debates/debates2025-10-14c conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-10-14)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-10-14c conversation_21

Tracy Gilbert:While the Leader of the Opposition is rubbishing contracts for difference and calling for them to be scrapped, the Government are getting on with the job of increasing renewable energy, generating energy security and delivering jobs across the country. Will the Minister reaffirm his support for contracts for difference, and will he seek to work with industry to provide long-term clarity by setting out a timescale for the future auction rounds? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: allocation round 6 delivered a record number of renewables projects, and the jobs and investments that go with them will deliver jobs in constituencies throughout the country, including hers. We have reformed the scheme to ensure that allocation round 7 is a success, at a good price for consumers, and also that it delivers not only value for money but the clarity and investment for renewables projects that are essential to our energy security and to future investment. \p David Mundell: Will the Minister confirm that there is now a timetable to ensure that everyone who has a radio teleswitch meter will have it replaced without losing their electricity, heating or hot water? \p Martin McCluskey: Since taking up my post four weeks ago, I have been dealing with the issue of radio teleswitch. I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Member to discuss the plans, and will soon be organising a roundtable with Members on both sides of the House to discuss them further. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Before we start the statements, I want to say a few words about our former colleague Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—better known to us as Ming—who died during the conference recess.

Ming was universally liked and respected across the House, regardless of people’s party allegiance. Unflappable, kind, principled, incredibly active and held in great esteem by all parties, Ming achieved success as an Olympian, as a lawyer and as a formidable politician in both Houses of Parliament, as well as leadership of the Liberal Democrats. He was one of Westminster’s most authoritative voices on foreign affairs, particularly in articulating his party’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

On a personal level, Ming was a loyal friend to me and to my family. He served with my father on the Trade and Industry Committee, where they conducted many inquiries, most notably into the Iraq supergun affair. The two often vented their frustration about the thwarting of their efforts to get Ministers, officials or even fellow Members to appear before their Committee, but despite that, they pursued the inquiry fearlessly in order to get to the truth. Some things have never changed.

I know that Ming was hit especially hard by the death of his wife Elspeth; they were, of course, married for more than 50 years. Courage, wisdom and integrity were Ming’s hallmarks. We have lost a dear colleague and, for many of us, a wonderful friend. Our thoughts are with Ming’s family, his friends, and his allies across the political parties. \p Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I first thank you for that generous tribute to our dear friend Ming?

I want to let the House into a secret about Ming Campbell: he was obsessed with sport—as one might expect from someone who was the captain of the Scottish men’s team at the Commonwealth games. I remember him talking about how he had been captivated by the 1948 London Olympics at the age of seven, listening to it on the radio with his mother, and how he had decided back then that he wanted to run at a future Olympic games. It is a dream of so many young boys and girls, but Ming—thanks to his determination, drive and work ethic—actually made it happen: he represented our country at the Tokyo games in 1964.

For a man once known as “the Flying Scotsman”, who set a new British 100-metre record at 10.2 seconds and who was probably the fastest person ever elected to this House, Ming was never one to brag about his sporting accomplishments. In fact, he was such a gentleman and so averse to boastfulness that it could be hard to get him to talk about them at all. I remember when Wayne Rooney broke a metatarsal in his foot ahead of the 2006 World cup. Ming had told us a story about how he had suffered an injury before the 1964 Olympic games and how hard he had worked to overcome it. We were all begging him to go on the radio, tell that story and encourage Wayne Rooney—a rare chance for the Liberal Democrat leader to break into the biggest sport story of the day—but Ming would not do it. I have to admit that  it was frustrating at the time, but it was also a mark of why he was so respected and admired. That level of modesty is rare in anyone, especially in a politician, but those of us who knew Ming knew that it was simply the kind of man that he was.

It says a lot about Ming’s many and varied accomplishments that his extraordinary sporting achievements—being Britain’s fastest man and representing his country at the Olympics—will not be what he is most remembered for. Nor will he be most remembered for his law career, though he excelled at that too. He was even offered the chance to become a judge on Scotland’s High Court in 1996, but he turned it down because by then, as he put it, politics had got into his blood. And so, what Ming will be most remembered for is his enormous contribution to British politics—a parliamentary career spanning five decades, including 28 years representing North East Fife.

