debates/debates2025-01-06b conversation_19
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-06)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-06b conversation_19

Sam Carling:May I commend the Government on their recent decision to bring a large amount of military housing back in house after the disastrous Tory decision to privatise it? It is massively welcome in North West Cambridgeshire, where 431 homes are being repurchased, but a lot of the housing is in a shocking state; what steps will the Government take to address that, to make sure that our military personnel can live in the decent homes that they more than deserve? \p Alistair Carns: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The defence housing strategy will be a medium to long-term strategy and will be published, in line with the SDR, in the spring. \p David Mundell: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Given the Secretary of State for Defence’s previous remarks, can he set out for the House exactly what discussions there have been between Ministers and the incoming Trump Administration on the future of the Diego Garcia base? \p John Healey: As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the system in the US is very different from ours. The Administration who are in place at present are in place until inauguration day on 20 January. That will be the point at which we in the UK Government will start to pick up direct discussions with the incoming Administration. The US is our closest security ally, and we will work with them to ensure that that continues. \p Andrew Lewin: Since Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, our European Union allies have contributed €47.3 billion in funding to the Ukrainian military. One of those integral allies is Poland, which has just assumed the presidency of the EU Council, having started on 1 January. Will the Minister set out in a little more detail how we are working in lockstep with crucial allies like Poland at this dangerous time for the continent? \p Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that it is vital to deepen our relations with our European friends. Poland is a key European ally for us, not only in defence exports but in operational deployments. I have visited Poland twice recently, including to see the amazing work of the British Army in Operation Stifftail, which used our Sky Sabre system to help to defend Polish airspace. There will be further such joint deployments of our armed forces in due course. \p Julian Lewis: It sounds like the Government are not very keen to talk about Diego Garcia with President Trump, but when people as diverse as President Trump and Lord Neil Kinnock agree that NATO countries should be spending between 3% and 4% on defence, would it not be sensible to take them seriously? \p John Healey: On Diego Garcia, Members will have the chance to scrutinise the detail of any treaty once it comes before the House. Just as the previous Government did, we made sure throughout the negotiations that the US Administration were fully informed, fully briefed and fully content with the steps that we were taking. \p Louise Jones: The procurement of Ajax wasted hundreds of millions of pounds—money desperately needed in my North East Derbyshire constituency. Can the Minister update me on the progress made in learning the lessons of that failure and implementing the findings of the Sheldon report? \p Maria Eagle: Yes. My hon. Friend will know that the report was produced under the previous Government. Its findings were set out under the previous Government, and I think they announced that all the necessary steps to implement all 24 recommendations—15 were accepted and nine were accepted in principle—had been completed. We need to continue to learn the lessons and make sure that such problems do not arise in other programmes. \p Dave Doogan: The cost of the 10-year equipment plan for the Defence Nuclear Organisation stood at £44 billion in 2019. In 2022, it went up by 27% to £60 billion, and in 2024 it inflated by 62% to £99.5 billion. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that the MOD has not lost the run of itself on this worst-of-all defence procurement debacles? What personal commitment can he give the House that he has the foggiest idea what to do about it? \p John Healey: I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I can also tell him that this is a national enterprise of the utmost importance that maintains the underpinning security for this nation, as it has done over decades, and that the management of our nuclear enterprise and the budget controls are in place and stronger than they have been for years. \p Douglas McAllister: The naval base at Faslane and companies such as BAE Systems support thousands of jobs in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that we need to grow an integrated, innovative and resilient defence sector that will address problems such as skills shortages and the need for strategic long-term partnerships? \p Maria Eagle: Yes. \p Lincoln Jopp: When the Secretary of State appeared at the Defence Committee recently, he was sitting alongside his permanent secretary when the permanent secretary announced that it was his aspiration to reduce the number of MOD civil servants by 10% within this Parliament. Does the Secretary of State recognise and welcome that aspiration? \p John Healey: Yes, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman does too. \p Tom Hayes: The Veterans Minister and I recently visited Bournemouth War Memorial Homes, a specialist social housing provider for veterans in my constituency. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to support housing providers to buy or build homes for heroes across our country? \p Alistair Carns: I thank my hon. Friend for the visit to Bournemouth to see that exemplar of how to house veterans. The Prime Minister has just announced £3.7 million of funding towards veterans’ housing and there will be more to come in due course. \p Julia Lopez: There were reports over the weekend of NATO worries that the UK is not contributing enough to the European defensive shield. That leaves us vulnerable to a missile attack. I hear what the Minister has said about the strategic defence review, but what assurance can he provide that he will look at our defence spending commitments with sufficient speed to provide good enough defence for our country? \p Luke Pollard: The hon. Lady is right to raise the capability gaps that this Government inherited from the Government she served in. The strategic defence review is looking at those capability gaps and at what is needed to protect ourselves and our allies in the future. When that is set out later in the spring, she will be able to see how we plan to address those gaps, ensuring that we support British industry while also addressing the security challenges that we and our allies face. \p Oliver Ryan: As a great supporter of the British-American alliance, I am disappointed to have to ask this question, but, given some of the recent tweets from people associated with the incoming US Administration, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the UK’s exposure of our defence capabilities, given that there may be some changes in the White House? \p John Healey: The US is the closest ally of this country, and this country is the closest security ally of the US. That has been for case the decades—it has withstood the ups and downs of the political cycle on both sides of the Atlantic—and we as a Government will work closely with the incoming US Administration. \p Robin Swann: Defence spend with Northern Ireland small and medium-sized enterprises last year accounted for only £3 million. What will the Secretary of State and the Minister do to proactively increase that spend with Northern Ireland SMEs? \p Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I hope that our defence industrial strategy, in enabling SMEs to access contracts and work for the MOD more easily, will increase that number substantially. \p Jayne Kirkham: Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the figures for the incidence of blood cancers and sarcomas in veterans and current service personnel who have crewed particular military helicopters? \p Alistair Carns: Given the concerns around exposure to exhaust fumes and the importance that we place on safety, the MOD is this month initiating the testing of the exhaust emissions of in-service helicopters to ensure that we are meeting our duty of care for personnel. Nevertheless, I would also like to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further. \p Nick Timothy: Following the Christmas day attack on Finnish sea cables, what assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the threat to British interconnectors? Which individual Minister is ultimately responsible for their security? \p John Healey: The Finnish investigation into what caused the damage to the Estlink 2 cable is continuing, but many analysts conclude that it is likely that the Eagle S was the cause. That reinforces the case for Operation Nordic Warden, which I confirmed to the House in response to an earlier question. It is being run from the Northwood standing joint forces headquarters and will cover a number of areas of interest, including areas where we have British undersea cables. \p Graeme Downie: I recently visited HMS Swiftsure at Rosyth in my constituency, a former Royal Navy submarine now being safely and securely dismantled and recycled by Babcock, as a pilot project of the submarine dismantling programme. Will the Minister provide an update on the programme, which could secure hundreds of jobs in Dunfermline and Dollar by dealing with similar submarines at Rosyth over the coming decades? \p Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend will be aware that despite the fact we have had nuclear submarines since 1980, we have never dismantled one, so there is a lot of work to be done. What is happening with Swiftsure is very encouraging and will hopefully provide many jobs in dismantling nuclear submarines. I hope my hon. Friend will be happy with that reply. \p Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the first statement. I am sure there must be something left to say. \p Wes Streeting: A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone across the House. With your permission, I will give an update on health and adult social care reform.

I start by paying tribute to the NHS and social care staff who worked throughout the Christmas break, including by staffing our hospitals, ambulance services, care homes and call centres on Christmas day and throughout the new year. From visiting hospitals and residential care homes in the south-west of England, Essex, London, South Yorkshire and the north-west over the past two weeks, I know the extent of the pressures they are dealing with. They are going above and beyond to keep the NHS standing, to provide people with the social care they need and to give patients and care users the best care they possibly can against the most challenging backdrop.

We have seen more than three times as many patients hospitalised with flu this winter compared with last year, in a service with no slack left to give. Since coming into office, the Government have been doing everything we can to prepare the NHS for winter, including by ending the resident doctors’ strikes. This is the first winter in three years when staff are on the frontline, not the picket line. The Chancellor made an additional £1.8 billion available in-year to fill the black hole left by the previous Government, and we introduced the new respiratory syncytial virus vaccine to protect more than 1.2 million people against the virus.

But I am not going to pretend for a second that the experience of patients this winter is acceptable. The Government have been honest about the state of the NHS since the election, and we will continue to be. The NHS is broken but not beaten. It will take time to fix, but it can be done. That is why the Chancellor made an additional £1.8 billion available in-year to fill the black hole left by the previous Government and to enable us to deliver on our first steps to cut NHS waiting times. That is why we are undertaking fundamental reform, and it is why we are acting on social care.

These are the honest facts. The social care system in this country is failing, leaving hundreds of thousands of disabled and elderly people without the care they need. The failure of social care is piling enormous pressures on the NHS. In November, more than 12,400 hospital patients a day were well enough to leave but had to stay overnight because they were not able to be discharged. We have an ageing society: by 2050, there will be 4 million more people aged 65 and over in England. If we do nothing, social care costs are expected to double over two decades.

Of course, there is plenty of blame to go around. In 2009, when Andy Burnham established cross-party talks on social care, the Conservatives pulled out and leaked details of the talks to attack Labour. In 2017, it was Labour who torpedoed Theresa May’s proposals. And in 2022, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) as Chancellor delayed Boris Johnson’s  cap on care costs, and then defunded them as Prime Minister. There has not been a shortage of good ideas in the past 15 years, but a lack of good politics. It is time all of us across the House do things differently.

I have written to my opposite numbers and the leaders of all UK-wide parties represented in the House to invite them to help break out of the cycle of political failure. I hope all of us across the House will put aside our ideological and partisan differences, and work together on this, to finally find a way through to a long-term plan that can build the broad consensus we need.

We do not need to agree on everything, but in April we will launch an independent commission on building a national care service. I am delighted that it will be headed by one of our country’s leading social reformers, and Whitehall’s greatest doer, Baroness Louise Casey. Baroness Casey has served Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Governments. She is a trusted, independent figure, who will take views from all parties and, crucially, the public as she seeks to build a cross-party and national consensus on the future of social care. She will get things done. Her first report will be published next year, making a series of recommendations that can be implemented straight away throughout this Parliament, and her final report will come later in this Parliament.

In the meantime, we are stabilising the social care system today. We have legislated for the first ever fair pay agreement for social care, to tackle the workforce crisis—the 131,000 vacancies we see today. In the Budget, the Chancellor provided the biggest increase in carer’s allowance since the 1970s, worth £2,300 a year to family carers, and an extra £3.7 billion for local authorities.

On Friday, I visited the home of Keith and Elaine in Carlisle. I saw at first hand how extended doorways and the installation of accessible kitchen and bathroom facilities have changed their lives, thanks to the disabled facilities grant, allowing them to live with renewed dignity, independence and happiness. That is why I announced last week the immediate release of £86 million through the disabled facilities grant, to provide an extra 7,800 home adaptations before April, changing the lives of thousands more disabled people for the better, just as Keith and Elaine have experienced.

We are not hanging around on reform either. We are introducing new standards to help people who use care, their families and providers to choose the most effective new technology as it comes on the market. We are joining up care and medical records, so NHS and care staff have the full picture they need to provide the best possible care. And we are training care workers to perform more health interventions to help people stay well and at home. A lot done, a huge amount more to do and, if this House gets this right, the best is yet to come.

Turning to the elective reform plan the Prime Minister has launched today, the Government inherited NHS waiting lists at 7.6 million. The NHS standard, that patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks for treatment, has not been met for a decade. Millions of patients are forced to put their lives on hold while they wait. In his investigation, Lord Darzi listed the causes of this crisis: the undoing of new Labour’s reforms, the disastrous top-down reorganisation, and slashing GPs and community health services, all of which have led to a dramatic drop in hospital productivity. Lord Darzi has diagnosed the condition; now this Labour Government are prescribing the cure.

In November, the Prime Minister set out the Government’s plan for change—a plan to dig this country out of the hole it was left in and an act of resistance against the status quo of managed decline. It committed to cutting maximum waiting times from 18 months today to 18 weeks by the end of this Parliament. Today, we are setting out how we will hit that ambitious target, so that once again the NHS is there for us when we need it. This will demand faster improvement than even the last Labour Government achieved. That means doing things differently. It had to be a plan for investment and reform. Investment and reform is what Labour promised before the election. Investment and reform is what we are delivering. Our elective reform plan will cut waste and inefficiency, ramp up the number of appointments, scans and operations that the NHS performs, and give NHS patients greater choice, control and convenience.

Any patient using the NHS can see the waste and inefficiency in the service when they use it. Staff feel it holding them back every day. When the Government announced significant investment in the Budget, I said that it would come with reform, so that every pound was well spent, and here it is. Resources will be diverted from hospitals to GPs, to get hundreds of thousands more patients cared for faster in the community. Patients will have the choice of whether they want or need follow-up appointments, saving a million pointless appointments a year. GPs will be able to directly refer patients for tests and scans, cutting out the middle man and speeding up diagnoses for patients across a wide range of conditions. For years, restaurants have been texting customers reminders of their bookings, giving them the chance to cancel or rearrange, to cut down on no-shows. The NHS will learn from the hospitality sector, do the same for patients, and cut around a million missed appointments every year as a result.

In opposition, we said that investment in new and more productive ways of working would make a significant dent in waiting times. Today, we are announcing 17 new and expanded surgical hubs to run like Formula 1 pitstops and bust through the backlog. Community diagnostic centres will open at evenings and weekends so that patients do not have to take a time off work for their appointment, and can get diagnosed faster. We are rewarding trusts that cut waiting times fastest with extra capital investment as an incentive, and we are publishing a new agreement with the independent sector—the first of its kind for 25 years—to cut waiting times.

Over the past 14 years, a two-tier healthcare system emerged in this country. People who can afford it are increasingly going private to skip the queue, while those who cannot are left behind. Working people are going into debt, and others are running fundraisers to pay to get an operation. Those stories belong in pre-war Britain. They should shame the Conservative party. I am determined to end two-tier healthcare in this country, so that whether you are the richest or poorest person in Britain, you get timely, quality treatment, free at the point of use. This new agreement will see more NHS patients able to choose to be treated in a private hospital where there is capacity, paid for by the state. More capacity will be available for people in working-class areas of the country, and for women stuck on gynaecology waiting lists. Where we can treat working people faster, we will, and we make no apology for doing so.

Working-class patients in this country deserve the same choice, control and convenience as the wealthy expect—indeed, as we all expect from other apps and services that we use every day, but not the NHS. That is why we are also modernising the NHS app to put patients in the driving seat for their own care. If customers can choose when their Deliveroo meal will arrive, and be kept informed until it is dropped off, why should patients not be afforded the same service by the NHS? With this plan, they will be. Patients will be able to manage their appointments, book tests and scans, view results as soon as they are ready, and choose where they will be treated. We will cut down on letters that arrive in the post after an appointment, and give power back to the patient.

In the past six months, we have ended the resident doctors’ strike and invested billions more in our health service, with the biggest investment in hospices and end of life care for a generation. We are delivering investment and reform in general practice to fix the front door to the NHS and bring back the family doctor, and we have started to get NHS waiting lists falling. This plan for investment and reform will press down harder on the accelerator and will change our NHS and the experience of millions of patients. It will put the NHS on the road to recovery, and I commend this statement to the House. \p Edward Argar: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in early sight of his statement, as well for his call last week. Indeed, it was earlier sight than I am used to because I was able to read most of it in the media before coming here, which was not unhelpful.

I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in thanking and paying tribute to NHS and social care staff up and down the country, including those in my university hospitals of Leicester NHS trust, GPs and, indeed, all those in Chorley hospital, Mr Speaker, for all they have done over the festive period. They work full-on day in, day out every day of the year, but they particularly feel the pressure over the festive period when they are not able to spend it with their families, so it is important that we across the Chamber share our recognition of that.

The Secretary of State set out clearly the challenges facing the system. We all know that clinical care, the NHS and social care must work well and as a whole for our health and care system to function, so it is right that his statement addresses both those issues. He also highlighted the challenges we face as an ageing society. We are all living longer, which is a good thing, but that brings challenges of care and more complex needs. Of course, that comes on top of the ongoing challenges of the legacy of the pandemic, which are still with us in many ways.

In his comments, the Secretary of State referred to previous reforms. He opted not to reflect another point in Lord Darzi’s report: his positive remarks about our 2022 reforms, which the Secretary of State knows I took through this House and which laid the foundations on which he is now able to build. Given the serious and cross-party work we have done certainly on social care, I highlight that the challenge is real, and we must address both challenges swiftly.

Before turning to the long term, I turn to the immediate and ask the Secretary of State a few questions about winter and the challenges the NHS is facing. We heard from the Minister before Christmas about the work being done for extra co-ordination and new data, but what extra capacity in beds specifically for the winter period has the Secretary of State put in place to help ease pressure? What additional capacity has he put into A&E? We always recognised that winter is challenging, and we always put in extra resource, support and capacity, so I would be grateful for an update.

I would be grateful for an update from the Secretary of State on the pressure being felt in respect of the “quad-demic” of various challenges faced by the sector. Also, how many critical incidents have trusts declared since 1 December? I would be grateful if he could update us on the pressures being felt and the response to them in the light of the winter weather. In my Melton and Syston constituency in Leicestershire and in many constituencies across the country, we have seen extensive flooding, which has had an impact on our ambulance services in particular.

Turning to reform and elective recovery, I want to support the Secretary of State where he is doing the right thing, and it is important that he is keen to pursue a bold and innovative agenda. It is in all our interests that he is bold, but I call for him to be more ambitious. Those are not words often spoken about him, and I suspect certainly not in No. 10, but I call for him to be bolder and to go further. That is because, as with so much from the Prime Minister with multiple relaunches of previous announcements, what we see here is yet another relaunch of a previous announcement. The difference is the former Secretary of State Sir Sajid Javid’s announcement from 2022 has been reheated and re-served up today. We delivered 160 community diagnostic centres with 9 million additional appointments, and we delivered 18 surgical hubs. How will the Secretary of State’s plan go beyond that? We worked with the independent sector to allow it to be used to help tackle backlogs. We improved technology and the kit available, with £6 billion of investment. The NHS app created during the pandemic was designed and redesigned by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and his team to allow for regular updates. Again, it is right that the Secretary of State is updating the app, but how is he radically changing what was already in place? I certainly already receive text updates—as, I suspect, do others—on treatments and appointments, so my challenge to the Secretary of State is this: what is he doing that is fundamentally different?

The key underpinning point in the former Secretary of State’s plan was on workforce, because none of this can be delivered without the staff to deliver and interpret tests. He set out his plan to grow the workforce, and we have record numbers of doctors and nurses, and increased medical school places. What is this Secretary of State’s plan to grow the workforce and deliver on his ambitions?

Turning to social care, the Secretary of State will know—because I have said it publicly—that I will work constructively with him and the commission. He is right to highlight the challenges that Governments of all complexions have faced, including a Royal Commission, two Green Papers and a comprehensive spending review  that did not deliver under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Similarly, Theresa May’s reforms did not deliver. We proposed reforms that were due to come in this year, but the Chancellor scrapped them. I think it is important that we look to the future and at how we can work constructively on social care.

I say to the Secretary of State that we will enter into discussions with him and the commission in that spirit, but I challenge him on the pace of his ambitions. The sector is already under pressure, and that has been added to by the national insurance increases, which it does not yet know how it will pay. The real challenge for him is: why 2028? The sector is crying out for a faster pace—be bolder; be more ambitious—and we will work with him to deliver it. It takes a year-plus to deliver a diagnosis—we know the challenges. He has had 14 years in opposition; he should have a plan now.

We will call out the Secretary of State when he gets it wrong or simply re-announces what is already happening, but he is right in his approach to social care and finding a way forward, and we will work constructively for the good of patients and all our constituents. Many of them already feel let down by promises broken by the Labour party over just the past six months, so I ask him not to break this promise, and to work with us, across the House, to deliver the change that our constituents deserve and expect us to work on together to deliver. \p Wes Streeting: It seems to be the Conservative line across the board now to say, “You’ve had 14 years in opposition, so why haven’t you sorted it all out in six months?” I say gently that the Conservatives had 14 years in government, and it will take longer than six months to clean up their mess. Honestly, their contributions to discussions in this House might have more credibility and a stronger landing zone if they at least acknowledged their part in the deep mess and malaise that they have created over the past 14 years.

None the less, on social care, I very sincerely and warmly welcome the Conservative party’s support for the independent commission. It is important, as a matter of principle, to try to establish in broad terms the level of consensus about what social care should look like and how it should be delivered to meet the needs of older and disabled people in the 21st century, with changing demography, changing challenges, changing pressures and a changing pace of technology, and about the balance of provision between the individual, the family and the state, and the balance of financial contributions for social care between the individual, the family and the state.

Of course, those issues will inevitably be contested across the party political divide from one election to the next, but just as we have had broad consensus on the national health service since 1948, just as we have had broad consensus on state education since Rab Butler’s reforms, and just as we have mostly had broad consensus for much of the past century on how public services should be delivered, so too should we try to establish the same consensus on social care. That is not to say that we should agree on everything, but we should agree on as much as possible, because whether it was Gordon Brown and Andy Burnham in 2010 or Theresa May in 2017, we can see the extent to which party political wrangling, rancour and sometimes opportunism has sunk well-meaning attempts to grasp the nettle of reform.

On the question of pace, I reassure people that in our first six months we have already legislated for fair pay agreements, delivered the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s, and immediately injected £86 million into the disabled facilities grant, with another £86 million to follow from April—£711 million in total over the next year—as well as the increased spending power for local government in the Budget and £880 million for social care specifically. With respect to the people who are saying, “Go faster”, I urge them to bear in mind that we have already done quite a lot in six months. We do not pretend that we have solved all the problems—we have not nearly solved all the problems—but that is not a bad start for a Government who are determined to show that we understand the pressures in social care today and are willing to deliver.

The Dilnot proposals were very good technical responses to a question that Andrew Dilnot was set by David Cameron, but we should reflect on why it was that every single Prime Minister since Lord Cameron, including Lord Cameron himself, did not implement those reforms. There has always been something else in health and social care that has been more pressing and urgent. I am sure that Baroness Casey will consider the Dilnot proposals alongside all the other challenges and potential solutions to the wider issues in social care, but we are determined to respond at pace. That is why the first phase of the Casey commission will report next year, setting out an action plan throughout this Parliament. I hope that we can achieve broad consensus on those actions too.

Turning to the winter situation, the right hon. Gentleman has asked what capacity there is. According to the latest figures, there are 1,300 more acute beds this year than last year. Of course, those figures flex up and down depending on pressures, but the pressures are enormous. The number of beds occupied by flu patients is much higher than this time last year—somewhere between three and four times higher. The number of adult beds closed due to norovirus has reduced in the latest figures, but it is still above last year, when 485 beds were closed—the latest figure is 666. On ambulance responses, we have seen many more call-outs this year. There has been a 3.8% increase in emergency admissions compared with the same period last year, with the highest November on record for A&E attendances. Ambulance response times are nowhere near where we would want them to be because of the enormity of the pressure, which is why I have been out on the frontline, including over the Christmas period. We are not just looking at what we can do to mitigate challenges this year; we are already beginning to plan for next year, because I want to see year-on-year continuous improvement in urgent and emergency care.

I now turn to the challenges on the reform plans we have proposed and set out today. Starting with the workforce, one of the reasons we have emphasised the importance of not just investment but reform is the need to free up the staff capacity that we already have in the NHS to best effect. That means dealing with the number of non-attendances by sending reminders to patients and giving them ease and convenience in rebooking. It is why we are getting rid of unnecessary, low-clinical-value out-patient appointments, with the consent of patients in every case. It is why we are asking general practitioners to do more to manage cases in the community with  more advice and guidance, and funding them to do so, working with colleagues in secondary care to ease pressure on hospitals.

Today’s reform plan answers the challenge we have heard from people across the NHS: how do we tackle the elective backlog without doing so at the expense of general practice, urgent and emergency care, community care or social care? The truth is that this is a systemic challenge, and we will only be able to deal with the challenge in the elective backlog by also acting on urgent and emergency care, general practice, community care, and delayed discharges in social care. We are taking a system-wide approach to meeting this essential target.

A number of things are different from under the previous Government. For example, on the deal with those in the independent sector, giving them the stability and certainty of working with this Government gives them the confidence to open and invest in new capital estate and new kit, particularly in parts of the country that are relatively underserved by the independent sector. We have insisted they do that with their own staff and resources, and that they put their money where their mouth is in relation to training new staff to deal with some of those pressures. That is how we will ensure that we will not be taking Peter from the NHS hospital to treat Paul up the road at the independent hospital.

Finally—I am happy to take more questions on the detail of the plan—the shadow Secretary of State asked what is different from 2022? In fact, I think he asked me to commend my predecessor Sir Sajid Javid for his work in 2022. In the bipartisan spirit of the new year, let me commend the work that he and Sir Sajid Javid did in trying to undo Lord Lansley’s disastrous top-down reorganisation, and that was a very good thing to do. There will be a very big difference between this Government and our Conservative predecessors: real delivery, shorter waiting times and an NHS fit for the future. \p Deirdre Costigan: Does the Secretary of State agree that his plan to transform adult social care services has already started with Labour’s Employment Rights Bill ensuring that social care workers will get fair national pay and conditions, and increased access to training and progression? Does he further agree that we will never have a quality social care service in this country if we do not value the people delivering it properly, as this Labour Government intend to do? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely rightly. The Employment Rights Bill, introduced in our first 100 days, contains provisions for a new fair pay agreement for care workers, and who better to be leading the charge on that than the care worker turned Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson. \p Helen Morgan: I add my thanks to those of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State to all those who worked in our health and care services over Christmas and the new year.

Our health and social care system is in crisis, so the Liberal Democrats are broadly supportive of the measures that the Government have announced today. However,  we do have some concerns, not least that action on social care may arrive too late and that the focus on elective care may come at the expense of emergency care. The Liberal Democrats have long called for cross-party talks on social care, so we are glad that the Government have listened and we look forward to working constructively with the Secretary of State and other UK-wide parties as the review develops. However, carers, care providers and councils are on the brink of bankruptcy and they need solutions right now, not in three years’ time. There have been many such reviews, and what is needed now is action on the recommendations they have made.

It is absolutely crucial that waiting times for elective care are cut radically, so the action announced today to speed up scans and treatment is very positive. A waiting list of more than 6 million people is one of the worst legacies left by the Conservatives, but those legacies include overcrowded A&Es and unacceptable ambulance delays, which can mean the difference between life and death, as people in North Shropshire know only too well. Emergency care is under immense pressure at the moment—one visit to Shrewsbury hospital demonstrates that—and we need bold action if we are to ensure that this is the last ever winter crisis.

As the MP for a rural area, I hear every week from constituents suffering because of the crisis, so they will be following today’s developments closely. Many of my constituents are elderly—far more than average—and they are the people most likely to need the NHS and the most likely to be digitally excluded. According to Age UK, around 29% of people aged 75 and over do not use the internet, and around a third do not have a smartphone. They deserve as much choice and control as everybody else, so can the Secretary of State outline how those without access to the NHS app will be able to benefit from the same options and information as those who do have access?

Will the Secretary of State consider fast-tracking the social care review so that the sector can get the urgent attention it needs? Will he commit to rescuing our emergency services by supporting Liberal Democrat calls to make the NHS winter-proof with a new winter taskforce that builds resilience in hospital wards, A&E departments and patient discharging? Finally, will he define what a working-class area is, because the health and care crisis is acute in rural Britain and we cannot afford to be left behind? \p Wes Streeting: I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support for the commission and for the way in which their party has put the issue of social care much higher up the political agenda, particularly during the general election campaign. That has been very helpful to me in the last six months and to the Government, and we look forward to working with the Liberal Democrats to build as broad a consensus as we can on the solutions to the social care crisis.

As I have mentioned, we have hit the ground running in a number of respects, including the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s. On investment in health and social care, I just point out that the £26 billion the Chancellor allocated to the Department of Health and Social Care alone at the Budget dwarfed what the Liberal Democrats promised in their manifesto. I know  that not all the funding decisions the Chancellor and the Government have made in the last six months for the desperately needed investment in our public services have been popular, but I respectfully say to people who disagree with the decisions the Chancellor has made that they need to spell out which services they would cut or which other taxes they would increase, because those are the choices. We have made our choices; we stand by them. What people cannot do is welcome the investment but not say how they would fund it if they oppose what we have done. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the entire Government have been willing to make unpopular choices in the last six months because we believe they are the right choices to get Britain out of the hole it was left in by our predecessors. People will not thank us for resorting to the short-termist, sticking-plaster, government-by-gimmick politics that plagued this House during the last Parliament.

I turn to some of the other issues that the hon. Lady mentioned. We will make further proposals on urgent and emergency care reform. I want to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS, whether it is “hear and treat” over-the-phone triage—a more appropriate community response that is often faster than ambulance response times—or getting ambulances and ambulance handover speeded up at all our hospitals with the “release to respond” approach. We have seen that working successfully in some parts of the country, but it needs to be consistently rolled out.

The hon. Lady talked about patient choice for those who are digitally disconnected or do not want to organise their lives around their smartphones. That is why I believe very strongly in choice—different courses for different horses. Those of us who do not book appointments over the phone free up the line so that those who prefer doing their business and booking appointments by phone can get through.

The hon. Lady asked us to fast-track the social care work. The first phase of Louise Casey’s commission will report next year, but we are of course willing to talk to parties across the House about how we move forward.

The hon. Lady urges us to set up an urgent and emergency care taskforce. Let me reassure her that the Minister of State for Health my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and I have every week—and often more frequently—convened health and care leaders virtually and in the Department to keep a grip on what is going on, to provide as much central support as possible, and to respond to crises as they emerge. If only that was just about setting up a taskforce. We already have one; what we need is sustained improvement from one year to the next and that is what we are determined to deliver. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: May I suggest that we help each other by asking short questions—with short, punchy answers, I am sure? Ben Coleman will set a good example. \p Ben Coleman: Mr Speaker, I take that personally, in a positive way.

This is a very encouraging statement. It is great to start the new year with some good news and to be so clear that we are keeping our promises as a Government. It is also very good that we are taking the necessary  time to create this cross-party consensus on social care while keeping the show so firmly on the road. Carers will be supported to carry out more health tasks, as they do already in my constituency with wound dressing and medicine management. The problem is they do not have any possibility of career progression. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I forgot your initial encouragement; I will bring this to a close.

Does the Secretary of State agree that as carers are encouraged to do more health tasks, they need proper opportunities for career progression even within the NHS, in collaboration with local authorities? \p Wes Streeting: Brevity was not my hon. Friend’s new year’s resolution, but at your encouraging, Mr Speaker, it is mine. We will provide more training to care professionals to deliver a wider range of tasks in the home, making better use of their skills and the career progression that my hon. Friend describes. Crucially, that career progression must be in status and in pay. That is what we will work with the staff to deliver. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: I welcome the consensual parts of the Secretary of State’s statement, but I wonder whether we have been entirely honest with the public about the sheer unaffordability of the cap proposed by Dilnot. I do not absolve my own Government from this: maybe we should start telling the truth to the public. Does the Secretary of State think we need a new social compact on bringing in social insurance so that people can plan for their entire life? They would know that they will have to pay more in taxes during their life for their old age, but at least they would have certain rights. \p Wes Streeting: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need a debate as a country about the balance of financial contribution between the individual, the family and the state. I well understand why David Cameron was so concerned about catastrophic care costs and people having to sell their homes to pay for their care and the problem he was trying to solve. With every Government since, the issue has been seen as less urgent than others, but that does not mean it does not matter or that we should not consider it as part of the Casey commission. We need to consider all these issues in the round and, as much as we can, build a consensus not just in this House, but throughout the country about the balance of financial contribution and what is fair, equitable and sustainable. \p Jennifer Craft: Just before Christmas, one of my constituents visited my surgery and gave me pause to reflect on the massive, often lifelong impact on loved ones who have someone in the social care system, and the devastating impact on their ability to work and to live healthy, fulfilling lives. Does the Secretary of State agree that the commission will lay the foundation for real change so that people in the social care system and their families can live the healthy, fulfilling lives they deserve? \p Wes Streeting: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, who has done much already in the past six months to champion social care. Whether people are in residential  care home settings or we are doing everything we can to ensure that they can stay in their own homes, everyone deserves to live comfortably, well supported, with independence and with dignity. That is why the steps we are taking, particularly through the disabled facilities grant, will be immediately impactful on thousands of people across the country in just the next three months. We have so much more to do, and that is why I am genuinely excited by the work of the commission. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Layla Moran: Given that the Health and Social Care Committee’s first inquiry is “Adult social care reform: the cost of inaction”, we welcome any action. As the name of the inquiry suggests, we are concerned about the length of time taken, because every year without reform costs money, not only to the NHS, but to the wider economy and in people’s lives. We have Andrew Dilnot in front of us on Wednesday, and it is 14 years since his report, which has been put into legislation twice. I ask the Secretary of State to be specific: what will stop the next iteration of the Committee having Louise Casey in front of it in 15 years’ time? What will be different this time, so that we get that cross-party consensus and it sticks? \p Wes Streeting: That is a great question. First, I will put on my shin pads and crash helmet if Andrew Dilnot is in front of the hon. Lady’s Select Committee this week. I can well understand his frustration. He is a decent man who did an excellent piece of work. It must be frustrating to see one Government after the next not implementing something that was welcomed. The issue for us as an incoming Government is that the money was not there, and even if it had been, the system had not been set up to deliver for the October 2025 deadline. We chose to act on other immediate pressures in other areas, because we saw those needs as more pressing. That does not mean for a moment that I think Andrew Dilnot’s work is no longer valuable—I think it might well be. However, we have to consider the issues in the round and come up with a clear and sustainable plan that we can stick to.

