraine’s children have no place on the battlefield in this war? Can he say a little more about the work he is doing with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to hold to account those responsible for the militarisation and forced deportation of Ukraine’s children? \p John Healey: I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend for her ceaseless work to draw public attention in the UK to the plight of abducted Ukrainian children and teenagers in Russia. Abducted Ukrainian children have no place on the Russian frontline, they have no place on the battlefield, and they have no place in Russia.

When the Foreign Secretary and I first went to Ukraine together, when we were still in opposition, we met a magnificent charity that was bringing abducted Ukrainian children back from Russia. We sat down with four young teenagers who had been subject to exactly the sort of treatment that my hon. Friend identifies. I will look to work with her and Foreign Office colleagues to reinforce any of the steps we can take in this country to draw greater attention to this brutal abuse of young people. \p Robbie Moore: It has been three and a half years since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we all know that there has been huge loss of life, and incredible disruption and pain caused to many residents, not only in Ukraine but across the world. I saw that for myself when I met the Keighley Ukrainian association, which has gone above and beyond, not only raising funds for those in Ukraine but supporting many families in my constituency. The owners of Keighley Cougars are in Ukraine as we speak, delivering sports equipment to organisations involved in rugby league in Ukraine, who are unable to have the equipment they need as a result of the war.

Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those two organisations? We all know that a divided west only benefits Russia, so following the latest talks with NATO, will the Secretary of State also comment on what more the Government could be doing to ensure  other nations are playing their part, both through military support and through funding and developing key defence capabilities to continue to support Ukraine? \p John Healey: The UK is playing a leading part by co-chairing the Ukrainian defence contact group, as I will be on Monday. Through that forum, 50 nations co-ordinate support and respond to Ukraine’s battlefield support needs. Alongside the French, we are also leading by developing the coalition of the willing, planning for the future. I pay tribute to the members of the Keighley Cougars who are out in Ukraine delivering sports equipment—hats off to them. I see that as typical of the generosity of the people in Yorkshire. \p John Slinger: Brave Ukrainians in my constituency of Rugby, who are a long way from their compatriots at home, tell me about the continuing suffering of civilians—I repeat: civilians—due to Russian aggression. Will the Defence Secretary join me in welcoming the new drive from President Trump and NATO to ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position both to defend itself and in any future negotiations? \p John Healey: In reminding the House about the Ukrainian families who are in Rugby, my hon. Friend reminds us that this is a war—an invasion—that has forced many to flee their home. Many are still receiving shelter from UK families, and I pay tribute to those who are offering that shelter. We have been willing to back President Trump in his bid to secure a negotiated peace in Ukraine from the outset, and we look to this next stage as a hopeful sign. We will do whatever we can to reinforce his efforts to put pressure on President Putin now and to bring him to the negotiating table. \p Phil Brickell: As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, may I take this opportunity to welcome Monday’s joint chairing of the Ukrainian Defence Contact Group by the Defence Secretary, alongside his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius? I also congratulate the Government on today’s landmark bilateral treaty between the UK and Germany, signed here in London, between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz, on mutual defence, security co-operation and industrial collaboration. The treaty demonstrates our determination to stand up to Putin’s continued acts of aggression, wherever they may take place, as well as the Government’s enduring commitment to Ukraine. \p John Healey: I welcome my hon. Friend’s role in the all-party parliamentary group on Germany. The new coalition Government in Germany are making a massively welcome contribution to increased support to NATO and to European security. I welcome that greater contribution. I note that the Federal Ministry of Defence is still led, very ably, by a Social Democratic Party of Germany Minister, Boris Pistorius. I especially welcome that at the heart of the new friendship treaty, which Chancellor Merz and our Prime Minister will sign today, is the Trinity House agreement that Boris Pistorius and I struck back in October: a deep defence agreement, for the first time, between the UK and Germany. It means that we will do so much more together as two nations, but also as two nations within NATO. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee Statement \p Caroline Nokes: We now come to the first Select Committee statement on behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not the relevant Government Minister, although Front Benchers may take part in questioning. I call Dame Chi Onwurah. \p Chi Onwurah: I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. Today I speak on behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, but also the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives were profoundly affected by last year’s riots, as well as everyone impacted by the long shadow of social media misinformation.

I want to put on the record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who have supported this inquiry, and the many witnesses who gave evidence. They have helped to shape our report, and we are very grateful, particularly to those who shared their real-life experience of the riots and the online hate that accompanied them. The Committee would also like to extend our deepest sympathies to the families of the three little girls murdered in Southport, and everyone affected.

Like many nations, the UK is grappling with the immense challenge of regulating global tech giants—companies whose platforms shape our societies, economies and democracies, often with resources that dwarf those of Governments. For example, the UK’s entire public sector budget is about equal to Meta’s market capitalisation. As the representative of the British people, it is essential that Parliament understands the impact of these companies, and is able to scrutinise their actions and regulate them in the public interest, where necessary. However, the Committee experienced significant challenges in seeking to do that during the course of the inquiry. We were reassured by statements from Google, Meta, TikTok and X in our evidence session that they accepted their responsibility to be accountable to the British people through Parliament, and we hope to see that in practice as our work in this area continues.

The horrific attacks in Southport on 29 July 2024 and the violent unrest that followed are a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of the viral spread of online misinformation. Hateful and misleading content spread rapidly, amplified by opaque recommendation algorithms. Protests turned violent, often targeting Muslim and migrant communities, driven in part by the spread of these messages. These events provided a snapshot of how online activity can contribute to real-world violence and hate.

Many parts of the long-awaited Online Safety Act 2023 were not fully in force at the time of the riots, but the Committee found little evidence that they would have made a difference if they were. Moreover, the Act is out of date. It regulates at a technology and content level, rather than on principles or outcomes, and therefore fails to adequately address generative artificial intelligence —ChatGPT, deep fakes and synthetic misinformation—even as it becomes cheaper and easier to access. Generative AI will make the next misinformation crisis much more dangerous.

Having spent six years working for Ofcom before entering Parliament, I believe strongly that regulating technology does not work. Our online safety regime should be based on principles that remain sound in the face of technological development. Social media has made many important and positive contributions, helping to democratise access to a public voice and connect people far and wide. It also has significant risks.

The advertisement-based business models of most social media companies mean that they promote engaging content, often regardless of its authenticity. That spills out across the entire internet via the unclear, under-regulated digital advertising market, incentivising the creation of content that will perform well on social media, as we saw during the 2024 unrest.

This is not just a social media problem; it is a systemic issue that promotes harmful content and undermines public trust. Our concerns were exacerbated when we questioned representatives of regulators and the Government. We were met with confusion and contradiction at high levels, and it became evident that the UK’s online safety regime has some major holes.

After four public sessions, more than 80 written submissions and extensive deliberations, our findings are clear: the British people are not adequately protected from online harms. We have identified five key principles that we believe are crucial for the regulation of social media and related technologies and drive our recommendations to Government.

Our first principle is public safety. Algorithmically enhanced misinformation is a danger that companies, Government, law enforcement and security services need to work together to address. That is basically saying that misinformation is harmful, which may sound obvious, but it has not been recognised as such. As a consequence, platforms should be compelled to demote fact-checked misinformation and establish processes to take more stringent measures during crises. We propose that the Government carry out research into how platforms should tackle misinformation and how far recommendation algorithms spread harm. Furthermore, all AI content should be visibly labelled.

Our second principle is free and safe expression. Steps to tackle amplified misinformation should be in line with the fundamental right to free expression, and measures to meet misinformation must align with that right.

Our third principle is responsibility. Users should be held liable for what they post online, but the platforms on which they post are also responsible and should be held accountable for the impact of the amplification of harmful content. That may sound obvious—indeed, it is not the first time that a Select Committee has said this—yet widespread uncertainty remains as to whether  platforms have a responsibility for the legal content that they host and distribute. The report recommends that platforms be obliged to undertake risk assessments and report on content that is legal but harmful. New regulatory oversight, clear and enforceable standards and proportionate penalties are needed to cover the process of digital advertising.

Our fourth principle is control. Critically, users should have control over both their personal data and what they see online. We recommend that users have a right to reset the data used by platform recommendation algorithms.

Our fifth and final principle is transparency. The technology used by social media companies, including recommendation algorithms and generative AI, should be transparent, accessible and explainable to public authorities. Transparency is needed for participants in the digital advertising market. Basically, if we cannot explain it, we cannot understand the harm it may do.

I am a tech evangelist: I believe that technology, like politics, is an engine of progress, but that does not mean we have to accept it as it is. Our report sets out detailed recommendations to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the violent and harmful riots last year. We urge the Government to acknowledge that the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose; to adopt these five principles to build a stronger, future-proof online safety regime, with clear, enforceable standards for social media platforms; and to implement our recommendations. Without action, it is only a matter of time before we face another crisis like the Southport riots, or even worse. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the hon. Lady and the Select Committee that she chairs for delivering this important review. I also thank her for her statement to the House, which has highlighted the scale of the challenge we face in relation to the proliferation of misleading and harmful content online. I join her in putting out my prayers and sympathies to all those affected by the horrors in Southport last year.

Given the report’s findings that young people are particularly susceptible to misleading and harmful content and online radicalisation, due to the stage of their cognitive development, does the hon. Lady consider that the Government should commit to conducting a review of the evidential case for raising the digital age of consent for social media platforms from 13 to 16? \p Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I also thank him for highlighting the particular issue of young people, their cognitive development and the lack of protection they enjoy from misinformation as a consequence. The Committee did not recommend that the Government should commit to a review, but we are considering a further inquiry into the impact on the cognitive development of young people. I am sure that we will have recommendations with regard to that as a consequence. \p Liz Twist: I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for highlighting the challenges we face in scrutinising powerful technology companies. As she knows, I am particularly concerned about suicide and self-harm-related content. In 2022, more than three quarters of the individuals surveyed by Samaritans said that they first saw self-harm content online at the age of 14 or younger, often without  searching for it. Worryingly, 76% said that they self-harmed more severely after viewing such content online. We have taken important steps forward by implementing the Online Safety Act, but we still face the challenge of regulating emerging technologies as well as small and risky platforms. Does she share my concern about this issue? What is her Committee’s view on how we can tackle and monitor it? \p Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for highlighting this incredibly important issue and for the work that she does in this area. She is absolutely right to say that. The Committee heard very moving and distressing evidence that suicide and self-harm content can be and has been amplified by social media algorithms and that that can play a role in suicide and self-harm, including by young people. Promoting suicide is illegal, and the Online Safety Act introduced an offence of promoting self-harm, but it does not do enough to tackle legal content that promotes suicide or self-harm, as with the rest of legal but harmful content, such as misinformation. The Committee’s recommendations that platforms should be held accountable for the algorithmic amplification of misinformation would address part of what my hon. Friend is concerned about. We hope that in implementing those recommendations, the Government would set out how they would fully address her concerns. \p Tom Gordon: I am a member of the Select Committee over which the hon. Lady presides as Chair, and I thank her and all the staff who helped with this report and inquiry. I know that many of us in this place wear not one, but multiple hats; I also sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we are doing an inquiry into AI and human rights. Some of the work from this report will be helpful and inform us in looking at some of the key issues, so, with another hat on, I thank her for that.