I got to know Ming early during his first Parliament, when I was the party’s economics adviser based in our Whips Office. Even then, he already had so much gravitas. He was so charming, so thoughtful and so respected. Ming was among those few MPs who were genuinely grandees from the first day they were elected, but his calmness, reasonableness and intense decency masked a radical politician: a man who never forgot his roots after growing up in a Glasgow tenement, and who was driven by a deep commitment to social justice. He said it was his role and the role of the Liberal Democrats to “rattle the cage” of British politics, and he did—especially, as you said, Mr Speaker, when it came to foreign affairs and defence, on which he led for our party for over 18 years, including, of course, in the lead-up to and after the Iraq war.

I remember how difficult a decision it was for us to oppose that war. It felt like we were not just going against the Government, but taking on the full might of the British state and the United States too. The way Ming tackled it, with his typically steady, forensic and lawyerly approach, gave us both the confidence and resolve to speak up strongly for what we believed. He made our position firmly rooted in respect for international law. At a time when the world was in turmoil following the horrific terrorist attacks of 11 September, Ming provided principled leadership with his trademark combination of morality, courage and wisdom, and he continued to do so, whether as leader of our party, as a respected member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, or in the other place.

I benefited greatly from Ming’s advice and guidance over more than 30 years, and turned to him often about foreign affairs in my own time as leader. I will miss his wise counsel, as I know many of us will. But, more than that, he was an incredibly warm and caring friend—a colleague with such generosity and humour. He called his late wife Elspeth his rock, and she was always by his side—mostly with a cigarette. They were such good fun and such great company.

It was once said of Ming that he

“runs the risk of giving politicians a good name.”

Well, he certainly did that. His passing is a moment for us to consider how we are all viewed as politicians and what changes we could make, both individually and collectively, to further the cause of good, decent, hopeful politics—something that Ming embodied entirely.

Ming Campbell was a dedicated public servant, a tireless champion for Fife, St Andrews and the United Kingdom, and a true Liberal giant. I know all of us in the Liberal Democrat family and across this House will miss him terribly. \p Keir Starmer: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Everyone in this House knows what an honour it is to represent our country, but for most of us that appreciation comes from the rather sedentary position on these Benches, not from the international running track where Lord Campbell of Pittenweem first represented Great Britain at the Olympic games in Tokyo in 1964. He remained quick on his feet as a barrister, before becoming an MP, where, I am told, he made the most of his talents by sprinting door to door while canvassing. Ultimately, of course, he became a respected voice on foreign and defence affairs, becoming leader of the Liberal Democrats. This was despite many overtures from one of my predecessors, his old Glasgow University friend John Smith, to join the Labour party as a young man. No, Ming, as many came to know him, was determined and he knew his own mind.

Ming Campbell was authoritative on the subjects that he was passionate about, so it was no wonder that he had the respect and admiration of colleagues across the House, who recognised his wisdom and unfailing kindness over 28 years of service as a Member of this Parliament. Today we remember his commitment to Scotland and in particular of course to Fife—championing its industries from fishing to, in his case, flying—as well as becoming chancellor of the University of St Andrews, where he spoke of his joy at meeting students and young people full of hope for the future—a future he had done so much to shape. It was a full life, well lived alongside Elspeth, his beloved wife of more than 50 years. We are all enriched by his sense of duty and commitment to this country. He stands in the finest traditions of this House, so it is a privilege, on behalf of the Labour Benches, to pay tribute to the “Flying Scotsman”. May he rest in peace. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition. \p Kemi Badenoch: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Conservative party, I would like to add my voice to the tributes paid today to Lord Campbell. I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Ming Campbell, as he was then, just once—backstage before “Any Questions?”—and he was very courteous, very curious and very earnest. We all know how well respected he was across this House, not least because of the efforts he made to work cross-party, especially on international matters. He was a man with a clear sense of right and wrong, committed to doing the right thing even when it was difficult or unpopular, so I very much hope that his legacy of careful thought, integrity and public service endures. On behalf of myself and my party, I extend heartfelt condolences to Sir Ming’s family, his party and all those who knew him and loved him. \p John Martin McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. For those of us on all sides who were here during the debate on the Iraq  war, I want to thank Ming for the legal advice that he provided and the way that he addressed that debate, because he did so without seeking any party advantage. He simply set out the legal principles on which he was making his decision, and he did so with compassion and with the recognition of the moral duty that we all had. Many of us agreed with him and voted with him, and many did not, but everybody respected his judgment as a result. I believe he was a model MP, always speaking and voting on the basis of his conscience and the interests of his constituency and the country overall. He will be greatly missed, but I think his lesson will remain with many of us throughout our own parliamentary careers. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As a Conservative, I want to join our Liberal friends in paying tribute to such a gallant and charming gentleman. His least successful period in this House was probably as leader of his party—perhaps he was just too nice; perhaps he could see both sides of the question—but what a great man and what a great foreign affairs spokesman. Following on from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the whole episode of the Iraq war was so difficult for us in this House, particularly for those of us who broke with our party to oppose it. He gave us leadership and rigour, and he has been proved right. Of course, there are no prizes for being proved right, but history will prove him right. \p Wendy Chamberlain: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I stand here as a friend of Ming’s, but also as the current representative of his seat. I know how much he felt the privilege of being elected to this House for 28 years as the representative for North East Fife. I also know the very high regard in which he was held in the constituency. All I have had—both myself and the MSP for the constituency, Willie Rennie, who was previously a Member of this place—are very kind thoughts from constituents and stories about Ming that we have taken to our hearts.