On why the Casey commission will be different and will work, it is important to have as much political consensus around the House as possible. The national consensus and getting the public on board will be important. Anyone who has ever met Louise Casey will know she is a difficult woman to say no to. I have no doubt that if Louise Casey says something needs to be done, this Government and future Governments—whoever is in government—will make sure that it happens. \p Rosena Allin-Khan: Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Yesterday and over the Christmas recess I was working shifts in my local A&E at St George’s in Tooting. Up and down the country, doctors like me were seeing older and disabled patients who could not be discharged from hospital due to a lack of good, affordable social care in the community, so I welcome the steps that have been outlined. What steps will the Secretary of State outline to ameliorate the imminent pressures sooner? \p Wes Streeting: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does on the NHS frontline, particularly when Parliament is in recess but often alongside her everyday work as a Member of this House. It is truly above and beyond the call of duty. She sees at first hand the pressures and failures that the NHS is experiencing.

My hon. Friend is right about delayed discharge. In fact, when I was at Burnrigg Court, a residential care home in Carlisle, last week, I saw wonderful ensuite room facilities with people in intermediate NHS care—there are NHS-funded beds in those care homes—and those people were in better settings at half the costs of the hospital beds they left behind. Delivering better care in the right place at the right time is often not only great for patients but better value for taxpayers. That is why I will be reforming the better care fund to ensure that we make good use of NHS and social care budgets together to get people out of hospital as quickly as possible, freeing up vital bed capacity for others. \p Paul Holmes: I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking community diagnostic hubs and expanding their hours, which is something that the last Conservative Government established. Will he outline what impact that will have on his workforce plan and expand on that? Have the unions accepted the extra hours—they are not excessive by any stretch—that he has proposed? Will he have a serious conversation with me, please, about Fareham community hospital, which has space for a community diagnostic centre that would be welcomed by my constituents in Hamble Valley? \p Wes Streeting: Persistence pays off: I would be happy to receive representations from the hon. Member about his local hospital and the potential to provide more community diagnostics. On the workforce, when we were consulting on this in opposition, we found a real willingness on the part of NHS staff to put in the extra hours, so long as they are fairly remunerated, which they will be. I am grateful for the investment that the Chancellor has provided to enable us to do that.

NHS staff want to see progress to beat the backlog. They are as frustrated as anyone else—and demoralised, actually, at work—seeing people waiting for so long, so I have no doubt about their willingness to assist. I am looking forward to working with NHS staff across the country so that we can all feel that together we are delivering an improving NHS. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: We are going to finish at about 10 to 5, so the speedier we go, the more that will help. \p Rachael Maskell: I thank NHS staff for working under severe duress over this winter. One way of ensuring better patient flows is to have better rehabilitation, so will my right hon. Friend say what he is doing to improve rehabilitation access not only in acute sectors but out in the community? \p Wes Streeting: Further to the previous question, we will be refreshing and updating the NHS workforce plan alongside the long-term plan that we will publish in May, and my hon. Friend is right that rehab is key  not just to good recovery but to prevention of future demand on the NHS. I saw a great example of that rehabilitation delivered in social care settings only last week. Whether in the NHS or in social care, we definitely need to do more on rehabilitation, because rehabilitation is often secondary prevention. \p Ellie Chowns: I agree with the Secretary of State that community-based services are crucial. My local NHS trust contacted me in the week before Christmas about Hereford community diagnostic centre, which is currently in the process of being built. It was told to be ambitious with this project, but in December it was told that only a sixth of the funding that it needs is available. Does today’s announcement mean that the Government will fully fund Hereford community diagnostic centre? \p Wes Streeting: We will certainly write to the hon. Member with further information about Hereford CDC. On capital investment, I say to her and to other right hon. and hon. Members that we were very pleased with what the Chancellor was able to deliver in the Budget. We recognise that the stop-start we saw on a number of capital programmes under our predecessors was frustrating and we are determined not to repeat that. That is why we are setting out clear and consistent proposals for capital investment in the NHS. \p Siobhain McDonagh: Last summer we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the elective orthopaedic centre in south-west London. The driving force behind that was Professor Richard Field, who came to my surgery every week after the 1997 election. With the help of the Prime Minister Tony Blair and the late Health Secretary Frank Dobson, he made it real. It has the lowest blood use rate for hip and knee replacements, the shortest stays and lowest levels of infection. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Professor Richard Field and agree that his elective hubs are the way to cut waiting lists? \p Wes Streeting: I warmly congratulate Professor Richard Field on his clinical leadership, which has made a difference to countless lives, not only in my hon. Friend’s part of London but because of the national example that he set, which many others followed. That confirms my strong conviction that the best innovations will come from great clinicians. It is our determination to make sure that senior leadership in the NHS and in government back great clinical leadership and innovation, and take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. \p Graham Stuart: The Secretary of State said that 12,000 patients had to stay in hospital beds because of a lack of social care, yet we have it kicked down the road once again. What will Louise Casey tell us that we do not already know about the tough political trade-offs that have led successive Governments to fail to create a truly coherent health and social care system, and what will he do to make sure that we meet needs today, as he exemplified in November? \p Wes Streeting: Once again, the arsonist is complaining that the fire brigade is not doing a quick enough job. We are a bit sick of it on the Government Benches, but we are at least rolling up our sleeves, getting on with the job  and making improvements, and we will continue to do that. I heard the same complaints about Darzi: “What can Darzi tell us that we did not already know?” Quite a lot, actually. The Conservatives should hang their heads in shame for it. \p Nadia Whittome: I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment to action. There are 131,000 vacancies in the social care sector, and low wages are the prime culprit. Last year, Unison found that three quarters of care staff who do home visits continue not to be paid for journey times between appointments. Will my right hon. Friend commit to ensuring both a £15-an-hour minimum wage in the social care sector, and paid travel time as a contractual requirement? \p Wes Streeting: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am a proud member of Unison, and I am proud of its work to stand up for its workforce in the social care sector. She and Unison are absolutely right to argue that fair pay is essential to recruitment and retention. That is why I am delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister included fair pay agreements in the Employment Rights Bill in the first 100 days. I am looking forward to working with Unison, GMB and others to negotiate the first ever fair pay agreements for care professionals in this country. \p Alison Bennett: I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State could unpack a phrase in his statement. He said:

“Where we can treat working people faster, we will”.

That phrase is ripe for misinterpretation. Please could he explain what that means? Does it mean stay-at-home mums waiting for an appointment, and family carers, 26% of whom are on waiting lists? \p Wes Streeting: It does. I was talking about the fact that working class people are often left behind in a two-tier system where those who can afford it pay to go private, and those who cannot are left behind. It is the determination of this Government to bring back to life the essential Bevanite principle of an NHS that is there for everyone when they need it: healthcare available to all on the basis of need, not on ability to pay. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I welcome the commission, which hopefully will lead to some certainty on the future of social care. However, a 2023 National Audit Office report found that 17% of local authority directors of social services were concerned about their ability to meet statutory obligations last year, and a further 18% are concerned about their ability this year. I have concerns about what will be done to fix the immediate crisis in social care. Will my right hon. Friend outline what he will do to guarantee the sustainability of our care system now, while we await the further structural reforms that we dearly need? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. That is why in the Budget the Chancellor delivered a big uplift in the spending power of local authorities, with £880 million ringfenced specifically for social care. We are also delivering through measures such as the disabled facilities grant to deal immediately  with the pressures—[Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) complaining. He voted against the investment, so he cannot very well complain about it. \p Andrew Murrison: The previous Labour Government did a hatchet job on community hospitals, including in Wiltshire, with a consequent uptick in the amount of delayed discharges in the acute sector, notably at Bath, Salisbury and the Great Western in Swindon. Will the Casey commission look at that and find ways of unpicking the damage that was done? \p Wes Streeting: The previous Labour Government delivered the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. \p Peter Prinsley: There are very worrying reports of cash-strapped universities reducing the numbers of clinical academics; indeed, some are being made redundant at a time when there is increased demand for doctors. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is an extremely concerning development? \p Wes Streeting: Clinical academics have an important role to play in the national health service and in innovation in medicine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is focused on university finances, and I think universities should ensure that they prioritise efficiently and effectively, making best use of the resources available to them. I would gently say that universities have not struggled as much as other parts of the public sector over the past 14 years. \p Llinos Medi: During 14 years of austerity, the NHS has been starved of the resources it badly needs. Four months ago, the Secretary of State for Wales made a big announcement about cross-border NHS partnership to tackle waiting lists; however, the First Minister of Wales later poured cold water over the idea, and today’s plan for England does not mention Wales. Was this so-called partnership ever real, or was it just another empty promise? \p Wes Streeting: By definition, an elective recovery plan for England does not include Wales. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that we have a great working relationship with Jeremy Miles, the Health Minister in the Welsh Government, and with the First Minister herself. Not only are we providing support to the Welsh Government on elective reform to help them to cut waiting lists and waiting times, but we are receiving advice from the Welsh Government on areas where health and social care services are doing better than in England. Together, we will create a rising tide that lifts all ships across the UK. \p Jo White: Bassetlaw has an increasingly older population, with 22% now over the age of 65. As the needs of my constituents change, I welcome the additional £198,000 in funding for local disabled facilities grants. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to shift care out of our hospitals and into our community? \p Wes Streeting: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for championing that issue since she arrived in the House six months ago. The disabled facilities grant is not just about new handrails, new ramps, new accessible kitchens and bathrooms and home adaptations; it is about freedom, independence, dignity and happiness. It is really good investment in preventing demand on other health and care services by giving people back their own independence and happiness. \p Harriett Baldwin: My constituents will welcome the opportunity to get more services delivered through their GP surgeries, of which there are many excellent examples in West Worcestershire, and through community hospitals. However, I hear from those very same GP surgeries their concerns over the national insurance rises, and how that is leading them to think about reducing services. When will the Secretary of State be able to square that circle? \p Wes Streeting: Before Christmas—I appreciate that it was just before, but I wanted to get out the certainty to general practitioners before we all went off for Christmas—we announced the biggest uplift in funding for general practice in a considerable number of years, and we will now negotiate the contract in the usual way. That should give general practitioners the stability and certainty to know that this Government are determined to fix the front door to the NHS.

The other thing I would say to the Opposition is that they cannot continue to welcome the investment while opposing the means of raising it, unless they spell out which services they would cut or which other taxes they would increase. They do not have an answer; they do not have a leg to stand on. \p Matt Rodda: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and his emphasis on investment and reform. Will he say a little more about the important role of training for staff and investment in new technologies such as AI to speed up diagnostics? \p Wes Streeting: Of the many great possibilities and opportunities facing this country are our strengths in life sciences and medical technology. If we can combine the strength of our scientific and technological base with the ingenuity and care of our NHS staff and our ability to deliver at scale with the model that was designed in 1948, which is well served to take us well into the 21st century, the sky is the limit for what we can achieve. We will have to support staff through that revolution. I appreciate that for many staff working in the NHS today they would be grateful if the machine simply turned on when they turned up for work. \p Sarah Dyke: I am concerned about the lengthy timescale set out in the social care review, with the second phase not due to report until 2028. The care system is broken and it particularly affects rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton. For example, a resident in Castle Cary, a 105-year-old D-day veteran, is facing moving care homes due to high care costs. This will have a negative impact on his health, wellbeing and quality of life. What actions will the Secretary of State take in the near term to reform the social care sector and provide older people with the dignity they deserve? \p Wes Streeting: I am very grateful for that question for two reasons. First, it gives me the chance once again to say that the first part of the Casey commission will be reporting next year, so we can set out a whole range of further actions that will be needed throughout this Parliament. We have taken a great number of actions already in the first six months and I dare say there will be more to follow in the next 12 months. I must say it is very encouraging that one thing we are hearing from across the House on the Casey commission overall is to go faster. I think that shows genuine cross-party appetite on this issue and that is a really good place to start. \p Stella Creasy: I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to tackling the backlog of appointments—all our constituents would benefit from that—and his honest recognition that there is a risk, because there are not two separate workforces. Unless we have sensible safeguards, we could end up paying the same NHS doctors more to do operations in the private sector. The Secretary of State for Education set a cap on the profits that can be made in the children’s care sector. Is the Secretary of State considering a similar cap to protect the NHS and ensure value for money in his work with the independent sector in the NHS? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful for that question. I am not sure that the level of exploitation in either independent healthcare or adult social care mirrors what we have seen, disgracefully, in children’s social care, but we keep a sharp eye on that. I remind my hon. Friend of the commitments we made in opposition around tackling the excesses and the worst kind of behaviour of some private equity-owned care homes that are leeching money out of the system. We will not tolerate that. We will act to regulate further. I hope that provides Members across the House with the assurance that we are taking both a principled and a pragmatic approach to the constructive and positive relationship we want to build with the independent sector, as we rebuild our national health service and build a national care service we can be proud of. \p John Glen: I would love to see a consensus evolve on social care. I welcome the Secretary of State’s appointment of Louise Casey and the talk about the balance between the individual family and the state. However, in every fiscal event that I was part of in the Treasury, more money was put into the NHS, so I respectfully ask the Secretary of State this: what does he say about wide variance in performance across the NHS? Secondly, what does he say about consumption patterns? I understand his emphasis on the Deliveroo concept, but we have to come to terms with the fact that most GPs would say that they have excessive demand from people who do not really need to see their GP. That is a delicate and difficult subject to grasp, but one that we really must grasp, collectively, in this place. \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful for that thoughtful question. Let me say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. The first relates to the wider fiscal pressures on the Chancellor. I find it difficult enough to manage the different choices and trade-offs to be made between different parts of health and social care and the competing challenges that I hear from Members in all parts of the House, so I am always thankful that I am not the Chancellor of the  Exchequer, who has to balance demands from the NHS alongside the demands of education, a rising welfare bill, rising child poverty and the threats to our nation. These are enormous challenges, which is why I am determined to ensure that every penny that goes into the health service is well spent.

My second responsibility, in addition to ensuring that patients are treated at the right time, in the right place and in the right way, is ensuring that we have a sustainable healthcare system in which there is reduced demand. That means doing more on the prevention side, so that we can keep people out of hospital and not needing to knock on the door of their GP surgery, so that they do not achieve the frequent flier status in the NHS that so many people do achieve—the one frequent flier status to which they do not aspire. We can deal with this only through both health service reform and public health reform, and I want very much to build cross-party consensus on the latter. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. That was a very lengthy answer. \p Nesil Caliskan: Just before Christmas, I met care workers in my constituency, who told me about the day-to-day work that they do supporting the most vulnerable people in our community. Does the Secretary of State agree that just as access to GPs helps to relieve pressure on hospitals and A&E departments, an adequate number of adult social care workers will help to relieve the pressure on our GP services, which also have to deal with huge demand? \p Wes Streeting: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who has done much to bang the drum on this issue during the six months in which she has been a Member of this House. That is why we are taking a systematic approach to health and social care reform. \p Seamus Logan: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for writing to the leader of my party. I am sure that the Scottish Government will co-operate and engage fully with Baroness Casey as she does her work. The Secretary of State spoke of failure. One such failure—the elephant in the room, in fact—is the labour shortages that the NHS and social care are experiencing as a result of Brexit. I ask him not to pass the buck, but to tell me what steps he will take, after consultation with Cabinet colleagues, to address those shortages by making it easier for migrant workers to come to this country and fill the vacancies. \p Wes Streeting: We had a referendum and two subsequent general elections on the issue of Brexit, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that none of those three democratic events went the way that I wanted. As we said to people at the time, the country chose a path that would have consequences and implications. However, we have a constructive working relationship with our friends and allies in the European Union, and while we cannot change the past, we can build a new partnership and a brighter future for our country. \p Derek Twigg: As my right hon. Friend will know, a large number of elderly people are admitted to hospital, through A&E, with  respiratory conditions. What plans does he have to strengthen the community respiratory teams, who do a great deal of good work but could do more work, if they had the resources, to prevent admission, and certainly readmission? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why the vaccination campaign has been so important this winter. He is also right about the importance of community-based teams. One of the Darzi conclusions was that since 2019, we have significantly increased staffing in our hospitals, but because we had the wrong people in the wrong place, we ended up with falling productivity in hospitals. We need a shift out of hospital into the community, which is what our 10-year plan will deliver. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Most residential social care in England is delivered by the private sector. Is the Secretary of State able to give local authorities the resources necessary to allow them to reopen residential care facilities, or to open the new facilities that are so desperately needed? Will he assure me that in the review that Baroness Casey is undertaking, the primary objective will be the delivery of a public sector national care service, not a privatised service? \p Wes Streeting: Thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget, we are boosting the spending power of local authorities significantly, and £880 million has been ringfenced specifically for social care. I appreciate that a single Budget cannot undo 14 years of Conservative failure, but this is an important start, and of course we want year-on-year improvement in the delivery of social care. Baroness Casey will consider all these issues, and also how we can improve ease of access and care quality across the public and private sectors. \p Calvin Bailey: I strongly welcome the Government’s action to help my constituents in Leyton and Wanstead get the care that they need faster. Our local hospital, Whipps Cross, continues to struggle, despite the hard work of its staff and leaders, NHS workers and carers, who continued to provide services to our community over Christmas. In November, 36% of patients at Whipps waited more than four hours for emergency care. In recent weeks, 16% have waited longer than 12 hours. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this welcome package of long-term reforms will address both elective care and emergency care for our constituents by moving the effort from hospital to the community? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. If we improve the service at Whipps Cross hospital for his constituents, it will have the added benefit of improving the service at Whipps Cross Hospital for my constituents, too. \p Rebecca Smith: What is missing from today’s announcement is any sort of update on the new hospitals programme review, which is vital in my constituency of South West Devon, because Derriford hospital needs its urgent and emergency care centre to bring down ambulance waiting times before it can even start to tackle its general waiting list issues. When will Derriford hospital hear whether it has been successful in the new hospitals programme review? \p Wes Streeting: I was grateful to staff at Derriford hospital for showing me at first hand the emergency department pressures when I visited just before Christmas. I have also visited Derriford at the height of summer, when it experiences high pressures. There are year-round difficulties at Derriford, and I thank the staff and leadership of the hospital for what they are doing in difficult circumstances. We will come forward shortly with the timetable for the new hospitals programme. I expect that it will be published sooner than the Conservatives apologise for their appalling record. \p Debbie Abrahams: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but can he expand a bit more on the new agreement with the private sector? For example, he mentioned that the surgical hubs will be delivered solely by the private sector, but what arrangements will there be for emergency care, when the occasion arises? \p Wes Streeting: Some of the new capacity announced in today’s elective reform plan will come through the independent sector, and some of that new capacity will be in the NHS. It is our ambition to rebuild the NHS so that it is available for everyone where and when they need it, and we will work with the independent sector. We are publishing full details of our independent sector agreement, so that people can see the deal that we have reached, and the sensible and effective partnership, including safeguards and protections, that we have come to. I look forward to working with the sector to make sure that everyone, whatever their income and background, can get faster access to care. \p Gavin Williamson: When the Casey review reports, if its recommendations are implemented, it will have a significant impact on local government. As the Secretary of State will be aware, large parts of the country are going through local government reorganisation, and the outcomes of the Casey review will determine the right reorganisation for those areas. In the best interests of joined-up government, to use an old Blairite phrase, is there any way to bring forward the review, so that the best choices for local government reorganisation can be made? \p Wes Streeting: I can definitely reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Deputy Prime Minister and I are working very closely on this issue, which is close to her heart; she has a huge amount of experience in this area. We will follow her progress as she embarks on her local government reforms. Baroness Casey will take those reforms into account when she considers what the long-term future for social care will look like. Once again, I note the exhortation to go faster. \p Clive Efford: When I raise concerns about GP appointments, GPs tell me that they have difficulty recruiting to posts in their practices. Too few newly qualified doctors choose general practice as their profession. What can we do to get those doctors in place, so that we can make diagnostics in the community work? \p Wes Streeting: That is an excellent question. Having put in place funding to ensure that there are 1,000 more GPs on the frontline before April, and having announced just before Christmas a significant uplift for general practice, I hope that in the first six months of this Government, we have sent the strong message to people who aspire to long careers in medicine that general practice has a huge role to play in the NHS in the 21st century. It is an exciting place to be, but I recognise that we have to fix the front door to the NHS to make it more attractive. The situation is even worse than my hon. Friend has described, because when the Conservatives left government, there were qualified GPs unable to find jobs, at a time when patients were unable to find GPs. We got to work on that issue within weeks of taking office, and we will do more over the next 12 months. \p Jim Shannon: It is good to hear the latest announcements on overhauling the increasingly costly care for older and disabled people, and I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said. I understand that this will happen through a three-year review, and that we will be clearer on the plan to introduce this in 2028. Health is devolved to Northern Ireland, but thousands of care packages in Northern Ireland are not fulfilled. What can he do to assist Northern Ireland in achieving its goals? Goals that are set here for England and the United Kingdom need to be in place in Northern Ireland as well. \p Wes Streeting: The ministerial team and I have enjoyed working with counterparts in the devolved Governments over the last six months, and we will continue to do that. Thanks to the decisions that the Chancellor took in the Budget, we see significant investment in health and care services here in England, and the Barnett consequentials will create a rising tide that will lift all ships across England, Wales and Scotland. I might even say that all roads lead to Westminster. I say this to Scottish National party colleagues: down the road to Westminster lie the resources for the SNP Government, so they do not have an excuse not to act. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: I am sorry that we could not get everybody in. I tried to go as fast as I could. The names of those who did not get in have been noted. \p Emma Hardy: Happy new year to everybody in the House. I would like to update the House on the flooding situation in England, and I start by extending my heartfelt sympathy to all the people and businesses affected. Having your home or place of work flooded at any time is a horrendous experience, but it is particularly dreadful at a time of hope and celebration for individuals and communities, and I hope that those affected will be able to rebuild in the days ahead.

The latest set of flood events come in what has already been a challenging autumn and winter storm season. A combination of heavy rain, snow and high winds has affected England since 30 December, with the worst rain arriving on 1 January. Many new year’s eve celebrations were cancelled, and people in the north-west and central England woke up in the new year to find rivers at record levels, and roads, car parks, businesses and, unfortunately, dozens of homes flooded. Last night saw further heavy rain and flooding, affecting transport infrastructure and other services. The Environment Agency’s areas of most concern today are focused in the midlands, Warwickshire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. In Leicestershire, the fire and rescue service has declared a major incident.

There remains extensive floodwater in rivers and other bodies of water, and a lot of the ground is saturated. The news and social media have shown the flooding of fields and our transport infrastructure, and the impact that water has on our communities. As hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate, this is an ongoing and dynamic situation, but I wanted to come here and provide the latest and most detailed updates possible on what is happening and how we are responding.

On new year’s eve, the Met Office issued rainfall warnings across most of England, including an amber rain warning for large areas of the north-west, and 164 flood warnings and 154 flood alerts were issued by the Environment Agency between new year’s eve and new year’s day. During that period, rain fell across large parts of England; the worst impacted areas were in the north-west, including Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and parts of Yorkshire. The highest-ever levels on the River Mersey were recorded. Environment Agency teams operated flood basins at Catterall, Garstang and Croston in Lancashire, and at Lilford, Sale and Didsbury in Greater Manchester.

Cheshire was a specific area of concern. A major incident was declared, with over 100 families in the Warrington area needing evacuation. A large section of the Bridgewater canal’s embankment collapsed, with water draining on to farmland and inundating a waste water treatment works owned by United Utilities. The owner of the canal, Peel Holdings, took emergency action to stop the flow of water and, although the treatment works were inaccessible for a time, United Utilities has assured us that the plant is back up and running. A number of evacuations were needed, even where properties were not flooded, including for 400 residents of the Britannia hotel in Didsbury.

Although some of the heavy rain had passed by 2 January, subsequent cold weather impacted much of the same areas, hampering recovery efforts and adding further misery for those whose homes had flooded. Environment Agency staff continued their work across the country and brought in mutual aid from unaffected areas to help efforts in the worst-hit areas. They were also operating defences, supporting emergency response partners in managing live incidents, and continuing to issue flood warnings to warn and advise communities at risk.

Late yesterday evening there was further heavy rainfall across parts of England, leading to a combination of river and surface water flooding. The Environment Agency is continuing to respond in affected areas, including Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Birmingham, Nuneaton, Loughborough and the Rivers Trent, Avon and Idle in the midlands. The Environment Agency reports that at least 350 properties have flooded and more than 21,000 properties have been protected since new year’s eve. Over the next 24 to 36 hours, as water moves to lower reaches and slower-responding catchments, there is likely to be some localised flooding across multiple smaller areas.

Climate change will inevitably lead to more severe weather of the kind we have seen this weekend, but I reassure the House that flooding is a personal priority for me and a top-five priority for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This Government inherited flood defences in the worst condition on record, following years of under-investment. Due to the impacts of inflation, an ageing asset base and the previous Government making no additional funding available to repair storm damage, flood defence integrity is at its lowest level since 2009-10, with approximately 60,000 properties less well protected than if flood defences were at optimal condition. That is why we are investing £2.4 billion over the next two years to build and maintain flood defences.

We have set up a new flood resilience taskforce to ensure better co-ordination between central Government and frontline agencies on the ground and throughout the country. The taskforce brings together organisations including the Association of Drainage Authorities, the National Farmers Union, local resilience forums and emergency responders. The taskforce is key to strengthening resilience in the face of floods, and it met for the first time in September and will meet later this month. We have also provided £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented flooding last winter, and an additional £50 million will be distributed to internal drainage boards to manage water levels to protect the environment and agriculture.

To make the most of our flood funding, we will refresh our approach to funding flood defences, including through a review of the existing flood funding formula to ensure that the challenges facing businesses and rural and coastal communities are taken into account in the delivery of flood protection. We will consult on this new approach in the new year, and I will inform all Members when the consultation goes live. We aim to bring in the new approach from April 2026.

The Environment Agency’s community and field teams are out today to assess and report on the impacts of the last 24 hours. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking the emergency services, the local authorities,  the Environment Agency and the volunteers for their work in keeping communities, properties and businesses safe.

I also recognise the work done by many local MPs—including Jo Platt, the MP for Leigh and Atherton—and their constituents. Residents of Lilford, in Leigh, have been impacted by flooding twice in recent years, which is proof that resilience measures and investment need to be reassessed constantly, and we as a Government are committed to supporting residents to do that. I know that many more MPs wanted to be here but, because of the flooding, are out supporting their constituents. I thank them all, and I specifically mention James Naish in Rushcliffe, who is out supporting constituents right now.

I held a call on Friday to update MPs, and I am grateful that the shadow Minister was able to join. I will continue to communicate with Members as they raise issues. Flooding is such an important issue, and I will work tirelessly to make our communities more resilient. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I remind Members that it is protocol to reference Members of Parliament by their constituency, not by their name. I call the shadow Minister. \p Neil Hudson: I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I put on the record my gratitude to the Minister and her whole team for hosting a constructive and helpful cross-party meeting on Friday, together with officials from DEFRA, the Environment Agency, the Met Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I pay tribute to the emergency services, local authorities and the Environment Agency for their efforts, over the challenging festive period and the ongoing start of the working year, to help people quickly, often in dangerous circumstances. I thank members of the public, volunteer groups and our amazing farmers, who have once again stepped in to help their neighbours and local communities in difficult times.

The current flooding, snow and rain have had, and continue to have, hugely detrimental impacts across the United Kingdom. Today, roads are closed, many schools have been unable to reopen on what should have been the first day of term, rail services have been suspended, and airports have experienced extreme delays. Furthermore, as the Minister said, as a result of the extreme weather Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service has declared a major incident across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Our thoughts are with all those whose homes and businesses have been damaged, and with all those who continue to be affected.

Many of those people will be distressed, angry and completely exhausted as they begin the new year with the process of restoring and rebuilding their homes and businesses. I sound a bit like a broken record, but I reiterate that we must not underestimate the mental health impacts of flooding on communities, in respect of both the anxiety of being flooded and the trauma  when flooding hits. It is essential that practical support is provided as quickly as possible and remains in place after the waters have subsided and the blue lights have departed. Will the Minister update us on the action the Government are taking to get schools open as soon as possible? What steps are her Department taking to ensure that insurance claims can be processed as quickly as possible, so that those affected can return to their homes as soon as they can?

In addition, what steps are the Government taking to review and potentially expand the vital Flood Re scheme, so that insurance cover is expanded in terms of the age of building eligibility and to include businesses? We discussed that issue at the cross-party meeting on Friday. While in government, the Conservatives ringfenced £100 million to help communities threatened by repeated flooding. Will the Minister commit to that funding, and will those affected by flooding again, in the latest period of bad weather, be eligible to apply?

Furthermore, will the Minister provide assurances that discretionary funding, such as the flood recovery framework or the Bellwin scheme, will be implemented to alleviate the effects of flooding? Even if the thresholds for the numbers of properties affected are sometimes not met, will the Minister and her colleagues across Government commit to a compassionate, pragmatic and case-by-case approach to awarding that vital discretionary funding?

Additionally, the previous Conservative Government established the farming recovery fund to support farmers recovering from uninsurable damage. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will renew that Conservative initiative and provide new funding for this winter’s storms?

Finally, the Secretary of State has set up a flood resilience taskforce to improve flood preparedness that has met only once. What work did the taskforce do ahead of the latest bad weather? Should it not meet more regularly—certainly before the end of this month, as the Minister stated—to learn any lessons and to respond to the ever-dynamic weather events we have seen in recent weeks? With many warnings for flooding still in place, I know that many people will be experiencing huge anxiety and uncertainty, so I conclude by wishing every community, and the services and people supporting them, a safe period moving forward. \p Emma Hardy: I will try to answer as many of the hon. Gentleman’s questions as I can. I share his concern about the impact of flooding on people’s mental health, which cannot be exaggerated. Someone losing their home, or seeing it damaged, and having to move out over the winter has a devastating impact on them. I agree that farmers have done a great job in supporting communities at risk of flooding.

On Flood Re, we do not currently have plans to extend the scope; however, we regularly review all policies. If any hon. Member wants to contact me with specific suggestions on Flood Re, I am open to receiving them.

On the different pockets of funding that the previous Government announced, we will look at how the flood funding formula works as a whole. I mentioned the review of the formula, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as it goes live so that he can join in the consultation.

We will hopefully be able to announce the schemes that are being funded by next month. I know that people have been impatient to receive that information. We have worked as quickly as we can. There is a formula for when Bellwin is activated—a local authority has to hit a certain level of expenditure. We have been really pleased that money from the farming recovery fund has already arrived in farmers’ bank accounts. We have been getting that money out the door to the people who need it the most. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Tim Roca, member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. \p Tim Roca: I join both Front-Benchers in paying tribute to the communities, volunteers and neighbours who helped each other with the floods over recent days. Communities affected in my part of the world, particularly in Poynton and Bollington, all pulled together. The A555 road runs through a number of constituencies, and poor engineering has been raised several times as a reason why it floods, affecting local residents. Will the Minister join me in speaking with the Department for Transport and local authorities to try to get to the bottom of why it repeatedly ends up failing our residents? \p Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend for his work to support his community at this difficult time. If I can be of assistance in talking to the Department for Transport, of course I will be. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Dyke: Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. New Environment Agency modelling shows that one in four properties in England, including an additional 39,000 homes in the south-west, could be at risk of flooding by 2050.