One of the evidence sessions that has stuck with me from working on the report is when we had social media company bosses in front of us. They talked about how they removed most of the content within 10 minutes in 90% of cases, but they did not accept responsibility for the proliferation of that data, information and content outside their own spheres. What worries me is that, at a time when we have advancing technologies and a great pace of change and we need to maintain regulation at a breakneck pace, companies—particularly social media companies—are unravelling and unpicking their content notes, their monitoring and how they look for and remove information that might be harmful. Does the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee agree that we need to do more in regulating current approaches and ensure that the companies do not backslide on their obligations? \p Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Gentleman, my fellow Committee member, for that question, as well as for his contribution to this report and the work of the Committee, which has been exceedingly valuable. He has raised a really important point; we heard evidence from Meta about Facebook content checking, and how outside the UK and the US it was moving from fact-checking to community notes, which X has also done.  The Committee has recommended adopting the principle that platforms are held accountable, which must go hand in hand with those platforms setting out how they can demonstrate that accountability. The report also recommends that the Government undertake research into what effective fact-checking looks like and how misinformation is spread, because one of the things that the Committee—which is a scientific Committee—observed was the lack of real evidence in thar area. That is partly because the algorithms and platforms are so opaque and secretive about how they operate. \p Jonathan Pearce: I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee, of which I am also a member. This report makes vital recommendations to Government and social media communities about how we can make the online world safer. I am particularly concerned about the impact on young people. Does my hon. Friend agree that harm is happening today? Young people will be going home from school with harmful content being pushed at them. Does she agree that social media companies should not wait for Government to implement these recommendations, but should get on with implementing them today to stop that harm happening to children across this country? \p Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend, both for his outstanding contribution to the report and the Committee’s work and for his question. He is absolutely right—we should not have to force the online companies to take action. They can see the evidence, and they can read this report. They know what is happening to the brains of young people. They should be able to implement the recommendations of the report without waiting for Government action, although I very much believe that Government action will be necessary to ensure those recommendations are implemented across all platforms. \p Allison Gardner: Our Committee’s evidence supports the conclusion that social media business models, particularly the use of recommendation algorithms that push users to see more extreme content and misinformation, incentivise the spread of dangerous content and, consequently, behaviours. As both a member of the Committee and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on artificial intelligence— I am another Member who wears many hats—I welcome our Committee’s conclusion that users and social media platforms should be held accountable for the impact that their amplification causes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the report provides clear recommendations to the Government and regulators as to how those platforms should be held accountable, including labelling of all AI-generated content and new regulatory oversight with clear, enforceable standards and penalties? Accountability must have teeth. \p Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution to the Committee’s report—her understanding and knowledge of AI have been invaluable. She is absolutely right that AI content must be labelled, and that the platforms and content generators must take action to address this issue now, because the risks are only going to increase. I look forward to the Government ensuring that enforcement has teeth for those platforms that do not take action or are too reckless in the action they take. \p Samantha Niblett: I thank my hon. Friend for her Committee’s report, and the team behind it who have drafted it. The report contains concerns and recommendations about digital marketing. WhatsApp is a direct communication tool, for good and for bad, which very few people engage with as though it is a classic social media platform such as Facebook, Instagram or X; it is a place for private conversation, and Meta prides itself on its data being encrypted and secure.

Having said that it would not do so, Meta will now start serving up ads under the guise of advertisers wanting to go where their audiences are, which translates as organisations wanting to make more money through targeted marketing, including Meta, which has 3 billion users of WhatsApp worldwide. If we have our WhatsApp connected to Facebook and Instagram, we may get more personalised ads. Never have I wanted to disconnect my WhatsApp from my Instagram and Facebook more. Already, when we click on Instagram, it follows us to our Facebook feeds. There is no escaping it, so views are being shaped and influenced relentlessly by the organisations that drive the most revenue to the platform owners.

With reference to the recommendations in this report about controlling digital advertising, does my hon. Friend agree that we should be able to communicate with our loved ones without being constantly sold to and influenced, and that we should always have options to opt out for the sake of our own mental health? \p Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend for championing safe and effective technology, and for the points she has made. She is absolutely right. First, it is essential that the technology be properly regulated, and that regulation be based on principles, so WhatsApp and user-to-user communication should be subject to the same principles-based regulatory environment as content communication. Secondly, we must be able to opt out, and to reset the algorithms that drive the advertising we receive. Thirdly and finally, digital advertising is unfortunately a free-for-all, with very little regulation or control. If consumers are to be adequately protected, that needs to change. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Judith Cummins: We now come to the second Select Committee statement, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Tom Gordon will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member, not to the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may also take part in questioning. \p Tom Gordon: I am grateful to the Government for engaging with the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, “Accountability for Daesh crimes”, and for the response they have provided. There are some areas of welcome agreement; for instance, the Government have reiterated their commitment to ensuring justice for survivors. They rightly agree that where there is evidence of international crimes such as genocide, individuals should be prosecuted for those crimes, not merely for terrorism offences that fail to capture the full horror and scale of what has taken place.

However, let me be clear: for all the Government’s assurances, we are still left with the sobering reality that not one single Daesh fighter has yet been prosecuted in the UK for genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes of any sort. The UK is a signatory to the genocide convention; we are one of its founding champions. We cannot continue to rely on theoretical commitment to it, while outsourcing accountability to other jurisdictions, or to international courts with limited reach and resources. The Government’s response repeatedly emphasises that prosecutions are best pursued

“close to where crimes occur”,

but where that is not happening—and in many cases it is not—the UK cannot, and must not, turn a blind eye. If a British national takes part in genocide abroad and returns to the UK, they should face justice here. There must be no safe haven for perpetrators of international crimes, especially not on UK soil.

Turning to universal jurisdiction, I am disappointed that the Government have rejected the recommendation to amend the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to remove the limitations based on nationality and residency. What is recommended is not a radical departure from established practice. This is about closing a clear loophole that allows perpetrators of genocide and other international crimes to escape justice simply because of where they are from. The UK exercises universal jurisdiction for torture, and for grave breaches of the Geneva conventions, so why not for genocide? This is not just a legal oversight; it is a failure of political will that continues to undermine survivors’ access to justice. The Government claim that sufficient co-ordination exists between the Crown Prosecution Service and the war crimes team, but despite the structures having been in place since 2019, we are  yet to see any meaningful outcomes. Structures alone are not enough. Survivors want justice, not process. Co-ordination must be measured by results, and so far, the result is zero prosecutions for international crimes.

I am also deeply concerned by the Government’s stance on citizenship deprivation. The assertion that there is sufficient transparency does not hold up to scrutiny. The public deserve regular, accessible reporting, and Parliament deserves the ability to scrutinise use of this powerful and exceptional tool. Deprivation of citizenship should never be a substitute for due process, or a way of quietly absolving ourselves of responsibility for British nationals being involved in atrocity crimes overseas.

Finally, I come to British nationals, including children, detained in north-east Syria. We note the Government’s repeated statements about the practical challenges, and I acknowledge the complexity of the security environment, but the absence of precise public data, the slow pace of repatriation, and the ambiguity around the next steps on those detained and potential prosecutions remain deeply troubling. These children are British nationals. Some are orphaned, and others are at risk of radicalisation and violence. Leaving them in indefinite limbo in unsafe camps is a moral and strategic failure. The UK should lead with humanity, clarity and resolve.

If we are serious about upholding the rule of law; if we mean what we say about the genocide convention; and if we truly honour the memory and suffering of Yazidi survivors and other victims of Daesh crimes, we must go further than warm words and procedural reassurances. We need action, prosecutions and leadership. The Government have the opportunity to turn rhetoric into reality. I urge Ministers to reconsider the case for universal jurisdiction, for greater transparency, and for a clearer, more co-ordinated path to justice. That is our moral and legal obligation, and we owe nothing less to survivors. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Ben Maguire presented a Bill to require housing developers to construct any planned community infrastructure before commencing construction of housing with which the planned community infrastructure is associated; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 290). \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 8 July, on Preventing waste and enabling a circular economy, HC 929; Correspondence between the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on the Global Plastics Treaty, reported to the House on 15 July.] \p Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate, and for allocating the debate to the main Chamber. That is an important signal that the House is in political consensus on the issue, and we attach a great deal of importance to that. I thank those Members who supported the application for the debate to the Backbench Business Committee, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). She has a long and distinguished record of campaigning on this issue, but is unfortunately unable to be here.

I also express my appreciation for the support of the various campaigners—organisations and individuals—who have kept this issue in the public consciousness for so long, not always in the easiest of circumstances. At this turn of the wheel, I particularly thank Greenpeace UK for the assistance of its campaigner Rudy Schulkind, but in the past, I had a private Member’s Bill on the subject, and that was supported by a whole range of organisations, from the women’s institute through to Friends of the Earth. We have to call that a broad-based consensus.

This debate is timely. The next round of talks on the UN global plastics treaty will be held in Geneva between 5 and 14 August. The Government, I am happy to acknowledge, have a good story to tell, and in fairness, they inherited the record of the previous Government, who also accorded some political importance to this issue. The message I want the Chamber to send today is that the Government have to do all that they can—not just in presenting the UK case, but in supporting others.

For those of us who, like me, come from island and coastal communities, the growth of plastic pollution has been obvious for years. Ahead of this debate, I got an email just a couple of days ago from a constituent of mine, Jim Chalmers, who said:

“I can remember as a child beachcombing around the south end of Stronsay, and coming across the occasional unfamiliar plastic bottle and being intrigued by its novelty. It might have been an empty washing-up liquid bottle of a kind unknown in our household or even had words in a foreign language.”

Fast-forward to 2025, and the position is very different on the beaches of the Orkney and Shetland coastline, and right around the coastline of all European countries. Even when we go out on a beach that looks pretty clear and pristine, if we start picking up the small pieces of plastic, 10 or 15 minutes later, we have a carrier bag full of them.

In Orkney and Shetland, we have a great range of community initiatives to tackle this issue. In Orkney, we have the “bag the bruck” campaign every year. In Shetland, we have Da Voar Redd Up. Despite the community effort and people taking responsibility for stretches of coastline and picking up the rubbish, weeks later, it is as if almost nobody had ever been there. The tipping point for public consciousness on this issue was the “Blue Planet” series by Sir David Attenborough a few years ago. That created sufficient public pressure, so that in 2022, there was a decision by 175 countries to develop an internationally legally binding instrument to address the problem of plastic pollution. That matters on so many levels, and it is why the word “global” is central to the treaty.

Plastics as an industry emits more carbon than the entire global aviation and shipping industries. The question we should ask ourselves is: what exactly does “good” look like at the conclusion of the talks in Geneva? I cannot improve on the fine summary in the briefing from the Environmental Investigation Agency and Greenpeace ahead of today’s debate. They state that we should be looking for:

“A global target to reduce production of primary plastic polymers and related elements such as reporting and national measures.”

Reducing production is critical; I will return to that in a minute or two. They also call for a

“Clear and legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastics…A binding obligation to improve the design of plastic products and ensure they cause minimum environmental impact and safeguard human health, including supporting reuse…Provision of ambitious finance (‘effective means of implementation’) in particular for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States”.