He first stood for Parliament in Greenock in 1974. Greenock is my hometown. I was quite reassured, when I was first engaging with Ming, that we at least had something in common. What the Prime Minister said was right: he had the opportunity to switch to other parties, but he chose not to. Although he first stood in 1974, it took until 1987 before he was elected in North East Fife. That shows the spirit and determination he had as an individual, but also the work he did to build the constituency and build the local party.

I have had lots of thoughts from the local party, too. One of them I thought would be worth sharing with the House. Shortly after his election, which was a close contest against the sitting Conservative MP, they decided to take a celebratory boat trip out to the Isle of May to see the puffins. Unfortunately, the boat broke down on the way. Ming and Elspeth kept everybody calm. It was interesting that even people who did not vote for him came out and rescued the boat. [Laughter.] That was the respect with which he was regarded.

In his tribute, my constituency colleague Willie Rennie said that Ming had had three careers: politics, law and, obviously, sport. He was a parliamentarian, he was a  KC, he was an Olympian and he was a Companion of Honour. If any of us can aspire to the great heights that Ming reached, that is worth aspiring to. The Prime Minister also mentioned his chancellorship of the University of St Andrews, which he held for 19 years. I know that those at the university are very sad at his loss and passing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I visited the university last week to meet them and discuss Ming.

I will finish with some personal memories. He was a great support to me, but I do remember, when I was running for the selection in 2018, that there was a constituency lunch in North East Fife. One of the members who was supportive of my candidacy made sure that I was sat at the same table as Elspeth, because I was assured that if I could get Elspeth onside, Ming would surely follow. Since I was elected, we would meet every so often. Every month, we would have a cup of tea and a scone in the Pugin Room, and he would tell me all the things that I needed to be doing. The Secretary of State for Defence is not here, but Ming would always ask me, right up until the last time I saw him, about Leuchars and what the strategic defence review meant, and talk about how important defence was for him and the constituency.

There is no doubt that the loss of Elspeth was devastating and he was never quite the same. I think everybody would accept that when we saw him here, but really up until those last weeks, he, although very frail, was absolutely still there and we had many great conversations. I saw him just the week before he died, and it did feel like a “goodbye” conversation. I know that he will be much missed across this House, and I am very grateful for all the tributes that have been paid to him. \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear. \p Alec Shelbrooke: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Ming Campbell was a good friend of mine. There is a body called the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which has not been mentioned yet today. Ming Campbell was a member for over 30 years, only really pausing when he became leader of the Liberal Democrats. When I joined that body in 2015, the respect with which Ming Campbell was regarded across the entire alliance—indeed, by so many partner countries, almost across the world—became apparent almost immediately. It did not matter if we were meeting Presidents, Prime Ministers or even royal families. Ming would come into the room and greet, say, the King of Spain in the same way he would greet somebody in the Tea Room and the respect shone through.

I remember very clearly when he was the chairman of several of the Assembly’s committees. Sometimes allies in those committees maybe did not quite see eye to eye and got into some really heated arguments. Ming simply hit the table and said, “Enough!” and the silence fell. That was the level of respect he had. During the coalition years, he was able to be appointed as leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Assembly. When I had the honour of taking on that role, I do not think many weeks passed when I did not call Ming on his mobile phone and say, “Ming, I need some advice on this difficult situation.” That was especially true during the covid years, when we were trying to work out how  we were going to make the annual and spring Assemblies work online. Ming was always there with sage advice on how to lead our delegations.