Like many across Glastonbury and Somerton, I watch this happen in real time. Residents are on high alert, they are anxious and their mental health is suffering. Knole is a small hamlet between Langport and Somerton that previously never flooded, but last winter nine homes flooded every month. With just 40 houses in the hamlet, such incidents have a huge impact on the local community. One affected resident told me they had to watch the ingress of water through every wall in their house. Another said they were unable to return home until mid-summer after last year’s winter flooding. Their experiences and those of many residents across Somerset, and those set out in the national flood risk assessment, show that heavier rainfall and rising sea levels already threaten 2.4 million properties, so will the Minister commit to ensuring that agencies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency are properly funded to deal with flooding and future flooding? \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Lady is right to point out the impact on people’s mental health. I urge her to invite communities that experience repeated flooding to look at the Build Back Better scheme. They could be able to access an extra £10,000 to make their homes more resilient to flooding. As I said, this is something that I  care deeply about, as does the Department, which is why we are investing £2.4 billion in delivering, improving and maintaining flood defences. \p Jo White: Mr Wilson of Blackstope Lane in Retford contacted me this morning, worried that water was once again coming close to his property. He has been flooded out many times, but today I thank the Minister for the work of the Environment Agency; staff were on site with their pumps from the early hours of this morning. They tell me that the clearance work on local culverts has made a difference and the water has been kept at bay. Mr Wilson’s hope is that that will continue. \p Emma Hardy: I share my hon. Friend’s thanks to the Environment Agency. It does an incredible job and was out there working new year’s eve and new year’s day—not celebrating like many of us, but out helping and supporting. I am pleased to hear that positive story from her constituency. \p Lincoln Jopp: The people of Spelthorne have been holding their breath during this flood season. Obviously, prevention is better than cure. Can the Minister update us on the River Thames scheme and on when a decision about whether it will go ahead and when will be taken? \p Emma Hardy: I just mentioned in response to the shadow Minister that we should be able to announce which schemes have been successful by next month at the latest. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with more information, I can give him a more detailed response on the scheme he mentions, but I recognise how important many of the schemes are to so many people. \p Julie Minns: I have been personally affected by flooding. In 1985, our family home was flooded when the River Caldew in Carlisle burst its banks. I can testify, as we have already heard, to the terror and powerlessness that people feel when their home is invaded by water. Although over the past few weeks we have escaped flooding in Carlisle, tomorrow marks 20 years since Carlisle was flooded and three residents, Margaret Threlkeld, Margaret Porter and Michael Scott, lost their lives. At that point, the Labour Government commissioned and completed flood defences, but they proved insufficient to hold back the River Eden in 2015, and the city was flooded again. Flood defences were commissioned but not completed by the last Government. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that the residents of Carlisle have been left unprotected as a result of the last Government’s inaction? \p Emma Hardy: Hearing the news that anybody has lost their life in a flood event is truly devastating, and my sympathies are with the family and loved ones of those victims. My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of delivering on the promise to build flood defences and to highlight that poor maintenance of flood defences puts an additional 60,000 homes at risk of flooding. She has already proven herself to be a fantastic champion by getting hold of me at every available opportunity to advocate for her constituency, and long may she continue to do so. \p Esther McVey: A number of my constituents have been affected by flooding and in a variety of ways. The Minister mentioned in her opening statement the breach of the Bridgewater canal, the damage that that has caused in Cheshire, and the immediate repair work that needs to be done by Peel. What is being done to ensure that local authorities clear blocked drains, because that is the root of most of the flooding? \p Emma Hardy: The right hon. Lady is right that we need a combination of things to deal with flooding. There is a concern around the canal, which I am aware of and am grateful for her mentioning it, but it is important to look at lots of different things, including clearing out culverts and drains where appropriate. Many things need to be done together to ensure that we build resilience to flooding. We cannot put all our eggs in one basket, but certainly taking more of those smaller actions will have a cumulative effect and help the situation. \p Jeevun Sandher: Over the past 24 hours, heavy rainfall has led to flooding in my constituency in Loughborough, Quorn and Hathern. A year ago, the Prime Minister visited Loughborough when that bout of flooding ruined homes—we were both deeply moved. The Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), has also visited those homes. I am grateful that the Minister has strengthened flood defences since she was appointed. I am incredibly grateful that this time the flood has left less damage, but heavier rainfall will come due to climate change. Will the Minister set out how this Government will protect homes in my community, and will she meet me to discuss how we can do everything we can to protect our homes? \p Emma Hardy: Again, my hon. Friend is right to point out how devastating flooding is. I would of course be happy to meet him and discuss the situation in his constituency, but just to reassure him, we will spend £2.4 billion in the next two years to strengthen, improve and maintain our flood defences. \p John Glen: The £13 million investment in the Salisbury river park scheme is a fantastic intervention, but I urge the Minister to continue working with the Environment Agency to find mechanisms with which parishes can work collaboratively with it to develop smaller schemes. Beyond the crisis management that she and the Environment Agency are working on at the moment, does she recognise that there is concern about inadequate scrutiny of the increased flood risk around new developments? If we are to reassure our constituents when more housing is put into the mix, it is important that there be proper consideration of the effect on flood risk. Many people in Salisbury remain concerned about those outcomes. \p Emma Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman is always welcome to urge me to do many things. His proposal on how the Environment Agency works with local parishes is an interesting one, and I would be happy to hear more of his thoughts on it. To reassure people about new homes, we have committed to building more high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes, and to ensuring that they do not increase flood risk and are not at risk of flooding. If alternative sites are not available and developments need to be in locations where there is a  risk of flooding, they must be flood resilient and resistant for their lifetimes, and must not increase overall flood risk. \p Rachael Maskell: I put on record my thanks to City of York council workers, as well as to the Environment Agency, for protecting our city over the new year period. Many businesses in my city flood periodically. Will the Minister think again about a review of the insurance system for businesses, so that they have resilience and confidence moving forward? \p Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for joining the call that we held with all the different organisations on the Friday. I anticipated that I might be pushed on that question, and I have to admire her persistence on it. Of course, I understand the importance of Flood Re and of businesses having insurance. The Flood Re scheme was originally designed in a very specific way, but I am always happy to take further representations from my hon. Friend. \p Layla Moran: I received an email from Laura, a constituent in Abingdon. She lives in an area that has been flooded three times in the past year—in fact, there is a flood warning for the River Ock again today. She says that the flooding means she cannot sell her house—nor can any of her neighbours —as estate agents say that it must be five years dry before they will even consider it. As a result, my constituents stand to lose millions between them and some have lost jobs because they cannot move. What work is the Department doing with estate agents and the building industry to ensure that newly built houses are built well, and that houses that need to be sold can be sold? \p Emma Hardy: As I outlined earlier, we will ensure that any new homes are resistant to flooding and, importantly, do not contribute to more flooding in other areas—that is incredibly important. I do not know the details of the area and the constituents the hon. Lady mentions—such as whether a flood scheme is ready to be developed there or they have thought about property flood resilience measures—but if she gives me more information, I will happily look at it. \p Adam Jogee: I thank the Minister for the call on Friday. I welcome her commitment to supporting my constituents and improving our flood defences. As well as maintaining defences, it is very much about maintaining existing infrastructure, and ensuring in particular that our drains are unblocked, to reiterate the point made by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). Staffordshire county council has an important role to play in that in Newcastle-under-Lyme, but it is very much missing in action. What engagement has the Minister had with local government, and will she meet me to discuss the specific flooding challenges faced by constituents in Madeley, Silverdale, Cross Heath, Alsagers Bank, and those using the subways in town? \p Emma Hardy: Part of the reason that we wanted to set up the flood resilience taskforce was to end the siloed working between different Government organisations. It is jointly chaired by me and a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can look at where issues overlap. How can I turn down an invitation to meet my hon. Friend? \p Sarah Bool: Across my constituency, be it in Grendon or Bugbrooke, flood warnings come hours after the flood events have occurred. What action will the Minister take to ensure that flood warnings are timely and accurate? \p Emma Hardy: That is a really important question, and I am grateful that the hon. Lady has raised it. Of course, in the majority of situations in which flood warnings went out, people were given timely notice—again, I ask all Members to please encourage their constituents to sign up for flood warnings—but I am now looking at situations in which those warnings were not received in time with the Met Office and the Environment Agency, to understand why that has happened and how we can improve it in the future. We need to ensure that people are getting those warnings as quickly as possible so that they can take the actions needed. \p John Slinger: I visited the village of Wolston in my constituency this morning. I met the council emergency teams and members of the flood action group. I saw the community spirit in action, with refreshments being supplied by volunteers at the Baptist church. Most importantly, I visited residents who have been suffering. One of the issues raised with me was the property flood resilience grant and its operation. Residents mentioned that they need to find £800 for a survey, and that contractors ask for £300 before they give a quote. They talked about major delays, and I saw the consequences of those delays, because some of the houses that were flooded would have benefited from the preventive measures. Will the Minister take a look at that mechanism and write to me about it? \p Emma Hardy: Of course, where schemes are not working as effectively as they should—where there is room for improvement—this Government will make sure they do everything they can to improve things and make them better. I am happy to receive that communication. \p Ellie Chowns: Like the shadow Minister, I feel like a bit of a stuck record on the topic of flooding. This is the fourth month running in which I have spoken on it in the House, because it is the fourth month running in which my constituency has been flooded. Today, yet again, roads are inundated, trains are cancelled and homes are taking in water.

In her statement, the Minister mentioned the fact that climate change means that these incidents will become more frequent and severe, but there was no explicit mention of climate adaptation in the measures she set out. In our response to this issue, we surely have to take the challenge of climate adaptation seriously as a whole-of-Government challenge. The chair of the Climate Change Committee has said that the UK is “not ready”, so what is the Minister doing with colleagues across Government to ensure we take the challenge of climate adaptation as seriously as possible? Otherwise, we will be back here month after month. \p Emma Hardy: I cannot speak for all of Government, but I can certainly speak for what we are doing about property flood resilience—how we make our homes more resilient to flooding. We know that flooding is going to become more frequent because of changes to  the climate, so climate adaptation is an area I am very keen on. That is why I met with all the insurance companies last year, bringing them all together, because I want every single insurance company to offer build back better, making more homes flood resilient. Of course, it is important that we look not only at retrofitting what we already have, but at what is happening with new builds. \p Amanda Martin: I echo the Minister’s heartfelt sympathies for those feeling the impact of flooding and those who are in fear of future flooding. I also echo her thanks to the services and communities who have helped those victims. In Drayton and Farlington in my constituency, groundwater floods up through the drains into houses, drives, gardens and businesses. Despite being contacted by residents and by myself, Southern Water has not acted, because it is not sewage. I would like to see DEFRA working with water companies and local government to ensure that type of flooding is also taken seriously, to make sure that residents and businesses are listened to, and to improve resilience in our drainage systems. \p Emma Hardy: I share my hon. Friend’s upset about the fact that this issue is not being taken seriously enough by Southern Water, but having known her for a very long time, I have no doubt that if there is someone who will make that company listen, it is her. I am happy to support her with that. \p Lewis Cocking: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank everyone who has been out helping over the past few days. Every time there is heavy rainfall or a storm, roads all across Broxbourne flood, from Stanstead Abbotts to Waltham Cross. What action will the Minister’s Department take to decrease flooding events in built-up areas? We in Broxbourne have not always seen the good side of the Environment Agency, so what can we do to increase its accountability as well? \p Emma Hardy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I am sorry to hear that the experience of the Environment Agency has not been what he expects. I would be more than happy to put him in touch with the EA area director, so that they can have a conversation and work out how to improve the situation. Urban flooding is one of the reasons we want to look at what are called SUDS—sustainable urban drainage systems—and how we can integrate more of those into our communities to help deal with some of the problems with surface water flooding. \p Luke Charters: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for and congratulate her on how she has engaged with Members of this House, and how she has supported me and my constituents in delivering a pump at Hartrigg Oaks. May I invite her to support another scheme in the Fordlands Road area in Fulford, which would dramatically reduce the risk of flooding there? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend is very charming, which always makes it harder to say no. I would be happy to look into the scheme in more detail for him. \p Vikki Slade: Every time we have a major storm or sustained rainfall, the Bakers Arms roundabout on the A35 becomes impassable, trapping the people of the Purbecks and the town of Wareham on, ironically, the Isle of Purbeck. What is the Minister doing to bring together the Department for Transport, the Environment Agency, Highways England and local authorities to plan for main routes to be prioritised for permanent flooding solutions? \p Emma Hardy: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. That is a really important question because, particularly today and in the past couple of days, many of our highways have been impacted. Indeed, as has been mentioned, the railways have also been impacted. I found it more difficult to get here, as I know have other hon. Members. She is quite right that we should look at working together, and that may be one of the actions we look at in the flood resilience taskforce. \p Ashley Dalton: I also echo the words of many across the House about the work of the statutory services, particularly all those who worked in West Lancashire. Our community spirit has been exceptional; I particularly note the work of my constituent Laura Caunce from the Ormskirk community group, who has co-ordinated volunteers on the ground, and has run a crowdfunder and raised over £5,000 already to support local people affected by floods.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and many of the announcements, particularly the £50 million for internal drainage boards. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are some parts of the country, such as mine in West Lancashire, that cannot get an IDB, because legislation prevents the creation of a new one. What timeline are we looking at for bringing forward legislation so that we can really move forward on flood prevention and water management in West Lancashire? \p Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate her constituent who has managed to raise £5,000, which is incredible. I am at heart an optimist and always see the bright side. The silver lining in the clouds has definitely been seeing communities coming together and people working together despite the horrible situations they have been facing. I am working on the issue of creating more internal drainage boards at the moment. I am sorry that I cannot give an exact timeline, but I can tell her I am working on it right now. \p Harriet Cross: It is widely known that the more impermeable the land—pavements, roads and housing developments, for example—the more likely we are to see flooding. With this in mind, and also bearing in mind the Minister’s response earlier about ensuring that new housing developments are not at risk of flooding, what assessment have the Government made of the downstream impacts of a development and what is happening with flooding further down the valley? \p Emma Hardy: That is an important question. Without going into this in too much detail, one of the important things when looking at sustainable urban drainage solutions is how they are going to work in communities, because we cannot solve a problem in one area and say we are dealing with flooding there if it creates a problem  somewhere else. Part of the calculation that needs to be made if we are to use SUDS in new developments is exactly to make sure that it is not going to impact on or increase the likelihood of flooding somewhere else. Otherwise, the system is not working effectively. It is a really important issue, and I am grateful that the hon. Member has raised it. \p Amanda Hack: I thank the Minister for her statement. As a major incident has been declared in Leicestershire, I want to thank our emergency responders, our local government and the Environment Agency, but I also want to thank and honour the amazing work of our flood volunteers. I spoke to one this morning, who was exhausted having been up all night. I pay tribute to her. Could the Minister confirm how local communities such as mine in Measham, Packington and Long Whatton will be supported in the long term to recover from repeated flood events? At what point will we see a stop to these events in our communities? \p Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure her constituent has done an incredible job—the flood groups have done an amazing job—and I understand why she must be feeling so exhausted. We have mentioned the impact that flood events have on people’s mental health. We want to look at areas at risk of repeated flooding in the flooding formula review to make sure that those areas are getting the support they need. The immediate post-flood situation is of course for MHCLG, but if I can help in any way she needs only to contact me. \p Charlie Maynard: Many of us recognise that our drainage network is in disrepair in many places. Much of that stems from the Environment Agency’s main river designation; an enormous amount of bureaucracy is required in order to get permission to unblock what is nominally called a main river but to almost all of us is a ditch. These ditch networks are very broad; in Northmoor and Bablock Hythe in my constituency, virtually every ditch is a main river, which means that in one case we required about three years to get a permit from the EA. That makes things extremely difficult and nothing ever gets done. We have had five permits in five years from the EA throughout the West Oxfordshire district. Will the Minister please consider doing two things: making it easier to de-designate main rivers to ordinary watercourses; and simplifying the EA’s permit procedure, which is incredibly byzantine, so that people can apply for permits and be able to unblock their ditches? \p Emma Hardy: I am incredibly interested in what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, because the last thing we want is it taking five years to deal with a problem when there is a simple solution for it. If unwanted bureaucracy is causing a problem, I would like to try and help. I ask the hon. Member please to send me all the information. I am happy to have that conversation with the EA, and let us see what can be done. \p Patrick Spencer: There are loads of landowners in Suffolk who want to take steps to mitigate flooding. The problem is they need a flood risk assessment permit, but FRAPs are expensive and hard to come by, so what can the Department do to make them easier to access and cheaper? That would make a real difference. \p Emma Hardy: I thank the hon. Gentleman; that was another interesting and thoughtful question. I am happy to look into this in more detail for him, because if there are rules and regulations that are not working, as a new Government we do not need to keep them. If they are not working, let us change things and make things better. The hon. Member should send me the information and I can have a proper look at it. \p Claire Young: Returning to the issue of wider infrastructure in surface water flooding, recent examples in my constituency include a householder who has been affected by water running from an incomplete major housing development who has been told nothing can be enforced until the development is finished, and another where a road safety scheme is funnelling water into their property. What action will the Government take to ensure that infrastructure is being designed with surface water flooding in mind and to ensure that developers have to provide appropriate drainage right the way through the build-out of major developments? \p Emma Hardy: I am really sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituents facing such an incredibly unfair situation for anybody to have to deal with. That is why the fact that sustainable drainage systems and schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that we brought in were never enacted is so important, and that is why we are looking at that now, because there need to be adequate drainage systems in new designs. That should have been in place since 2010, but the previous Government did not enact it. This Government are serious about getting on with it. \p Andrew Snowden: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking): although I am incredibly grateful to a lot of frontline workers from the Environment Agency and elsewhere for the work they have done to keep houses and businesses safe, we have not always seen the best of the EA as an organisation. Councillor Tommy Threlfall, our cabinet member, and other community members and business owners were desperately trying to get hold of someone at the Environment Agency while all the fields around Main Drain were flooding and not one of the pumps at Lytham pumping station was active, as there was about to be a high tide into the low, flat lands the Minister referred to, which are at the tail end of the risk of flooding as the water moves downstream. What is the Minister going to do to help local communities better engage with agencies such as the EA in the midst of flooding, to get real-time information into the organisation and, most importantly, to get it acted upon to keep businesses and residences safe? \p Emma Hardy: If the hon. Gentleman has not had the experience he needs with the Environment Agency, I am happy to take up that issue. An hon. Friend mentioned a good idea on the call last Friday: issuing an emergency flood pack to MPs containing all the details and information of who to contact and when. Members would then have that information when they needed it and be able to get hold of people exactly at the point they needed to do so. That issue has come out, especially with it happening over new year’s eve. People and the EA were out there working, but we have to make sure we have that communication. That is so incredibly important. I am thinking through  different ways I can improve communication, but I will make sure that the area manager gets in contact with the hon. Gentleman. \p Chris Coghlan: Many of my constituents have been affected by flooding overnight, but it has been particularly bad in Horley, where for the second time in recent months people’s homes have been flooded by raw sewage. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what can be done to hold Thames Water to account in operating its sewage works—particularly in the light of several new housing developments in the area, which will make the problem even worse—and to stop it dumping raw sewage in my residents’ homes? \p Emma Hardy: That is a horrific experience, and I am so sorry that those people have had to deal with that. I will meet the hon. Gentleman. It is so important we have that £88 billion of investment to improve infrastructure and to upgrade the water system, so that we do not keep having horrific incidents, such as the one he mentions. \p Shockat Adam: As Members from all parts of the House have already mentioned, one of the major causes of flooding is the blockage of our drainage systems and gulleys. Unfortunately, many councils nationally have reduced the frequency of cleaning gulleys due to budgetary pressures. Areas such as my landlocked constituency are seeing flooding like never before; my local Victoria Park health centre is flooded as we speak. Will the Minister commit to providing more funding for councils to assist our larger agencies, such as the Environment Agency? \p Emma Hardy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the impact that flooding has, not just on homes but on medical facilities. It is important, but we need to look in the round at what makes the most difference in improving flood resilience within a community. One of the things I have mentioned to many other Members is the build back better scheme, under which there can be an extra £10,000 to make properties more flood resilient. It might be good to have a conversation about that in terms of other houses in the local area, so that we can improve property flood resilience. Flooding will not be solved by one thing; we need to look at as many different things as we can and accumulate them to make the biggest impact. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her statement and for her clear energy and commitment to trying to make lives better across the United Kingdom. The rain of the last few weeks explains the significant flooding—some would say it is of biblical proportions—and it has led to many roads being closed and air travel being affected for many. Disruption is extensive across the middle and north-east of England and in other parts of the United Kingdom, so what is being done to minimise travel disruption for so many going back to work and others going back to school this week? \p Emma Hardy: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked the last question on my first statement. In terms of what can be done, we need to continue to work with other Departments through the flood resilience taskforce to look at how we can improve resilience and ensure that people get back to work. As he knows, flooding and water is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but it is always good to get him in at the end. \p Nusrat Ghani: Before I call the Home Secretary to make the statement on child sexual exploitation and abuse, I have a statement to make on behalf of Mr Speaker. I remind Members of the House’s sub judice resolution, which prohibits reference being made to any active criminal cases. Members should therefore not make any reference to any active case in which an individual has already been charged. \p Yvette Cooper: Child sexual abuse and exploitation are the most vile and horrific of crimes, involving rape, violence, coercive control, intimidation, manipulation and deep long-term harm. The information from the crime survey should be chilling to all of us. It estimates that half a million children every year experience some form of child sexual abuse: violence and sexual violation in the home; repeated rapes or exploitation by grooming or paedophile gangs; threats and intimidation involving intimate images online; or abuse within institutions that should have protected and cared for young people—cruel and sadistic crimes against those who are most vulnerable.

All of us have a responsibility to protect our children. Perpetrators must be punished and pursued, and victims and survivors must be protected and supported. But these crimes have not been taken seriously for too long, and far too many children have been failed. That is why this Government are determined to act, strengthening the law, taking forward recommendations from independent inquiries, and supporting stronger police action and protection for victims.

There is no excuse for anyone not to take these crimes seriously. Brave survivors speaking out have shone a light on terrible crimes and the failure of institutions to act, be it in care homes in Rochdale, Asian grooming gangs in Rotherham or Telford, the abuse covered up within faith institutions, including the Church of England and the Catholic Church, or within family homes.

That report, alongside the coming to light of other appalling crimes, is why our party when in opposition called for a national independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and supported that work when it was launched by the previous Government. Over seven years, that inquiry, expertly led by Professor Alexis Jay, engaged with more than 7,000 victims and survivors, processed 2 million pages of evidence, and published 61 reports and publications. The findings should be truly disturbing for everyone—they described the pain and suffering caused to victims and survivors, and the deviousness and cruelty and perpetrators. Nor is there any excuse for anyone not to recognise and act on the deep harm and damage of organised gang exploitation, abuse sexual assaults and rape.

Ten years ago, two reports by Alexis Jay and Louise Casey in Rotherham found that 1,400 children had been sexually exploited, raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked across other towns, abducted, beaten and threatened with guns. Children had even been doused in petrol. Girls as young as 11 had been raped. Those reports a decade ago identified a failure to confront Pakistani heritage gangs and a “widespread perception” that they should “‘downplay’ the ethnic dimensions” for fear of being seen to be racist.

When those reports came out, those failings in Rotherham were condemned across the board by both Government and Opposition in this House. As I said at the time:

“It is never an excuse to use race and ethnicity or community relations as an excuse not to investigate and punish sex offenders.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 169.]

The then Home Secretary made it clear that

“cultural concerns…the fear of being seen as racist…must never stand in the way of child protection.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 168.]

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse also ran a specific investigation strand into child sexual exploitation by organised networks, which ran for two years and produced a separate report in February 2022. It concluded that police forces and local councils were still failing to tackle this serious crime and set out further recommendations for change. But despite those different inquiries drawing up multiple recommendations, far too little has actually been done. None of the 20 recommendations from the independent inquiry into child abuse has been implemented. As the Act on IICSA campaign group from the Survivors Trust said this week, victims of child sexual abuse

“cannot afford further delays in meaningful action… It is imperative to keep the focus on radical reform”.

Two different Conservative Home Secretaries said after the report was published that it was a watershed and should be the beginning of a new chapter for change, but that has not happened. We now need new impetus and action.

Since coming into office, the Safeguarding Minister has met with Professor Alexis Jay and survivors, and has convened the first dedicated cross-Government group to drive forward change. To ensure that victims’ voices remain at the very heart of this process, we will set up a new victims and survivors panel to work on an ongoing basis with the inter-ministerial group, to guide them on the design, delivery and implementation of new proposals and plans not just on IICSA but on wider work around child sexual exploitation and abuse. We will set out more details and timescales based on that work.

Before that, I can announce action on three key recommendations. First, I can confirm that we will make it mandatory to report abuse, and we will put measures in the crime and policing Bill—to be put before Parliament this spring—to make it an offence, with professional and criminal sanctions, to fail to report or to cover up child sexual abuse. The protection of institutions must never be put before the protection of children. I first called for this measure in response to the reports and failings in Rotherham 10 years ago. The Prime Minister first called for it 12 years ago, based on his experience as Director of Public Prosecutions. The case was clear then, but we have lost a decade and we need to get on with it now.

Secondly, we will legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, because the punishment must fit the terrible crime.

Thirdly, we will overhaul the information and evidence that are gathered on child sexual abuse and exploitation and embed them in a clear new performance framework for policing, so that these crimes are taken far more seriously. One of the first recommendations of the independent inquiry was a single core data set on child  abuse and protection, but that has never been done. We will introduce a single child identifier in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and a much stronger police performance framework, including new standards on public protection, child abuse and exploitation.

We are accelerating the work of the child sexual exploitation police taskforce, set up—rightly—under the previous Government. There was a 25% increase in arrests between July and September last year. That sits alongside the tackling organised exploitation programme, which uses advanced data and analytics to uncover complex networks. Data on ethnicity is now being published, but we will work further with them to improve the accuracy and robustness of the data and analysis.

We will continue to support further investigations that are needed, including police investigations and local independent inquiries and reviews, which can expose failings and wrongdoing in local areas and institutions, as we have seen in Telford, Rotherham and Greater Manchester. We support the ongoing work commissioned by Mayor Andy Burnham into historic abuse in Oldham, which has led to new police investigations, arrests and convictions. To build on those findings, the leader of Oldham council has confirmed this week that work to set up a further local independent inquiry is already underway, including liaison with Oldham survivors. We welcome and support this work, which will put victims’ voices at its heart.

The Telford inquiry was particularly effective because victims were involved in shaping it at every stage. Tom Crowther, who led that inquiry, has now agreed to work with the Government and other local councils where stronger engagement with victims and survivors is needed, or where more formal inquiries are required to tackle persistent problems. We should also be clear that wherever there have been failings or perpetrators of terrible crimes have not been brought to justice, the most important inquiries and investigations should be police investigations to track those perpetrators down, to bring them before the courts and to get victims the protection that they deserve.

Finally, we have to face the serious challenge that the fastest growing area of grooming and child abuse is online. We will also take much stronger action to crack down on rapidly evolving forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse and grooming online, including tackling the exponential rise in artificial intelligence-facilitated child sexual abuse material. We will set out a significant package of measures to strengthen the law in this area in the coming weeks.

For many years there has been broad cross-party consensus not only on the importance of this work, but that the interests of victims and survivors must come first. There will be different views about the details of the policies that are needed, but every one of us across this House has supported action to protect our children. It is the responsibility of us all to keep them safe for the future. I hope that Members across the House will work with Ministers and the victims and survivors panel that we are setting up to change protection for the better and to make sure that it is perpetrators who pay the price. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The whole country is shocked by the rape gang scandal. Over years or decades, thousands or maybe tens of thousands of vulnerable young girls were systematically raped by organised gangs of men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage. Instead of those victims being protected and the perpetrators prosecuted, those girls were systematically failed. Many cases were covered up because of absurd concerns about so-called community relations. Often, the police did not investigate. Local councils covered things up. The Crown Prosecution Service frequently failed victims. Those raising concerns were frequently accused of racism. Never again can people be silenced in that way.

I pay tribute to people who have raised these cases over the years, starting with former Labour MP Ann Cryer, who first raised these problems nearly two decades ago and bravely persevered despite accusations of racism and worse, including from her own colleagues. In that vein, let me say a word on the Prime Minister’s comments this morning: it is not far-right to stand up for victims of mass rape. [Interruption.] \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. People want to hear the response to the statement. \p Chris Philp: Smearing people who raise those issues is exactly how this got covered up in the first place. I repeat what I said yesterday: intimidation and threats towards elected Members of Parliament and Ministers, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), are completely wrong.

As the Home Secretary said, action is important. The last Government took extensive action, starting with the original Jay report commissioned in 2014 by the then Home Secretary, now Baroness May. A year later, she commissioned the independent investigation into child sexual abuse, and Sajid Javid commissioned data collection in 2018.

On the response to the IICSA report published in 2022, it is not true that the last Government took no action. The last Government established the grooming gangs taskforce, whose work led to 550 arrests of perpetrators in the first year and safeguarded 4,500 victims. My first question to the Home Secretary is therefore this: will she confirm for the House—I am sure she can—that the grooming gangs taskforce’s work will continue and, I hope, be stepped up? Secondly, as part of the work of the grooming gangs taskforce—and, again, implementing one of the recommendations of the IICSA report—in April 2023 the last Government mandated data collection on ethnicity, as the Home Secretary referred to. It has been going for over a year and a half, so will she confirm that the data on the ethnicity of perpetrators will be published?

As the Home Secretary has acknowledged, one of IICSA’s main recommendations was mandatory reporting to the police by people in positions of responsibility. The last Government were in the process of implementing that recommendation, via a measure in the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell because of the early election. I am glad that she has announced that she will continue with the last Government’s proposals in her forthcoming Bill. She can be assured that the Opposition will support the Government in the continuation of that measure.

Finally, the Home Secretary did not address the need for a full national public inquiry into this scandal. While the previous Government did initiate IICSA, under Professor Jay, that was mainly directed at other child sexual abuse and exploitation issues, and it covered only six of the towns involved in the gang rape scandal—it did not cover everything. We need to get to the truth. We have new evidence that is of interest to the public, including what Simon Danczuk, the former Labour MP for Rochdale, said about the way that he was pressured into staying silent. We also have evidence of local authorities covering this up, and the third report, from last year, on Operation Span, commissioned by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, which exposes extremely serious failings by the Crown Prosecution Service. All that needs to be looked into.

Will the Home Secretary therefore commission a national statutory public inquiry, which can compel witnesses to attend, requisition evidence and take evidence under oath? If the Government will not order that inquiry, the Opposition will table an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill later this week to put the matter to a vote. I hope that Members across the House will vote for that full statutory public inquiry, so that we can get to the truth. \p Yvette Cooper: This is an issue on which I worked with Government Ministers when I was shadow Home Secretary and when I was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and there has been cross-party consensus on the need to tackle these serious and vile crimes. These are the most appalling crimes against children: repeated multiple brutal rapes of children—particularly young girls, but also young boys—in the most appalling circumstances, and the abuse of children’s trust, often by people who should have protected and looked after them; institutions failed to keep them safe. That is why the independent inquiry was so important, why I and many others across this House called for it, and why we supported it, when the previous Government set it up. However, there has just not been enough action to tackle these vile crimes. There has not been enough change to policies, and to the way that services operate at a local level. It is a deep failing that those changes have not taken place.

The shadow Home Secretary used the example of the duty to report, which is incredibly important. It is about preventing any chance of people, including professionals, turning a blind eye to abuse, and covering up child abuse and exploitation in the most appalling way. It is about making that a criminal offence. We called for that 10 years ago. His party had a decade to introduce that —a decade that we have lost; a decade without those powers and measures in place.