Finally, they call for:

“Using regular UN procedures for decision-making if all efforts at consensus have been exhausted”.

If we can achieve something along those lines in Geneva, we will have some cause for optimism. \p Deirdre Costigan: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has outlined the important global action that we need to take on plastics. Does he agree that this Government’s action to bring forward a deposit return scheme will help address some of these issues? It will ensure that we can recycle plastics, and that will take them off the streets and beaches, where they are ending up. \p Alistair Carmichael: Yes, if it is a properly constructed, nationwide deposit return scheme. The experience in Scotland was, shall we say, not everything that it might have been. A properly constructed scheme will be critical. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), on the Front Bench, and I know she has a tremendous personal commitment to this issue. This is about creating a circular economy. I know there is a genuine commitment to that in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and a deposit return scheme would very much sit within that.

We talk about such measures being somehow in conflict with business. Importantly, the fundamental truth is that the best opportunity for business comes  from having a circular economy. We can make not just an environmental and social case for that, but a business case.

Ensuring that the treaty has the strongest possible reduction targets will be absolutely critical. That is where the contention has arisen in previous rounds of talks, and we can anticipate that the same arguments will be rehearsed. The most important point to address, however, is the idea that somehow the whole thing will be fixed by recycling and that we can just keep producing virgin plastics at an exponential rate. We reckon that the current exceptionally high levels will treble by 2060 if we do not do anything to arrest the increase.

We cannot manage to fix it all by recycling, and the people who advance that idea—particularly those who work for the big plastic companies and the petrochemical companies—are downright disingenuous. Given the vast number of different plastics that are available and the different polymer combinations, they know just how difficult it is to actually recycle plastic. This country has a good record on collecting plastic for recycling, but the truth of the matter is that we recycle very little of it. We export a horrible amount of it—I think we exported 598 million kilograms for recycling in 2024. Of course, once it is exported, we do not know if it gets recycled or not, and we completely lose control of it. Then we have the growth of incineration. The number of incinerators has grown from 38 to 52 in the last five years alone, driven by the growth in plastics. I am afraid the idea that recycling alone is going to be the silver bullet will not lead to the meaningful reductions that we know we need, so we need a cap on production.

We also understand that one of the biggest barriers in Geneva is going to be the role of the plastics industry itself. It is exceptionally well resourced, and it is rooted downstream of the oil and gas industry. Personally, I am pragmatic about the use of oil and gas. Until we have other technologies that can take its place, it is foolish to push our oil and gas industry off the shelf, but I am afraid I see little to commend in its behaviour. Had the industry’s representatives all come as one delegation to the last round of talks in Korea, it would have been the largest delegation at the talks. I am pleased to say that the UK delegation is the gold standard in this space. It is well resourced, and is well informed by scientific advisers, but that is not a cause for complacency or smugness. We have to see that it gives us an opportunity to help and support others.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I chair, took evidence on the global plastics treaty just last week, on 8 July, and some of what I heard was genuinely shocking. Professor Richard Thompson OBE, who is a fellow of the Royal Society and a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth, said:

“Moreover, scientists I work with have been threatened on UN premises as part of these negotiations. Almost what I would consider a fundamental right to science and to access science is being denied. It particularly falls on some of the smaller nations. DEFRA is very well blessed in that it can afford to send a big delegation of highly trained scientists, which is fantastic, but they stand alongside small island developing nations, which perhaps only have one individual there. The need for a science mechanism is actually mandated in UNEA 5/14, and we need it really urgently to address this issue.”

It was one of those moments when I had to stop and say, “Just a second, did you say what I thought you said there?” Even after we had explained to him his position as an eminent scientist giving evidence to a Select Committee  of the House of Commons, with all the protection of privilege, he was not comfortable calling out in detail what is happening.

The fact of the matter is that we know that it is happening. If we are to get this treaty across the line, UK needs to be robust not just in presenting our own case, but in supporting and protecting those who are less fortunate than we are: the small island nations, the campaigners and the scientists who are there on their own finance. My final ask is that there should be a ministerial presence at the negotiations in Geneva, which would be a really important signal that the Government could send about the seriousness of their intent.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you said I would speak for 15 minutes and I think I have had 14, so I will return to the email that I got from Jim Chalmers. He went on to say:

“I’m sure I have a reputation as that weird guy that carries a bag with him when he’s out with the dog, picking up litter (I call it recyclates). However, I know fine I’m urinating into the wind”

—he did not actually say “urinating”—

“as I have no control whatsoever over the source of the stuff and the forces that encourage and permit its growing release. I appreciate that the 17th of this month is not a good time for you to be away from Orkney”

—there is never a good time to be away from Orkney—

“but if you can somehow bring any influence to bear, I would feel my efforts aren’t totally in vain.”

It is for people like my constituent Mr Chalmers and his likes right across this country that we are here today. We pin our hopes and their hopes on the efforts of the Government and like-minded countries to get the treaty that we know we need and that our planet deserves. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. I know he is deeply committed to this issue.

I want to draw attention to a part of this crisis that is often overlooked but no less urgent: microplastics, which I know the Minister is passionate about too. These tiny fragments, much smaller than a grain of rice, are everywhere. They have reached the depths of our oceans and the highest mountain peaks, and the harm they cause is far from small. We know from science that microplastics are being eaten by fish, birds and insects. They harm wildlife from the inside out by disrupting feeding, damaging organs and carrying toxic chemicals, and the impact does not just stay in the wild. It spreads through ecosystems and food chains, and into our own bodies.

What troubles me the most is that microplastics are largely invisible. We cannot see them, but we are living with them every day. This is not just a global problem; it is a local one too. In Stafford, we are really lucky to have places such as the Doxey marshes, Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal, and the River Sow, which weaves through our towns and villages. These are places where families walk their dogs, children paddle in the water, anglers fish and wildlife thrives. They are not just part of our landscape, but part of who we are. \p Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is giving an incredibly powerful speech. Microplastics are also part of what we are wearing, and  microfibres are a key part of the problem with plastics. I wonder if, like me, she is interested in what the French have done to get companies to disclose when microfibres are part of the material used in clothing. In order to tackle the “fast fashion” crisis, people need to understand what they are wearing and the damage that microplastics can do to our environment. \p Leigh Ingham: I was not familiar with the legislation that France has passed. When I buy clothes, I try to make sure that I buy natural fibres, which can be tough to do—I find that I really have to search for them. We could look at introducing similar legislation, which sounds like a very sensible piece of work.

The spaces I was talking about are now under threat. When I talk to residents in my constituency—from Eccleshall and Gnosall to Baswich—they all tell me that they are really worried. They want their children and grandchildren to grow up enjoying clean water, healthy wildlife and safe green spaces, so they are right to demand action. That is why I think microplastics must be a core part of any global plastics treaty. It is not enough to tackle the waste we can see; we also need to tackle the waste we cannot see.

I welcome the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I look forward to its recommendations. I know I am speaking to Ministers who listen very carefully on this subject and consider it incredibly important, but I urge them to continue to act, because we have a responsibility to lead and a duty to protect the places we call home. We owe it to future generations to make sure that the River Penk still supports life, that our farmland remains healthy and that the natural beauty of Stafford—and other places, too—does not become a victim of short-term decisions. This is our chance now, so let us not waste it. \p Richard Foord: The world produces over 460 million tonnes of plastic each year. On our current trajectory, plastic pollution is set to triple by 2040, and every year 11 million tonnes of plastic goes into our oceans.

In Devon, this picture is very obvious. According to the Marine Conservation Society’s data, an average of 103 litter items were found per 100 metres of beach in Devon. The vast majority are single-use plastics and packaging, and anyone taking the very wise decision to have a holiday in Devon this year will see from it themselves. I have seen it for myself. When I wander along the beaches of Sidmouth, Seaton and Beer, I see bottles and wrappers washing up with the tide, wedged between pebbles and entangled in seaweed. We are very fortunate to have some fantastic volunteers, with groups such as the Sidmouth Plastic Warriors, who give freely of their time to clean our beaches. On its most recent outing last month, 30 people picked up an incredible 70 bags of litter. Their work is extraordinary, but there should not be 70 bags of plastic litter on the beaches of Sidmouth.

Of course, the problem does not start on the beach. It starts in how we produce and consume plastic in the first place, but there are serious shortcomings in the UK’s recycling. We were sold a myth that if we just spent a little bit of time each week sorting our rubbish, the problem would take care of itself. However, in 2024  CleanHub reported that the UK exported 600,000 tonnes of plastic waste to countries around the world to be recycled, and these places do not have the infrastructure to recycle properly. Much of this is burned or dumped, and we have seen evidence that it is polluting other countries’ ecosystems, while we tick a box and say it has been recycled. \p Nick Timothy: On this important point about the capacity of different countries to hit certain standards, the hon. Gentleman may have reprocessors—companies that take plastic waste and repurpose it—in his constituency. An important part of this debate has to be about packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes, which provide an equivalence, but waste is often taken to countries such as Turkey that have much lower standards than in this country, which is bad not only for British businesses, but for the global environment. I think the Government are working on that, and I would love to hear a bit more about that from the Minister, but what does the hon. Gentleman have to say about it? \p Richard Foord: The hon. Member makes a very good point. The business of our standards being very different is one we should look at first. These notes plainly need to be looked at, and we will have to go about some international negotiations to try to improve standards elsewhere. The UK has high recycling standards internationally, but it is not acceptable to simply offshore the problem, which does not serve any of us well.

Not only is plastic waste a hazard to people, but it is killing seabirds, as well as hundreds of thousands of sea mammals, turtles and fish, and it is having a devastating impact on our environment more broadly. \p Deirdre Costigan: Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s banning of disposable plastic vapes is another way we can help reduce this plastic waste? \p Richard Foord: The hon. Member makes an excellent point. I voted in favour of that initiative when it came before us, and the banning of disposable plastic vapes was very welcome.

Too much waste still ends up in incinerators. Sometimes, what we think will be repurposed or recycled is in fact burned. The number of incinerators in the UK has risen from 38 to 52 in the last five years. This is the dirtiest form of energy production, releasing more greenhouse gases than any other method.

While my constituents may have been enjoying their ice creams at Seaton or walking the south-west coast path during the recent heatwave, these hotter summers are a stark reminder of our collective failure to tackle climate change. If we can increase the amount of plastic we reuse and create the circular economy that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, we can use less disposable plastic and less single-use plastic, and therefore reduce carbon emissions.

Germany is the leading recycler of municipal waste in the European Union, which is partly down to its deposit refund scheme. Recycling rates on plastic bottles have reached an outstanding 98% in Germany. I have to acknowledge that it is thanks to the measures the Government introduced in January that a deposit return  scheme for plastic and metal containers will go live in the UK in 2027. This scheme, which will offer a small refund for returning bottles and cans in the UK, is a practical step towards reusing plastic.

Although national action is welcome, we need to match our own UK action with international action, and the UK can be a real leader in this space. We can press for our ambition to be matched by other countries in the global plastics treaty negotiations. We must push for legally binding targets to reduce plastic production elsewhere, not just voluntary pledges. We offshore a lot of our production—including to China, which accounts for 40% of the world’s plastic production. We know that the carbon emissions produced as a result are staggering, and we must do something about them. If the Government are serious about deepening ties with Beijing, they must also be serious about holding it to account, and that starts with applying pressure at the global plastics treaty negotiations next month.