One thing that is true about serving on an international body is that we spend an awful lot of time in airports, especially when flights are delayed. Ming always had a story and they were genuinely fascinating. His legal career has been mentioned. There was one particular story that I liked, because it showed his quick wit and his ability to move swiftly on his feet, which was an important ability for a KC. He said he had been prosecuting a defendant charged with causing affray and drunken disorderly behaviour. He put the question, “How much had you drunk?” Apparently, the defendant said, “Oh, only eight or nine pints.” He paused and said, “Are you meaning to tell this court that you drank a gallon of beer and you don’t consider that to be very much?” He said that at that point, he knew he had him. He would tell so many stories. He was very proud of his time in San Francisco, where he trained to be a top sprinter. He said, “Academically, it didn’t go quite as well as it should have done. I think I just spent far too much time at the track.”

He was, as I have said, enormously respected across the world. He was a great friend to me and a great sage. His politics were clear, but his party allegiance did not matter when it came to important roles of state and the intellectual rigour that had to be brought to important issues. I will miss him, and I know a great number of people in this House will miss him. He truly was a giant of British politics. \p Stephen Gethins: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I had the distinction of succeeding Ming Campbell in this place. He probably was not unhappy that I am not his current successor—he spoke so highly of his current successor—but I have to say how highly I thought of him. I have heard so many nice stories today about his role globally, but as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) reflected so beautifully, more important than that was that he was so highly regarded locally. When I took over from him, it was difficult to go to any one of the 99 communities in his constituency where there was not a story or somebody who had been helped. And at the University of St Andrews, he was an outstanding Chancellor and colleague. I want to pay tribute to somebody who I may not have agreed with, but when we have that precious relationship between a constituency and the Member of Parliament—nobody better replicated that in his day-to-day work. I want to pay tribute to a European and an internationalist, but more than that an outstanding local representative. \p Tim Farron: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to add my words of tribute to my friend, Ming Campbell. He had an impact on me long before I met him. The first general election I was active in was 1987. No offence to any other Liberal MP at the time—none of them are present here—but I was very impressed with Ming Campbell. He struck me as not being like other Liberal MPs: he looked like he could actually run the country. [Laughter.] He had gravitas. I am pretty sure that is what I said to my mother in the early hours of, I think, 12 June 1987, when he gained North East Fife from the  Conservatives: “You look the real deal. You look incredibly competent.” And of course, in the years that followed, he demonstrated that.

We have talked about the Iraq war. What Ming Campbell did—yes, applying his legal expertise and insight into international law as well as the law of this land—was to make the connection, in what is often thought of as the esoteric business of human rights, that human rights are about human duties. They are about making sure that nobody is above the law—no Prime Minister and no President. He made that clear and made it crossover into public consciousness in a way that was really very remarkable.

I then realised I had a connection with Ming. When I met my wife, Rosie, in the ’90s, it turned out that her now, sadly, late father, Mark Cantley, opened the bowling with Ming at Glasgow Hillhead. They had not spoken to each other for 30-odd years until Ming came to do a talk at the university at Ambleside shortly after I had been selected, and the two of them continued a friendship until Mark’s passing just two years ago.

In 2005, the year I was elected, the late, great Charles Kennedy was meant to be doing the constituency visit to Westmorland, but his son was born the night before. Ming got drafted in at the last minute and did two visits for me—when you win by 267 votes, every single thing counts, so I have him to thank for that.

When Ming became leader in 2006, I had the honour of serving as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. What insight did I get during that time? He was obsessed with sport and running, and, despite the fact that this was a man who could run 100 metres in 10 seconds, he was incredibly generous in hearing the stories of somebody who was a 10th-rate fell runner.

In my time as leader, Ming was a great source of advice and wisdom. After that time, he and his wife, Elspeth, who we have mentioned, would regularly go on holiday in Ullswater, and they would always make a point of doing a visit in Westmorland—whether we asked them or not. [Laughter.] My recollection is of Ming talking to the local newspaper or TV station and Elspeth with not simply a fag but a pink cigarette holder, looking every bit a real-life Lady Penelope from the “Thunderbirds”.