The hon. Gentleman talks, rightly, about the taskforce, which I mentioned. We have supported not just continuing with that taskforce, but accelerating its work. The number of arrests in the most recent quarter increased significantly on the previous quarter. What I want to see most of all is perpetrators behind bars. I want to see perpetrators pay the price for these vile crimes against children. In order to achieve that, we have to improve policing performance and the co-ordinated work between police and local councils across the country, so we will accelerate the work of the taskforce.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the ethnicity data, which was published in November. The latest report was published in November as a result of the taskforce’s work. However, I do not think the data that has been gathered is adequate. It does not go far enough. There is a real problem with the way that police forces collect data, which is very haphazard. There is not a proper system for collecting data, or a proper performance framework for policing. To be honest, I think that his Government withdrew too far from policing, and from having the kind of standards that we need to have in place. I hope that we can work together on a stronger performance framework, and a clearer framework for data, including for dealing with issues around ethnicity. Back in 2015, we had consensus on the need to ensure that race and ethnicity were never used as an excuse not to tackle crime, and that where vulnerable girls supposedly consented, when they in fact did not, that would not be used as an excuse not to tackle crime. We can never accept those excuses. I hope that we will agree on how we do that.

On inquiries, the shadow Home Secretary’s party launched the child abuse inquiry; it set the terms of reference and provided the substantial funding for it. He could have raised concerns about the inquiry’s terms of reference and scope, and the extent of its reports, at any point, including after it reported, but he did not do so until last week.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the work that Oldham is determined to take forward, hopefully replicating the important Telford inquiry. I hope, too, that he is prepared to work with the victims and survivors panel, which will help us to take forward the further investigations, reviews and inquiries that should take place, both locally and across the country, in order to protect child victims. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. \p Debbie Abrahams: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Child sexual exploitation and abuse is a heinous crime. It happens everywhere—in all communities and in all settings—and we must all be vigilant and do what we can to address it. My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of ensuring that victims of CSE are at the heart of all that we do, and I support her wholeheartedly on that. If it is the will of the victims of the abuse in Oldham to have an additional review of the circumstances that led to their abuse, I will also wholeheartedly support that. Will my right hon. Friend expand on how we can transparently track progress in implementing the recommendations? It cannot be allowed that three years after we receive detailed recommendations from a national independent inquiry, we are still waiting for their implementation. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend has worked immensely hard to champion the victims and survivors of terrible crimes. She raises important points about the prevalence of these appalling crimes, the need to be vigilant, wherever this abuse is to be found—in any kind of institution, across communities and across the country—and the importance of tracking progress. The Telford inquiry was set up in such a way that Tom Crowther, who led  the inquiry, goes back each year to do a follow-up report and to track progress, which has been really important. We have encouraged those looking at this matter in Oldham to be in touch with those involved in Telford, and I am glad that Tom Crowther has agreed to work with the Government on how we can make this work more widely. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. No child should ever have to face sexual exploitation or abuse. There should simply be no place for this horrific, abhorrent behaviour in our society. We must keep every child and young person impacted by these terrible, sickening crimes in our thoughts today. We owe it to the survivors to ensure that justice is delivered, which means requiring perpetrators to face the full force of the law, but also ensuring that the right steps are taken to stop children facing this vile abuse in the future. The expansive independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which published its report in 2022, set out how to do just that.

However, under the previous Conservative Government, progress on implementing IICSA’s recommendations stalled. Professor Alexis Jay, the chair of the inquiry, said that she was “frustrated” by the then Government’s lack of action. Will the Home Secretary say when we can expect a clear timeline for the full implementation of IICSA’s recommendations, which Professor Jay has urged? Of course, that work cannot be siloed in the Home Office, so I would welcome more details about how cross-Government work to implement the recommendations will be co-ordinated.

Victims and survivors deserve more than warm words—they deserve action. It is my sincere hope that we can work together across this House to make that a reality, and can resist turning far too many children’s suffering into a political football. \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the points that the hon. Member makes. Historically, there has been a lot of consensus across the House about the importance of this work, but often there has been very slow progress; we have to change that. She rightly says that this is not just a matter for the Home Office, or even police forces, local councils and social services; this must be about work across government and across communities. That is why the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is leading a cross-departmental programme of work responding not just to the IICSA recommendations, but to broader work. Some of the work around online abuse is moving extremely fast, and we need action there as well. It is important that we set up the victims and survivors panel to work with this group. The victims and survivors need to be at the heart of implementation, so that they do not feel that after they gave evidence to the inquiry, that was it—nobody ever listened again. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Education Committee Chair, Helen Hayes. \p Helen Hayes: Several years ago, I supported, over a number of months, a constituent of mine who suffered horrific sexual abuse as a child in the care of Lambeth council, as she  prepared to give evidence to the independent inquiry on child sexual abuse, chaired by Professor Jay. It was unimaginably hard for victims and survivors to give evidence to that inquiry, reliving the abuse that they suffered and being retraumatised. The fact that they did so was exceptionally important, and I pay tribute to their courage. My constituent and thousands of other victims and survivors gave their evidence so that their experiences could be at the heart of Professor Jay’s recommendations. Does the Home Secretary agree that if we are really to put victims and survivors first, the priority must be to act on what they have already told us, and to implement the IICSA recommendations at pace, and in full? \p Yvette Cooper: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to her constituent, and to the more than 7,000 victims and survivors who gave evidence to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and exploitation. The inquiry took seven years—many years of people bravely speaking out about some of the most difficult and traumatic things imaginable, which none of us would ever want anybody to have to go through. She is also right that they must not feel that their evidence was just empty words that got lost in the air, even though an inquiry took place. We have to make sure that there is action. Some of that action may be difficult, and some may require very hard work, but we have to make sure that we take it forward and make progress to protect children for the future. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Select Committee member Robbie Moore. \p Robbie Moore: Rape gangs and the grooming of children has haunted Keighley and the wider Bradford district for decades, yet local leaders have consistently refused to launch an inquiry. The national IICSA report, which the Home Secretary is treating as a silver bullet, was not an inquiry into rape gangs. Nor does it reference Keighley or Bradford once, despite many, including me, fearing that the scale of this issue across the Bradford district will dwarf the scale of the issue in Rotherham. If the Home Secretary believes that the IICSA report gives us all the information that we need to tackle this vile and disgusting crime, can she tell me how many children across the Bradford district have been abused through child sexual exploitation? Who are the perpetrators, and when can my constituents expect to see them behind bars or deported? \p Yvette Cooper: Appalling crimes have taken place against children in Bradford, Keighley and across the country—truly appalling crimes. All of us have to face up to the fact that child sexual abuse and exploitation continues. This is not just about historical crimes, but continuing crimes and abuse of hundreds of thousands of children across the country. That is why it is so important, first of all, that we take forward the proposed reforms, and that we ensure a way to keep victims and survivors at their very heart. Some of that must be about how we change the way that police and councils work together to implement reforms, including on the duty to report.

The hon. Gentleman raises local concerns. We will work with Tom Crowther and the victims and survivors panel on how areas can best involve survivors and victims in  what has happened in their area and ensure that they are properly listened to, so as to get to the truth and make fundamental changes. \p Paul Waugh: In the last few days, my hometown’s name, Rochdale, has been exploited by some people who treat child rape as a political game rather than as an appalling crime that should be dealt with. The horrific abuse of children by grooming gangs, many of them predominantly Pakistani-heritage grooming gangs, was compounded by failures by my local council and the local police. All Rochdalians, whatever their background, want to see sex offenders prosecuted swiftly and punished harshly. I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and ask her to leave no stone unturned in implementing all the recommendations of the Jay report—something the Opposition signally failed to do. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to recognise the seriousness of these crimes. The experiences in Rochdale include not just the issues around the Pakistani-heritage gang networks that he talks about, but issues in care homes and others that have been investigated over the years, and the terrible experiences of victims and survivors and their families as a result. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we need change. That has to be about how we work with victims and survivors in taking forward new reforms and changes, and how we will have to go further in a series of areas. The thing about child abuse and exploitation is that perpetrators change all the time and look for new ways to abuse children. That is what we have to keep tackling. \p Nick Timothy: One of the most shocking details in respect of the rape gangs is the evidence of collusion and corruption among police officers, social workers and local councillors. Will the Home Secretary commit today to establishing a unit in the National Crime Agency dedicated to investigating not only untried perpetrators but the police officers, social workers and local councillors who were complicit in these disgusting crimes? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member makes an important point. Alongside pursuing perpetrators—which must always be the greatest priority because it is about protecting victims and ensuring that those who commit vile crimes face justice—there must be a responsibility on people for their public roles, whether in policing, local councils or other institutions. We have seen issues around the Church of England, the Catholic Church and other institutions that were investigated as part of the inquiry. One reason why we are so keen to change the law—indeed, it is something I raised back when the hon. Member was working in the Home Office—is the importance of the duty to report. That then makes it an offence for public officials to cover up or fail to report. It is so important that we do that so that we can have proper accountability as well. \p Nadia Whittome: I sincerely commend the Home Secretary’s statement. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was extremely comprehensive. Over the course of seven years, it examined 2 million pages of evidence and heard from over 7,000  survivors, every single one of whom we should pay tribute to today. They relived the most horrific trauma, only for the previous Government to drag their heels in implementing the report’s recommendations. Calls for a fresh inquiry from the Conservatives and Reform are a shameful attempt to stoke division at the expense of victims, survivors and children. I thank the Home Secretary for refusing to give in to that deeply harmful and offensive political point scoring. Will she set out a timeline for when she expects to have fully implemented the IICSA recommendations? \p Yvette Cooper: The clear point is, as my hon. Friend says, that victims and survivors need to be at the heart of the work to take forward the implementation of reforms and changes, and we want to work with the new victims and survivors panel to draw up timelines. I recognise that some of the issues around reform are difficult and that we need extensive work with victims and survivors on how they can be dealt with, but there are other areas in which we can move really swiftly, such as changing the law on the duty to report, overhauling the way in which we collect information and data, and putting in place proper monitoring systems in local areas in respect of child sexual exploitation and abuse. I hope we can build a sense of consensus on our objective, which is to protect children. That is what this should all be about, and I hope that everyone will sign up to it. \p Josh Babarinde: Considerable evidence tells us that children exposed to domestic violence are at increased risk of abuse themselves. Growing up, I was one of those children, and as a survivor I am appalled to have seen the shadow Home Secretary weaponise this issue in the way we saw earlier, I am appalled to see the likes of Reform play this issue like a political football, and I am appalled that zero of the 20 recommendations in Professor Jay’s report have been implemented so far.

In the light of the link between domestic abuse and child abuse, I have tabled a Bill to create a dedicated set of domestic abuse offences in the law for the first time. Will the Home Secretary meet me to discuss the Bill’s provisions and how we can better respect and protect survivors across the country? \p Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Member for speaking out about his personal experiences. I realise that is never an easy thing to do, and I respect him for doing it. As he says, there are all kinds of links, and domestic abuse in the household has an incredibly damaging impact on the family and on children growing up. We have to see the work on the protection of children as part of the wider work on public protection, and as being strongly linked to our mission to halve the incidence of violence against women and girls over the next 10 years. The Safeguarding Minister will be keen to discuss with the hon. Member his proposals relating to domestic abuse and how we can work together on these issues. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The level of interest shows how important this issue is, but I will struggle to get everybody in unless Members keep their questions short and the answers are just as short. I call Chris Murray, who is a member of the Select Committee. \p Chris Murray: The focus of this debate should not be on the politics, on what is in the newspapers or on what is on social media; it should be on the children themselves. For four years before coming to the House, I worked on preventing trafficking, especially the trafficking of child victims around the country for sex. The stories that I heard would chill your bones, especially the stories of those who sought protection from the authorities but ended up back in the hands of their traffickers.

There is so much more that we could do for those children. I know that not just from my own experience but because it is there in black and white, in the findings of the inquiries. We have 2 million pages of evidence and 700 witnesses, and zero recommendations have been implemented. Will the Home Secretary commit to putting safeguarding first rather than putting politics first, as people are so transparently trying to do, and implement the findings as quickly as possible? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the work my hon. Friend has done in this policy area. He is right to talk about young people and children being trafficked around the country. There is some concerning evidence that, for example, although work has been done to identify people being trafficked through county lines—often boys and young men—it has not sufficiently identified the young women and teenage girls who are being trafficked around for sexual exploitation. We need to ensure that improvements are made in that regard. \p Lee Anderson: The Labour lot over there are banging on about playing politics with this important issue, but the last time I attended a debate on child rape gangs only one Labour Back Bencher turned up. They should hang their heads in shame. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need a specific inquiry into why young British white girls are being systematically raped by men of Pakistani heritage? \p Yvette Cooper: We need to make sure that young people and children are being protected. These are vile crimes against children. Across the country we have seen young girls, teenagers and young boys who have been exploited by perpetrators in the most cruel and horrendous way. We have seen abuse by Pakistani-heritage gangs, we have seen paedophile gangs operating online, we have seen abuse in communities and institutions and family homes, and all those crimes are truly horrendous.

After the Rotherham inquiry in 2014, when we saw appalling abuse by, in that case, a Pakistani-heritage gang, I called for a duty to report. I called for the law to be changed to place a responsibility on public servants to report child abuse, and to make it an offence to cover it up. The Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a part for many years failed to bring in that duty to report, and we have lost a decade. We have to change the law. We have to make sure that we go after abuse without fear or favour, wherever it is found, in order to secure justice and protection for victims, and that dangerous perpetrators end up behind bars. \p Anna Dixon: I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks condemning those who perpetrate these horrific crimes. I stand with all victims of child sexual exploitation and sexual violence. As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) knows, there was an independent review of child sexual  exploitation in Bradford, which reported in 2021. A cross-party committee there has overseen the local changes, and I commend the actions of West Yorkshire police in locking up more than 20 perpetrators since 2021. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure of the previous Government to take action on the Jay report is a disgrace? What further actions by police and local authorities are needed to tackle these pernicious crimes? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend has rightly referred to the work done by West Yorkshire police not only to look at public protection currently but to pursue historic investigations, which continue to be important because people often feel unable to come forward and tell their story about the abuse that has taken place until many years later. When survivors are brave enough to come forward, it is incredibly important for their stories to be investigated fully, and for operations like those run by West Yorkshire police into historic abuse to continue. We owe it to victims and survivors to make sure that change happens in practice, and that includes changing the law as part of the policing and crime Bill. \p Simon Hoare: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. It is important to remember that these terrible crimes could happen to anyone and could be perpetrated by anyone, irrespective of colour, class, heritage or geography. I think the Home Secretary is right that the public want to see action now. Frankly, I remain unconvinced that a new public inquiry will throw any new light or information on this issue. The best place for victims to have their stories told is in court, when the perpetrators are brought to justice.

May I ask the Home Secretary to make it clear to the world of local government and policing that the implementation of rules and regulations is colour and class blind? Too many of these victims were simply dismissed as—to use that media phrase—white trash. They were poor, in many instances not particularly well educated, often in trouble with the authorities, and too easily dismissed. That is where the failure really took place: they were dismissed for who they were. That can never happen again. \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Member’s really important point about the response having to be colour-blind and class-blind. It has to see these things for what they are: really terrible crimes, often against the most vulnerable young people, as he says. Young people were dismissed because they were vulnerable due to the difficult experiences that they might have had. Young girls were often not taken seriously, and myths operated in the way that services responded. A lot of work has been done to challenge those myths, but the reality is that unless we have a proper, strong performance management framework in place, and strong requirements on local organisations and agencies to respond and to take this issue seriously enough, the risk is that it just becomes lost in a corner, as opposed to being treated as the very serious crime that it is. That is why we want to embed this as part of a proper performance framework for policing, and to work with local councils too. \p Jo White: Professor Jay heard from my constituent Terry Lodge, who was fostered and lived a life of slavery, with no education and no childhood. He has suffered the consequences throughout his life.  Nottinghamshire county council accepted all liability for its failings. To its shame, the council is still to make an offer of compensation. Does the Home Secretary agree that although Jay’s recommendations must be implemented in full, Nottinghamshire county council must also step up and do the right thing? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the responsibility of local councils to recognise the things that have gone wrong in the past, to recognise the responsibilities that they owe to local victims and survivors, and to provide the support that those victims and survivors need. I know that my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister will keep in touch with her about progress, but it is really important that all councils make sure that they recognise their responsibilities. \p Shockat Adam: Perpetrators of sexual crimes must face the full force of the law, regardless of their race, their religion or their nationality, but an overseas bad-faith actor is using truly horrific cases of group-based child rape to demonise a community and slander a Minister of the Crown—someone who has genuine experience of helping victims of abuse. This narrative is false, and it is dangerous. Many reports from 2015 to 2024 have concluded that the common denominator for sexual violence is not immigration, race or culture. The real point here is that if victims are being falsely told that perpetrators look a certain way or are part of a certain community, they will have a false sense of security when they are with people who do not fit that stereotype. The real issue here is that we need the discussion to be focused on victims, not political rhetoric, and we need evidence-based policies. \p Yvette Cooper: One of the points that the independent inquiry made was about the broad nature of this abuse and the way in which it can be found anywhere. When we have half a million children being subjected to child sexual abuse or exploitation every year, there is an impact right across the country. It means that we have serious problems and failings within all kinds of different institutions, as the inquiry found. It looked into issues within local councils, care homes, faith organisations including the Church of England, and different grooming and exploitation groups. Wherever such abuse is found, we have to treat it as a terrible crime against children—no excuses. No excuses can be made for perpetrators, and no excuses can be made for inaction. There has to be strong action to go after the perpetrators, whoever and wherever they are, and protection for the victims, whoever and wherever they are. \p Oliver Ryan: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Under this Government, no matter an abuser’s race and where they are, they will have nowhere to hide. The job in hand is action, implementation and change. I am glad to hear that she will set up a new victims panel, because the victims of sexual abuse—women and children—are usually forgotten in the wild whirlwind of Twitter. I have to say that it is usually men using this issue to grind a political axe. Does she agree that it is not a bandwagon to jump on for anybody’s political TV talk show? This is a serious issue. Victims deserve to lead the process, and I am sure she will enable that. \p Yvette Cooper: These are really serious crimes. For someone like Alexis Jay, who worked in this area over very many years before she led the independent inquiry, and for others who have been working in this area over very many years, it has to be about the victims and survivors, but it also has to be about getting serious about delivering change and making sure that change happens in practice. Therefore, it has to be about how we make sure that there are proper monitoring processes to follow up change, rather than just thinking, “Well, an announcement has been made,” but nothing changes and nothing is actually done. Far more important than the debates taking place on social media is the practical plan for delivering change. \p Wendy Morton: The Government have been very keen to set up 60 reviews since coming into office, including one on social care, but they have refused a formal request from Oldham council for a national statutory inquiry into child sexual abuse, grooming and gang rape. Why not let sunlight, transparency and justice into the process? \p Yvette Cooper: I say to the right hon. Lady that, as I made clear in my statement, we support the independent review that Oldham council is planning to set up. We have also suggested that it work with those who were involved in the Telford inquiry, which was extremely effective; Tom Crowther, who led that inquiry, has agreed to that. Interestingly, one of those who gave evidence to both the Telford inquiry and the national inquiry has described how she found it much easier to give evidence to the Telford inquiry and thought it was more effective at getting to the nitty-gritty of what had gone wrong in Telford. I suspect that that is why the previous Government, of which the right hon. Lady was a part, said repeatedly to Oldham council that it should pursue the local inquiry. We want to make sure that there are proper investigations, inquiries and reviews wherever there is evidence that needs to be pursued. Most importantly of all, there have to be police investigations to get justice. \p Clive Betts: In 2014-15, the then Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee did a report on CSE in Rotherham. That report drew heavily on the evidence from Alexis Jay’s first report, which was on the problems in Rotherham, the failings of the police, the failings of the council and the failings of Ofsted. What that surely shows is that a local authority-commissioned inquiry, which is what Alexis Jay’s first inquiry was, can get to the bottom of these problems, expose the failings and lead to improvements at local level. Surely Oldham council can do exactly the same. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, because that is the work that Oldham council is now taking forward. We want to work with Oldham council and to be able to support it, and we want it to be able to see the work that was done in Telford, which was effective at delivering change. Tom Crowther goes back to see the work in Telford to make sure that progress is being made. That is crucial, because it is no good just having inquiries that do not actually lead to any change or anything different happening. There has to be detailed work, be it at local level or at national level, but there also has to be follow-through. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: The Labour Welsh Government are responsible for child safeguarding in Wales, and the Home Secretary said that none of the independent inquiry’s 20 recommendations was implemented by the previous Tory Government. Six recommendations applied to Wales, but no new actions were taken there either. Given that her statement rightly puts victims and survivors first, will she tell me how victims and survivors in Wales will now be able to demand a culture of real change? \p Yvette Cooper: Many issues obviously cut across, including issues around policing that apply to England and Wales—for example, the police performance framework that we are talking about, and some of the data issues that we are talking about—so we need to work with Welsh police forces and the Welsh Government on taking the measures forward. They are immensely important, because part of the problem has been that there is no sense of what is actually being measured and what will actually change. What are the performance standards that we expect from all police forces right across the country? If those do not exist, too little changes in practice. A performance management framework has been missing from Wales, as well as from across England, and that is what we are determined to introduce. \p Harpreet Uppal: The horrific cases of CSE and rape across the country have exposed deep failures in the safeguarding of vulnerable children and, as Members have said, there were unfortunately too many times when they were not treated as children by the agencies that should have supported them. I welcome the steps that the Home Secretary has set out, but will she ensure that there is long-term funding to support survivors in rebuilding their lives, that their voices will lead on reform and that we support local charities such as the Kirklees rape and sexual abuse centre and the Pennine domestic abuse partnership in my constituency, which do fantastic work but have to fight for funding every year? \p Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the local service; the Safeguarding Minister also is a strong supporter of the work that that service is doing. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of making sure that we support victims and survivors, and we need to work with the victims and survivors panel on how we take that forward. She is also right to say that part of the problem is that the children were not treated or respected as children. They were just treated as somehow being adults and not as being exploited and subjected to the most terrible of crimes. That is one of the fundamental things that has to change. \p Bernard Jenkin: I also thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I think the House is overwhelmingly behind her in dealing with these difficult subjects and implementing the findings of the Jay report. However, I am listening carefully to these exchanges, and the arguments against a further public inquiry—in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for example—seem rather thin: “Oh, we have already got too much to do,” “Oh, it probably won’t find out anything new,” “Oh, let the council do it on its own.” I just wonder whether this is in fact a matter of public  confidence. If the Home Secretary cannot restore public confidence without a further public inquiry, please will she not rule it out? \p Yvette Cooper: We obviously supported the independent inquiry into child abuse, including the two-year investigation that it did into organised networks of child sexual exploitation. That was immensely important as well. We also continue to support the local inquiries, reviews and investigations, including in Oldham. I have particularly highlighted the work that was done in Telford, and there is a reason for that.

The Telford inquiry was set up as a local independent inquiry, but it has proved more effective than many of the other pieces of work that have been undertaken in this area, through having victims and survivors at the heart of that local inquiry from the very beginning. They were involved not just in giving evidence but in drawing up and shaping the way that the whole inquiry went forward. It also has in place a proper framework for following up and making sure that, a year later, progress is being made and action is being taken. We want to learn from what worked effectively in Telford.

Interestingly, that is different from what has happened in some other areas, so the way in which it has worked is significant. That is why we believe that the right next steps will be for Tom Crowther, who led that inquiry, and the victims and survivors who were involved in Telford, to share that experience with other areas, including Oldham, so that we can make sure we have a proper framework for local areas and institutions to get to the truth about what has happened in their area and to ensure that changes take place.

At the same time, we must recognise that we had the two-year inquiry into child exploitation nationally as part of the overarching review, and that a series of recommendations from the overarching review have still not been acted on. So let us work with the victims and survivors panel that we are determined to set up on what is the best form for future investigations and work. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am planning to run the statement only until 7 pm, so it might be helpful if we had very short questions and perhaps shorter answers from the Home Secretary. \p Stella Creasy: May I just say, on behalf of every decent-minded MP across the House, how powerful and important it is to see the Safeguarding Minister here on the Front Bench with the Home Secretary? It is a testament to their commitment to getting this matter right and not being deflected, however hard other people try, from what really matters, which is the victims of these horrific crimes. I am proud to sit behind them and to support the work they are doing, and I welcome what they have said about bringing in a victims panel.

In the spirit of the cross-party working that we will need to do on this, may I also welcome the words of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)? He is right that the common story we hear time and again from victims of abuse—whether from grooming gangs, in care homes or in their own homes—is that they were not believed; nobody listened to them. How can we  have the national conversation that we need to have about the culture of belief, putting victims first and finally ending the silence that has meant so many have been the victims of these perpetrators for so long? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right; we have to ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that they can have the confidence to come forward, because often they feel that they will not be believed and will not get the support they need if they do speak out. That can make it extremely difficult. I also support her words about the Safeguarding Minister, who not only does a phenomenal job in the Home Office now but has been a tireless champion for victims of abuse and exploitation for very many years. Without her, there is no doubt that the Home Office would not be making the progress we are now making on tackling these serious crimes. \p Neil O'Brien: Many victims of the grooming gangs still do not feel that justice has been done. It is very concerning that the two men leading the Greater Manchester inquiry resigned because they felt that they were being blocked from accessing the information they needed. The IICSA was an important start, but it was not—and was never meant to be—a detailed report into the grooming gangs. It looked at six places where the grooming gangs operated, but they operated in more than 40 places. The right hon. Lady says that the answer is locally led inquiries, but we have had years for that to happen and it has not happened, or it has not happened properly. Indeed, in many cases the local authorities were part of the problem and we were asking them to mark their own homework. I totally agree with her about the importance of the Jay recommendations, but will she please rethink so that we can actually listen to the voices of those who, to this day, have never been listened to? \p Yvette Cooper: The whole point of us setting up a victims and survivors panel is to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors continue to be heard as part of the implementation, as part of the action and as part of the further investigations that need to take place. This cannot be a case of simply having a one-off inquiry and then everybody turns their back, moves on and talks about something different; we have to ensure that there is serious change. There was obviously a two-year inquiry that looked at organised grooming gangs and child exploitation, but we have also had the issues around Telford —Telford was not included in detail as part of that inquiry —and there will be other areas where detailed questions are still unresolved. That is why we want Tom Crowther to be able to work with the Government and with other areas on how best to ensure that victims and survivors feel that their voices will be heard, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. He is right that too often they do not feel that, and that is often because, frankly, we still need further police investigations into those terrible crimes and the perpetrators who have still not been brought to justice. \p Emma Foody: Anyone who has worked with survivors, as I have, knows how extraordinarily painful but important it was to have the IICSA inquiry and for survivors to be  heard, to be believed and, crucially, to finally see action taken. I pay tribute to the thousands of survivors who participated in the inquiry. Survivors should not have to repeatedly relive their trauma in order to see action finally being taken, and they have told us that now is the time for action. I refer to the recent quotes from Alexis Jay, who described the inaction of the previous Government as “weak” and “apparently disingenuous” with regard to what they did. Does the Home Secretary agree that the way to protect vulnerable children is to take action and implement the recommendations as quickly as possible? \p Yvette Cooper: We need to take forward the work on the inquiry, with victims and survivors, on a continuing basis. I would also highlight that there are some areas that will need to go well beyond the independent inquiry, such as the way in which online abuse and online grooming are accelerating. Gangs and organised networks are operating online and then drawing young people offline for physical abuse, as well as for sharing terrible images. That is a massive and growing crime, and I am really worried about it. We are going to need much stronger action. Whether it is through social media companies taking more responsibility or having stronger measures online, we will need more action. \p Richard Foord: Alexis Jay’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse has not been fully implemented. The inquiry recommended legislating to force tech firms to take stronger action on online abuse material. Since then, this House has passed the Online Safety Act 2023, and Ofcom set out its implementation plans last October, but how can the Government ensure that tech companies take stronger action on online abuse? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the Online Safety Act, which took longer to come into force than I would have wished, but it is now being implemented. That means new measures will come into place in the spring, with further measures and requirements in the summer. We will also come forward with further measures on online exploitation and abuse, and we will set them out in due course. \p Melanie Onn: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, and I look forward to the timeline she will present for implementing the recommendations. In her statement, she mentioned support and belief for victims and survivors. One of the biggest supportive actions she could take is to consider preventing CSE rapists from seeing their children born from these crimes, once they are convicted, as they use access to their children to continue their abuse and to re-victimise the girls whose lives they have already ruined once. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. This can be the most appalling way of continuing this abuse, as that is what it is, with abusers using the courts and other institutions effectively to continue their abuse and exploitation. We will be taking action in this area, and we will be putting forward more measures. Both the Safeguarding Minister and the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), can have further discussions with her about that. \p Gavin Williamson: In Telford we saw the systematic abuse of so many children who were raped, and we saw a cover-up by the police and council officials, yet not a single member of the police force or a single council official in Telford, or anywhere else in the country, has gone to jail. Will the Secretary of State use her power to set up a specialist unit within the National Crime Agency, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) said, to look at this and ensure that some of those who covered up these crimes are held to account? \p Yvette Cooper: I do think there needs to be stronger action on accountability, so I think the right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about these issues across public services, but one of the most effective ways to do that is by strengthening the legal framework, including the legal requirements on those who are responsible, through having a duty to report and making it clear that blocking and covering up is an offence. Where there are existing powers, we must ensure that they are properly used and strengthened.

I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was a Minister, including an Education Minister, over many years when people were calling for a strengthening of the law. I hope he will now support that strengthening of the law, even though he did not at the time. \p Blair McDougall: I warmly welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has set out to pursue perpetrators and to challenge the culture of cover-up, and I also welcome her strong statement that nobody should resist the urge to report child rape for fear of being labelled a racist. Does she share my contempt for those who weaponise the suffering of victims, particularly through online disinformation, to pursue their own hateful agendas? The attacks by Elon Musk on the Safeguarding Minister in the last few days crossed a line for me, so I deactivated my X account earlier. At what point does the continued presence of Government Departments on that platform legitimise a space that is now not only poisonous but dangerous? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that this has to be about showing respect for victims and survivors; it cannot be about perpetuating misinformation online for the sake of clicks and audiences. We have a responsibility to make practical changes, and I hope we can stick to this House’s core tradition of sitting opposite each other, across the Dispatch Boxes and across the Chamber, to talk about what really matters to our constituents, rather than simply chasing headlines online. \p Sammy Wilson: I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has announced today on mandatory reporting, on grooming being an aggravating factor, and on the better use of data, but the fact remains that there is still widespread suspicion that there has been a cover-up because of the nature of these crimes and those who perpetrated them. Does she agree that there is a need for a national inquiry because it has been seen that the problem is wider than was originally envisaged, because there has been a disgraceful cover-up by public bodies, and because there are allegations that the CPS had a role in ensuring that people were not prosecuted? Rather than hiding behind the rhetoric that this is a far-right demand, does she not accept that this  would be a reasonable response from a Government who say they want to deal with the problem and restore public confidence? \p Yvette Cooper: The very reason why I and many of us called for an independent inquiry many years ago was because of the deep concern about the scale of the hidden abuse and about the total failure of institutions to respond. There were concerns about information being hidden, and about authorities not taking the action that was needed. That is why we called for an inquiry in the first place, and it is why the previous Government invested over £150 million in that inquiry over seven years.

The inquiry rightly included a two-year investigation into the grooming gangs and organised child exploitation, but further work needs to be done in local areas—I have mentioned Telford, and Oldham is now taking forward that work as well. Ultimately, this all goes back to the need for police investigations. The police are the ones who have the powers to get to the truth about the perpetrators who are committing crime, to gather the evidence, to get them before a court and to get them behind bars. \p Emily Darlington: Over half a million children are sexually abused each year, and there are about as many perpetrators, yet some Opposition Members want to focus only on a few, rather than the big cases we have heard about involving TV presenters, the Catholic Church and others. This is something we have to take seriously, rather than exploiting it to chase headlines or look for future funders for political parties. We are taking action, led by two formidable women who will not let any abuser get away with exploiting women, men or children anywhere, particularly online. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will tomorrow begin an inquiry into algorithms. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that action is the priority for this Government, not further years of talking? Action is what survivors need. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we need action, and we need to see progress and change. Further areas will need investigations and inquiries. For example, I welcome the Select Committee inquiry she mentioned, particularly the investigation into online abuse and exploitation. As well as the expansion of online abuse, I am deeply concerned about the growing number of young people who are being drawn into abuse, and especially abuse between teenagers. That type of exploitation and harm of young people is extremely serious, and it is escalating. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Dr Caroline Johnson to ask the final question. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: The House has agreed this afternoon that cultural sensitivities should not get in the way of police investigations. However, it would appear that they have and they perhaps still are, and that victims have been let down and that current victims might be being failed even today. There is a specific problem with gangs of organised men, who are systematically raping and abusing young children. Within that group, there is an over-representation of men of Pakistani heritage. We need to understand why, but piecemeal investigation, town by town, will not help us to do that, will not serve the interests of victims, by ensuring they get the justice they deserve, and will not prevent future cases. \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady rightly raises an important point that was first raised as part of the Jay inquiry, more than 10 years ago, and then by the Casey inquiry, and she is right that we need to see action. Despite those issues having been raised over a decade ago, in many areas—not just grooming gangs and exploitation, but other areas of child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse—there has still not been any action taken to change things, which is why we have to make sure that action is taken. We have to look at the recommendations made, including in the two-year strand that was part of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and we have to work with the victims and survivors panel to identify further areas for investigation. We have to improve ethnicity data, which is not adequate. We published what we have in November, but it is not strong enough. That kind of data can inform the kinds of investigations that need to take place. We need to ensure that we look into child abuse wherever it is to be found across the country, in whatever institution or community. Crime is crime, and children need protecting, wherever they are. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Apologies to hon. Members who did not get in, but we have two further items of business. \p Caroline Nokes: It is the intention to run each of the Backbench Business debates for just an hour and a half, given the time we are left with. \p Mike Martin: I beg to move,

That this House recognises the horror of Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine; further recognises the necessity of a Ukrainian victory over Russia; agrees that the United Kingdom must do all it can to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression; acknowledges that there are approximately $300 billion of Russian assets frozen in the G7 and EU; and calls on the Government to investigate ways that these frozen assets could be legally seized and used to fund the war effort in Ukraine, and to report back to the House with its findings.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate, and colleagues from across the House for coming together to debate this important motion.