As we know, the US President has never been a great advocate for tackling climate change or reducing plastic waste. He made that abundantly clear in his attention-seeking stunt in February, when he proudly brought back plastic straws. At the heads of delegation meeting earlier this month, the US backtracked on its previous position. It walked away from earlier commitments on control measures and financing, and came out firmly against plastic production caps. The Prime Minister has explicitly cited family values as a foundation of his strong relationship with the US President. Could the Minister urge the Prime Minister to leverage that personal connection, and ask the President to consider not just global leadership, but the world that his own family will inherit? We have to consider young people in this picture, and for that we will need serious and concrete commitments at the global plastics treaty negotiations. \p John Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, much of which I agree with. I am sure that he, like me, visits many schools. Does he agree that when he visits them and speaks to young people, they are very, very concerned about the environment, and in particular plastic pollution? In many ways, our great hope is that their laser focus on this issue will be reflected in the policy of future generations and that plastic production is reduced. \p Richard Foord: The hon. Gentleman is dead right. Children from Sidmouth primary school wrote to me earlier in the year, urging me to advocate for reduced plastic use and for cutting down our plastic use. I quoted them in a debate and the Minister for Nature, who is no longer in her place, summed up the debate with their words.

Let us be honest: voluntary efforts have failed. The World Wildlife Fund reports that in the past five years plastic pollution has increased by 50%, despite a 60% rise in national and voluntary initiatives. The treaty must therefore tackle the source of the problem—the production of plastic—and confront the power of the fossil fuel lobby, which is desperately trying to water down the talks. At last year’s round of negotiations, 220 fossil fuel lobbyists were present in Busan. Their goal was to protect their own profit, not the planet. We cannot allow short-term commercial interests to derail the   long-term health of our oceans and communities. Plastic production is forecast to triple by 2040. If we do not act, no recycling scheme will be enough.

I will hand my last paragraph to the children at Sidmouth primary school. They want to see “deeds, not words”. \p Uma Kumaran: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord); we usually sit together on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Nowhere is global co-operation more important than on climate work. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate and for his brilliant speech, which eloquently set out why this issue is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—not to be confused with Stratford—(Leigh Ingham) spoke about microplastics. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) had a debate on that very topic, in which many of us spoke. Following that, last November, ahead of the previous round of treaty negotiations in Busan, hon. Members came together to debate the same issue. Now, at the final round of negotiations, we have come back together. Countries are on the verge of finalising a potentially powerful international agreement, but its impact will be limited unless it addresses the root of the problem: plastic production.

UN estimates suggest that in the two and a half years since the treaty negotiations started, globally we have produced over 1 billion metric tonnes of plastic. The scale is staggering and almost unimaginable, but one thing is clear: no amount of recycling and reuse can keep up with the scale of plastic waste we are producing. If we do not act, collectively and urgently, the crisis will only escalate. Plastic production is projected to triple by 2060. Our climate, our ecosystems and our planet cannot cope. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the impact on our ecosystem and our beaches, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned single-use items, such as disposable vapes and disposable fans. One is dumped in Britain every 90 seconds. Most end up in the global south in landfills, risking massive environmental damage. I am proud to have sat on the Committee, led by the Minister, that considered the legislation to ban this. That is the Labour Government taking real action.

There are interest groups working to undermine our ambition. Having participated in international biodiversity and climate talks, both in my previous role before I entered this House and since, I have seen at first hand what that looks like: voices in the room determined to stall talks and undermine global and national ambition. As we have heard, the shocking truth is that 220 fossil fuel lobbyists were present at the last round of talks on the plastics treaty. Taken together, fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists would have been the single largest delegation present: larger than the EU and all its member states’ delegations; and larger than all those for Latin America. The fossil fuel industries outnumbered delegates from the Pacific small island states two to one. Those nations already see the effects of marine plastic pollution and are already paying the price for our inaction. We cannot allow the voice of the fossil fuel industry to be louder  than the cry of our planet, or more influential than the testimony of science. We cannot allow it to be more powerful than the voices of our constituents and those wanting to create a more sustainable future for generations to come.

In London, we have shown that another future is possible. It requires bold leadership, and we are one such example of that. We are the world-leading city in eliminating single-use plastics from large sports and music venues, including “ABBA Voyage” in my constituency and locally-led movements like Plastic Free Forest Gate, which works with businesses on the high street to get rid of single-use plastic items, and Plastic Free Roman Road. I also have some eco-warriors in one of my local schools in Maryland. Last week, I met a group of constituents from Stratford and Bow at the climate coalition lobby in Parliament. Mary told me that she was there to lobby for an end to our dependency on fossil fuels. She was there for her four grandchildren—for their futures.

My constituents are clear: the time to act is now. We must put the people on our planet before the polluting industries. My constituency is home to an Earthshot prize-winning company, Notpla. The last time I mentioned Notpla in Parliament, it had single-handedly removed 21 million items of single-use plastic—and counting—using its innovative seaweed-based alternative; today, that number has risen to 26 million items. The ambition exists, but we all need to seize this moment. The cost of inaction is mass climate displacement, environmental destruction and worsening global instability.

I thank the Minister and the Government for their continued commitment to the UK’s global leadership in pushing for an ambitious treaty. I join Members from across the House in calling for all member states to agree to legally binding measures to address the production and consumption of plastic, and finally to deliver a treaty that meets the scale of the crisis for our planet. \p Brian Mathew: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing forward this valuable and important debate.

I used to work as a Wiltshire councillor on the issue of plastic recycling. My constituency, like all our constituencies, can be blighted by the sight of waste plastic by the roadside. It is clear that bolder action is needed to tackle the sheer amount of plastic pollution that we have created both at home and abroad. That is why we must join and support the global plastics treaty in an international effort to reduce plastic waste, to promote sustainable, eco-friendly production, and to protect our oceans and wildlife for future generations.

In the spirit of embracing such bold action, we must embrace innovation. Chemical recycling, for instance, gives us a way to break down plastics into their fundamental building blocks, creating a new plastic circular economy. Mura Technology is just one of a number of companies doing that today in the UK. However, such innovation needs to be paid for. On the basis of the “polluter pays” principle, plastics producers must be taxed so that the problem they produce can be fixed.

For users of plastic products—whether it is the film used to cover our cucumbers, or the plastics that contain our crisps or wrap our chocolate bars—a small tax  needs to be added to ensure that wrappers do not become a blight on the environment. We created the problem, and I believe we can fix it. \p Samantha Niblett: A number of my constituents in South Derbyshire have written to me, deeply distressed over the crisis of plastic pollution in South Derbyshire’s waterways, including in the River Trent and the Foremark and Staunton Harold reservoirs, and in our farmland, where farmers—already dealing with increasing floods due to the climate crisis—are left to deal with waste. To give credit where it is due, my constituents are also pleased to see responsible actions to reduce plastic use. At Bearded Theory, a music festival held at Catton Hall in Walton-on-Trent, the organisers use only reusable polypropylene cups that are taken off site to be washed and reused year after year.

Pollution is a global problem. There is not one corner of the world that has not been affected by the over-production of plastics—microplastics are ubiquitous; they have even been found in Antarctica—yet plastic production is projected to triple by 2060.

Only 9% of plastic globally is recycled. Most of the UK’s plastic is incinerated, with the number of incinerators surging from 38 to 52 in the past five years. Incineration is the dirtiest form of energy production in the UK, contributing to greenhouse gases that heat our planet and release toxic fumes that have serious and harmful health impacts. In South Derbyshire, we are expecting the result of an appeal into the proposed Swadlincote incinerator at Stanton by the end of July. I stand with my constituents in opposing the building of a new incinerator, but we also need to reduce our waste. The east midlands is the second worst region in the country for waste, with Derbyshire the worst offender. If we had less plastic, we would have less waste, and there would be no justification at all for any new incinerators.

Ahead of the next round of talks on the UN plastics treaty in Geneva in August, I urge the Government to continue to be ambitious in cutting plastic production. We will fail future generations if we accept a watered-down agreement. I call on the Government to introduce immediately a UK-wide moratorium on new incineration capacity and to secure a strong global target to cut plastic production at the UN plastics treaty negotiations.

Public support for action could not be stronger. More than 220,000 people across the UK took part in the big plastic count last year—a remarkable display of citizen science, which laid bare just how pervasive and persistent plastic is in our daily lives. More than 600,000 people have signed Greenpeace UK’s petition calling for a strong, meaningful treaty. That is a public mandate that this House cannot ignore.

As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to act both for the constituents whom we represent today and for future generations to come. Plastic pollution chokes our oceans, poisons wildlife and breaks down into microplastics that we find in our soil, our food, and our bodies. I urge the Government to reject half measures. Let us seize this moment to put people and planet before plastic. Let us use this opportunity for green job investment and move further towards a circular economy that necessitates less packaging and secures a legacy   that future generations will thank us for, instead of the one that leaves so many young people fearful for their futures. We cannot let them down. \p Bobby Dean: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. Let me highlight one point that he made about the circular economy. He said that if we get the regulation and the incentives right, it would be good not only for the environment, but for business and the economy. That is an important point to keep emphasising.

I would like to use the short amount of time that I have to talk about how we can connect this global issue to our local communities. Let me start with the global problem. Every year, more than 12 million tonnes of plastic are dumped in our oceans—I did hear 11 million tonnes from my right hon. Friend. Whichever it is, it is obviously on a huge scale. This is not just a statistic; it represents an utter crisis—one that affects marine life, ecosystems, and, ultimately, us as well.

To many people, a UN treaty might seem a bit abstract and remote. Some will even go as far as saying that it is not worth the debate time in this Chamber because it is too hard to imagine the average person bringing it up on the doorstep. However, I do not think that is right, because it matters and the population have shown that they care about this issue.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the popularity of Attenborough’s TV documentary and how that has ignited people’s interest. I certainly have this issue raised time and again with me. People have also noticed the impact on their local environment. Unlike my right hon. Friend, I do not have oceans anywhere near my London constituency, but I have a beautiful chalk stream that runs all the way through it. People see the litter and they care about it, and they see the plastic damage in particular. We have introduced new monitoring systems to understand the damage that some of these microplastics can do. People are incredibly proud of their local surroundings, and it is not too big a step for them to think about the oceans across the world when they are thinking about their local area.

As has already been mentioned, not just adults are starting to care more. This is a totemic issue for the next generation. I recently received a bundle of passionate letters from a year 4 class at Culvers House primary school. I say passionate because, at times, I think they were a little harsh on me. I will not take it personally, because I think they were directing their anger at politicians in general. They were at pains to point out that we were not doing enough or moving fast enough. They were quite clear about their demands, and they went into a lot of detail. They told me about their concern for our oceans, for the turtles and fish that are harmed by plastic, and for the future of the planet. Reading their letters one afternoon, I found them pretty powerful and it reminded me of the duty that we all have to act now.