One of our predecessors, the late, great Jo Grimond, once said that the best Liberal candidate should dress to the right and talk to the left. Ming Campbell bore all the airs of an establishment figure and was a radical to his dying breath. He was kind, wise, decent, talented and loyal. He was my friend, and I miss him. \p Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to state that Sir Ming Campbell, as he then was, was the perfect example of how it is possible to disagree with another parliamentarian on a key issue and yet work side by side on other issues without any rancour or reservation.

My dealings with Ming did not get off to the best start, as we were generally on opposite sides of a debate about the replacement of Trident submarines and the replacement of continuous at-sea deterrence by part-time patrols. Nevertheless, once we got to know each other better on the Intelligence and Security Committee, we  found ourselves making common cause on such issues as the safeguarding of the vital BBC Monitoring service for the future, the need to enhance spending on defence with an improved defence budgeting priority and, above all, the folly that could have happened of Britain intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war.

In short, Ming brought courtesy, style, courage and grace to public life to the benefit of society as a whole. \p Christine Jardine: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would also like to pay tribute to Ming Campbell, whom I met personally in later years, but whose political influence has hung over my entire adult life.

As an 18-year-old student at the University of Glasgow, I heard about these three great figures of British politics who had studied together and been great friends: Donald Dewar, who became the first First Minister of Scotland; John Smith, whose legacy as leader of the Labour party is well respected; and, of course, Ming Campbell. I found that his persona, his influence, his attitude to politics and his integrity influenced me. It was one of the things that pulled me towards the Liberal party, as it then was.

The first time I came across Ming personally was years later, about a year after he had stepped down as leader. When I made my maiden speech to the Scottish conference, I discovered that I was speaking on a motion proposed by Ming Campbell, which was, of course—this will come as no surprise to many—about RAF Leuchars, its future and what we needed to do to defend it. That was a thread that ran through.

In 2017, when I was standing in Edinburgh West, Ming came to launch my campaign—in fact, he helped me up on to a chair so that everybody could see me. He was there to be supportive. I learned a lot about his kindness and thoughtfulness a few weeks later, when my husband died and Ming took the time to take me aside and make sure I was okay and that I had the support I needed to get through the campaign.

Most of all, though, I enjoyed my chats with Ming on a Monday in the departure lounge at Edinburgh airport. He always had a tale to tell, and he always had a kind word about my column in The Scotsman. My team in the office were endlessly amused by how pleased I was that Ming Campbell had even read my column, never mind agreed with it.

Ming was, in many ways, with the integrity, kindness and thoughtfulness that everyone has spoken about, an example that we should all aspire to and try to live up to. There is a certain restaurant in Pimlico, which I am sure my colleagues are aware of, that many of us were introduced to by Ming Campbell. I am sure we think of him every time we go there, as I think we will the next time we go. We may make a point of going there and raising a glass to someone who was an example not just of what we should be, but perhaps of what the world needs now more than ever among its politicians. \p Gavin Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is appropriate that on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, and indeed on behalf of all Northern Ireland parliamentarians, I extend our condolences to the Liberal Democrats and to the colleagues who knew Mr Campbell better than I did. I first came across Sir Ming when I was at school,  and he became leader of his party when I was at university. It was not his prowess, his intelligence or his ability to launch an argument that struck me, but his name: Ming. I knew of no other Mings than Ming the Merciless— [Laughter]—and yet we got to know Ming the Merciful. We got to know Ming the politician, who stood and achieved the respect of colleagues right across this House. He was a sincere Unionist, an avowed Scot and a true parliamentarian. I would like to take this moment to pass on our respects for his life and pay tribute to his legacy. \p Clive Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that Ming would have been delighted with the tributes paid to him today by the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and many others. Just as importantly, I think Elspeth would have been equally delighted. She would have been raising a glass of champagne in celebration.

Ming is remembered as a brilliant and successful athlete and an accomplished, distinguished advocate. He was a real fixture in this House, utterly authoritative on foreign policy and defence matters for more than two decades. Less well remembered is the fact that it took him three elections and a decade to be elected to represent Fife, a seat he then held for 28 years. He was, therefore, sympathetic and hugely supportive of my similarly numerous efforts to win in Wokingham. For all that patrician charm he deployed to win over judges in court, he was also a savvy street campaigner his opponents underestimated at their peril. On one of his many visits to Wokingham, a local journalist asked him why he visited so often. He replied, “I have invested so much in this young man”—it was only 10 years ago!—“that I am determined to see him succeed.” He was delighted when that investment paid off last July.