Sasha is 12 and from Mariupol. He was cooking outside with his mother, because their apartment had been bombed, when they were shelled. Some shrapnel went into Sasha’s eye, imperilling his eyesight. Luckily, they managed to get to a first aid station, where the shrapnel was removed and, thankfully, his eyesight was saved. Shortly after, they were captured by Russian forces and taken to a filtration camp, where they were separated—“You go over there, and you go over there”—and not even allowed to say goodbye to each other. We have echoes of that in our European history.

Sasha was taken to a further location in occupied Ukraine. He was told that his mother did not want him anymore, and that he would be sent to live with a good Russian family. Sasha is braver, cleverer and more tenacious than me, and he managed to get hold of a mobile phone. He rang his grandmother and told her where he was. Through an extraordinary series of events and organisations, his grandmother managed to get him out of that situation, and he now lives with her. Sasha does not know if his mum is dead or alive, and he is still looking for her.

Extraordinarily, Sasha is one of the lucky ones. He escaped his abduction, his Russification and indoctrination, and being severed forever from his birth family and placed—“adopted” is the term that is used—with a Russian family. We cannot say the same for at least 19,000 other Ukrainian children. The Ukrainian Government have verified and documented 19,000 cases of Ukrainian children being taken from Ukraine, placed with Russian families, and told to forget Ukraine and to love Russia. That is one of the smaller estimates. The United Nations thinks 120,000 Ukrainian children have been abducted and sent to Russia. I have experienced war, so I think I have a good handle on the full range of human behaviour, but extraordinarily, there are Russian officials who are boasting about the number of Ukrainian children they have abducted and placed with Russian families. Estimates range from 300,000 to 700,000.

Crimes like that do not go unnoticed. In 2023, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, who has possibly  the most Orwellian job title—children’s rights commissioner for the President of the Russian Federation—for the war crime of unlawful abduction, deportation and transfer of children from Ukraine to Russia. Worse still, that crime amounts to genocide, because the abduction of children and their indoctrination into another culture is considered genocide. There are echoes here of Europe’s past. Never again, they said—never again. \p Tan Dhesi: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing today’s important debate. It has been nearly three years since Putin tried to illegally invade the whole of Ukraine, leading to devastating loss of life, displacement and destruction. We must of course ensure that Ukraine has all the support it needs, but surely it should not just be my Slough constituents and UK taxpayers contributing. Given that Russia and Putin are no longer listening to the international community, and show no signs of stopping, is it not time for our Government to use frozen Russian assets to ensure that Putin pays directly for the damage that he is inflicting on the Ukrainian people? \p Mike Martin: I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee, on which I have the honour of serving. He is of course right, and that is why we have come here today. As I make progress with my speech, I will set out some of the arguments.

“Never again” leaves us with a moral question: how do we answer the genocidal abduction of children on European soil? It also leaves us with a strategic question, to which I will now turn. \p Alex Sobel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate, and for the wonderful way that he has started his speech. It is important to recognise that the abduction of children from Ukraine—from Crimea and the Donbas—did not start in 2022; it started in 2014. It has been going on for 11 years. The figures that he gives are broadly correct, I think, from meetings that I have had with Crimea Platform and others in Ukraine, but the second world war, to which he alluded, lasted only six years. The camps existed for only three years, and we are 11 years into this child abduction. International humanitarian law effectively started with Nuremburg. Does he agree that we will need to take a much longer and deeper look at resetting international law, post the Ukraine war? \p Mike Martin: I agree. This is a war crime of stupendous scale, breadth and width. There is a question of not only justice, but getting those children back to their families in Ukraine. That is part of the work that we all must do once the war is over, with Russia defeated and Ukraine victorious. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the debate forward; I was happy to be a signatory to the request for it to the Backbench Business Committee. Does he agree that the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine since the start of the war has escalated, with thousands injured and killed, millions fleeing for better lives elsewhere—some 300 such families are working and living in my constituency of Strangford—shortages of medical supplies, hospitals overwhelmed, and an energy and food crisis? The thrust of the debate is that freezing Russian assets does not work; they have to be seized. \p Mike Martin: I quite agree. In Tunbridge Wells, I have been heartened by the number of families who have taken in Ukrainian refugees. We also have a Ukrainian school, to continue the important work of enshrining and protecting Ukrainian culture, because when people commit genocide, one of the things they do is destroy the culture of their enemy.

Moving on to the strategic questions, I cannot state plainly enough that Ukraine is fighting for us. Ukraine is fighting for the United Kingdom, and for the security of Europe. Putin will not stop if he succeeds in Ukraine. He seeks to recreate a Russian empire, or at least a sphere of influence, the territory of which is currently covered by countries that wish to remain free—countries, I hasten to add, that are our allies by treaty. I speak of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. It is important that we look to the future. In only two weeks, President-elect Trump will be inaugurated. We do not know how he will respond. We do not know what he will do. He may not know himself what he will do, but we know that he feels differently about Ukraine, about the security of Europe, and about Russia.

Why is that important? The United Kingdom should be proud of the leadership role that we have played over Ukraine—from the first next-generation light anti-tank weapons to the £3 billion and then some that we give every year. We have worked with allies throughout. In total, $380 billion of support—security, humanitarian and financial—has been given to Ukraine. Of that, $180 billion has come from the US, so we see immediately that the US, as so often in international affairs, is totally indispensable. The security of Europe rests upon American support. If that support is withdrawn, we have a problem.

Luckily for us, we have options. When the renewed invasion in February 2022 was inflicted upon Ukraine, we moved swiftly with allies to freeze Russian assets. There are some $300 billion of Russian state assets in G7 countries. Some $200 billion of those assets are in Euroclear in Belgium, and there are probably more than £20 billion-worth of assets in the United Kingdom. The Minister will have a better idea than me. Perhaps he can undertake to update the House on the exact scale of Russian assets currently held in UK institutions. In June last year, the G7 agreed that we would use the interest from those assets to support Ukraine, and this House passed the enabling legislation, cross-party, just before Christmas. It amounts to about £50 billion with which we will support Ukraine—a very welcome first step. \p Manuela Perteghella: Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK, working shoulder to shoulder with our European allies, must lead the way in confiscating and repurposing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine? By ensuring that Ukraine has every financial and military resource that it needs, we can not only help the Ukrainians to reclaim their country but send a powerful message that Britain stands unwavering in the defence of freedom and democracy against Russian aggression. \p Mike Martin: My hon. Friend is right: it is about not just actions that lead to practical outcomes but the signals that we send to our geopolitical opponents. \p Andrew Murrison: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I agree with much of it, including that  Russia must pay for what it has done, in terms of supporting Ukraine in its war and the reconstruction to come, whatever that looks like. However, does he share my concern that were we to act unilaterally, or indeed with others, we may encourage the attractiveness of other reserve currencies and systems, in particular China’s, and that capital among the $12 trillion or so globally invested may find its way to Beijing rather than currently safer destinations in the western world? \p Mike Martin: I can answer the right hon. Gentleman directly. I am not advocating that we move unilaterally. I do not think that would be a good idea. If one country were to move, that allows capital flight to other G7 countries. The problem with the Chinese currency is that it is not fully convertible. It is not an international currency in which people like to keep lots of their reserves. That is why I am advocating for the G7 as a whole to move. Look at the currencies of the G7: the dollar, sterling, the euro—$200 billion of these assets are denominated in euros—and the yen. These are the major reserve currencies of the world. If the G7 countries move together, I think we will be safe. The right hon. Gentleman’s broader point is about the financial stability of international markets. That is an important point, but any potential small amount of financial instability created by the G7 countries moving together would be minuscule compared with the financial instability of Ukraine losing the war.

If we want to shift the dial on Ukraine, especially in the face of a potential drawdown in US support, we need to go further and faster and seize the $300 billion of frozen assets and send them to Ukraine. There is a clear legal pathway for doing so. The international law doctrine of state countermeasures says that states can take countermeasures against other states if there have been grievous violations of international law, such as the genocidal abduction of children. \p Johanna Baxter: I heard the question from the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on co-ordinated action. While no G7 nation has yet moved fully to seize Russian state assets, Canada and the US have enacted legislation to permit them to do so. Does the hon. Member agree that legislation is an important step forward and that the threat of immediately seizing $300 billion of immobilised assets is a tool that would add pressure on Russia’s already waning economy? \p Mike Martin: It is as if I gave the hon. Member a copy of my speech, because I will come to that in my next paragraph.

In April 2024, the US passed the REPO Act, which enables the US to seize frozen Russian assets and give them to Ukraine for her and, indeed, our defence. What is more, it became clear over the past month that the US has been quietly pushing its G7 allies—including us, one assumes—to take the step to investigate how to seize those assets and send them to Ukraine. Perhaps the Minister could feed back to the House what conversations have been had with the US State Department, what it has asked us to do and how we have responded. \p Will Forster: As my hon. Friend asks the Minister a question, let me highlight something. I hope this Government will have a better record on seizing assets than the previous one. The former Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab suggested that Sutton Place in my Woking constituency should be sold to benefit Ukraine or to house Ukrainian refugees; it is sitting idle despite the fact that it has been sanctioned as it is owned by Usmanov. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new Government need to do much better and sell assets like Sutton Place to benefit Ukraine? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Interventions have been far too long. I pointed out at the beginning that only 90 minutes will be allowed for the debate. Perhaps the Member in charge will consider concluding his remarks shortly. \p Mike Martin: I am coming to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker.

What we ask for in the motion is simple. It is not to seize the assets, although we think the time for that has come, and it is not to act unilaterally, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) asked about. We ask the Government to investigate with allies how we can go about seizing the assets legally and then to report back to the House on those findings. If the Government agree and will do that, perhaps the Minister could let us know the timelines.

This is an issue of unity. We—this House and this country—have been united in our support for Ukraine and in our opposition to Russia’s aggression. In the spirit of the unity that we have shown on Ukraine and Russia, we humbly beseech the Government to investigate with allies how they can go about seizing the assets legally. We have remained united on Ukraine throughout, and we have shown exceptional leadership. Now is the time to show that leadership again. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. There will be an immediate five-minute time limit. \p Blair McDougall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. There is a bit of a disease in British politics of reaching back to the second world war to make a point, but when we walk into this Chamber, we walk through an archway of bomb damage, and when we hear the echoes of history, we should listen to them—the hon. Member made that point eloquently.

In a sense, it is frustrating that we are even debating whether to do what is in the motion, but it is good that we are having the debate because the fact that we care about the rule of law and the international order is what separates us from Putin and his allies. We have to prove to Putin and his allies that our belief in those things is not a weakness, and we have to prove that we have the determination to defend our values.

In this year, which marks the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascist aggression in Europe, we have to constantly remember that the freedoms we enjoy were won through strength and sacrifice, and that freedom comes at a cost. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells listed the enormous  price that Ukraine is paying in lost citizens, lost children and lost infrastructure for defending that freedom. The world has said clearly that Putin has to pay the price for that. The UN General Assembly has said that Russia must make

“reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts”.

This is a debate about balance sheets and bank accounts, but putting a monetary value on the cost of this war is, at best, partial accounting. \p Emily Darlington: Does my hon. Friend agree that Vladimir Putin’s allies saw Britain as a soft touch and a good place to put their money and investment, whether ill-gotten gains or legal? Is it not now time under a new Government for us to show that this has changed? This Government will take it seriously and will take a more rigorous approach than the previous Government. \p Blair McDougall: Absolutely. As well as listening to the echoes of deeper history, we have to learn lessons from our more recent failures.

I met a soldier called Dimitri in a ward for wounded soldiers in Kyiv. He was strengthening his stumps for the day when he could have prosthetics fitted to both his now-missing legs. I asked what his hope for the future was, thinking he would say a holiday, getting a job or spending time with his family. He said that it was living life without shame. Listening to him, I felt ashamed because, as proud as we all are of the support we have given Ukraine, it has not been enough.

We know one thing in this debate: the money that Putin owes is many times greater than the money that has been seized. The legal objection to transferring the funds in whole to Ukraine seems to be that under the principles of the use of countermeasures by states the measures must, first, induce a change in policy from the target and, secondly, be reversible. On the first, seizing the assets does not just induce the change in policy; it delivers the change in policy. It pays the reparations in part. On it being reversible, we can give the Kremlin a credit note for the money paid and say it has been taken off the total.

With the time I have left to speak, I want to ask the Minister two direct questions, but these are really questions for all Western nations that hold Russian state assets but are hesitant about sending them in full to Ukraine. First, is there any conceivable situation in which we and our international partners would unfreeze the assets we hold and return them to Russia if Putin has not delivered the reparations he is bound to pay? Secondly, is there any conceivable situation in which Putin would voluntarily give up those reparations? If we are honest, the answer to both those questions has to be no.

Rather than making policy on an imaginary future that will not come and holding the funds in perpetuity, we should use them now in full—in whole—when Ukraine needs them most. If we are hung up on the legal arguments, as I say, we should call in a loan and give the Kremlin a credit note. The irony of the debate is that we are at risk of our commitment to the international order preventing us from enforcing it. The irony is that Putin, having stepped outside that international order, is demanding its protection. We need to listen to the  echoes of history as we enter this Chamber and ensure that Ukraine has everything it needs to fight and win this war. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. I am sad that it has been reduced from three hours to an hour and a half, because it is an important debate, and I hope that the Minister has time to answer some of the questions.

In reality, we are in a peculiar position—I do not blame this Government, because the previous Government were in the same position—whereby we are, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) just said, trapping ourselves in the same arguments that are meant to release us to get after those who have done egregious harm to others through an illegal invasion of another territory. That is clear, and it is why we should be permitted at this stage, where necessary, to seize those frozen assets—it is very simple. There is not time to go through all the legal arguments, but there are good reasons why we would be able to act in that way, and I would be happy to write to the Minister about them.

First, instead of claiming that international law prohibits us from doing those things, it is important to remember that the basis of international law is pretty fluid, because it is hugely influenced by the politics of the day—otherwise, we would still be trapped in what happened in 1950, even though things have moved on. That is another point: the British Government should not use those arguments against action; they should lead on making the necessary changes where possible.

My main point is that when it comes to freezing and sequestering assets, there is a good point at the end of it all. Hopefully, we will soon face an end to this war and the brutality, executions, murder and ghastly damage that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine. Ultimately there must be reparations by the country that invaded Ukraine, which is Russia. The trouble is we know very well that if we impose those reparations, Russia will never pay any of them, so the only hope we have is to seize state and oligarch assets and to say that they can be held in payment of the necessary reparations, and will be released as reparations are paid in accordance with what the UN says at the end of the war. That is one way of using frozen assets: seizing them and saying, “You will get these back, but only when you have stood up and done what you’ve been told to do after this aggressive war.”

If Members look carefully, they will see that we are already considering taking the money earned from assets in banks. That set of assets and their income cannot be separated. At the moment, we are talking of separating the income from the assets, as if there is some fundamental difference between who owns what. While the state has an asset banked, it also owns the money earned from it. We cannot just say that we might do one but not the other. If we seize what is earned, we should recognise that that allows us also to seize the asset that is earning that money in the bank. There is no reason why we should not pursue that, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that point in due course.

I do not believe that there is in international law any obligation or block on doing any of this. These arguments are being had at the moment in various court cases. By the way, we are not talking about the UK unilaterally seizing assets. Canada, which has already been mentioned, and the US have already passed legislation to give them permission to seize those assets—the Anglosphere is beginning to come together on this one. There is foot-dragging in Germany and France, and very much in Belgium. We know why: Belgium has a huge number of Russian assets and seems to be somewhat troubled by the idea of taking them over.

I say this in cross-party spirit. Surely now is the chance for the United Kingdom Government—my Government, because they were elected—to take the lead in arguing now for us to use these assets against future reparations and mend what has gone on so appallingly in Ukraine. I urge the Government to step up, take that lead and give the rest of the developed world the chance to get that money into the places where it can do the most good. \p Jeevun Sandher: Across the House, we agree that we must show Putin that we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. If we do not, a great power war more terrible that we can imagine will come. A century ago, politicians on these Benches failed, and what followed was the most destructive war in the history of humankind. Stopping that horror being repeated depends on us winning at war economics, as the motion rightly identifies.

War economics is simple: whichever side can command greater resources and convert them into fighting forces will win. Winning a single battle means nothing if the other side can keep throwing in resources to win the next one. Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Winning at war economics means doing three things. First, we must limit Russia’s earnings and output; secondly, we must limit Russia’s ability to convert its earnings into fighting forces; and thirdly, we must gain and convert our own resources into fighting forces. Seizing the $300 billion will help with the third point only if we convert those resources into fighting forces.

First, on limiting Russia’s output and earnings, Russia’s earnings from oil are still far too high: $150 billion a year. Urals oil is trading at $67 above the price cap. Russia is circumventing that by padding out costs for its shadow fleet in attestation documents. Maximilian Hess, the esteemed foreign policy expert, has shown that we can strengthen our price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of costs in attestation documents. I am pleased that the Office of Financial Sanctions agreed to look into that when it gave evidence to the Treasury Committee.

Secondly, we must stop Russia converting its output into munitions and materials. Too many of our western components are finding their way to Russian frontlines.

Thirdly, we must do more to convert the resources that we need into fighting forces. That is where our industrial defence strategy comes in. Seizing the $300 billion can help with that. As an economist, I should make clear to  the House that seizing those assets would not damage our economy or reduce financial stability. However, we must be clear on the how and the why.

On the how, we cannot seize those assets unilaterally. We hold only about 10% of them here, while around two thirds are held in Europe. We must convince our European allies to do as the Canadians and Americans have done in seizing those assets. On the why, seized assets are useful only if we convert them into defence production. The bit-by-bit approach that has characterised support to Ukraine must end; a large and sustained increase is needed.

Putin wants to rebuild a greater Russia and to swallow his neighbours whole. He will attempt to take more of Europe. Defeating him means defeating our own complacency. The history of nations is a history of war. That history changed only when the calculation of peace changed—through military strength, through sacrosanct borders and through democracy. If we do not show that we have the resolve and resources to defeat Putin, we will make the same mistake that Members made from these Benches almost a century ago. One of our nation’s greatest Prime Ministers stands outside this Chamber, his hands atop his hips. He warned Members in this Chamber and lamented the time wasted without preparing. He spoke of the

“years which the locust hath eaten”—[Official Report, 12 November 1936; Vol. 317, c. 1101.]

but he was ignored. Members on these Benches were too complacent; let us not be complacent. Members on these Benches failed; let us not fail. Members on these Benches saw oceans of blood spilled by the youth of this nation; let us not be the generation that sees oceans of blood wash over this continent once more. Let us be the generation that keeps the peace by showing Putin we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. \p Chris Coghlan: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this vital debate. There are many veterans in this Chamber; one in nine Liberal Democrat MPs has served in the armed forces. We know the price of freedom—many of us have seen it written on the grave of a friend. There are tens of thousands of Ukrainians paying that bitter price right now, which will all be in vain if we falter in our support. With the looming Trump Administration, that risk is real. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) has said, if Ukraine fails, the consequences for our security would be catastrophic. In the same way that our failure to show resolve on Syria perhaps encouraged Putin to attack Crimea, our failure to show resolve on Ukraine might encourage him to attack the Baltic states, test NATO’s article 5, and shatter the peace in Europe.

That does not need to be our future. If the G7 seizes the $300 billion in Russian assets, we have the opportunity not only to keep Ukraine in the fight, but to win. Many are worried that seizing that $300 billion could undermine the global financial system; I am here to argue that that is not the case. As Lawrence Summers—the former US Treasury Secretary—and many others have pointed out, those fears are overblown, because when those assets were frozen in the first place, there were no observed consequences in financial markets. It has been made  clear to financial markets that the assets of a sovereign aggressor are at risk when they are on deposit in a G7 country, as they should be. The risk that those assets will be seized should already have been substantially priced in, reducing the possibility of capital flight from a negative surprise.

In any case, where would that capital fly to if the G7 countries act together? The pound, dollar, euro and yen amount to almost 90% of the world’s reserve currencies. China is not an option because of capital controls, so there are no other viable reserve currencies for countries to deposit their reserves in. As a former hedge fund manager, I spent years investing professionally in financial markets, and I can assure the House that investors will not be discouraged from investing in safe and attractive G7 currencies for two simple reasons: fear and greed.

Today, the west spends $105 billion annually on Ukraine’s defence, including $45 billion from the US. The $300 billion in Russian assets could fund the lot for three years, or the US portion for six years if Trump withdraws his support. Many think that Russia’s resources are inexhaustible, yet according to the Royal United Services Institute, Russia is going to run out of artillery ammunition and armoured vehicles next year. It has already suffered 700,000 casualties, so Russia’s capacity to wage war will fall dramatically in one year’s time, but only if we can keep Ukraine in the fight.

If Ukraine can end this war on terms that demonstrate that it is victorious, the consequences for our security will be profound. The threat from Russia will be greatly diminished, China will think twice about challenging a liberal world order, and the narrative of the decline of the free world and the rise of dictatorships will be decisively set back. Imagine what the free world could then achieve in the 21st century. As such, I urge the Government to seize that $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to keep Ukraine in the fight, and I salute the Ukrainian soldiers who are laying down their lives, not only for their country’s freedom but for our freedom too. \p Rachel Blake: I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. I speak today as the constituency Member of Parliament for many of the assets we are discussing. It is easy to throw around the many billions of Russian-owned wealth across the country; for that reason, when referencing the luxurious wealth of Putin’s cronies, all of my calculations today are going to be in the unit of Storm Shadow missiles, each of which costs £800,000. These are the weapons of war that we talk about when we discuss funding the conflict in Ukraine.

In total, 28,375 Storm Shadows’ worth of Russian wealth is sanctioned, with profits from that wealth used to repay the extraordinary revenue acceleration funding the UK’s support of Ukraine. To put that in perspective, the UK’s total stock of Storm Shadows was estimated in 2023 to sit between 700 and 1,000. In Westminster alone, according to research by Transparency International, 537 Storm Shadows’ worth of property is owned by Russians accused of corruption or with links to the Kremlin, property that stretches from Belgravia to St James’s and St John’s Wood. Indeed, the most valuable home in the UK, Hanover Lodge, was sold last year for 141 Storm Shadows by Andrey Goncharenko, a former  Gazprom executive with ties to the Kremlin. A great deal of that property is owned by or connected to sanctioned individuals, including former Deputy Prime Ministers Igor Shuvalov and Vladimir Potanin.

The existence of this property is not just an economic issue; its impact also reaches into the very hearts of our communities. Our buildings and neighbourhoods are weakened when they are used for profit rather than purpose. A strong community is one in which neighbours can be the ones who look after your kids when you have a job interview. It is those communities that are undermined when we let towers of vacant investment properties propagate and turn a blind eye to foreign wealth emptying out British homes. Most recently, these communities have opened their arms to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fleeing from Putin’s illegal invasion. I am the constituency Member for a number of those refugees, and it is thinking of them that gives the overwhelming majority of us in this House the resolve to use every tool at our disposal.

That brings us to today’s topic: the seizure of sanctioned assets. As we heard earlier, the significance of this step and the precedent it would set should not escape us as legislators. The first ever permanent seizure of frozen assets occurred only last year, when the National Crime Agency confiscated the assets of Petr Aven for suspected evasion of sanctions. To set out an intentional policy of seizing those assets would be a bold step, and one that would doubtless lead to legal challenge. However, it must be worth us considering every option available for sanctioned assets, particularly when there is a clear argument that it would be justified to use them in supporting the Ukrainian people.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is in complete contravention of international law and violates the sovereignty and self-determination of the Ukrainian people. Furthermore, as has been confirmed by the UN’s independent international commission of inquiry on Ukraine, it has enabled a string of other war crimes, including indiscriminate attacks, violations of personal integrity, including executions, torture and ill treatment, and sexual and gender-based violence. As was made clear during the application of the original sanctions, the sanctioned individuals are playing a direct part in this war. They range from propagandists spreading disinformation about the conflict to garner public support, domestically and across the globe, to industrialists manufacturing the chemicals used in Russian weapons, and military and security personnel directly contributing to the invasion.

When the war in Ukraine is over, questions will remain about what we do with the 28,000 Storm Shadows of sanctioned wealth belonging to those who funded, championed, and even fought in Putin’s illegal invasion. We must take this opportunity to consider what sort of country we want to be when it comes to that dirty money, and to ensure that we do not let our economy be complicit in the forces that fund evil across the world. \p Ben Spencer: Debates such as this, about the horrors now happening in Ukraine, are always very important and very difficult to speak in. I very much appreciated listening to some of the harrowing stories, to remind myself just what the Ukrainians are experiencing, but also why all of us must push back Putin’s war machine.

I am most proud of the leadership that our country has shown over the past few years in the international response to support the Ukrainians to stand up against Putin. A key part of that was bringing together the international community to multilaterally, not unilaterally, support the Ukrainians in their plight. Early in this conflict we saw the weaponisation of oil and gas prices. We saw, and continue to see, hybrid warfare, which has been going on for some time. I very much supported, at every stage, the full-fat embargo of Russian oil and gas. Indeed, this House strongly supported the sanctions, which have been an important part of our support for the Ukrainians.

As tempting as this motion is—and it is very tempting when we read it—I must say that, like Members on both sides of the House, I am cautious and have some concerns and reservations about it. It is important to consider the impact on the international financial order and the rule of law. What differentiates us from Putin and the Russian state is that we do consider and debate this—we have this place where we can consider the rules-based order. Putin thinks that makes us weak, but he is wrong; it makes us strong, and it is what we stand for and what we believe in.

If we are to look at seizing assets, there are two important considerations. First, this focuses on state assets, as opposed to those of individuals and companies, as there is currently no judicial process for individuals and companies who have had their assets frozen, and to go ahead with seizing those assets is a much bigger step. Members have mentioned individuals and companies as well as the state, but the focus has to be specifically on Russian state assets, for which the legal framework is stronger.

Secondly, as with how we led from the beginning of the conflict, there has to be a multilateral approach. This has to be linked through the G7 and our partners in Europe. It has to be done together in unison, and we have a history of doing that. I say to the Minister that I am very proud of how we have done that. If we are to do this, we must do it multilaterally.

We also need to look at these assets being used for military use, as opposed to just general economic support. My understanding is that the interest money that has now been freed up has been restricted from use for military interventions, and this also needs to be considered as part of the process.

Finally, we also need to ensure that our current sanctions are effective. Just before Christmas I mentioned my concerns about the oil and gas embargo, particularly the idea that crude oil derivatives could be finding their way into the UK economy despite the embargo. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to some of my specific questions on that, but I hope he will look carefully at the effectiveness of the proofs of origin under the rules of origin, particularly when it comes to petrochemical derivatives such as plastics and other products that can be manufactured through the use of Russian oil and gas. We must ensure that, in our economy, our oil and gas embargo of Russia is as effective as possible before we even start looking at the next measures to take. \p Joe Powell: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this important debate.

This issue matters deeply to my constituents. Kensington and Bayswater is home to a thriving Ukrainian community and is a hub for Ukrainian institutions, from the embassy and the consulate to the social club and the school. But in Kensington, regrettably, we are also at the epicentre of Britain’s historical addiction to corrupt, kleptocrat wealth—we are in close competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) in that regard. In the wake of Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, I co-founded the Kensington Against Dirty Money campaign, alongside local community campaigners, to expose the vast sums of illicit capital hidden in luxury property in our community. As has been said, that dirty money undermines democracy both at home and abroad, and for too long kleptocrats have been able to sidestep the rules and hoard illicit wealth through opaque corporate structures. \p Helen Maguire: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) so much for securing this debate. Does the hon. Member agree that if the west fails to act decisively in seizing Russian assets, that simply signals to authoritarian regimes worldwide that aggression and the violation of international law come with little consequence, which will destabilise the global order and increase the likelihood of future conflicts? \p Joe Powell: The hon. Member is absolutely right. There are things the UK can do to be the trailblazer and there are things we need to do in partnership with our international partners, and shortly I will move on to how I think we can do more on the assets specifically.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the personal and relentless campaign by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister in relation to sanctions, including the recent action on the shadow fleet. However, in order for those measures to be fully effective, we must ensure that sanctions cannot be evaded, and there are still loopholes that need to be closed. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have been following closely the progress of our overseas territories and Crown dependencies in finally following the will of Parliament by establishing public registers of company ownership, allowing us to follow the money and detect where sanctions evasion may be taking place, for example in places such as the British Virgin Islands. It also means that we need to consider incorporating trust-owned property into our registers of overseas entities, ensuring that trusts cannot be used to conceal property that could be subject to sanctions.

As we have said, our residents deserve better than living in these communities hollowed out by wealth and built on corruption, where my constituents are suffering at the sharp end of London’s housing crisis. In the next-door constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) there is the case of Chelsea football club. Over two years ago, Roman Abramovich was forced to sell the club, with approximately £2.5 billion pledged to humanitarian programmes for victims of the war, yet not a single penny of that money has been spent. Those Chelsea  funds amount to five times the UK’s total humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since 2022, and they remain stuck in an escrow account. That is a travesty, given that releasing those funds would not cost the British taxpayer a penny. It would save countless lives, at a time when 15 million people require urgent assistance in eastern Ukraine alone and humanitarian agencies face a shortfall of £1.3 billion.

I welcome the UK’s leadership in the G7 on securing the additional $50 billion of support to Ukraine using the profits from the holdings of immobilised Russian sovereign assets, with over £2 billion coming from the UK’s share. We have led on sanctions, we have led on freezing assets and we have led on mobilising the interest on assets, and now I believe it is time for the UK to lead a coalition of willing nations to take decisive action to seize those sovereign assets in full. \p Cameron Thomas: I invite the hon. Member to recognise that there is an international precedent for the seizure of Russian assets. Back in 1990, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US, the UK and France transferred Iraqi assets to Kuwait to directly correspond with reparations to Kuwait. Does he agree that should be the case with Russian assets? \p Joe Powell: I agree. The moral and legal rationale for seizing these assets is clear. The total cost of Russia’s destruction of Ukraine has already far exceeded the total frozen state assets. It is inconceivable that Russia will ever pay for the irreparable harm it has caused Ukraine. Seizing these assets would not only increase Ukraine’s capacity to resist further destruction but help its leaders rebuild the country. It would be a downpayment on the reparations Russia will almost certainly be legally liable for, and will make it face the full consequences of its actions now.

Britain’s leadership on Ukraine—from military support to Homes for Ukraine to sanctions—has been exemplary and cross-party, but there is always more to do, so I ask the Minister to address my points about making our sanctions more effective by tackling evasion, closing the loopholes in our property register, releasing the Chelsea funds, and mobilising the international coalition to seize Russian state assets, so that we can support our friends on the frontline in Ukraine right now. \p Caroline Nokes: That brings us to the Front-Bench contributors, starting with James MacCleary. \p James MacCleary: I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this valuable and important debate.

Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine is not just an assault on one nation. It is a direct challenge to the values that unite Europe: democracy, sovereignty, and the rule of law. Europe must respond with strength and unity, and the UK has a unique role to play in leading the charge. Russia’s malign influence extends far beyond Ukraine. From interference in democratic elections across Europe to spreading disinformation, the Kremlin has shown its commitment to undermining the democratic values that bind our continent. This is not just Ukraine’s fight; it is a fight for the integrity of all our democracies.

Our defence sector is among the largest in Europe, and our international influence remains significant. When I meet European colleagues, one message is clear: they want the UK to lead. This is a moment for the UK to step up and demonstrate the leadership that has long defined our place in Europe—even though we are, for now, outside the European Union.

Seizing frozen Russian assets and repurposing them is one of the most effective ways to support Ukraine. These funds are not just financial resources; they are symbols of aggression that must become instruments of justice. Putin’s grasp on power depends on corruption and control; by seizing and repurposing these assets, we can weaken his grip. Our allies have shown the way. Canada amended its Special Economic Measures Act to allow the seizure of Russian assets for grave breaches of international peace, and the United States passed the REPO—Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians—Act to transfer Russian sovereign assets directly to Ukraine. These steps provide clear and workable models for the UK and Europe to adopt. \p Stephen Gethins: I agree on the legal precedent, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister comment on that. We have heard about the Iraq precedent; the legal precedent is there. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, crucially, Russia has stepped outside the international norm, and that to protect the international rules-based system, we must show that there are consequences? It is imperative that we take action to show that matters. \p James MacCleary: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is as if I had given him a copy of my speech; I was about to come on to that. Stopping the Russian assault on Ukraine is part of a wider struggle for the future of democracy and liberty, in Europe and around the world. Russian ruler Vladimir Putin has made this war an existential one, staking the future of his regime on it. We must be in no doubt that current and wannabe dictators are watching closely to see how European powers respond to Russia’s challenge. Any wavering in our support for Ukraine could easily be interpreted as a green light to others to launch grabs for coveted territory. In short, the basis of the liberal world order is at stake, and Britain has a duty to protect that order, which we did so much to create.

With the looming return of Donald Trump to the White House, the stakes for Europe could not be higher. The future of US support for Ukraine is uncertain, and Europe must be prepared to step up. This is a wake-up call for the UK; we must lead within Europe and ensure that brave Ukrainians receive the robust support that they need from us.

Beyond repurposing Russian assets, we must also address the systemic failures that have allowed dirty money to flood into our economy. The UK has long been a destination of choice for Russian wealth, much of it funnelled through loopholes in economic crime legislation. It is time to properly resource the National Crime Agency, close these loopholes, and make it clear that kleptocrats are no longer welcome here.

Members who, like me, are students of Russian and east European history will be familiar with the word Holodomor. There have been lots of references to history and the lessons that we should take from it. For those  who are not familiar with the word, we would simply call it the Ukrainian famine. In 1932 and 1933, uncounted millions of Ukrainians starved to death as a direct result of policies prosecuted by another dictator in the Kremlin, Joseph Stalin. I genuinely hope that those in this Chamber in the future will not look back on us and say that we could have done more to stop another great crime against the Ukrainian people.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear that this is about more than military aid; it is about holding Russia accountable and strengthening Ukraine’s defences. Ukraine’s fight is our fight; by taking action now, the UK can reaffirm that aggression will never be rewarded, that Europe will always stand firm in defence of freedom, and that Britain remains at the heart of the continent’s security and values. \p Caroline Nokes: I call shadow Minister Gareth Davies. \p Gareth Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this debate and giving an incredibly moving speech, in which he told the story of Sasha—and, of course, 19,000 other children. What is happening in Ukraine is absolutely heartbreaking, and he is right to raise those concerns in the House today.

Last week, many people started 2025, just as we start every new year, with hope, optimism and determination that this year will be better than the last. It is therefore right that our first debate this year is about our united resolve to ensure that Ukraine can continue to oppose Russian aggression, and about ways that we in this country can continue to support our friend and ally in this task. We have heard a number of excellent speeches from across the House, which have been both informed and incredibly moving.

For 1,047 days now, Ukrainian men, women and children have been suffering the consequences of the most recent stage of a war that they did not ask for and did not start, and that continues to claim the lives of so many of their friends, family and fellow countrymen. We Conservative Members are proud of our record of support for the people of Ukraine. In government, we provided over £12 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support. Because of this, the United Kingdom has rightly taken its place as a global leader in defending Ukraine. The UK was a first mover in providing vital aid, from helmets and body armour to, yes, Storm Shadow missiles and Challenger 2 battle tanks. We created safer routes for those fleeing the conflict, through the Ukrainian family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme, in which many Members participated. We established Operation Interflex, which has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil since the illegal invasion in 2022, and we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions Russia has ever seen, with 2,000 individuals, countries and groups sanctioned. This ensures that we are targeting not just the sectors of strategic significance to the Russian Government, and that those in and around the Kremlin are left with nowhere to hide, no matter where they are based.

Just as President Putin has so far sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen on the altar of his personal imperial ambitions, he seems determined to destroy the future prosperity of the Russian people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, Putin must be made to pay for his actions, and a number of other Members also made that clear.

Ukraine must continue to be supported in its fight against Putin’s war machine, so we welcome the fact that this Government are continuing much of the vital work that we started to strengthen the Ukrainian response. However, British support for Ukraine is underpinned by our willingness, and that of our NATO allies, to also invest in our own defence. That is why I hope that the Government will keep to their pre-election pledge of increasing defence spending in this country to 2.5% of GDP.

As I have said before, I am pleased that there is such clear consensus on support for Ukraine in this House. On military support, humanitarian aid and indeed sanctions, where the Government take responsible and sensible further steps, the official Opposition will of course support them. The last Conservative Government were one of the most vocal proponents of repurposing frozen Russian assets, and we drove our G7 and European allies to coalesce around the most ambitious solution.

The announcement by the Treasury on 22 October that the UK would contribute £2.26 billion to the G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme represents progress on that journey, and we very much welcome that, but we should never stop looking for innovative ways to legally mobilise frozen sovereign assets. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what further steps the Government are exploring. Given that the House is debating frozen Russian assets, it would be helpful for it to be provided with the most up-to-date information. First, can the Minister update the House on the total value today of Russian assets frozen by the G7 and of the total assets frozen by UK jurisdictions? Secondly, can he give some indication of the allocation of frozen assets by type? There has been some discussion of that today, but it would be helpful if the Government gave that breakdown to colleagues.

Today’s debate is focused on the seizure of frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine. The Minister will be well aware—this has been discussed at length today—of the various legal considerations, internationally and domestically, relating to seizure. Given recent comments by the EU’s chief diplomat, I look forward to the Minister clarifying exactly what the Government’s position is. Will he update the House on the Government’s latest discussions—many have called for this today—with our G7 partners and other allies on seizure?

We should never allow ourselves to forget what this debate is ultimately all about. Many of us are returning to this place after a restful and perhaps indulgent Christmas break, but I remind the House that the people of Ukraine faced a very different Christmas. Nothing illustrates that better than the fact that on Christmas day, as Ukrainians gathered together at St Michael’s cathedral in Kyiv, praying for peace and victory in 2025, their prayers were cruelly interrupted by the piercing sound of air raid sirens. Be in no doubt that the fight continues, not just for those on the frontline, but for all those who want their country to be free again. \p Richard Foord: I can hear that the shadow Minister is coming to a conclusion. He is a former investment banker, so I am curious to know His Majesty’s Opposition’s position on the seizure of frozen Russian assets. \p Gareth Davies: I welcome the intervention. Our position in government and in opposition has been that we should do whatever it takes to hold Russia to account and to ensure that Russia pays, and we support Ukraine. I have set out a number of ways, financial and other, in which we did that in government. Whether in government or in opposition, we clearly have concerns about legal obstacles, which may or may not exist, and it is right that we debate that today, as well as the impact on markets, sentiment and investor confidence. The issue is not as simple as some perhaps suggest. There are a number of factors, but we should leave the option open and continue to explore all options when it comes to supporting Ukraine, and holding Russia to account and ensuring that it pays. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Gareth Davies: I will take one more intervention. \p Julian Lewis: The key point is the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about the distinction between private assets—even such tainted ones as are held by oligarchs—and state assets. The mover of this motion, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), will correct me if I am wrong, but the $300 billion-worth of assets referred to in the motion are state assets. In a publication by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in May last year, no fewer than 11 professors and other legal experts were unanimous in saying that when it comes to state assets, there is no legal obstacle for seizure by a third-party state, such as ourselves. \p Gareth Davies: I welcome the intervention by my right hon. Friend, who is extremely diligent in his assessment of such matters. I will allow the Minister, who is actually in the Government, to provide their legal assessment of what may or may not be possible. I have set out our concerns, which we are happy to continue to debate and discuss, as I have said, but it is right that throughout the House we continue in our support for Ukraine. It is right that we continue to discuss all the ways we can support the Ukrainians. If there is a way, we should look at it. \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and other colleagues across the House for tabling this important debate. He made a powerful speech, starting out with the horrific story of Sasha. It made me think not only of similar stories I have heard directly, but of the work done in communities throughout the UK in maintaining Ukrainian culture and heritage—the very culture, heritage and language that Putin is trying to erase from the lives of those children. I visited the centre in my constituency in Cardiff just a few weeks before Christmas.

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and their challenge. They have made some important points and they can be assured that I have listened to them all carefully. It is important to emphasise that we have again seen absolute unity in this House in our desire to support Ukraine in its fight and that Russia must pay. Those are the two key messages coming out of the debate for me.

As all of us in the Chamber know well, Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack against a sovereign democratic state. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the Christmas day attacks reinforced the shocking and barbaric nature of what Russia is doing. The UK and our international partners stand united. We cannot let aggressors like Putin succeed.

I will attempt to respond to many of the points that have been made, which have all been important, but I will start by underlining the magnitude of the UK’s response to Putin’s invasion. We have sanctioned more than 2,100 individuals and entities. We have frozen more than £22 billion-worth of private assets under the Russia sanctions regime. The shadow Minister asked for some allocation by type, and I will certainly try to write to him with further detail on that.

Alongside G7 partners, we have immobilised Russian state assets in our jurisdiction, too. We have led international shipping sanctions that have disrupted the Russian shadow fleet, leaving oil tankers idling across the globe unable to continue their trade. We have ramped up action since July to include a further 89 tankers, barring them from our ports and denying them access to maritime services. We have also sanctioned nine vessels involved in the shipping of liquefied natural gas from Russia, which has contributed to Russia’s largest producer suspending production.

All that is alongside measures targeting firms supplying Russia’s military industrial complex, including Chinese companies sending components for drones. We have sanctioned cyber-criminals and mercenaries seeking to destabilise African countries, not to mention Russian troops for the appalling use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. These carefully constructed and wide-ranging packages are having a significant impact on Putin’s ability to finance his war, eroding Russian oil revenues and supporting Ukraine on the battlefield.

There was a lot of talk about war economics from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), but the fact is that Russia is paying many times more for components that are often of poorer quality and in much lower quantities than it needs. By disrupting the Russian oil industry, we are putting further pressure on the Kremlin. It has all contributed to a Russian economy that is in trouble, with inflation at close to 10%, interest rates at 21% and the rouble in decline. Putin has told his population not to panic, but disagreements between officials and industrialists are increasingly vocal, and that should serve as a reminder not only to Putin but to the wider world that there is a high price to pay for assaulting the democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of another nation.

Many questions have rightly been asked about enforcement. Since coming into office I have been clear, as has the Foreign Secretary, that we must have the necessary powers and tools to implement and enforce our sanctions regimes effectively. Strengthening the system  is a top priority for this Government and, with the support of ministerial colleagues, I have launched a cross-Government review to examine how we can make it easier for businesses to comply with sanctions, but also bring the full force of the law to bear on those who do not. We are working across Government Departments on that.

We have introduced new powers for the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and for the Department for Transport. In September last year, the Financial Conduct Authority fined Starling bank almost £29 million in relation to its financial sanctions controls and screening. Last month, the National Crime Agency disrupted multibillion-dollar Russian money laundering networks with links to drugs, ransomware and espionage, resulting in 84 arrests. It also seized more than £20 million in cash and cryptocurrency.

The Foreign Secretary, who was rightly referenced in the debate, has launched an important campaign on tackling illicit finance and kleptocracy, including by dealing with those who enable them. We have made it clear that we will not hesitate to do what is necessary to clamp down on those who seek to evade our sanctions.

We want to ensure that Ukraine emerges from the war with a modernised and inclusive economy that is resilient to Russian threats. That is as important as providing it with the crucial military support that it needs. We will therefore continue to work across a range of donor platforms to leverage private investments such as those at the Ukraine recovery conference with the work of UK Export Finance and British International Investment.

We have committed £12.8 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine. As was rightly referenced, we have often been the first mover when it has come to vital lethal assistance, whether in respect of Storm Shadow missiles, Challenger 2 tanks or, of course, the NLAWs at the start of the war. We have also recommitted to £3 billion a year for as long as it takes and signed a long-term bilateral security co-operation agreement—we were the first of 25 countries to do so.

As was rightly referenced, the Chancellor has further announced that we will provide £2.26 billion of additional support to Ukraine as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. I thank hon. Members across the House for ensuring the speedy passage of the legislation, which passed its Third Reading unanimously, to put that in place. Crucially, those funds will be repaid not by Ukraine but by the extraordinary profits made on sanctioned Russian state assets held in the European Union.

The fundamental questions about what more we can do to use Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine were at the heart of the debate. The Government and our G7 partners have repeatedly affirmed our position. Russia’s obligations under international law are clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The ERA loan and our contribution will ensure that Ukraine can receive the financial support that it needs now—it was right to focus on getting that out the door, because we urgently need to support Ukraine now—with the profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets providing that. I reassure colleagues throughout the House who  have rightly asked a lot of searching and challenging questions that we are committed to considering all possible lawful avenues by which Russia can be made to meet its obligation to pay for the damage it is causing to Ukraine. We continue to work with allies to that end.

I confirm that I spoke to Foreign Ministers from across Europe on that and other crucial aspects of our support for Ukraine just before the House rose in December. We will continue to update Parliament on the progress of that work. However, I hope hon. Members will understand that it would not be appropriate to provide a running commentary on discussions, as allies have committed to keeping those private, including in respect of the specific sums of Russian sovereign assets that are currently frozen. \p Julian Lewis: I absolutely accept what the Minister says. Does he appreciate that with the possibility of President Trump withdrawing some, if not all, American aid to Ukraine, the substitution of a substantial volume of financial support will become essential? That is one reason behind our concern about the assets possibly being seized. \p Stephen Doughty: We are all concerned to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and as quickly as possible. It is wrong to speculate on what the future Administration might choose to do. Let us remember that the package came through from the United States with strong bipartisan support, and much of the support to Ukraine even before the 2022 invasion came from the first Trump Administration. Let us be clear that there is support there and that there is unity across the Atlantic on support for Ukraine. \p Iain Duncan Smith: President Trump has already said that he will continue with the payments and support. May I ask a simple question? We know from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill that recently passed through the House that using the profits of assets will help to bring up to $50 billion of support to Ukraine. A previous legal commitment has been broken, which could not have been done before without prior legislation; assets have never been separated from profits. The Minister does not have to answer the question now, but will he go back to the Foreign Office with a reminder that the assets are now left available for seizure? \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and hope that he will write me the letter that he promised in the debate. I will read it with great interest. He is extremely well informed on these matters and he knows that I have taken a keen interest in them over some time. As I said, we will consider all lawful measures that we can possibly take to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs. I will listen closely to his advice and, indeed, that of many others. He would not expect me to comment on any legal advice or technical advice under consideration.

I am conscious of the time and the need to move to the next debate, but I genuinely want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members. Hugely important points were made. It is clear that there is unity in the House that we all want to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and to get that there as quickly as possible. I am convinced that we are doing everything we can on both sides of the equation—choking off Russia’s ability to fund its war  machine on the war economics side, which was mentioned, as well as getting Ukraine the support that it needs. We will continue to do that.

Our support is ironclad, and we have made that clear to President Zelensky. I was with Foreign Minister Sybiha a number of times before Christmas, and he is absolutely clear that the UK’s support is critical and that it must continue. We are glad to give him confirmation of our resolute support. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Mike Martin to wind up. \p Mike Martin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of my overrunning speech earlier, I will not take up the full two minutes allocated to me, so I can give you back some time in a congested parliamentary timetable.

I will focus on two things. One is unity. We have demonstrated that unity tonight throughout the House. This is not about party politics: this is about the moral and strategic interests of our country and our allies. The other point is about leadership. We have led throughout on this conflict, and this will be the next stage of that leadership.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the horror of Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine; further recognises the necessity of a Ukrainian victory over Russia; agrees that the United Kingdom must do all it can to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression; acknowledges that there are approximately $300 billion of Russian assets frozen in the G7 and EU; and calls on the Government to investigate ways that these frozen assets could be legally seized and used to fund the war effort in Ukraine, and to report back to the House with its findings. \p Helen Morgan: I beg to move,

That this House has considered backlogs in the NHS.

Happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I applied for it because many Members were interested in having the chance to discuss the problems and consult constructively on the potential solutions for the NHS across the country. It has ended up being a particularly timely debate given the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon, which we broadly welcomed.

The Conservatives have pushed the NHS to breaking point, leaving a legacy that includes the biggest waiting list in history and a healthcare system on the brink of collapse. We have reached a crisis point of backlogs in the NHS system. They affect not only those who are in dire need of medical care, but the wonderful staff who work tirelessly in hospitals, GP surgeries, dental surgeries, pharmacies, social care providers, hospices and so on. The situation in Shropshire right now demonstrates the scale of the crisis.

The pressure is extreme on every aspect of healthcare and reflects the fact that in many cases rural areas are bearing the brunt of a national problem. Shropshire’s NHS has declared a critical incident—one of many across the country, I know—as staff battle to cope with the huge winter spike of viruses. That means that people cannot visit their loved ones on a regular basis, and are required to wear a mask when they go into the hospital. That is just one example of how the system is failing to cope with the pressure.

Understandably, talk about NHS backlogs centres on the 7.5 million cases waiting for treatment. But backlogs also apply to the overflowing A&E waiting rooms and to the long lines of ambulances queuing outside. They apply to the elderly people who have fallen and waited many hours for an ambulance. They apply to possible heart attack and stroke patients being told to make their own way to hospital by West Midlands ambulance service at certain times this year. Outside Shrewsbury and Telford hospitals last Sunday—the latest day we have data for—ambulances waited an average of three hours and 48 minutes to hand over a patient. Across England on the same day, 2,620 patients had to spend more than an hour stuck in an ambulance waiting for space to become available at A&E. \p Steve Darling: In my constituency, our hospital faces almost 700 sewage leaks, which has an impact on its ability to provide services. That is another pressure. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner the Government advise on what investment they will make to enhance services for our hospitals across the UK, the better? \p Helen Morgan: I had not put the crumbling estate into my speech, but my hon. Friend makes a very valid point, because people cannot work efficiently when they are dealing with terrible hygiene and safety issues around them every single day. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate, and on being so consistent and assiduous on this issue. I understand that she will come on to the Lib Dem manifesto, which a lot of us in this Chamber, whether Lib Dem or not, can agree with. In Northern Ireland we have the health and social care board, which has been working on various strategies to reduce the backlog, but the scale is truly significant. Does the hon. Lady agree that, collectively, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should look at all the recommendations and bring them together so that this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit collectively? \p Helen Morgan: The hon. Gentleman always makes an excellent contribution to our debates. He is right that we should look at best practice in Northern Ireland and the devolved nations, as well as in England, to get the right solutions for the problems that we face. I hope colleagues will forgive me as will not take any more interventions because we are tight on time and a lot of people want to speak.

We have reached a point where patients suffering heart attacks are being advised to find their own way to hospital. How can that be acceptable? Once patients get into A&E, they are confronted with the brutal reality of the backlogs. The reality means that only half of patients arriving at A&E in Shropshire were seen within four hours in November. The statistics are shocking, but individual people with serious problems suffer as a result—people such as my constituent with a pericardial effusion, who was deemed fit to sit and left in a chair for more than 24 hours before finally being taken on blue lights to receive the care she needed.

Staff in this situation are so overworked that the standard of care that they give is below what they would like to provide. The patient’s dignity is compromised, and staff are being driven from the service because they are unable to provide the care that they desperately want to. Until the Government put a plan in place to solve the workforce crisis, there is a risk that these scenes will continue to happen. In my local hospital trust alone, a total of 854,839 hours of nursing shifts went unfilled in the 12 months to October.

Liberal Democrats are calling for a qualified clinician in every A&E waiting room to ensure that anyone whose condition is deteriorating is treated more urgently. We are also calling on the Government to publish accessible localised reports of ambulance response times so that the delays that blight places such as North Shropshire and other rural areas can finally be addressed.

A key reason for the emergency backlog is that every day, around 12,000 hospital beds are filled with patients who could leave if they had a care package in place. That is the equivalent of around 26 hospitals being out of action every day. That is why Liberal Democrats have been banging the drum for social care. Without capacity in the care system, beds will remain blocked, A&Es will stay clogged and ambulances will continue queuing outside hospitals.

I am pleased that the Government have finally listened to our call for cross-party talks to fix a broken care system, and I look forward to constructively engaging with them throughout that process, but we cannot afford to wait three more years for this plan to be enacted. I hope that the Government will reconsider their timescale  and get the review done as soon as possible, so that the care sector can see the long-term cross-party commitment to reform that it so drastically needs.

Part of solving this issue is supporting preventive measures, which stop people needing secondary care in the first place. I recently visited the North Shropshire charity Energize and saw the work of its Elevate programme, which works to improve fitness, balance and co-ordination in elderly and frail patients. It has had some amazing achievements: I met a gentleman suffering from Parkinson’s who had been falling five times a week before he started his programme, and who is now falling only once a week. Of course, it would be great if he did not fall at all, but I am sure everybody would agree that that is a huge improvement. It is estimated that for every £1 invested in that programme, £26 is saved, so it is an area where we can really make a difference to the crisis in the NHS.

Few backlogs have as much impact as those in cancer diagnosis and care. Nationally, the target of 85% of patients receiving treatment within 62 days has been missed every month since December 2015. At my local hospital trust, fewer than two thirds of patients began treatment within the 62-day target. Improving this situation is integral to increasing survival rates. It is also key to restoring patient faith in the NHS, stopping cases like that of my constituent, whose family felt completely failed by the NHS after he waited almost a year for treatment after first presenting with bowel cancer symptoms. Could the Minister clarify whether the Government remain committed to meeting the cancer waiting time targets this Parliament, as promised in their manifesto, and whether those targets will be included in their new national cancer strategy?

To achieve that improvement, we need to address key workforce issues, notably in radiology, where there is a 31% shortfall of consultants across the country. Again, in rural places such as Shropshire, it is recruitment and retention issues that have caused the sharpest problems. Throughout 2024, it became normal in Shropshire to wait months for cancer test and scan results, with patients in my constituency only receiving their results after their next scan was due to have happened. I am pleased to report that under new management, this backlog is now in the process of being cleared. However, that is happening due to overseas outsourcing, which is not a sustainable long-term solution for this country. We need to retain, recruit, and retrain more radiologists and ensure that enough modern equipment is in place across the country so that no one has to wait too long or travel too far to get the scans that they need. Will the Minister address whether that will also be part of the national cancer strategy?

We cannot talk about backlogs without talking about mental health. According to the Darzi review, 1 million people were waiting for mental health services by last April, over 340,000 of whom were children—children whom we as a nation need to protect, because they are our future. Waiting times for child and adolescent mental health services are shocking in every constituency in the country; from ADHD diagnoses to anxiety, depression and eating disorders, far too many people are not getting the urgent support that they need. A headteacher of a school in north Shropshire told me that in recent years, nine students at his school have lost a parent to suicide, yet there are no community mental health services in the town.

Along with the Government, Liberal Democrats would introduce a mental health professional in every school. However, we are also calling on the Government to improve early access to mental health services, and to cut mental health waits by establishing mental health hubs for young people in every community and introducing regular mental health check-ups at key points in people’s lives when they are accessing the NHS, so that we can pick up those problems and intervene early.

Meanwhile, GP surgeries are also struggling to handle the growing pressure being exerted on them. More than a million patients who tried to contact a GP last year could not get through. If patients cannot access primary care, they seek help elsewhere, or they do not seek help at all; in both cases, this creates further problems down the line. In Shropshire, we have lost 14.3% of fully qualified GPs in the past eight years. A young constituent of mine had to wait seven weeks just for a telephone consultation—a wait that would have been even longer if they had wanted an in-person meeting. Liberal Democrats would give everyone the right to see a GP within seven days, or within 24 hours if it was urgent, using 8,000 more GPs. If we can improve primary care, we can reduce backlogs across the health and care system.

Yet the Government have pledged to increase national insurance charges that could cost GP surgeries the equivalent of 2 million appointments a year. This hike will also hammer pharmacies, with more than a third of pharmacy owners now worried that their business may not survive the winter. If pharmacies close, backlogs will simply increase elsewhere. If we can keep them open and improve services such as Pharmacy First, we can reduce pressure across the system. We would like the Government to commit to removing the increase in employer national insurance contributions to support these crucial community services, so that fewer people end up in hospital and more people are treated in the community, where they will get better and quicker treatment.

Meanwhile, in dentistry, where practices will also be hit by the national insurance rise, there is not so much a backlog of care as an absence of care. Some 6 million adults in the UK are not registered with an NHS dentist and, in places like Shropshire, it is becoming almost impossible to find one, with increasing numbers of practices handing back contracts that have become unsustainable. One of my constituents has been trying to register with an NHS dentist for five years, while another pulled out his own tooth with a pair of pliers.

The Labour Government must show that they understand the problem better than the Conservative Government, whose solution was to introduce golden hello payments. They have been in place in Shropshire for years and they have not achieved the desired outcome. With that in mind, will the Minister outline the Government’s plans in relation to the new patient premium and offer assurances to dentists that any changes will be communicated, so that practices can plan and prepare to best serve their patients? NHS contracts need to be reformed so that we can end the use of the term “dental desert”, end DIY dentistry and guarantee access to people who are in pain.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats believe that people should be able to take control of their own lives and their own health. That means everyone should be able to access the care they need, where and when they  need it. We welcome much of today’s announcement on elective care, and we welcome today’s announcement on social care, but we are concerned that the decision to hike employer NICs could worsen the crisis in the NHS. Hitting GPs, hospices, dentists and social care providers with higher taxes makes no sense. The Treasury is giving to the NHS with one hand, but taking away with the other. We also want much faster action on social care. As I said, I look forward to engaging constructively with the Minister to come up with the consensus we need, but we cannot afford to wait until 2028 for improvements to be made.

The Conservatives’ legacy on the NHS is that it is on its knees. The Liberal Democrats understand that there is no magic quick fix to change that, but to give people the care they need and deserve we must look at the measures needed for the whole service, giving equal priority to both heart attacks and hip replacements. \p Jodie Gosling: Nuneaton, too, has record high levels of people on NHS waiting lists—over 17,000. Staff tell me that they are burnt out and demoralised. Patients are suffering as a result: long waits on trolleys in corridors, lengthy waits in ambulances, and stagnation at GP surgeries where they simply cannot get the appointments they need. Since 2021, the hospital has seen 1,500 staff absences due to mental health issues, with many leaving the profession. Leaders at our George Eliot hospital really value their staff, but they are struggling to cope with ever-increasing demand and to remain resilient with sudden increases in demand, such as flu outbreaks over Christmas, leading to yearly chaos that costs lives, longer waiting times for patients, cancelled appointments, and a decline in the quality of care.

Nationally, we have fewer hospital beds and scanners per capita than most other European countries. Our buildings are crumbling, and our computer system is outdated. Our hard-working NHS staff deserve better. They deserve a Government who will respect and value them and invest in them.

The failures of the past carry a considerable human cost, but they also impact on family finances and have wider economic impacts on our communities. One particular case, a nurse from Arbury in Nuneaton who works for our brilliant George Eliot hospital, clearly demonstrates the damage that can be done. They were in their mid-40s, fit, active, working and economically stable when they were diagnosed with a spinal condition that compresses the nerves in their legs, causing pain. A simple procedure could solve it very quickly and easily with the right referrals, but they had to wait 12 months for a referral just to speak over the phone to the neurosurgeon. The doctor recommended surgery, but the patient has been left in limbo, unable to get a follow-up appointment or any information about when surgery will actually take place. This is a simple procedure for a condition that has devastated her life over a number of years. Living in constant pain, she can no longer stand for more than five minutes and has been forced to withdraw from her vital role in the NHS—another vacancy, another specialist unit short-staffed.

That is just one example from the 17,000 among my constituents, many of whom do not make it to the end of those waiting lists. I have stood by the graves of  people in my constituency who had been waiting for treatment that could have stopped them ending up there. There are people whose lives are on hold and families who are suffering grief. There is waiting and more suffering. It is a crisis of political failure, a crisis of underfunding and a crisis of neglect. I fully support the Government’s actions to address it. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am now imposing an immediate four-minute time limit, to try to get everyone in. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important and timely debate. I must begin by declaring my interests: I am a non-practising NHS consultant psychiatrist and my wife is an NHS doctor.

Christmas and the festive period is always a taxing time for the NHS, especially for those working on call, as indeed it is for all those in the various emergency services and those outside the public sector who are on call. It is important to pay tribute to them for all their hard work over the past couple of weeks.

Much of the correspondence that I have received from constituents over the past few years has concerned the difficulty of obtaining GP appointments. Interestingly, the demand for GP appointments has risen since before the pandemic, following the advent of virtual appointments and different means of contact. Patients are now finding it more difficult to see someone in a general practice, although overall performance in general practices has improved since before the pandemic. It is important that we support our GP practices as much as we can, to ensure that they deliver the high-quality care that our patients expect. Our local practices are fantastic: they are working very hard, in tricky circumstances, to deliver for patients. \p Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. Does he agree that part of our duty is to support our general practices? Our constituents often say, “I cannot see my GP”, but if we probe, we find that it is a question of whether they are prepared to accept a telephone consultation, which is probably just as good for most of them. Radiology was mentioned earlier. The issue for the future, surely, is embracing technology rather than outsourcing. In many cases, AI reading of films and scans is probably as good as, if not better than, a reading by a radiologist in India, Shropshire or anywhere else. \p Ben Spencer: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the use of AI to improve productivity in the NHS, and with what he has said about general practices.

I generally take a neutral, honest-broker approach when people raise concerns about general practices. Of course it is important for us to ensure that our practices are performing well, to support them, and to respond to our constituents’ concerns more broadly. However, given that the bulk of care is coming through general practice—and I was interested to hear, in recent days, about the  renewed focus on patient choice, particularly in respect of secondary and tertiary care—I think that one of the challenges posed by our current general practice system relates to the absence of patient choice. Effectively, general practices, which, as the Minister will know, are private organisations, have a monopoly in terms of the patients who are in their catchment area. It is very difficult for patients to move to different practices when the ones that they are currently using are not meeting their needs: when seeking an appointment with a GP, they are stuck with their own practice, or else they must go through various mechanisms to obtain care elsewhere. \p Richard Holden: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about something that is currently affecting my own constituency. South Green surgery in Billericay has recently been told that it is to be closed down, and the integrated care board is not ensuring that we retain what is essentially competition, so a single surgery will be serving one of the towns in my constituency. Does he agree that the Department of Health and Social Care should be leaning in to ensure that we maintain that competition between GPs’ surgeries, so that standards can be driven up wherever possible? \p Ben Spencer: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is important that patients have information and choice, and that they have the flexibility to move between different practices to suit their needs. My view is that the GP list system does not work. It does not make sense as it currently stands, and it limits the ability of patients to seek the care that they need in a timely manner. As he just mentioned, people get stuck in practices that are not performing or are not working for them, and they have no ability to move out of them.

My right hon. Friend also mentions the role of the ICB/ICS system, which brings me to my final point. As a constituency MP, I find it incredibly frustrating that I have no direct control, power or hard influence, as opposed to soft influence, over the local ICS/ICB system. I can write letters and campaign, and I have spoken in debates in Parliament. I have led a debate on the Weybridge health centre, which is finally going to planning after the drama of multiple consultations. My only ability to direct what is happening on the ICB is through directly asking Ministers questions in Parliament, or by trying to get them to intervene. When the Health and Care Act 2022 was going through in the last Parliament, I raised with the then Minister my concerns about the accountability of our ICSs and ICBs. We have a real problem with what we MPs can do to ensure that our ICBs and ICSs are performing for people locally, because there is a disconnect in the link of accountability.