When we talk about the global plastics treaty, it is important that we keep making it relevant to our local communities. It is clearly a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a legally binding agreement that tackles plastic processing at every stage of the lifecycle. For the agreement to work, it has to be ambitious, enforceable, and supported by everybody. Taking the public with us on this issue is  going to get more difficult. There are people even in this Chamber who will push back against it, saying that it is a waste of time, that it is a problem to be solved by others elsewhere, but we will have to keep building that support.

In doing so, we have to reverse where the pressure is brought to bear. For a long time, the pressure has been on all of us to be more responsible consumers. Consumers have played their part. They have been willing to put up with recycling yoghurt pots, washing them out in the sink. They have taken on wooden forks and spoons. They have even put up with paper straws. They have done so, despite the pain that all of those things can be compared with what we had before. They have played their part and now it is our turn in this place to put the pressure back on to producers to make sure that they play their part as well. That does not mean that we should not listen to producers when they highlight problems with the schemes we create—for instance, the Government’s extended producer responsibility schemes, which are meant to introduce financial responsibility across the full lifecycle of products. There are sometimes issues with the implementation of schemes. I am hearing from pubs and the hospitality industry about the undue burden that can be placed on small businesses, and we need to work out mechanisms for correcting unintended consequences of such policies. \p John Lamont: The hon. Member is making a very good speech. I agree with him about the need to take the public and business with us. In Scotland we had a real challenge with the deposit return scheme that the Scottish Government tried to impose, because business was up in arms about it, and it was going to impact on the internal market. Does he agree that that is an example of where it can go very badly wrong if we do not take the public and business with us? \p Bobby Dean: I do agree; if we close our ears, we will miss these problems, frustrate the public and lose their support. If we listen hard, we can fix the schemes and rescue the action we want to take in this place to help the whole environment. If we do not do that, the other side will win the argument and shut down the sort of initiatives we need to see. We need to keep listening as we introduce these schemes and make sure that the public and small businesses do not feel fatigued by them.

I hope I am making clear that this is not just about treaties and targets but about protecting our rivers and oceans across the world. It is about linking to our communities and maintaining their support and listening to the voices of young people, like those in year 4 at Culvers House primary school. I want to end with something that I have definitely stolen from a work experience student this week. She said to me that we are burdening future generations with plastic debt, and it is about time we started paying it back. \p Claire Hughes: I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing forward this important debate. Plastic pollution is a global problem that requires international co-ordination, and I think everyone in this House is agreed on that. It is a serious issue and,  as is the case with many Members, it is one that my constituents really care about, particularly young people, who have contacted me about this issue over recent weeks.

This UK Government have already set out plans to end our throwaway society and stop the avalanche of rubbish that is filling our streets, rivers and oceans. If I may, I want to talk briefly about some actions that the Welsh Labour Government have taken to tackle plastic pollution. Wales became the first nation in the UK to ban single-use plastics in 2023 as part of the Government’s effort to tackle the climate and nature crisis and reduce plastic pollution. Items such as polystyrene cups, balloon sticks and cotton bud sticks can no longer be sold or supplied in Wales.

The Welsh Government have also announced plans to go further and ban wet wipes that contain plastic. That has a target date of December 2026. I am delighted that the Welsh Government have just agreed to accelerate plans for a deposit return scheme, as it will enable a scheme to be brought forward on a UK-wide basis at the same time. Wales is ranked second in the world for recycling rates, which we are all very proud of.

I want to put on record my thanks to some of the organisations in my constituency that have done a stellar job in raising awareness of issues around plastic pollution and tackling behaviour change. I thank the Plastic Free Communities initiative in Betws-y-Coed and the villages around there, and I thank the North Wales Wildlife Trust, which organises an annual beach clean-up. Trash Free Trails has also done a lot of work in this area.

I also want to mention Bangor University, where the Plastic Research Centre of Wales is based, which has done a lot of work on our microplastics. As mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), microplastics are a huge issue. They have even been found on a remote lake near the top of Yr Wyddfa—Mount Snowdon. It is a super topic that the centre is dedicated to carrying out research on. \p Irene Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work of community groups such as the Three Towns Clean Up Crew in my constituency and Think About Plastic Arran are crucial to fighting the blight of plastics pollution and the terrible effects it is having on marine life and the wider environment? \p Claire Hughes: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Community groups across the country, whether in Wales, Scotland or England, all play a vital role in raising awareness and cleaning up beaches. That is really important for wildlife, which is often the victim of plastic pollution.

A piece of research published by Bangor University this year showed that the combined effect of ocean warming and microplastics pollution could severely damage marine ecosystems in particular, with significant consequences not just for the climate but food security. Professor Christian Dunn, co-author of this research, said:

“This is a wake-up call, but also a call to action.”

We are all agreed that we need urgent global action to guard against plastic pollution and that we need to work together to find solutions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, particularly ahead of the vital meeting that will happen in Geneva next month. \p Martin Wrigley: I am delighted to hear about all the work going on in the hon. Lady’s community. That is also happening across the country; Dawlish Against Plastic and Plastic Free Newton Abbot are in my constituency However, the Marine Conservation Society wrote to me to say that plastic pollution on UK beaches rose by 9.5% between 2023 and 2024. Indeed, in Devon, an average of 103 items of plastic are picked up on every 100 metres of beach. Does she agree that we must deal with the situation not only in our communities but internationally? \p Claire Hughes: I agree. Perhaps the Minister could address that issue when he responds to the debate. \p Scott Arthur: I make my comments in the context of my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. It is on an issue that resonates strongly with many residents in Edinburgh South West—it is not an overstatement to say that I was inundated with emails on it.

Plastics are everywhere. As we have already heard, they are in construction, healthcare, clothing and furniture. It is estimated that about 14 million tonnes of microplastics are lying on the ocean floor right now, and the fashion industry is among the biggest sources.

My former colleague at Heriot-Watt University in my constituency, Dr Mark Hartl, was part of a team who found microplastics in green mussels sold in traditional seafood markets in Jakarta. They estimated that the human intake of microplastics from mussel ingestion ranged from 9,000 to 12,000 microplastic items per person per year. Mark was also part of a team that identified microplastics in seagrass in the Deerness Sound area of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It was found adhering to the blades of the seagrass in some cases.

Elsewhere in Heriot-Watt University, a small team headed by Dr Lisa Macintyre, an associate professor of textiles at the university’s school of textiles and design in Galashiels in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is also in his place, has overseen painstaking research to co-develop the world’s first visual fibre fragmentation scale. That is really important work, because fashion designers—I am not sure how many of them we have in the Chamber—can use it when selecting fabrics for their designs, to understand how likely it is that those small fibres will fall off.

We know that clothing is not the only problem. Global plastic production is set to triple over the next three decades, as we have heard, but our waste management structures are ill prepared to deal with that looming threat. It is therefore right that we take the plastics treaty seriously. \p Chris Murray: Does my hon. Friend share my horror that global plastic production will double by 2050? He said that his constituents in Edinburgh South West feel strongly about this; I can assure him that people across Edinburgh do. Will he join me in calling for a global plastics treaty that the Government should take forward as a priority? \p Scott Arthur: I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that it is important to his constituency, because I can remember how people were really concerned about plastic cotton buds getting washed up on Portobello beach. Thankfully, through changes, that is now much rarer, but it is still an issue.

In Scotland alone it is estimated that we generate around 300,000 tonnes of plastic packaging items annually and, as of 2021, we were recycling only about 4,500 tonnes of that. Each month, Scotland exports about 100 tonnes of waste to different parts of the UK and right across the world. That is an export that I am not proud of. Poor planning on the part of the Scottish Government means that, by the start of next year, 100 tonnes of waste a day will be moving from Scotland to England to be processed.

That is clearly not sustainable, but it seems that we have become all too comfortable recycling being a matter of “out of sight, out of mind.” We have to remember that once we lose sight of our waste, in many cases we also lose control of what is happening to it. Many residents write to me about that.

Even if we were to develop the processing capacity at home, dealing with plastics will always be a problem so long as our consumption remains high, so a much stronger focus needs to be placed on reuse and developing a circular economy, as we heard earlier, not just in Scotland but throughout the UK. In my constituency, I am proud to say that I have several organisations that promote reuse, ranging from sharing libraries to repair and reuse charities. I recently spent an afternoon touring one such venture called The Forge, a pop-up community maker space, based in renovated shipping containers on a site in Fountainbridge, next to the canal and just along from my office. It provides tools, facilities and training to people from all walks of life, including students, artists, do-it-yourself enthusiasts and homeless people. When I visited, there was a young man making a hat block. I thought it was for him to store his hat on, but he intended to make a pirate hat for a pirate festival, of all things. I tried to google where the pirate festival was, but it turns out that pirate festivals are quite common, so it could have been almost anywhere. \p Alex Sobel: Arrr! \p Scott Arthur: Thank you.

As well as the hat block, I also saw tables, chests of drawers and even kitchen utensils being made. We could drastically cut our overreliance on plastics if we had more such initiatives; they empower us to create our own long-lasting alternatives, reusing materials and developing lifelong skills in the process. Another charity in Edinburgh South West—one that is under a little bit of pressure just now—is Four Square’s Edinburgh Furniture Initiative. It largely sells used furniture and household items, and it uses its income—a non-trivial amount of money—to help solve Edinburgh’s housing crisis. It is an absolutely fantastic project.

As I noted, the plastic consumption and processing economies operate across borders, making this an issue that requires a truly joined-up approach. That is why I fully support a deposit return scheme that covers the entirety of the UK; I look forward to its introduction in 2027. That may not be quick enough for some people,  and I respect that, but we have to balance the pressing need for change with the economic reality for small businesses, which will have to adapt to the new regulations. As others have said, if hon. Members want to see how not to do this, they should just look to the Scottish Government. Its scheme was an absolute embarrassment. Proper consultation is important, and I think Scotland has shown that.

On a global level, I am proud that the Government have fully recognised the importance of tackling plastic pollution through internationally binding treaties. At the UN talks held in South Korea last year, we supported a draft text on legally binding global reductions in plastic production, and on phasing out certain harmful chemicals and single-use plastics. Unfortunately, a consensus could not be reached, largely due to the usual suspects—China and Russia among them—all pushing back against those targets. The negotiations will remain highly contentious as long as those countries, whose economies are heavily reliant on plastic, want to hang on to it.

Having read Dr Lindner’s evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee earlier this week, I think an inclusive two-tier model could go some way towards resolving those disagreements, if we cannot get those countries to be as bold and ambitious as I hope the UK is. Some may see that as a compromise that lets major polluters off the hook, but I believe that international co-operation is vital, and similar models have worked well in getting those nations signed up to some kind of baseline target. It would help break the deadlock, and allow high-ambition states like, I hope, the UK to set and hit bolder targets, leading by example. Something is better than nothing. We must make progress on this issue, and a global treaty is essential if we want to protect our planet and the health of future generations. \p Alex Sobel: I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I served in the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team for three years, will respond to the debate; I look forward to that.