Ming was very generous with his time and his advice. He was a warm and generous friend to me and my family, to many colleagues and to the many, many friends he made in Wokingham along the way. He will be fondly remembered by everybody who knew him well and, by wide agreement, as being probably one of the nicest people to ever lead a political party in the UK. \p Calum Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an honour to follow the tributes of so many across the House. Ming Campbell was an inspiration to me and to many others who admired his integrity, courtesy and tenacity. I am lucky to have known Ming all my life, and I know how much his death will be felt by his family and the many friends who loved him. I share their grief.

Ming’s athletic achievement showed a man determined to work hard and make sacrifices to push himself to the limits. His international success has already been mentioned, but I remember him—in his mid-40s at that point—saying with some feeling that the annual school sports day had become a major focus, since he was the one the other dads wanted to beat in the fathers’ race. Behind that gracious façade was a true competitor.

Ming was of that remarkable generation of Glasgow University debaters from all parties who strove for a better society. Across a lifetime in politics, he maintained close friendships with those of other parties, yet he was clear on his politics. Ming’s tenacity was shown in his dedication to Scottish liberalism, working hard to win the North East Fife seat at his fifth general election.

Ming served our party for many years as foreign affairs spokesperson. With his distinctive eloquent delivery and his disarming courtesy, Ming could easily be underestimated by some as an orator, not an actor, yet his principled approach to the Iraq war demonstrated his courage and steel. He did not shirk from doing the right thing. For Ming, international liberalism was not an abstract ideal but a set of practical moral obligations.

As we say goodbye to a much-loved parliamentarian, we also remember a private man. Ming’s marriage to Elspeth was the anchor of his life. The last time I saw Ming he spoke with love and feeling about Elspeth. He was continuing his life’s work in Parliament, but it was clear he felt acutely that he was continuing it without his life partner. Theirs was a truly devoted partnership.

Ming Campbell lived an incredible life as an athlete, advocate, political leader and loving husband. He was a lifelong liberal whose principles drove his choices. He is rightly remembered with admiration and affection today across the House. He will be sorely missed. \p Keir Starmer: Before I update the House on the peace process in the middle east and my trade visit to India, I want to put on record my utter condemnation of the vile antisemitic terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester, which killed two Jewish men: Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz.

Antisemitism is not a new hatred. Here in Britain, Jews have had to deal with the shameful reality that their buildings, their way of life and their children need extra protection. We must also be crystal clear that while this was an attack on Jews because they were Jews, the Islamist extremism that motivated this sick individual is a threat to every citizen of this country. It is an attack on British values, British security and the British decency that holds our communities together.

Moreover, we can see clearly that antisemitism is on the rise in Britain once again. We will scale up the protection we provide for Jewish people. We will set out new measures to prevent hatred abusing the democratic right to protest. We will stop at nothing to root out antisemitism. The same applies to the arson attack on the Peacehaven mosque. An attack on British Muslims is also an attack on us all, so we condemn this despicable crime and the poison of anti-Muslim hatred. We will fight against hate in all its forms.

I now turn to the middle east, and to words I have longed to say in this House for a very long time: the surviving hostages are free, the bombardment of Gaza has stopped, and desperately needed aid is starting to enter. As a result of the peace plan led by President Trump, we have the chance—it is a chance—to bring a terrible chapter in history finally to a close. It is a moment of profound relief for the House, this nation, and indeed the whole world, but it is tempered, of course, by the knowledge that for the hostages and their families, the loved ones of those killed on 7 October and the innocent civilians in Gaza—the dead, the bereaved, the starving—this has been two years of living hell.

I think of Avinatan Or, who has family ties to the United Kingdom, returned at last to his family and his girlfriend Noa. Avinatan and Noa were taken from that music festival two years ago, the footage of their abduction filmed by Hamas—evil committed to camera. I have met Avinatan’s family, and heard for myself the agony that they suffered for two long years, waiting for him to come home. His frail condition is shocking evidence of the appalling treatment he must have endured. We await the release of the deceased hostages; their families need the chance to grieve, so we demand that they are returned to their families immediately.

My thoughts are also with the people of Gaza, almost all of whom will have lost family members—husbands, wives, brothers, sisters and, worst of all, sons and daughters. Over 20,000 children were killed. I think of people like Yara Yaghi, who I met a year ago. She was 17 years old and was studying at college in Hertfordshire. She had lost 44 members of her family—a pain that cannot be erased, even as we welcome the peace today.