I believe that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Ministers on the Front Bench absolutely want to see all our local NHS services performing at their very best. I totally believe that they are in it for the right reasons and want to see better performance, and I want to help them deliver that. But with all the enthusiasm and will in the world, are they going to take the same interest in my local area as I do? We MPs need the ability to cajole and to direct what our local NHS services are doing in order to deliver the best possible care for patients. After all, we are the locally elected representatives and, as we saw in this year’s election and will see in elections going forward, there are always 24 hours to save the NHS. \p Sojan Joseph: Addressing backlogs in the NHS, together with changing the current hospital-centric system, will be of central importance in ensuring the long-term sustainability of our health system. Under the Conservatives and the coalition Government, we had more than a decade of under-investment, coupled with a disastrous top-down reorganisation, which caused the high level of backlogs that we currently see across the NHS.

While working in the NHS throughout that period, I saw at first hand the dire impact that the reorganisation had on our health service, and how it led to waiting lists at a record high and patient satisfaction at a record low. That was underlined by the recent analysis from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which shows that 25 times more people waited in A&E departments last summer than in the same period in 2009. In its analysis, the IPPR described long waits for healthcare as the “new normal” for many NHS patients.

I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary and his team of Ministers have already introduced to address this issue. I also welcome the measures that the Prime Minister announced this morning. Thanks to this Labour Government, the NHS in England will receive a record £25 billion investment, which will support the Government in meeting their target of 40,000 extra elective appointments a week.

I pay tribute to the dedication of my former colleagues across the NHS, who are working hard to treat patients as quickly as possible and cut waiting times. There is evidence of that happening in my area of east Kent. For example, at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford, an average of 84 patients per day were medically able to be discharged in November 2023 but had nowhere to be medically discharged to; in November 2024, the figure was down to an average of 58 patients per day. In the hospitals in east Kent in November 2023, just over 2,000 patients were treated in corridors for more than 30 minutes; in the same month last year, the figure had fallen to just over 1,600 patients.

Although the figures are going in the right direction, they are still far too high, and no one working in our NHS would claim otherwise. The staff in the health service will keep doing their best to clear the backlogs, but it will not happen until we see less of an emphasis on patients being treated in our hospitals. We need to see more focus on and resources for community-based services to help reduce the pressure on overburdened hospitals, as well as changing the system so that people are treated closer to where they live. As a former mental health nurse, I believe this must also include more timely interventions to treat those in need of mental health support. Currently, not only do too many people end up being treated in hospital, but once patients are there, the absence of enough suitable community-based facilities means it is difficult to discharge them. This leads to further blockages and backlogs in the system.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, I welcome the fact that this Government recognise that without addressing the social care crisis, more and more people will be left without the care they need and further pressure will fall on the NHS. I am also pleased that the Government have announced an  immediate £86 million boost to the disabled facilities grant for this financial year. That is in addition to the £86 million that was announced at the Budget. Together, this funding means that thousands more people will be able to make the improvements they need to their homes so they can live more independently. \p Helen Maguire: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate. The backlog in the NHS is a national crisis, and it is acutely felt in my constituency. Patients, families and staff are bearing the brunt of an overstretched and under-resourced healthcare system. This morning I was delighted to see the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary at Epsom hospital in my constituency—part of the Epsom and St Helier trust—to announce this Government’s plans to tackle the backlog of tests, checks and treatments. I welcome many aspects of today’s announcement. Direct access to checks will cut unnecessary waiting times and, if implemented well, will result in better patient outcomes as health issues are found earlier.

The location of this announcement at a hospital connected to St Helier hospital was particularly potent. Over the Christmas period, St Helier hospital, which has been at the heart of healthcare in the community for generations, made the news again. Its sinking floors and leaky ceilings illustrate the failings of our NHS. The facility is failing. Some of the buildings are older than the NHS itself and are plagued by damp, mould and structural issues that impede patient care. The hard-working staff at St Helier hospital are doing their best in impossible circumstances, but the reality is that the current infrastructure hampers their ability to provide the level of service and the quality of care that my constituents deserve.

Epsom hospital, too, is struggling to cope with demand. Over the winter recess I heard harrowing stories from constituents who faced unacceptable A&E waiting times. One mother brought her child to Epsom hospital with a suspected broken wrist and endured a seven-hour wait for an X-ray, finally leaving in the early hours of the morning. While there, she encountered another mother with a nine-month-old baby who had a bump on its head. They left after six hours without being seen because they simply could not wait any longer. One constituent’s 86-year-old mother was told by the 111 service to go to A&E at Epsom hospital after an injury, only to be informed that there would be a 10-hour wait, meaning she would have to stay up until 2 am after a potentially serious injury. These are not isolated incidents, but rather the lived reality for many families. These delays stem from a combination of rising demand, staff shortages and an ageing infrastructure that cannot keep pace.

While I welcome the fact that elective care capacity will increase, hopefully reducing the waiting times for care for many patients, this must also come with a focus on improving emergency care. Ring-fencing elective beds while people waiting for emergency care are dying in corridors or leaving without being checked is nonsensical. We must increase the number of staffed hospital beds to end degrading corridor care. Further, there must be a qualified clinician in every waiting room to ensure that any deteriorating conditions are picked up on.

Locally, it is vital that the Epsom and St Helier hospitals are at the front of the queue for necessary repairs and that the new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton is at the top of the priority list for this new hospital programme. \p Luke Taylor: The Epsom and St Helier hospitals trust covers my constituency as well, and many of our residents rely on those hospitals for their care. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was previous Conservative Government’s absolute failure to deliver one of the 40 new hospitals promised in 2019 that led to the degradation in care for residents across both our constituencies? In addition, does she agree that the Government must come forward with the funding that residents in both constituencies need, to reassure them that their healthcare needs will be met into the future? \p Helen Maguire: I absolutely agree that it is partly a failure of the previous Conservative Government that the hospitals have not been built. It is vital that the Epsom and St Helier hospitals trust is put at the top of the list as a priority for a new hospital. A new hospital will improve outcomes by consolidating critical services under one roof, easing the strain on staff who are currently stretched across two sites. Moreover, it will enable the Epsom and St Helier hospitals to focus on elective care, diagnostics and out-patient services, which will help them to tackle the backlog more efficiently. Crucially, the new hospital will expand the overall number of beds. Centralising major acute services will address estate challenges, strengthen staffing levels and improve patient outcomes, which will reduce the intolerable waiting times experienced at Epsom and St Helier hospitals.

I turn to the distressing delay in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments. In September 2024, the Darzi report highlighted the stark reality that demand for ADHD assessments has grown so significantly that it risks overwhelming available resources. Nationally, it could take an average of eight years to clear the backlog at the current rate.

My constituent Sophie has been facing the brunt of this backlog. She has been waiting since June 2020 for an adult ADHD assessment, and she will wait quite a bit longer, as Surrey and Borders partnership NHS foundation trust has informed me that it is addressing referrals from as far back as March 2019. The root cause is a mismatch between demand and funding. The service was commissioned to support 400 assessments annually, but it receives 400 referrals every two months. Sophie, like many others, has been advised to seek private assessment, an option that is financially out of reach, as she has been unemployed due to her symptoms. This inefficient system should be reconsidered to help reduce the enormous backlog. The situation is wholly unacceptable. \p Paul Kohler: A third of children with a serious eating disorder are not seen within the NHS waiting time standard. Does my hon. Friend agree that such delays only make matters worse, leading to sicker children, more suffering and greater costs to the NHS? \p Helen Maguire: I absolutely agree that prevention is key. If we do not deal with issues immediately, they will just take longer to deal with and be more costly in the  long term. The people of Epsom and Ewell simply deserve better. They deserve a healthcare system that works for them, not against them. I urge the Government to act swiftly to address these issues, and to deliver the investment and reforms that our NHS so desperately needs. \p Julie Minns: Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I declare an interest, in that my daughter is an NHS nurse.

My Carlisle constituency includes Cumbria’s only city, but it also has a vast rural hinterland stretching from Rockcliffe in the west to the outer edge of the Northumberland national park in the east. Although my constituency’s rurality and relative geographic isolation make getting to appointments challenging, getting an appointment at all is by far the greatest challenge.

As of October 2024, NHS North Cumbria’s waiting list stood at 43,000. As for the target of 92% of NHS patients being seen for elective treatment within 18 weeks, the rate was just 59%. However, in 2010, the figure was 93.5%. In 2010, public satisfaction with the NHS stood at 70%, the highest rate ever recorded. By 2023, it had hit an all-time low of 24%.

Let us remind ourselves of what happened between 2010 and 2024. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) outlined, we had the disastrous Lansley reforms—reforms that the King’s Fund described as a “major distraction” for the NHS. They caused huge, unnecessary upheaval and created an “unwieldy” structure with “fractured leadership”. On top of those reforms, the Conservatives led a decade of under-investment in our health service. Spending grew by just 2% a year in real terms between 2010 and 2019, well below the long-term average in England of 3.8%, which we had seen since the 1980s. That meant that when covid struck, the NHS was already severely constrained in what it could do. The result is that overall waiting lists have risen to three times their 2010 levels, and 18 weeks is now more like 18 months. That is the record after 14 years of the Conservative Government, and why I am relieved that our NHS is no longer in the Conservatives’ hands.

As the Prime Minister set out today, this Government have a plan. By creating millions of extra appointments, we will finally get to grips with our backlog and give back millions of people their lives and livelihoods. I am delighted that there is recognition of the importance of providing services close to people, which is vital in rural constituencies like mine. That, and the injection of £26 billion into the NHS, will make a real difference for millions of people across the country. We are already seeing that difference in Carlisle, with the approval of a new £12 million urgent treatment centre at the Cumberland infirmary, which is set to open by the end of this year.

I am also delighted that north Cumbria will be one of the beneficiaries of a new £45 million pot set aside to create health and growth accelerators. These will not just improve health outcomes locally, but research the most effective approaches to helping people back into work and to standing on their own feet. That is Labour’s plan in action. This Government will set the shattered bones of our NHS. \p Gregory Stafford: I welcome this debate, although we have had a number of health debates over the past few sitting days that have crystallised the real problem that we see in the NHS. It is stark that none of the Government Members have mentioned covid thus far and its massive impact. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) is pointing at herself; she might have mentioned it, but she did not set out the absolute devastation that covid wreaked on our services.

Before I came to the House, I worked for the Getting It Right First Time programme, an NHS England programme that was initially funded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) when he was Health Secretary, and again when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The programme made a significant difference in getting rid of “unwarranted variation” within the NHS, because while there is some amazing service, treatment and patient care in the NHS, we have to admit that there is also some poor and inefficient patient care.

The Getting It Right First Time programme tried to improve patient care and ensure that the worst-performing trusts were brought up to the level of the best-performing trusts; I hope that the programme will continue to try to achieve that under the current Government. Areas for improvement include high-volume, low-complexity work, such as cataract, hip and knee operations. There are massive backlogs of such procedures in the NHS that could be cleared if some failing trusts reached the level not of the top-performing trusts, but of the top quartile, or the top 10%. \p Lewis Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman worked in the NHS before covid, as did I. He mentions the impact of covid, but does he not recall that in December 2019, before covid hit, standards had already fallen, and only 84% of patients were being treated within the 18 week target? Why was that allowed to happen under the previous Government? \p Gregory Stafford: I accept that the pressure on the NHS went way beyond covid, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, but to use the Secretary of State’s term, covid was the point at which the NHS was “broken”, and it is taking a long time to recover.

The Government are right to push for more localised services, and to bring services closer to the patient. Access to GPs is a fundamental part of that, but we know that GPs are overstretched. The previous Government really pushed Pharmacy First, which was a superb programme. This Government want to go further with it, but there are disincentives for general practitioners to embrace Pharmacy First. What will Ministers do to ensure that there is no financial disincentive to work with pharmacies? If we are to deal with the backlog, there has to be a financial incentive.

What was concerning about today’s statement from the Secretary of State was the lack of genuine reform. There was a lot of rehashing of previous policies, perhaps eking them out a tad further than the previous Conservative Government did, but I think the Secretary of State himself said that if anyone is able to reform the NHS, it is a Labour Government. While I was quite interested in what he was saying as shadow Secretary  of State, I have been deeply disappointed by what he has said since. It appears to me that unfortunately the union paymasters and the inertia in the NHS have captured him and his Front Bench. I hope that I am wrong, and that the Minister will tell me differently this evening, but that is what I have seen.

Locally, the reality is that there is a problem with being able to bring services closer to home. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) mentioned the problem of accountability for ICBs. I have the fortune, or misfortune, depending on how one looks at it, of having three ICBs in my constituency. To use a previously mentioned term, there is a lot of unwarranted variation in how they deal with my constituents, and with me as a Member of Parliament. A big issue in Bordon is that we want a brand new surgery in the area, but there has been no conversation with the ICB about how that might go ahead. Likewise, we are really keen for Haslemere hospital to move from being a district hospital to having an urgent treatment centre. It is vital that we get that moving. The community hospital in Farnham could also be somewhere treatment is done closer to home. I urge the Government not to sit back, but to use their majority and reform the NHS for the benefit of all our constituents. \p Peter Prinsley: I had expected to tell the House that I had come straight to Parliament from my operating theatre in Norfolk, where I had been dealing with ear, nose and throat surgery backlogs this morning, but late last night I received a call telling me that my operating list was cancelled because there are no beds in the day unit that was purpose-built to avoid that issue, and which opened only a few years ago. Every surgeon in the country will be familiar with that situation, and in every hospital, surgical teams are sitting idle waiting for beds. It is like a fog-bound airport where nothing can take off.

There are enormous backlogs across almost all of surgery, especially in gynaecology and orthopaedics. We are short of theatres, short of anaesthetists and short of scanners. Our patients are suffering and deteriorating in front of our eyes. Some of them are dying. We are short of all manner of specialists, including crucial diagnostic radiologists and pathologists. Delays in diagnostic imaging and reporting are very problematic—there are more than 1.5 million people on the waiting list to receive a diagnosis—but the Labour Government will deal with the massive NHS backlogs because we did it before. Between’97 and 2010, we abolished the waiting list, but in the period from 2010 to 2023, waiting lists reached record levels. Now we see access to GPs, dentistry and all routine surgery as the political emergencies that they are.

We all hear terrible accounts of the consequences of such delays from our constituents. We know of them first hand from our own families. My son, who is an A&E doctor, describes trollies of elderly, incontinent patients two abreast in corridors, and in car parks. He is unable to admit his patients, and that is right here in London. We know that we must rebuild our hospitals, and we will start with those that are actually falling down. My constituents were so pleased to hear both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor promise here in Parliament to replace West Suffolk hospital in Bury St Edmunds. \p Gregory Stafford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Peter Prinsley: May I carry on, as I have very little time?

I am glad that the Prime Minister has made general practice and care in the community a central part of his plan. General practice is the front door to the NHS. Patients who have a genuine connection with one or two GPs are less ill and live longer.

There is an illuminating article entitled “Closer to home” in this month’s Fabian Review by my Suffolk GP colleagues Drs Reed and Havard, who reimagine GP as a comprehensive community health service close to the patient, with multiprofessional teams of health workers and with mental health services and district nursing all in one place. Patients know who their doctors are and know that the community health centre is the place to go. Let us call them Bevan community health centres. We really can manage most clinical problems in the community, and investing in our brilliant GPs is truly the key to the crisis. Community hubs with diagnostic capabilities for larger populations would send to hospital only people who need to go to hospital.

We must do something about productivity. I started my career with four workers in the theatre operating on eight children, only to reach a situation today of operating on four children with eight workers. As we reform and rebuild our NHS, let us bring the 1.5 million staff members with us on this great journey, for it is on them that we and the NHS depend. The measures announced today will surely help, but only if we find enough staff and invest in training. Let us look after those who look after us, with fair pay, fair conditions and a great deal of respect. That must be our mission. \p Zöe Franklin: Before Christmas, I shared in this Chamber the issues impacting my Guildford constituents who are struggling to access support for special educational needs and disabilities. Today, I want to highlight an aspect of the NHS that is directly linked to the SEND issues that I raised: child and adolescent mental health services, better known to most of us in the Chamber as CAMHS.

Unlike many SEND-related issues, CAMHS sits not within the remit of education but in health, as it requires significant input from NHS specialists. The first step to getting help from CAMHS is usually a referral for an assessment. However, the waiting list for some people is up to three years. That is why I am raising the matter today. A long wait for an assessment leaves young people without support or a diagnosis and has wide implications. A young person’s mental health can deteriorate during that wait, which can lead to self-harm, lashing out and harming family members, and even suicide. Imagine going through that as a parent—watching, often helpless to support your child, while the system designed to help does not. Even if they eventually get a CAMHS assessment, there are well-documented shortages in medication and problems accessing therapies.

The son of one of my constituents was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in April 2020, but received no follow-up appointments. While his family said it was manageable initially, his school performance began to decline towards  the end of 2021-22, leading his family to seek a review with CAMHS in February 2023. Twenty months on, the review has not taken place. His parents sought support to prepare him for his GCSEs, even if the medication had to be delayed, but they were met with a system unable to provide even basic support. They now face an indefinite wait with no resolution in sight.

Another constituent has been fighting for support for her 13-year-old daughter, who has been waiting more than two years for an ADHD and pathological demand avoidance assessment, despite the mother pleading for help for seven years. This single-parent family has endured systemic failure, leaving them suffering to an extent that I will not detail today. The prolonged wait for an assessment has taken a devastating toll on both their lives.

It is clear that action is desperately needed to ensure that the resources are there to support young people and their families through the CAMHS system and to ensure that medication shortages are addressed. How will this Labour Government work to recruit and train more professionals to clear the CAMHS backlog and ensure that the service can respond in good time—not years—to requests for assessments and support? Too many young people and their families are being failed by the current system, and it is time that that came to an end. \p James Frith: A happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the House will indulge me briefly, may I begin by wishing my grandmother well? She had a fall last night and broke two of her ribs. She is doing okay, but at 98 she may need a little longer in hospital that I, her eldest grandson, might have needed—although that is not a given.

Tackling deep-rooted health inequalities in Bury North is my priority for this Parliament. The difference there of a mile between postcodes can mean a seven-year difference in life expectancy for men and a five-year difference for women. I wish to reach across the aisle and associate myself with the remarks of the good doctor, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer)—who spoke very well in the debate on assisted dying—on what I would call the democratic deficit for MPs in relation to ICBs and acting on health inequalities at a local level, well beyond what we might achieve through parliamentary questions or writing to and meeting Ministers. I am pleased that the Government will not allow the dire record and wasted years of Tory government to prevent Labour from doing what we do best in power: fixing and fast-forwarding the NHS.

In Bury North, a constituent I will call Jackie has rheumatoid arthritis. After a severe, debilitating flare-up she waited two days for a GP to call back. She spent eight hours waiting in two different hospitals before being admitted overnight, only to be discharged the next day and told to go to a third hospital, where no rheumatologists were in place. Her emergency appointment was 11 days later. She was left in tears and unable to speak, so her husband had to advocate for her to get the appointment she desperately needed.

NHS backlogs take a personal and punishing toll on people’s lives, including through lost income from lost jobs or, worse still, lost years with loved ones from late  or missed cancer diagnoses. Today’s commitment from the Labour Government that 92% of NHS patients will wait no longer than 18 weeks for treatment by the end of this Parliament is an enormous, transformative ambition. If that figure, which is currently at 59%, improves to 65% by March next year, that will give comfort to those who rightly expect to feel the change that Labour will bring on their own doorsteps.

I also welcome the aim of ensuring that community diagnostic centres can operate 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Thanks to the Chancellor’s Budget, local doctors will be incentivised to consult specialists to explore alternatives to hospital treatment.

In Bury, where Fairfield general hospital has the second highest average wait times for elective surgery in the country, the new national standards for elective care are welcome. Incentives for trusts that improve wait times are welcome, but does the Minister agree that the focus should be on average wait times—affecting the maximum number of patients—rather than rewarding trusts that reduce the longest possible wait time for fewer patients? I understand the capacity demands that will come with that, but it is a hugely important distinction. Although reducing the longest wait times is important, focusing on that metric alone, and rewarding trusts for it, risks leaving many patients with painful and debilitating conditions and trusts ducking their responsibilities. This Government have made it clear that we will address that on our watch. \p Clive Jones: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate. I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and that a family member has shares in a medical company.

It is a simple fact that as a result of the last Conservative Government, more patients than ever are waiting for hospital treatments. In October 2024, the national waiting list stood at 7.5 million. House of Commons Library data reveals that the waiting list for hospital treatment locally is seven times worse than it was a decade ago. Ten years ago, 91.9% of patients in West Berkshire waited less than 18 weeks for elective surgery; now that proportion has dropped to 75.5%, which is well below NHS targets and is completely unacceptable. Where is the acknowledgment and apology from the previous Government for the mess they created? A backlog means that people’s conditions worsen, forcing on them more complicated surgeries and leading to slower recoveries, worse outcomes and reduced quality of life.

Many people in Wokingham receive treatment at the Royal Berkshire hospital, which is important to me as it is where my children were born and where my cancer was discovered. Its dedicated staff are the pride of our community, and it employs innovative practices to try to reduce the existing backlog. For example, it has expanded its virtual hospital and is now able to treat 124 patients who would normally be in hospital from the comfort of their own home.

However, the hospital’s situation is continually worsened by a crumbling estate. Some 95% of its lifts are beyond their end of life, and it has had to cancel operations due to infrastructure issues. Today’s announcement that  extra investment will be provided to hospitals that cut waiting times the fastest is putting the cart before the horse. How does the Secretary of State expect the Royal Berkshire hospital to meaningfully cut waiting times when the Department is unable to set out the next steps for its urgently required rebuild? I and other Members will continue to pursue this matter until we get Government action on it. Will the Minister please set out when the new hospital programme review will be published?

A rebuild of the Royal Berks is especially important for the cancer centre. Some parts of that building are 164 years old—this is where people who are perhaps in the last years of their lives are being treated. Urgent investment is crucial. I was delighted to secure a commitment from the Government to a national cancer strategy for England, which is a very important step forward.

The Government’s cancer strategy needs to clearly set out how it will improve cancer waiting times and tackle outcomes. I hope this can be done before the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill on 4 July, but I fear that today’s announcement regarding the 18-week target pits knee replacements against radiotherapy. Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and is expected to increase annually, with 30% more patients with cancer, yet we have a staggering workforce shortage in almost every staffing group, insufficient capacity, and more than one in 10 referred patients waiting more than 104 days for treatment. Is the Minister still committed to meeting cancer waiting times in this Parliament? \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I welcome this debate. Another winter and there are more severe backlogs—the causes are structural and predictable. The shadow of what Lord Darzi found weighs heavy on this debate, with 14,000 unnecessary deaths in A&E each year, waiting times for over-65s in emergency care having more than doubled to seven hours, and over 100,000 under-threes waiting more than six hours to be seen in 2023. Each one of those numbers is a devastated family, a patient at greater risk, or a patient enduring that long, nervous wait. This winter, my local hospital trust has seen average bed occupancy rates hit 98.5%. At one point in mid-December, only three out of 715 beds were free to use.

The crisis in our NHS that my constituents in Calder Valley face is not the result of a lack of work by our NHS staff—I hope everyone in this House can join me in paying tribute to those hard-working staff. Instead, this crisis has come about because of bad policy choices and warnings repeatedly ignored. In his report and when he came to the Health and Social Care Committee, Lord Darzi made it absolutely clear that the root cause of the problem is the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which was pushed through without precedent or preparation by the coalition Government amid repeated warnings from healthcare professionals. This disaster proves that to move forward, we have to learn from why bad health policy gets made: because of a focus on ideology over practicality, on efficiency savings over real improvements, and on treatment over prevention and later-life care.

We must also learn that to rebuild our NHS we cannot be top-down, but must build on a foundation of decent social and community care that is close to home  and respects the skills of those who work throughout the system. That brings me to my next point, which is about social care. The scale of the crisis in the NHS means that it will not be fixed overnight—indeed, the Secretary of State talks about a 10-year plan—but we know that problems are solved easier and earlier if patients are treated closer to home. Yet the failure to plan health and social care together over the past 14 years means that more than one in 10 NHS hospital beds are filled by people who simply do not have the right care. \p Anna Dixon: In my constituency, Bradford council’s Home FAST—first assessment support—scheme aims to get people home from hospital more quickly and to be assessed for any onward care services when they are at home. Since its launch, there has been a large reduction in the need for intermediate care facilities after hospital care. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that such innovations need to be at the heart of the Government’s 10-year plan, ensuring that we integrate health and social care, as he was saying, but perhaps also looking to revise the better care fund so that it delivers both rapid discharge and rehabilitation, which are obviously both critical to tackling NHS backlogs? \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: In fact, the better care fund works best in West Yorkshire when it works to hasten people’s journey out of hospital, and that sounds like a very good example.

In my own local hospital trust, the figure for people on the transfer of care list is even higher: 20% of beds are taken up by people who could be treated at home. That is almost 150 patients in hospital rather than getting social care where they need to be. Even well-run trusts are finding the wait for transfer of care too great, proving again that we cannot fix our health service without fixing 14 years of Tory mismanagement or without fixing social care.

In closing, while this Government face problems not of our own creation, we must still learn from what has gone before. In this regard, I absolutely welcome the announcement on progress in social care today, but I gently express to the Minister, as I did to the Health Secretary at his Committee appearance, that we need to see action on the ground solving our social care crisis earlier than 2028. In 2023, the National Audit Office told us that nearly four in 10 directors of adult social services were worried about meeting their statutory obligations. On top of that, we have a provider crisis because of this instability. The electorate gave this Government a term of five years to take bold steps to reverse the crisis in our NHS. They rejected the previous Government because they wasted each of their terms over 14 years of failure to enact a solution on social care, leaving people in hospital instead of being able to receive care among family and friends. I look forward to this Government acting on that mandate. \p Judith Cummins: Order. We will start the Front-Bench the Front-Bench speeches at 9.35 pm, so our very last Back-Bench speaker is Ellie Chowns. \p Ellie Chowns: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate on the vital area of NHS backlogs, which is of great importance to me and my constituents. We are short of time so I will not talk, as I wished to, about the need to tackle the crisis in social care and the need to invest heavily in public health. I will focus my comments on responding to the Government’s announcement today on elective care.

I hope the Minister will be able to respond in a moment to some of the questions I want to pose, because it is one thing to use spare capacity in the private sector to tackle the absolute crisis we have with waiting lists and backlogs—I can understand that as an emergency measure—but it is quite another to propose in effect long-term outsourcing from the NHS to private providers. To be honest, I fear that today’s announcement could essentially be a form of creeping back-door privatisation of aspects of NHS care, and specifically those in which is easiest for private sector providers to make a profit. We only have to look at PFI to understand the dangers of that approach.

I have read today’s partnership agreement between the NHS and the independent sector, and I am afraid I find it the opposite of reassuring. I will briefly canter through some of the reasons why. Section 2 indicates that the Government do envisage increased private provision of both surgical and diagnostic services.

There is some text in section 3 about trying to seek assurance that those private providers will not essentially cherry-pick the most attractive, easy and profitable patients. However, all it says is that the independent sector will review its patient criteria; there are no teeth there.

There is nothing in section 4 about measures to protect the NHS from the risk of private providers making excessive profits from the services they provide. We have recently heard in this Chamber cases of that happening in the social care sector and the children’s social care centre. Is there not a real risk that that could also happen in the healthcare sector if this is not actioned?

Finally, there is nothing in section 5 to address the risk of transferring services to private providers leading to leaching of staff from the NHS services into the private sector. How can we be guaranteed that there is not going to be excessive competition in a workforce that is already extremely stretched?

For the Green party and myself, the profit motive has no place in our NHS. I hope the Minister will provide assurances that the NHS will continue to be publicly owned and publicly run for public benefit, and that the concerns I have highlighted will be addressed so that the agreement between the NHS and the independent sector has teeth. \p Judith Cummins: I now call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, Jess Brown-Fuller. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for introducing this important debate on our first day  back after Christmas. I also thank all hon. Members from across the House who have contributed to the debate, and specifically the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who always bring really valuable contributions because of their background and current professions; it is very much appreciated when talking about the NHS.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire highlighted in her opening remarks that backlogs are not just about NHS waiting lists, but that there are also problems with mental health backlogs, handover delays, A&E waits, poor access to dentistry, GP appointments, cancer treatment waiting times and staff that are being driven from the NHS because they cannot provide the care they want to give.

Our healthcare system remains the No. 1 issue that I am contacted about. It is not unreasonable for my constituents and people across the country to expect to receive the care they need when and where they need it. I doubt there are many people who have not been affected or know somebody who has been affected by NHS backlogs. Indeed my dad struggled for months to get a face-to-face GP appointment for what he believed was a return of a hiatus hernia. By the time he saw his GP and was referred, the oesophageal cancer that he had was so progressed that palliative care was the only option for him and he passed away shortly after being diagnosed in 2021.

When I asked my constituents to get in touch with examples of personal experiences of the NHS backlogs, I was inundated with emails from people across Chichester, and I will share some of those with the House.

I have Jane, who was at high risk of bowel cancer due to living with ulcerative colitis. She is meant to see her consultant every six months but has not had an appointment since 2019, despite her GP trying on her behalf on multiple occasions. She has no idea if the polyps discovered in 2017 have turned cancerous and is living in constant fear of her health deteriorating further.

Ian got in touch after waiting over a year to receive a scan after he experienced extreme chest pain. The scan revealed heart disease, but the lack of any follow-up appointments has left him anxious and uncertain about his health.

I will also mention a good friend of mine, Rylee, who noticed irregular bruising and a physical change on the back of their leg in 2021 and was finding it harder to walk. After visiting the GP, who sent an urgent referral to the hospital, Rylee waited for months only to discover when chasing the hospital that the referral had gone to the wrong place. They then got added to the waiting list and were told the wait would be between 40 and 50 weeks. We are four years on from the initial changes to Rylee’s leg, and they are finally being treated by leading specialists as Rylee can no longer walk unaided. Amputation of their leg is now being considered. If Rylee had been seen within the expected window of an urgent referral, they would not be facing the prospect of losing their leg in their mid-20s.

These are just a few examples of what is a much larger picture of the NHS, with caring and compassionate staff working within it who are overstretched and overburdened and, as my hon. Friend the Member for  North Shropshire said, who cannot provide the care they desperately want to because of a system that cannot meet the demand.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that this is an inherited problem; indeed, the key NHS waiting times standards have not been met for some years. The number of patients waiting longer than four hours in A&E rose consistently between 2015 and 2020. The 62-day waiting time for standard cancer treatment has not been met in recent years, and the consultant-led treatment target in England of 18 weeks has not been met in 2016.

The last Conservative Government left emergency care in a deep crisis. The Darzi review stated that 800 working days were lost every day to handover delays in 2024. Last winter, ambulances across England collectively spent a total of 112 years waiting outside hospitals to hand patients over. In 2024, more than 1 million patients faced waits of more than 12 hours in A&E. The Liberal Democrats welcome new investment in the NHS, but instead of spending money firefighting crisis after crisis, we would invest to save taxpayers’ money in the long run. We would do that by investing in the front door and the back door: in primary care, with GPs and dentists, and by reforming social care.

Some of my constituents would like it noted that they will not be counted on any statistics regarding backlogs, because they cannot get a GP appointment to even get on the backlog list. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for everyone to have the right to see their GP within seven days, or 24 hours if it is urgent, with a 24/7 booking system to end the 8 am phone-call lottery to get an appointment. We would also ensure that everybody over the age of 70 and those with a long-term condition have access to a named GP.

We would fix the back door and address the social care crisis now, rather than spending another three years commissioning a report that will find out what we already know: social care is in urgent need of reform. The Darzi review showed that inadequate social care accounts for 13% of hospital bed occupancy, meaning that people who desperately want to get home cannot because of the lack of social care packages available and that others deteriorate at home, because they cannot access the social care they need. In the past year, more than half of all requests for social care were unsuccessful. We would strengthen our emergency services to reduce excessive handover delays by increasing the number of staffed hospital beds and calling for a qualified clinician in every A&E waiting room to ensure that any deteriorating conditions are picked up on to prevent tragic avoidable incidents.

I once again thank the hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire for bringing forward this incredibly important debate, and I thank those Members who contributed to a conversation that matters to my constituents in Chichester and to people across the country. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—a very happy new year to you. May I also wish the grandmother  of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) a speedy recovery? I should declare an interest as a consultant practising in the NHS. My brother is a GP and I am on an orthopaedic waiting list, so I am one of the statistics.