With less than one month to go until the next round of the UN plastic treaty talks in Geneva, we must ensure that the international and domestic focus keeps us on track. We must also ensure that the UK delegation’s priorities are clear, so I thank everybody for taking part in today’s debate. Keeping on track is difficult when the number of fossil fuel lobbyists present at the talks rises in each and every round. Those lobbyists seek to derail the talks, and to prevent any limits to plastic production being agreed. We have seen this before with the tobacco industry. We cannot allow private interests that are damaging to health to take precedence, and we cannot allow the mismanagement of plastics, plastic leakage into the environment and the associated colossal greenhouse gas emissions.

Towards the end of my time on the Environmental Audit Committee, we undertook an inquiry on plastic waste. This was in 2021-22. In the three years since it was published, little has changed. Recycling plastic is difficult. Globally, only 9% of plastic has ever been recycled. Furthermore, the carbon emissions associated with plastics outstrip those from the entire global aviation  and shipping industries. Approximately 50% of the plastic packaging waste generated in the UK is exported for recycling—or so we think. That is what we call the UK’s plastic recycling capacity gap. The UK has one of the highest per capita plastic waste levels in the world. Cheap single-use packaging is incentivised over unpackaged products, or investment into reuse and recycling and wider circular economy initiatives, which the Government are seeking to champion. On the EAC, we found that much exported waste was just being dumped, with no prospect of recycling. People diligently recycling at home in the UK would be rightly appalled if they saw what was happening to the plastic they put in their bins —green bins in Leeds—for recycling.

To support our UK delegation and address this issue head-on, the UK should take a lead on the international stage in securing global, legally binding targets to cut plastic production. Our recycling and waste treatment industry is hugely supportive of the proposed treaty set out at the discussions, and supports a binding target to reduce global virgin plastic production. The Government need to support the policy measures necessary to make that workable in practice. If the Government develop a clear road map for implementing the policies required to deliver a domestic circular economy for plastics, they could set a binding, viable target for reducing virgin plastic production. They could also set out clear policy interventions to stimulate end-market demand for recycled plastics, and create the conditions for major new investment in plastics sorting and reprocessing infrastructure, so that we end the plastics recycling capacity gap in the UK, create jobs in plastics reprocessing, ensure quality, and ensure that plastic is being recycled, not just dumped. That would be a Great British plastic initiative.

The UK exports approximately 50% of its plastic packaging waste. We must set out proposals for clamping down on illegitimate exports of plastic waste being dumped overseas. While the vast majority of plastic waste exported from the UK is for reprocessing, which is managed in an environmentally sound manner, there have been instances in the past few years where illegitimate exports of low-grade plastics have been dumped or burned overseas. A robust and properly resourced regulator could be empowered to enforce the right standards and clamp down on illegal waste exports. We must end plastic dumping.

The UK Government have already implemented strong steps to improve the quantity and quality of plastics sent for recycling. However, Governments need to address fossil fuels’ influence in politics, particularly in the international plastic treaty negotiations. That is the only way we can deliver a circular economy for plastics. There needs to be sustainable long-term demand for any recycled product created. Otherwise, we will carry on with the unsustainable practice of using virgin plastics, and the fossil fuel industry will continue to have an international influence on our UN processes. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Wera Hobhouse: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed.  Rarely do I have the privilege of being part of a debate in which there is such consensus, though we have not heard from the Conservative Front Benchers yet. I assume that there is broad consensus. That should give the Government a strong hand, allowing it to be a tough negotiator in the global plastics treaty talks.

Global plastic production and waste have doubled in the last 20 years—most of what I am saying has already been said; that is the beauty of winding-up speeches. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), the figure stands at 12 million tonnes of plastic. I have another statistic for him: in 2023, the BBC reported that there are more than 170 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That is no way to treat our precious planet. Indeed, it puts countless species at risk of extinction.

The global plastics treaty offers a unique opportunity for a global, United Nations-led treaty, through which all countries are held to a high common standard on plastic consumption. The treaty would create a level playing field, incentivise and support international action, and forge a clear path toward a future free from plastic pollution. We Liberal Democrats have been instrumental in the campaign to finalise the treaty, and are looking towards next month’s negotiations in Geneva, in which we will, I hope, reach a breakthrough.

It is not just in this Chamber that there is great consensus on this issue. The majority of the UK public, the majority of member state Governments, the business community and civil society are all pushing in the same direction. More than 100 countries support a legally binding global target to cut plastic production. The UK must retain its ambition on this key issue.

I am one of 90 MPs who have signed Greenpeace’s pledge, which states:

“I support a strong global target to cut plastic production”.

Last year, a quarter of a million people took part in the big plastic count, an initiative run by Greenpeace and Everyday Plastic to count each piece of plastic and show the scale of the crisis in the UK. We have heard from many Members about how concerned the public are about this issue, and about their constituents taking part in clean-up actions.

Greenpeace is rightly concerned that, in each further round of talks, more fossil fuel lobbyists seek to derail negotiations and prevent any limits to plastic production from being agreed. The Government should look closely at precedents for how to prevent the influence of lobbyists over international agreements. The framework convention on tobacco control, for example, recognised the lobbying tactics of the tobacco industry and required parties to

“act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests”.

Governments across the globe must address the influence of fossil fuels in politics, and put the interests of people before polluters.

We must also address funding. A sustainable treaty that is built to last for generations must include a strong, dedicated, multilateral fund. Without a substantial financial package, the treaty will impose obligations on countries, particularly those in the global south, with which they will struggle to comply. The reality of the climate crisis globally means that countries will have to find money to clean up the mess that polluters have created. The Government should look for ways to place  that financial burden mainly on the plastics industry, which has made billions in profits. I recognise that it is important to work with industries, but this is ultimately about the “polluter pays” principle—though, of course, we need to bring industry with us, to create practical and workable solutions that do not flop.

I will touch on one issue that has not been mentioned, but which a constituent has raised with me: plastic pollution from chewing gum. I was alerted to it by Keir Carnie, one of my Bath constituents, the founder of plant-based chewing gum company Nuud Gum. Many of us are completely unaware that chewing gum is, in fact, a single-use plastic. It commonly contains synthetic polymers—plastic materials derived from fossil fuels, and found in products such as carrier bags, glue and car tyres. In the UK, over 4 billion pieces of plastic gum are consumed annually, the majority of which end up as non- biodegradable plastic pollution. That gum breaks down into microplastics, contaminating soil, waterways and wildlife. Gum pollution is also one of the UK’s most pervasive types of litter, and costs local councils over £60 million per year in removal efforts. I am sure that every one of us remembers an annoying moment when we had to pick off a piece of gum from under our shoe.

Despite its similarities to other banned single-use plastics such as straws and cotton buds, chewing gum has evaded regulation. As with single-use vapes, the UK has a great opportunity to lead again in environmental and public health protection. I urge the Government to look into this issue, and I am happy to put them in contact with my constituent, who could provide evidence and support on what can be done.

We are at a pivotal moment. The scale and urgency of the plastic pollution crisis demands bold, co-ordinated global action. The treaty must be not only ambitious but fair, with proper funding and protections against vested interests. The UK must show leadership in the upcoming talks, championing a strong new global treaty that tackles plastic pollution at every stage of its lifecycle, so that future generations can enjoy the beautiful planet that we still enjoy—just about—today. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Robbie Moore: I begin my remarks by acknowledging an interest in this area: my family own and operate a plastic recycling business, though I make it clear to the House that I am not directly involved in the management of the business, nor do I have any financial interest in it.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this really important debate. All Members have made hugely valuable contributions. The right hon. Member spoke about the importance of responsibility for not only stakeholders but wider industry and, indeed, policymakers. In the light of the upcoming negotiations on the global plastics treaty, it is an important time to have this debate.

Before coming to the potential treaty, it is worth taking a moment to consider some of the domestic context to our national relationship with plastic, and that brings me on to the other contributions. The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) rightly raised  concerns about microplastics, which have been mentioned by many Members in this House. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the challenges of plastic litter and plastic waste in his constituency, and he rightly called on the Government to hold China to account in their global discussions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly raised the importance that young people place on reducing plastic usage, and he mentioned the concerns and letters that have been submitted to him by various schools in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who is not in her place, raised the importance of banning single-use vapes and the work of local businesses and organisations in her constituency—including ABBA Voyage, which I have seen, and I noted its work to reduce plastic waste.

The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) focused on regulation and the importance of this place having an influence on the global plastics treaty. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) rightly raised her staunch objection to the incineration of plastic waste, and I agree with her. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, a planning application for an incinerator was approved by Labour-run Bradford council. I have been staunchly against that, and I wish her well in her local campaign.

The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) talked about research undertaken by Professor Christian Dunn at Bangor University, which I hope the Minister will look at. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and his neighbour, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), talked about the importance of progressing conversations on the global plastics treaty and the need for a greater focus on the concerns of their constituents, raised today by the strong voice of their Edinburgh representatives.

The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about the importance of reducing virgin plastic production and the need for a real focus on increasing recycling rates. Finally, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) referenced the importance of local groups that drive forward change.

For decades, we have used plastic in ever more roles and in ever greater amounts. Indeed, plastics have replaced many everyday items that once were made from paper, glass or metal. Plastic may have been the way forward then, but that does not mean it need be the way forward now for everything. For that reason, I welcome the important steps that were taken by the previous Conservative Government. Plastic straws, drink stirrers and single-use plastic bags are all notorious for polluting our natural environment, and it was therefore right that efforts were taken to ban them.

In fact, the plastic bag charge has successfully seen plastic bag usage reduced by 98%. Other restrictions on single-use plastic cutlery, cups, trays, plates and many other items are now in force, with the ban having an important effect on reducing residual waste. Residual waste is key. We know that the UK produces a huge amount of plastic waste—as much as the second most per capita globally—but we also know that, due to  strong environmental protections, very little of that waste is now handled irresponsibly. Of course, there is always more to be done.

For comparison, 80% of the plastics in the ocean originate from Asia, compared with just 0.4% from Europe. Reducing residual waste must be the key pillar of any international treaty on plastic waste. The previous Government understood that when they legislated in the Environment Act 2021 to halve residual waste, and I trust that the Minister will be able to reassure us that it remains the key goal of this Government. \p Bobby Dean: The hon. Gentleman is talking well about the general state of plastic in the world, but we are debating the global plastics treaty. Can he confirm whether his party supports the UK being a signatory? \p Robbie Moore: I will come on to those points, but I first wanted to outline the nature of the debate, because it is important to recognise the contributions that have been made.

We know that reducing our plastic use is vital for two key reasons. The first is the impact on the environment. It is estimated that as many as 1 million seabirds die each year as a result of entanglement in plastic. In fact, at current rates of increase, the weight of plastic in the oceans will outweigh all fish by 2050. Plastics also pollute our inland waterways, having a detrimental impact on nearby areas, especially when we consider the long-term chemical effects of decomposition.

The second reason is the growing body of research showing that long-term exposure to plastics is bad for our health—particularly microplastics, as the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned. Everything from hair loss to fatigue, heart conditions and strokes have been linked to microplastics. What is most concerning is that, while the health links may not yet be fully understood, we know that microplastics persist for centuries, not only in the environment but in our bodies. As we use more plastic through our lives, these levels build, potentially increasing the risks.

That is precisely why securing an effective global framework to reduce plastic use is key. The resolutions passed in 2022 were an encouraging first step and show clearly that countries across the world recognise the challenge and wish to tackle it. Crucially, this global support for progress on plastics is key to ensuring that standards are raised uniformly and that the risk that plastic waste is simply offshored is significantly reduced. We simply must not offshore our responsibility.

Equally, we must be realistic about how we manage plastics. We must recognise that unilaterally banning or heavily restricting many types of plastic will leave us uncompetitive on the global stage. We must work with other nations and bring those that are sceptical along with us. That scepticism is precisely why we must use the negotiations on this treaty to take these matters forward, and to make them concrete.

We cannot simply have goals or aspirations. We must have verifiable targets that can be measured so that we can hold organisations and stakeholders to account. Naturally, we should then expect all signatories to fulfil those obligations. I hope the Government are able to confirm that they will push for the inclusion of these measures in the treaty as they continue to negotiate, to ensure compliance by ourselves and other partners.

We must continue to work not only on the global plastics treaty but to improve our plastic waste record at home. We must continue to invest in our sorting and volume capacity within the recycling sector to ensure that the amount of recycling continues to go up, and to reduce the amount going to landfill.

Plastic pollution is not going away. Many plastics will be with us for thousands of years, so it is vital that we act to stop the flow of waste into our environment. When discussions are reopened next month in Geneva, I hope that the Minister will be in attendance and that the Government will be successful in securing the robust and practical treaty that we all hope to see. \p Daniel Zeichner: It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, so ably introduced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). He, along with every Member from across the Chamber who made a contribution, pointed out the seriousness of the issue and the urgent need for action.

Plastic pollution is one of the biggest environmental issues that we face today. Once hailed as a miracle of modern invention, plastic is now one of our planet’s most persistent threats. Its greatest strength—durability—has become its darkest flaw. These materials are designed to last and do just that—for centuries. They do not simply disappear, but break down into tiny fragments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) so ably pointed out, and these microplastics invade our beaches, rivers, fields and even our bodies. From the depths of the oceans to the cells of living creatures, plastic pollution is everywhere.

For too long, plastic has littered our oceans and threatened our wildlife. Amounts of plastic entering the ocean are predicted to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. That is unacceptable. Plastic pollution does not respect boundaries. We urgently need to agree a plastics treaty to enable global action to address this, so with that in mind, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and his Committee for their recent inquiry into the treaty, and for their letter of recommendations for the forthcoming negotiations on an international treaty to end plastic pollution. It is a very timely input, and I read it with interest as we finalised our preparations for the negotiations. I look forward to responding more fully in due course, but the Committee can be assured that this Government are taking every step to ensure that we secure an ambitious and effective global plastics pollution treaty. This will be both a tool for moving towards a circular economy and an opportunity to showcase some of the domestic action that the UK has taken.

A circular economy is key to delivering our Government’s plan for change—to grow the economy, increase environmental resilience and improve the lives of hard-working people around the country. That is why our circular economy taskforce has brought together experts from across Government, industry, academia and civil society to develop the first circular economy strategy for England. It will include a road map on chemicals and plastics, deliver growth and fundamentally shift our relationship with the goods that we use every day, ending our throwaway society and stopping the avalanche of rubbish that is filling up our high streets, countryside and oceans, making reuse and repair the norm, and  ending the throwaway society. A circular economy is an opportunity to grow our economy and make it more resilient, to improve lives in every part of the United Kingdom, and to protect our environment for generations to come.

Domestically, the Government are already working with the devolved Governments to legislate across the UK for the ban on wet wipes containing plastic. From 1 June this year, the sale and supply of single-use vapes was banned across the UK. The deposit return scheme for single-use plastic and metal drinks containers in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will launch in October 2027, which will drive our efforts to stop litter filling up our streets, rivers and oceans. I am grateful for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) about the story in Scotland.

Additionally, the extended producer responsibility for packaging came into effect on 1 January this year. It will move the full cost of dealing with household packaging waste away from local taxpayers and on to the packaging producers themselves. I was pleased to hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) about the great successes of the Labour Government, working with people in Wales, on issues around recycling. \p Bobby Dean: The EPR scheme is obviously welcome and Liberal Democrat Members know the intention, but the scheme appears to have some unintended effects. The scheme will not only impact producers but small businesses, hospitality businesses in particular, who have raised their concerns. Will the Minister continue to listen to those businesses and try to adjust the scheme, so it works for them as well? \p Daniel Zeichner: Of course—absolutely. We are always working in collaboration, and we will do everything we can to ensure that. It is an important principle that has been established, and I am determined to ensure that it is successful.

Next month, at the resumed fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, we will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious and effective international agreement to end plastic pollution. We want a treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a circular economy. The UK has been a key advocate for an effective treaty throughout and is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution—a coalition of nearly 70 countries from across all regions of the world.

At INC5, the UK joined over 80 other ambitious countries to make clear the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. Recently, at the UN ocean conference in Nice, we joined nearly 100 countries in signing the Nice wake-up call for an ambitious international treaty to end plastic pollution. Those demonstrate the commitment to reaching an agreement at INC5.2 in August and the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. I am proud of the leadership role that the UK has taken in the negotiations, and we continue to take significant action to drive ambition and demonstrate leadership. \p John Lamont: The Minister is right to highlight the leading role that the UK has played in this matter, under both the current Government and, in particular,  the previous Government. The last negotiations and progress towards the treaty came to a halt because Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia basically imposed a time limit, which meant that the treaty could not be agreed. What discussions are taking place behind the scenes to ensure that countries like those three will not do the same and stall our agreement on the treaty this time? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s well-informed intervention. I assure him that negotiations and discussions are ongoing, and we are determined to ensure that we get a good outcome.

As well as leading early work to develop criteria for problematic plastic products since the second negotiating session, INC2, the UK is co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design, and co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic. \p Andrew Rosindell: I am sure the Minister is aware that His Excellency the Ambassador of Ecuador is the chairman of the UN intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastics. Is the Minister working with him? His Excellency is in London and doing incredible work in this area, and I hope that our Government are co-operating with him. He is also doing work toward and looking forward to the day when Ecuador can join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. \p Daniel Zeichner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working with all interested parties to ensure that we make progress on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) recently co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN ocean conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries, representing all regions and ambition levels, to discuss the most challenging issues.

As we look forward to August, it is clear that divergent views remain on key issues such as phasing out problematic products, how we approach the production of plastics and financing the treaty. However, it is our sense that the majority of countries want to reach an agreement at INC5.2, and there has been substantial discussion of how the treaty addresses plastic production. Many parties believe that plastic production is outside the scope of the agreement. However, the UK has been clear that the treaty should address the full life cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption.

At INC5.2, we will continue to work on that basis, to ensure that the treaty sends a signal to spur investment in the market for recycled plastic and to collect the data we need to ensure that the treaty works. A provision on problematic plastic products will be one of the core treaty provisions, and the UK has worked with Brazil to carry out technical work to support that provision. The UK has also supported the call from 95 countries in Busan for a clear, legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastics.

Good progress was made at INC5 on text that provides a basis for further discussions. The key will be striking the right balance between national measures and harmonised global approaches and ensuring that measures are based on science. We are working with Chile to  promote an effective provision on the design of plastic products to keep them in use for longer and make them easier to recycle. We recognise the importance of mobilising support for the countries most in need of agreement’s implementation. That is an essential element of an effective treaty. The UK supports the use of the Global Environment Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. That will avoid further fragmentation of the environmental financial architecture and allow for synergies with funding for climate and nature.

As we have heard, plastic pollution is a broad issue, with a huge variety of actors across the plastics value chain. To mobilise the resources needed at scale, we must draw on an equally broad range of funding sources—public and private, domestic and international. The UK is the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, contributing some £20.5 million. That partnership brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in the circular economy in countries eligible for official development assistance. To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act, and we need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is really important that their voices are heard.

It is essential that the treaty we agree is responsive to change and emerging evidence—it cannot operate effectively if one member has a de facto veto. As such, we need effective decision-making processes, including the possibility of voting on conference of the parties decisions and amendments to annexes once all options for achieving consensus have been exhausted.

One thing is clear: addressing the problem of plastic pollution requires a joint effort between Government, industry, academia and civil society. We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. Those dialogues have included actors at all stages of the plastics value chain, as well as academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. They have helped us to understand diverse views on the treaty, which in turn have informed our approach to negotiations.

In June, my ministerial colleague and hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, hosted a business roundtable to discuss how the private sector can support an ambitious plastic pollution treaty. It was the second plastics treaty business roundtable, and brought together businesses from across the plastics value chain. Those roundtables were attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, the INC chair. Twenty leading businesses have now signed a statement calling for an effective treaty, and four non-private sector organisations have endorsed that statement.

The Government are also clear that any treaty must be informed by science, and I noted the comments made on that topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). In that regard, we are deeply concerned to hear of the threats faced by scientists—an issue that has been raised by a number of contributors to this debate. Those threats are unacceptable. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the multilateral system and to an open, transparent and inclusive process.

This has been a timely debate, as we approach final negotiations in Geneva. While there are many challenges to overcome, a vast amount of work is under way to  find solutions to the many remaining issues. I heard the strong calls from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and I am confident that we can secure a robust and effective treaty. That is what the UK team will be pushing for in Geneva. Again, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate. \p Alistair Carmichael: I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate—it has been quite a remarkable exercise and an enormously valuable one. Every contribution has been truly excellent. We have heard from Members representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and England; we have not had anybody from Northern Ireland, but I should place on the record that I have seen on the Annunciator that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has been in Westminster Hall this afternoon. It has also been noteworthy for the fact that, at a time of year when we all get a bit tired and scratchy, we have had remarkable consensus and a good-natured debate.

In closing, I want to address myself to not just the people in the Chamber, but those who might be watching from outside. The evidence session that our Select Committee held last week was not an easy one to pull together, especially when it came to bringing in corporate interests. Coca-Cola turned up and, to its credit, had a decent story to tell. INEOS turned up, and might or might not have had a good story to tell—it could not quite remember. The people who we really wanted to get were from Unilever, but apparently everybody in Unilever had gone to India for the day, so they could not appear before the Committee. We will return to this; they can run, but they cannot hide.

In the past, we have seen not just the national, but the corporate influences that have stood in the way of progress. If those corporate interests are watching our proceedings today, they should hear a very loud and clear message that we are watching them. If they again stand in the way of making progress on something that matters to this House and to the people who send us here, we will see them, and there will be a commercial price for them to pay for standing in the way of progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.) \p Danny Kruger: It is an honour to stand here in this empty Chamber to speak about the original purpose of this space, when it was a chapel in the Church of England. The old Chamber of the House of Commons, on which this space was modelled after the great fire of 1834, was St Stephen’s Chapel—formerly a royal church. It was given by the heirs of Henry VIII to Parliament to serve as its debating Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker, your Chair stands on the altar steps. The Table with the Dispatch Boxes is where the lectern stood.