I am looking forward to working constructively with the Government over the next year to deliver for patients across this country. The NHS has been looking after us for more than three quarters of a century. During that time, the practice of medicine has transformed. Cures have been found, and people are living longer and healthier lives. I thank all those staff who have been working in the NHS and social care across the Christmas and new year period.

We all recognise that the NHS is under pressure. We have an ageing population, patients with more complex needs and innovative, but expensive treatments. The pandemic added a huge strain to the NHS. Resources were redeployed away from elective care, and much elective care was postponed to reduce the spread of covid. For example, before the pandemic, 54 women had been waiting more than 12 months for a gynaecological appointment. By the time the pandemic was over, that number had gone from 54 to 40,000. That was replicated across other departments in hospitals across the country.

Although the NHS now treats 25% more patients than it did in 2010, waiting lists are sharply higher. We took steps as a Government to bring them down again. Those measures were working, though not as quickly as we wished. For example, the 18-month waiting list was virtually eliminated, and the 52-week list was steadily falling, despite industrial action. Meanwhile, in Wales, where Labour has been in power for more than 25 years, waiting lists continue to rise.

There is more to do, and no one is suggesting that the issues have been resolved. Waiting lists are still too high, and that is why we funded the £3.5 billion NHS productivity plan in full to upgrade IT, to expand the NHS app and to capitalise on the benefits of artificial intelligence. The Government were elected in July on the promise of a plan, but sadly the plan has still not yet been published. The Government were also elected on a promise to deliver 40,000 more appointments per week. I wish them huge success with that, but I am not optimistic. The Secretary of State has repeatedly been asked when those additional appointments will become available, but there have been no clear answers. Will the Minister please provide one, or tell us what progress has been made?

This morning we heard more about Labour’s elective reform plan. I was really pleased to hear that the Government will continue with many Conservative initiatives, which were working. \p Jayne Kirkham: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I will not, because I have a time limit.

I was pleased to hear that the Government will continue many Conservative initiatives, such as expanding the surgical hubs programme and extending the work of community diagnostic centres, but some of the other parts were a little confusing. Patients are to have a choice of where they are treated, but they already do. They are  also to receive text messages to remind them of appointment times. That is great, but it is already happening. In fact, a look back through my phone revealed that the earliest text message I could find reminding me of an appointment for my child at Peterborough city hospital was sent on 28 July 2015, so this is not a new initiative. Patients are to get results online. Well, again, they already do. If the Minister has not seen that, I urge her to visit Addenbrooke’s hospital, where, via the MyChart system, patients can already log on and read their MRI or blood results or reports. Spreading good practice is to be welcomed, but it is not a revolution. It also faces significant headwinds.

The Government are to direct activity to general practice, but GPs are already rather busy and facing financial challenges caused by national insurance contributions. How will shifting pressure improve capacity? When will GPs be able to budget? Will the funding settlement be greater than their increased costs from national insurance contributions? If resources are moved to general practice, how will that deliver more secondary care appointments? One person can only do so much work. What is the Government’s plan for the workforce, which will be so key?

Of course, it is not just GPs who are affected by the national insurance contributions. The Secretary of State talked about record investment in hospices, but before Christmas the Minister was repeatedly unable to say whether that record investment would cover the rise in national insurance contributions that those same hospices are facing. Can she update the House now?

Patients are to have the choice on whether to have follow-up appointments, which will apparently reduce a million unnecessary appointments every year. Will that be a choice for patients to have a desired follow-up appointment that is not recommended by clinical staff—in which case, that could actually increase the number of appointments required—or will it be a choice not to have an appointment that a doctor or clinician has recommended? In that case, is that wise?

It is cold outside, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, this morning I woke up to blizzard conditions at my window. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of extra admissions that have occurred this winter for elderly patients who have been cold due to the removal of their winter fuel allowance? \p Rachel Gilmour: Will the hon. Lady give way? She has heard me. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I have heard the hon. Lady but will not give way, because the Deputy Speaker has been clear about the time constraints in the debate.

Has the Minister made an estimate of the number of extra admissions caused by elderly people who are cold due to the removal of the winter fuel allowance, what impact that is having on hospitals, and how many elective appointments that would otherwise have occurred have been cancelled as a result? We heard the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talk about his cancelled ENT list from this morning.

We have had six months of a Labour Government. They have cancelled the building of 24 hospitals, they have launched a series of reviews, they have significantly increased costs on indirectly provided NHS services because of national insurance, and they have re-announced  what has already been happening, in some cases for many years. I am a doctor and I am a patient, and I really want the Government to succeed in improving the NHS; we all do—we have heard too many troubling tales from our constituents and again this evening—but stating aims does not make them happen, and launching reviews and press releases is simply not enough. \p Karin Smyth: I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a happy new year. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate. I am delighted to be able to respond. It has been a passionate and well-informed debate, and I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to build on what the Secretary of State said in his oral statement today, because we have a great deal to say about our plans to build more capacity and give patients more power over their care.

Colleagues across the House have set out how 14 years of failure have damaged their constituents, letting down the people we represent and breaking the NHS. That was starkly illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who should have been doing something else this morning but was not. That is a loss to his patients. It was also highlighted by the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones). The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), outlined how it impacts on her own father as well as her constituents.

Years of neglect, lack of funding and unresolved industrial action meant that this Government inherited an appalling backlog of people waiting for treatment—the 7.5 million-strong waiting list. I gently remind the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), that that waiting list stood at 4 million people before the start of the pandemic. The Darzi investigation described how these waits were becoming the new normal, with patients waiting far too long for treatment. As a result, public satisfaction with one of our most beloved institutions is at an all-time low. That was eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), who highlighted the figures from 2010 and now, as they affect her constituents.

On average, 58% of people do not receive treatment within 18 weeks of referral. The NHS constitutional standard sets out that 92% of patients should receive treatment within this timeframe, but that has not been met consistently for almost a decade. In other words, there are people today younger than me who would have no memory of the NHS working efficiently and delivering a timely service.

Colleagues are right to point out the impact on our constituents, with people putting their lives on hold while they wait for a diagnosis, for a new hip or for eye surgery. If the human tragedy were not enough, the economic and social effects of waiting times are almost incalculable. That is why today the Prime Minister set out our plans to tackle hospital backlogs and finally meet the NHS standard of 92% of patients in England waiting no longer than 18 weeks for elective treatment. I confirm for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury  North (Mr Frith) that that is an average. I also wish his grandmother well—that is unfortunate for her time of life, and I hope she is getting good care.

Our elective reform plan sets out a bold package of productivity measures and reforms to deliver fundamental change for patients by building a health service defined by patient choice and patient control. I agree with the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for Farnham and Bordon about local accountability. My own comments on the 2022 Act, which I think the Government at the time should have done more on, are well-made. I regularly encourage all hon. Members to engage proactively with their ICBs. It is incumbent on ICBs to engage with elected representatives on behalf of all our constituents. I certainly have always done with mine, and I commend everybody else to do the same.

Under our plan, NHS care will be increasingly personalised and digital. We will focus on improving experiences and convenience, empowering people with choice and control over when and where they will be treated. Different models of care will be more widely and consistently adopted, following on from the work by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon on Getting It Right First Time, which I also commend. We will roll out artificial intelligence and other technology to boost capacity and deliver excellent care consistently across the country.

I will not have time to go into the details of all the drivers of the backlog, but we recognise the pressures on primary and community care and social care. That is why last month we were able to put forward proper proposals for a new GP contract, with extra money to slash red tape and bring back the family doctor—the biggest funding boost to primary care that we have seen. I have been really impressed by some of the fantastic work going on in women’s health hubs. We continue to welcome the cross-party support for our proposals on social care, and I hope we build that cross-party support for Baroness Casey’s work. Social care was highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), among others.

On the key drivers, in diagnostics we will reduce the waits for scanners by extending the work of community diagnostic centres to seven days a week. Patients will be able to receive same-day tests and consultations, direct referrals from primary and community care, new consulting rooms and at least 10 straight-to-test pathways by March 2026. Pathway improvements will get us only so far, though. We are also setting clear expectations that funding must be used responsibly to provide the best value for money for both patients and the taxpayer. That is why, under our plans, money will follow the patient and the organisations that do the best will get the most reward, so that incentives drive improvement.

I will just say gently to the Opposition spokesperson that many places do offer online access—I get texts regularly from my hospital, because I, too, am a patient. However, it is not universal, and that was the Conservatives’ failure in government. We want to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS.

On cancer, the 62 and 31-day cancer waiting time standards were last met in 2015 and 2020 respectively. Cancer is a priority for this Government: cancer patients are waiting too long for a diagnosis and for treatment, and we are determined to change that. We will get the  NHS diagnosing cancer earlier and treating it faster so that more patients survive. I assure the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, that we remain committed to all three targets. We know that swift diagnosis is key to improving outcomes and ensuring that patients get a diagnosis and treatment quickly, which is why expanding CDCs is a core plank of achieving those standards. We recognise that a cancer-specific approach is needed to meet the challenges in cancer care, which is why, after the 10-year plan, we will follow up with a dedicated national cancer plan, which will help us to go further for cancer patients.

This Government are tackling challenges beyond routine elective care, such as the crisis in emergency care. Last month, a quarter of the 2.3 million people who attended A&E waited for more than four hours; in November, the average ambulance response time stood at 42 minutes, which is more than double the NHS constitutional standard. These figures do not come close to the safe operational standards set out in the constitution. It will take time to turn things around, but our action to quickly end the junior doctors strike means that, for the first time in three years, NHS leaders are focused on winter preparedness and not planning for strikes. NHS England has set out a national approach to winter planning and is managing extra demand, with upgraded 24-hour live data centres, strengthening same-day emergency care and offering more services for older people.

As we have heard, mental health waiting lists are far too long. We want to build on our mission and ensure that we recruit 8,500 additional mental health workers to reduce delays. We will also provide access to specialist mental health professionals at every school in England, roll out young futures hubs in every community and modernise the Mental Health Act 1983. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) highlighted, young children and young families are being particularly badly affected. The Chancellor backed our plans in the Budget with an extra £5.6 million over the next two years to open new mental health crisis centres and help reduce pressure on A&E services. \p Adam Jogee: Will the Minister give way? \p Karin Smyth: I would like to, but I am afraid I need to adhere to the time limit.

In closing, on Second Reading of the National Health Service Act 1946, Nye Bevan warned us against following abstract principles that work on paper but not in the real world. This Government are interested only in what works, and we know we must do things differently, because the backlog began to build before the pandemic. NHS constitutional standards have not been met for more than a decade. Whatever the last Government were doing, it was not working. That is why our elective reform plans will do things differently, giving patients more choice and more control over their treatment, making greater use of technology—including the NHS app—to give patients the convenience of a seven-day diagnostic service.

In response to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), we will use private sector capacity to help—supporting patients is what matters. As the party   that founded the NHS, we will always be committed to a publicly funded NHS that is free at the point of use. We are going hell for leather to get waiting lists down, rebuild our NHS and ensure that it is there for us when we need it once again. None of this will happen overnight, but we are not asking to be judged by our promises; we will be judged by our results, and we are determined to succeed. \p Judith Cummins: I call Helen Morgan to wind up quickly. \p Helen Morgan: Looking at the time, I shall be extremely brief. I thank all colleagues who have come along today to make such thoughtful and, in some cases, harrowing contributions to the debate. I would like to thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for their contributions and for so effectively summing up the arguments that have been made today.

Everybody knows that the NHS is in crisis. The Government have acknowledged that, which is welcome. We all want to see things improved for our own constituents, who are suffering the consequences of a system that is on its knees. I welcome the Government’s announcements over the past few weeks. I hope they will listen to the constructive comments made by Liberal Democrats, because they are intended to deliver the NHS that our constituents deserve, and that I know the staff who work in the NHS want to be able to deliver.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered backlogs in the NHS. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Alex Ballinger be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Peter Swallow be added.—(Mark Tami, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Kevin Bonavia be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Paul Davies be added.—(Mark Tami, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That John Grady be discharged from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Sam Carling be added.—(Mark Tami, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Chris Evans be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Gill German be added.—(Mark Tami, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Tami.) \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important debate on police funding in Cambridgeshire. It has taken a number of attempts to secure this debate and I am extremely grateful that it will now be the first Adjournment debate of the year. I am extremely pleased to see so many of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs in attendance and I welcome their timely interventions. Having spoken to several of them about the subject, I know that this is a topic that concerns us all and transcends party politics. Police funding continues to be an issue throughout the county. I made it a cornerstone of my election campaign and pledged to fight for a fairer funding solution.

Last year, Cambridgeshire experienced significant political change, not only in the make-up of its Members of Parliament but in the make-up of its constituencies, with the necessity to add a new parliamentary constituency owing to the increase in the county’s population. Cambridgeshire is the fastest-growing county and, as such, it is vital that its growing population is properly protected.

The subject of police funding in Cambridgeshire has been a growing issue in recent years. Indeed, the way in which our police forces are funded, via the Government core grant allocation and the policing precept element of the council tax bill, has long since led to an unequal distribution of funding across the police forces of England and Wales. Cambridgeshire is the fourth worst-funded police force. The discrepancies between the funding available to Cambridgeshire constabulary and other similar-sized forces becomes apparent when we look at their per capita allocation. In Cambridgeshire, it is only £217.80 per person, whereas in Durham it is £265.17. The national average is £275.20. Cambridgeshire currently receives a raw deal because the police allocation formula that underpins the funding is based on population data that is now hopelessly out of date.

The current formula was introduced in the 2013-14 financial year and is based on the population size of Cambridgeshire in 2012. The county has, as we all know, grown significantly in the intervening 13 years. When the figures are broken down they show that this year, 2024-25, the total budget for Cambridgeshire is £197.5 million. That is split between 56% Government funding and 44% precept. The national average is 66% Government funding and 34% precept. Why will Cambridgeshire residents continue to pick up the slack next year when there was an opportunity to change the formula to better balance that split and reduce the burden by 10%, which would have brought us in line with the national average? Indeed, that £197.5 million is Cambridgeshire’s share of the total budget for England and Wales of £16,575.7 million. It represents just 1.2% of total funding. That correlates with Cambridgeshire’s share of current police numbers. As of 31 March 2024, there were 147,746 full-time equivalent police officers in England and Wales. Of those, Cambridgeshire had just 1,757 police officers, or 1.2%.

The Government have pledged to restore neighbourhood policing via an uplift of 13,000 new neighbourhood police. The pledge was first made by the now Home Secretary in February 2023 but, as I understand it, the recruitment of those officers will not begin until the 2025-26 financial year, and they are set to be recruited over the remaining four years of the Parliament. Will the Minister clarify whether the 13,000 was on top of the police headcount in February 2023, or against the projected headcount in March 2029? If it was the latter, what is the projected headcount for police in England and Wales in March 2029? In November, the Home Secretary confirmed that those 13,000 neighbourhood police would be made up of only 3,000 FTE police, 4,000 police community support officers, 3,000 special constables and 3,000 officers reassigned from other duties.

On the basis of those numbers and the allocation that I established earlier, Cambridgeshire would, with just 1.2% of those numbers, receive 36 police officers, a figure which, spread over the remainder of this Parliament, amounts to just nine new officers per year. Given that we have eight constituencies in Cambridgeshire that is, realistically, just one new officer per constituency, and assuming that Peterborough and Cambridge, as our two cities, have an increased requirement compared with more rural constituencies, we could easily see zero new officers in some Cambridgeshire constituencies.

Additionally, the current plan includes the redistribution of 3,000 existing police officers. As the previous calculation showed, at just one officer per constituency, it is highly unlikely that there will be any discernible difference. While I appreciate that operational decisions are the responsibility of the chief constable, I gently ask the Minister where she thinks that those officers, in an already overstretched and under-resourced force, will be redistributed from?

Before Christmas, I spoke to Cambridgeshire constabulary about the impact the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge would have. This provides a useful illustration of what the pledge looks like for the forces that have not been properly resourced. The Government have pledged that every neighbourhood will have a named officer. As things stand the town of St Ives—a town with a population of 17,000 residents—has a single named officer to cover it, who is also the named officer for the smaller market town of Ramsey in North West Cambridgeshire, 12 miles to the north and just outside my constituency, with a further 6,000 residents. That same officer is also responsible for all the villages that lie between those two towns: Warboys, Bury, Upwood, Wistow, Broughton, Old Hurst, Woodhurst, Pidley and, I believe, even Somersham, Bluntisham, Colne, Earith, Needingworth and Holywell. Conversely, the same area is covered by two Members of Parliament and more than a dozen councillors. How big an area should one officer be expected to cover? \p Patrick Spencer: My hon. Friend is making an interesting point about the reality of policing in a rural area. My constituency has one of the most consistently underfunded police forces in the country. Two misconceptions are that there is no crime in rural areas, and that if it does exist, it does not require the same manpower as other areas. Both those assumptions are absolutely wrong. The reality is that crime in rural areas is down to county lines, trafficking,  cyber-crime and organised crime. Can my hon. Friend attest to the changing nature of crime in Cambridgeshire that we experience in Suffolk, and to the fact that rural crime is not easy to police? \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I concur wholeheartedly with that assessment, and I will shortly go into more detail about the difficulties posed by rural crime, in terms of both manpower and the specifics that simply do not exist in other parts of the country.

No one would consider their neighbourhood to be the same as that of another town 12 miles away. When, in November, I asked the Minister for her definition of a community, I did not receive an answer; I was simply told that more detail would be set out in due course. I therefore hope she will now provide her definition of a community in the context of the size of community that a single officer should be expected to cover. Will she also tell us what additional resources the Government will provide in Cambridgeshire to ensure that their neighbourhood policing pledge can realistically be met by the St Ives safer neighbourhood team and, indeed, safer neighbourhood teams throughout the county?

When I speak to residents in some of our rural villages and communities, particularly those west of the A1 in my constituency, the lack of a visible police presence is a constant theme. Many residents complain that they never see a police officer in their community, and that chimes with the Government’s own findings. According to Labour, half the public have said that they never or almost never see an officer on patrol. Will the Minister explain how the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge will address the paucity of visible policing in rural areas?

In villages such as Brington and Molesworth, residents benefit from the presence of Ministry of Defence Police. Nearby RAF Molesworth is operated by the United States Air Forces in Europe and, with the vast majority of United States air force personnel living in the local community rather than on base, the MOD Police patrol in the surrounding villages to ensure the safety of US personnel. While that provides a police presence of sorts, local residents should not have to rely on the nearby presence of the US military in order to see the presence of the police.

As a result of the lack of confidence felt by some residents given the lack of a visible police presence and deterrence, those in some local villages have turned to private security firms such as Blueline, which covers the area from Catworth to Hail Weston with monitoring and response to calls or alarm activations from those who pay for the service. For local residents who know that their village will be without any sort of visible police deterrent, that is a sensible option for the peace of mind that it brings, but it should not even be a consideration. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue. One of the major issues in the rural countryside that I, he and others represent is the theft of farm machinery, often in the early hours of the morning. The Police Service of Northern Ireland works alongside the Ulster Farmers’ Union. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the police in his constituency work alongside the National Farmers  Union to mark all the machinery so that if it is stolen, they can trace where it goes? I know that in Northern Ireland, it goes south towards the Republic and then comes across to England. Perhaps the police and the NFU could look at that together. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the manner of the rural crime that takes place. I will come on to talk about the rural crime action team that we have in Cambridgeshire and how they deal with the specific threat of that type of rural crime. \p Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend highlights an important point about rural crime. He has powerfully set out how Cambridgeshire is underfunded per capita compared with other forces, and he has explained how that is more acute in areas such as Fenland and rural constituencies. Can he also see the irony in the Prime Minister launching his housing strategy in Cambridge, and in the fact that the Government say they want to see much more housing in Cambridgeshire, yet their per capita funding discriminates against Cambridgeshire as an area? \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Indeed; my right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Prime Minister launched his housing campaign in Alconbury Weald, which is in my constituency. It currently has around 1,500 houses, with another 4,000 homes to be built in that location. It is indeed a great irony that we are talking about per capita funding in an area that is growing as quickly as it is. We need to address that as a matter of urgency. \p Adam Jogee: The hon. Gentleman is an old friend—we knew each other in a previous life. We are from different parties, but we go way back. I do not know what that does for his street cred and mine, but I wanted to be here to support him.

As we are talking about irony, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that a former Chief Secretary is taking part in a debate about the lack of police officers and the lack of funding, to which the hon. Gentleman just referred? I wonder whether he shares my quizzical interest in where those officers were and where that funding was. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: My question on funding specifically is about the way that Cambridgeshire is short-changed by the police allocation formula. I explained earlier that the nub of the issue in Cambridgeshire is the fact that the funding is so out of date. On the growth of Cambridgeshire, which was mentioned earlier, adjusting the police allocation formula would go some way towards filling the gap. It is not just about Cambridgeshire; I know that places such as Lincolnshire, which is even worse funded than Cambridgeshire, would also benefit from the formula being looked at. \p Patrick Spencer: As we have just had a debate on child sexual exploitation, it is worth mentioning that we are seeing the nature of crime in rural areas change very quickly, and that the challenge faced by police forces five or 10 years ago is not the challenge that they face today. In Suffolk, the reality is that we have a massive problem with trafficking and a massive problem with prostitution. We have problems that were just not there 10 years ago. It is all very well for Labour Members to  say, “What did you do about it?”, but we are debating how to meet the challenges of today, not yesterday. Will my hon. Friend speak to that for a moment? \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that, and he is right about the nature of the threat that is now faced. Aspects such as modern slavery go unseen in rural communities. I can think of countless examples in my own constituency, where individuals have been found in isolated warehouses and barns out in the countryside, usually at somewhere like a cannabis farm. I even attended a cannabis farm right in the middle of St Ives with members of Cambridgeshire constabulary. A number of individuals had been living and working there, presumably under duress. Such activity goes unseen, and increasing the police’s ability to reach unseen areas will be hugely important.

To that extent, I ask the Minister how the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge will restore confidence in Cambridgeshire’s rural communities, who feel that their needs are not necessarily a priority. In April, the Prime Minister pledged that

“Britain’s rural communities will be protected with the first ever government-backed rural crime strategy.”

Will the Minister confirm when that rural crime strategy will be published and how it will benefit Cambridgeshire specifically, given that we have already established that there will be little in the way of additional resource for the county’s police force? \p Charlotte Cane: Rural crime is a major issue in Cambridgeshire and in my constituency. Yes, we can mark big farm machinery, but people are stealing parts from farm machinery, and those parts are much more difficult to track. Hare coursing is also a major problem. The hon. Member has mentioned the sheer size of the area of Cambridgeshire that the tiny number of police we have are expected to cover. Will he ask the Minister to ensure that when the Government are diverting police, as they are talking about doing, they do not divert them from the rural crime unit, and indeed look to bolster that unit? \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. I asked a local farmer a few weeks ago how he would tackle hare coursing on his land, and at what point he would feel emboldened enough to stand up to those individuals. He explained to me that that was simply too dangerous, even though they were farmers and big, burly blokes. He said a friend of his was doused in petrol and had a match held to him by those responsible for hare coursing. It is simply not worth people risking their life to take them on. In fact, hare coursing means a 999 call. If you see a vehicle that you suspect is involved in hare coursing—a 4x4 with no plates and a couple of lurchers in the back, for example—that is a 999 call, and you will get an adequate response.

That is a perfect segue to rural crime. Rural crime is a specialist area, and requires officers who understand how to tackle it. We see hare coursing and the theft of machinery, equipment, GPS, fuel and livestock, with the influence of organised crime. These crimes require a specialist team, and Cambridgeshire’s rural crime action team is one of the best. Having joined it recently on an operation, I saw at first hand how effective it is. It punches above its weight, despite being under-resourced.  Just over a year ago, it was awarded the rural initiative of the year by the NFU for Operation Walrus, spearheading a national crackdown on GPS theft.

In April, the now Home Secretary pledged:

“Labour will crack down on these criminals, establishing a dedicated Rural Crime Strategy to restore order to our rural areas, backed up with tougher powers and increased rural police patrols.”

I ask the Policing Minister how this pledge will apply to Cambridgeshire. How will the Government’s pledged rural crime strategy restore order to a county that is 90% rural? How will the Home Secretary’s commitment to increase rural police patrols translate into increased support for an under-resourced specialist team such as the rural crime action team, as well as an increase in visible police presence?

In October last year, Cambridgeshire county council passed a motion that directly addressed the issue of fairer police funding. The motion was brought by Councillor Alex Bulat, the Labour candidate in Huntingdon during the last election, and my opponent. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, fighting for fairer police funding for Cambridgeshire was one of my election pledges to my now constituents. While Councillor Bulat never addressed the issue of police funding during the election campaign, I am hugely pleased to see her taking up that fight now, and raising the issue at county council level. The motion called for this Labour Government to ensure that Cambridgeshire has its fair share of the new neighbourhood police officers, and that they are fully funded by the central policing core grant. It asked Cambridgeshire MPs to lobby for a fairer funding deal for our county, through changes to the Government’s police grant allocation that better reflect population data and local factors. The Policing Minister knows well that I have been campaigning for fairer funding. This debate is not the first time I have addressed the issue with her—I have done so in person and via written questions—and I appreciate her tolerance. Can she respond directly to the requests in the motion from Cambridgeshire county council, and explain to the council why it has not yet received a fairer funding deal?

With that, I give the Policing Minister the opportunity to respond to these questions, but lastly, will she and the Home Secretary meet me, other Cambridgeshire MPs and our police and crime commissioner to discuss the steps required to update the police allocation formula, so that funding for 2025-26 is based on Cambridgeshire’s current and future population size, not on the population as it was nearly a decade and a half ago, and to discuss redressing the imbalance that sees Cambridgeshire residents contribute 10% more than average across England and Wales to make up the Government’s shortfall? Our constituents in Cambridgeshire deserve to feel safe. They deserve to receive the full protection that the Government can provide, and they deserve to not pay over the odds to receive that. \p Diana R. Johnson: Let me begin by wishing everyone a very happy new year, especially you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who secured this important debate, and all the Cambridgeshire MPs present in the Chamber. I must also wish a happy new year to the hon. Member  for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is starting the year as he finished the last one: by contributing to every Adjournment debate held in this place.

I thank all the police, police staff, police community support officers and specials who were on duty over Christmas and the new year, keeping us all safe. I had the privilege to see that at first hand in Birmingham city centre, when I accompanied West Midlands police, and also in Bedford with Bedfordshire police, just before the Christmas recess.

Quite understandably, the hon. Member for Huntingdon is focused on police funding for his constituency and his police force, and I will shortly come to the specific questions on Cambridgeshire constabulary. However, I will start by referring to the provisional police funding settlement for England and Wales, which was laid before the House just before the Christmas recess.

The headline is that overall funding for policing will rise to £19.5 billion in 2025-26. That is an increase of up to £1 billion from this financial year, and we are investing in key areas. We have listened to what the police have to say about the challenges they face, and we have secured a settlement that seeks to address those concerns and provide the building blocks for our programme of reform. Included in that figure is £100 million to kick-start our commitment to neighbourhood policing and put officers back into the heart of communities. We are also covering the cost to the police of the changes to employers’ national insurance contributions and the police pay awards.

Turning to the points raised in the debate, and particularly to funding for Cambridgeshire constabulary, I remind the House that it is for police and crime commissioners to set the annual budget for their police force area, including the level of the police precept. It is for the operationally independent chief constable to decide how to use the resources to meet the police and crime commissioner’s priorities. Having said that, funding for Cambridgeshire will rise by up to £11.1 million in the next financial year. This is a cash increase of up to 5.6% compared to the current year, and it is a 3.1% real-terms increase. On funding for employers’ national insurance contributions, I confirm again that the distribution will not be based on the funding formula shares. I hope that provides some reassurance to the force.

We understand that comparing funding between forces will result in highs and lows. I commend Cambridgeshire’s leadership in running an efficient force that has maintained officer numbers and worked to keep the community safe in a very challenging financial environment. The financial shocks of recent years, as well as the position that we inherited from the previous Government, have meant taking some tough choices, but we believe that we have secured a balanced settlement for policing while still driving forward with our key commitments.

In return, we have been very clear that we expect police forces to look for ambitious ways to drive efficiency and productivity and to make real improvements. We are supporting this through our recently announced commercial efficiencies and collaboration programme, which will have its early focus on procurement frameworks and working to use the full advantage of police buying power, alongside the potential for greater cost recovery. December’s announcement was the provisional police  settlement, which is now open to consultation until 10 January, and Cambridgeshire constabulary has the opportunity to make further representations during this period.

On the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about the funding formula, I note that population change can vary across the country. I note what he said, and I recognise that forces that have seen bigger changes will be keen to ensure that the funding that they receive keeps pace with demand. In the provisional police settlement, we have delivered a real-terms increase in funding for Cambridgeshire constabulary for next year. \p Steve Barclay: Will the Minister give way? \p Diana R. Johnson: I will just finish this point, as it is perhaps pertinent, given who wishes to intervene. The £1 billion overall increase in the police settlement next year comes at a time when the Government are having to make tough decisions on budgets after inheriting a £22 billion black hole. We are working to fix the economy. \p Steve Barclay: The Minister is making a separate point; my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was talking about the share of the existing pie—the proportion that Cambridgeshire gets—not about whether more funding is being put in. I wanted to pick up on her interesting point about the consultation being open until 10 January, which is not very far away. What criteria will she apply, when it comes to making adjustments to that provisional allocation? Are those criteria published? A lot of hon. Members may not be sighted on the changes that may be made to the allocation, or on how the Government will reach that decision. \p Diana R. Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, so he will know that this is the normal process. The provisional settlement is announced before Christmas, and then there is an opportunity for police forces to make further representations or to query figures. That has always been the case; there is nothing new about the process that we are using. However, as I said, it is important to note that we are having to make difficult decisions because of the inheritance we have.

Government grants are not the only source of income available to police forces. In 2025-26, PCCs in England have the flexibility to increase the precept by up to £14 for a band D equivalent property, or to go further, should they wish, by holding a local referendum. I note that the Cambridgeshire PCC has chosen to maximise precept in previous years, and subject to the decision for 2025-26, 44% of Cambridgeshire police’s settlement funding will be raised locally via the police precept.

I know the hon. Member for Huntingdon is concerned about the additional demand that a population increase may create for Cambridgeshire police, but I ask him to consider the positive impact that such an increase may have on the council tax base and, as a result, the income that will be generated locally by the PCC. In response to his question about reviewing the funding formula, and on the delivery of this Government’s safer streets mission, we have been clear that broader policing reform is  necessary to address the challenges faced by policing, and to help the system deliver effective and efficient policing to the public.

I note the contributions that have been made about the changing face of crime in this country, and the challenges that police forces face. That is why we have clearly set out a reform agenda. The allocation of funding to police forces remains an important consideration in that reform work. Phase 2 of the spending review will give us an opportunity to consider police funding in the medium term, ensuring that it aligns with our programme of reform and delivery of the safer streets mission. \p Sam Carling: I really welcome the increase in police funding for Cambridgeshire. I understand the concerns being raised. A lot of growth is happening in and around Cambridgeshire. Can the Minister reassure me that her Department will have the relevant conversations with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and others, to ensure that we show residents how we are supporting police growth as the population expands? \p Diana R. Johnson: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

I will quickly address the issue of neighbourhood policing. I am sure that we can all agree that public confidence in policing is always better when the police are visible, and when there are officers in the heart of communities, building real relationships with the people they serve. There are many ways for the public to contact  the police, but we hear consistently that the public value a local, visible policing presence. That is why we are committed to rebuilding neighbourhood policing after it was decimated over the previous 14 years. A named, contactable police officer for every community will be a key part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee. We will set out exactly what the public can expect from their neighbourhood policing teams. As I said, we have kick-started our commitment with £100 million of funding next year to start the work of putting 13,000 police back in our communities.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon again on securing the debate, and all Members who contributed to it. Whether we look at this through a national or local lens, policing resourcing matters. It matters to the brave and hard-working officers and staff who work every day to keep the rest of us safe, and to the communities they serve, whether in Cambridgeshire, with its rural and urban areas, or anywhere else. That is why we set out in the provisional funding settlement our intention to make a very substantial investment in policing, and it is why we are working closely with forces to equip them for the challenges that they face, and to deliver our safer streets mission. We are already making progress, and will drive it further with our investment in neighbourhood policing in this settlement.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.