I mention that because the link between this place and the Church of England is not merely ceremonial. The Prayers we say here at the start of every day are not just a nod to tradition. Our democracy is founded on Christian faith. This Parliament remains the law-giving power of the Church of England. We in this place have the responsibility to approve or disapprove the doctrine and the rules of the Church, and that is as it should be, because the Church of England is not some private club or just another eccentric denomination. The Church is a chaplain to the nation, and through the parish system, in which every square inch of England has its local church and its local priest, we are all members—we all belong. Even if you never set foot in your church from one year to the next, and even if you do not believe in its teachings, it is your church and you are its member.

When I speak of the Church of England today, I am not speaking about the internal politics of the Anglican sect; I speak of the common creed of our country, the official religion of the English and the British nation, and the institution—older than the monarchy, and much older than Parliament—which made this country. It is no surprise that both the Church and the country itself are in a bad way, divided, internally confused and badly led. The Church is riven by deep disputes over doctrine and governance, and is literally leaderless, with even the process of choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury unclear, confused and contended. The country itself reflects that—unclear in its doctrines and its governance, profoundly precarious, chronically exposed to threats from without and within. It is at risk economically, culturally, socially and, I would say, morally.

Last month, in the space of three days in one infamous week, this House authorised the killing of unborn children—of nine-month-old babies—and it passed a Bill to allow the killing of the elderly and disabled. I describe those laws in those stark terms not to provoke further controversy, but because those are the facts. We gave our consent to the greatest crime: the killing of the weak and most defenceless human beings. It was a great sin. If, standing here, I have any power to repent on behalf of this House, I hereby repent of what we did.

In the reaction to these votes, and all around us in reaction to the state of the country and the world, something else is happening. There is a great hunger in society for a better way of living, and I want to use this opportunity to explain what that better way is and why we here in England have the means to follow it.

The Jewish and Christian God is a God of nations. He is interested in people as individuals, but also as groups—as communities not only of kinship but of common worship, with a common God. Uniquely among the nations of the world, this nation—England, from which the United Kingdom grew—was founded and created consciously on the basis of the Bible and the story of the Hebrew people. In that sense, England is the oldest Christian country and the prototype of nations across the west. The story of England is the story of Christianity operating on a people to make the institutions and culture that have been uniquely stable and successful.

The western model was forged and refined in England over a thousand years from the 9th to the 19th centuries. What is that model? It is simply this: that power should arrange itself for the benefit of all the people under it, and specifically for the poorest and weakest; that the law is there to protect the ordinary person against the abuse of power; and that every individual has equal dignity and freedom, including, crucially, the freedom of conscience, religion and belief, which makes space for other religions under the Christian shield—a secular space. Indeed, the idea of a secular space is a Christian concept that is meaningful only in a Christian world. These are ideas that only make sense if one accepts that we have some intrinsic value—a value that is given to us and is not of our own making or invention.

Throughout the long years from the time of Alfred to the time of Victoria, it was assumed that a nation was a community of common worship and that our community —this country—worshipped the Christian God. Then, in the 20th century, another idea arose: that it was possible for a country to be neutral about God; that the public square was empty of any metaphysics; and that the route to freedom lay through the desert of materialism and individual reason—“no hell below us, above us only sky”. That idea was wrong. The horrors of the 20th century attest to that, not least in the west, where we escaped totalitarianism but have suffered our own catastrophes of social breakdown, social injustice, loneliness and emptiness on a chronic scale.

Ugly and aggressive new threats are now arising, because we have found that in the absence of the Christian God, we do not have pluralism and tolerance, with everyone being nice to each other in a godless world. All politics is religious, and in abandoning one religion we simply create a space for others to move into. \p Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend is making a very moving and powerful speech. Our Head of State, who is also the head of the Church of England, represents the rights of all peoples to live in a free society and to worship freely. It is because our Head of State is also the head of our established Church that there are protections for all religions and denominations in our constitution. The cross is on the top of the crown that he wears, which demonstrates that the Christian faith is the basis of our constitution, our customs, our heritage and our British way of life. Does my hon. Friend agree? \p Danny Kruger: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I do agree with him. He makes the point very well, and I absolutely acknowledge it. The paradox  of our constitution is that under a monarchy, we have a system with the most developed political freedom in the world, and that under an established Church, we have a tradition of freedom of conscience and belief in which all religions can be accommodated. It is because the cross is at the centre, and I notice that the cross is above your Chair too, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, in abandoning one religion we simply create a space for others to move into as the dominant faiths. There are two religions moving into the space from which Christianity has been ejected, and one is Islam. In a debate yesterday, I said how much I find myself in agreement with Muslim colleagues in Parliament on moral and social matters. But as I have been saying, this is a Christian country—if it is a country at all—and I cannot be indifferent to the extent of the growth of Islam in recent decades.

It is the other religion that worries me even more. This other religion is a hybrid of old and new ideas, and it does not have a proper name. I do not think that “woke” does justice to its seriousness. It is a combination of ancient paganism, Christian heresies and the cult of modernism, all mashed up into a deeply mistaken and deeply dangerous ideology of power that is hostile to the essential objects of our affections and our loyalties: families, communities and nations. It is explicitly and most passionately hostile to Christianity as the wellspring of the west. That religion, unlike Islam, must simply be destroyed, at least as a public doctrine. It must be banished from public life—from schools and universities, and from businesses and public services. It needs to be sent back to the fringes of eccentricity, like the modern druids who invest Stonehenge in my constituency with a theology that is seen as mad but harmless because its followers are so few and no one serious takes them seriously.

We can no longer pretend, as people did in the 20th century, that we can be neutral or indifferent to God or to the public square being a godless desert. The fact is that the strong gods are back, and we have to choose which god to worship. I suggest we worship the God who came in the weakest form, Jesus Christ. This God is a jealous god—it is him or nothing—and we have to own our Christian story, or repudiate it. Not to own it is to repudiate it, and to repudiate Christianity is not only to sever ourselves from our past, but to cut off the source of all the things we value now and that we need in the future, such as freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and human rights.

Without the Christian God, in whose teaching these things have their source, these are inventions—mere non-existent aspirations. To worship human rights is to worship fairies, but if we own our story and remember the real sources of our civilisation, we can have these things and make them real—real freedom and tolerance and dignity, a culture of love and, crucially, a culture of humanity. We are in the age of the machine, and a great choice confronts us: whether to make machines in the image of fallen man, bent on exploitation and domination with mankind in its sights, or to make them what they properly are, the servants of mankind able to help us make a better world.

To conclude, a wind is blowing, a storm is coming and when it hits we are going to learn if our house is built on rock or on sand, but we have been here before. The reformers of the 11th and the 16th centuries, the  Puritans in the 17th century, the Evangelicals in the 19th century all brought this country back from the edge—from idolatry, error or just plain indifference, and from all the social and political crises that indifference to Christianity brought about—and they each in their generation restored this country to itself.

A new restoration is needed now, with a revival of the faith, a recovery of a Christian politics and a re-founding of this nation on the teachings that Alfred made the basis of the common law of England all those centuries ago. This is a mission for the Church under its next leader, whoever that is; it is a mission for this place—the old chapel that became the wellspring of western democracy—and for us, its Members; and it is a mission for our whole country. It is the route to a prosperous modernity founded on respect for human dignity, responsibility for the created world and the worship of God. \p Jim McMahon: I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for securing this important debate on the future of the Church of England. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government.

The hon. Member has often spoken very powerfully about the importance of faith, its role in public life and the benefit it brings. Today, he has spoken eloquently on the positive role that Christianity plays in our wider society, which I believe is a sentiment shared across the House. Anyone involved in local life knows just how essential are Christian places of worship and the people who support them. They run schools and toddler groups, support food banks and reach out to those facing homelessness. They offer comfort and companionship to those who are isolated, grieving or just struggling to cope. The truth is simple: without them, much of our local life simply would not function. Their contribution is not just appreciated, but indispensable.

The Christian faith has played a central role in public life and it continues to do so. The hon. Member is but one of a number of examples of good public servants motivated by their Christian faith in the cause of the common good. Our society is enriched by those contributions. It is equally enriched by people from a wide range of backgrounds, heritage and, indeed, faiths and beliefs. Right across this House, I see members of the Protestant, Catholic—like myself—Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faith communities, and those of other faiths and indeed none, who are all motivated towards the betterment of the people we serve.

For the benefit of the House, I will briefly outline the constitutional arrangements between the established Church, Parliament and the Executive. These arrangements have deep roots and have evolved over many centuries. Much of our constitution is based on a combination of common law, statutes, conventions and principles. As the established Church, the Church of England has historically been subject to parliamentary legislation. However, since the enabling Act of 1919—the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919—much of its governance has been delegated to its own body, the General Synod. While the Synod manages its internal affairs, its Measures still require Parliament’s approval and Royal Assent. As hon. Members will know, the  Lords Spiritual, bishops of the Church, sit in the House of Lords by right. The Government believe they offer a unique and valued spiritual perspective.

There are still many ways in which the Church and Parliament remain closely connected. The Government reflect that a great example is the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Act 2025, which was skilfully steered through the House last year by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare). The Act, requested by the Church of England, extends for five more years the arrangements allowing female bishops to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. In fact, it recently enabled the Right Rev. Sophie Jelley, the new Bishop of Coventry, to take her seat in the other place. The Church also has a presence in this House through the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I am pleased that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) does so much work in that regard, serving as a vital link between Parliament and the Church, and ensuring that the Church Commissioners remain accountable to the House.

The Executive, in particular the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, play a key role in appointing senior clergy. While bishops are formally appointed by the sovereign, that is done on the Prime Minister’s advice, following recommendations from the Crown Nominations Commission. The sovereign, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, remains central to those arrangements. In highlighting some of the ways the Church, Parliament and the Executive are intertwined, I hope to provide assurance to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that, on the importance of the Church of England and the Christian faith more generally, Parliament and the Executive are by no means washing their hands.

The Church is streamlining its national governance, with plans approved by the Synod earlier this week. The proposals will soon come before Parliament. This marks another step in a process begun in 2020 to create better governance structures that better support the Church’s mission and its work. Regarding the Church’s future, its day-to-day operations are of course not a matter for the Government. However, the Government look forward to the Church continuing to evolve to meet the challenges of our time, and to play an active role in public debate on the most important issues we face as a nation. \p Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) referred to the importance of the local parish. Across England, the parish is central to everything. The church and the local vicar are a part of our community. In fact, we are very lucky in Romford to have the Church of St Edward the Confessor. We have a new vicar, the Rev. Jordan Palmer, who has just joined our church. Does the Minister agree that the parish is vital? It is not just about the church community, the members of the church; it has a wider responsibility to all people of all religions and no religion, not just Church of England members. The Church of England should cherish the importance of the parish as a part of all our communities in the constituencies we represent. \p Jim McMahon: I believe that very strongly, actually. Even Members who are not church attenders will take part in civic life at a local level that is closely linked to  their local parish church. I think about Remembrance Sunday and the role parish churches play in those reflections. I think about our own Mayoral Sunday, which is celebrated every year, where the mayor of the borough of Oldham is the honorary church warden in the parish church. Regardless of individual faith and belief, I think it is accepted and celebrated that parish churches are a significant part of local identity and a place for all people to come together. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s new church leader on that basis.

That is a reflection of the value that we as a Parliament place on the Church of England, which is why bringing the debate to the House today was so important. I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for doing just that and I hope he appreciates the response on behalf of the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.