Mercifully, the killing and destruction has now stopped, and aid is beginning to enter Gaza. To be clear, we urgently need to see more aid, and faster. All restrictions must now be lifted. The need for food, sanitation,  healthcare and shelter are all still acute. While the signing yesterday was historic, what matters now is implementation and getting help in as quickly as possible.

The UK is providing £20 million in additional humanitarian support to get water, sanitation and hygiene products to tens of thousands of civilians across Gaza. That is in addition to the support we are already providing. Our two field hospitals in Gaza have already seen 600,000 patients, and earlier this month we evacuated the third group of sick and injured Palestinian children to the United Kingdom. They are now being treated by the NHS. We will work with the UN and our partners to go further and faster in providing the aid that is so desperately needed.

Let no one be in any doubt that none of this would have been possible without President Trump. This is his peace deal, delivered of course with President Sisi of Egypt, the Emir of Qatar and President Erdoğan of Türkiye. Alongside our partners, we offered the UK’s full support to these efforts. We have worked behind the scenes for months with the US and Arab and European nations to help deliver a ceasefire, get the hostages out, get aid in and secure a better future for Israel, Gaza and the west bank. I am proud of our contribution.

We are in a position to play this role precisely because of the approach this Government take. That includes our decision to recognise the state of Palestine. This move, taken alongside our allies—France, Canada, Australia and others—helped lead to the historic New York declaration, in which, for the first time, the entire Arab League condemned the atrocities of 7 October, urged Hamas to disarm and, crucially, demanded that it end its rule in Gaza.

But let me be clear that while we celebrate the relief of peace today, making that peace last will be no less difficult a task. Along with our allies, we will have absolute focus in the days and weeks ahead on the relentless implementation of the peace plan. That is no small challenge, so we stand ready to deploy our diplomacy and expertise in three key areas. The first is in supporting the reconstruction of Gaza, which is an immense task. The devastation defies description. This will require a truly international effort; we are ready to play our part, starting at a conference this week, here in the United Kingdom, hosted by the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). Secondly, to support transitional governance arrangements in Gaza, we will continue to work closely with the Palestinian Authority on the vital reforms that they need to make. Thirdly, we will help ensure security in Gaza through a ceasefire monitoring process and planning for the international stabilisation force. Drawing on our experience in Northern Ireland, we stand ready to play a full role in the decommissioning of Hamas weapons and capability, because, as the House knows, there can be no viable future for Gaza and no security for Israel if Hamas can still threaten bloodshed and terror, so we will work to put that threat out of action for good.

This is the first real chance we have had of a two-state solution since the Oslo accords over three decades ago, so we are fully committed to this, because a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state is the only way to secure lasting peace for the middle east. I have been clear all along that that must be our goal, so we will work now to follow through on the 20-point  peace plan and deliver it in full, including by supporting a dialogue to agree on a political horizon for peaceful co-existence.

Finally, I want to update the House on my discussions with Prime Minister Modi last week in Mumbai. India is a growing force on the world stage, and is on track to have the third-largest economy by 2028. In addition to the bond that we already share—the living bridge of family and history—we are also united by the future and the incredible opportunities that we see before us. That is why, back in July, we signed a historic trade deal, opening up new opportunities for British businesses in India. That is why, last week, I led the biggest British trade delegation to India ever. We announced that more British universities are opening campuses in India, making us its leading international education provider. We are also deepening the UK-India technology security initiative to boost opportunities for our brilliant tech sector. We also announced new deals and investment, including in advanced manufacturing, defence, car production and Bollywood film making here in the United Kingdom. Those investments into the United Kingdom are worth £1.3 billion, and they will create 10,600 jobs. That is real change that people will see in their communities up and down the country.

I set that out because it speaks again to our approach on the world stage, as do our deals with the United States and the EU, and the approach that we bring to crises and conflicts as well. Instead of threatening to walk away or indulging in the cheap political theatre that comes from castigating our allies—allies we need to deliver peace and economic stability in a dangerous, volatile world—we stay in the room. We trust in diplomacy, and we back the reputation, talent and pride of this country to change the world to the benefit of the British people. This is a politics of national renewal, in which we work with our partners, rather than against them—a politics that solves problems, rather than exploiting them, and that believes that our openness to the world is what helps us take control of our future, rather than shutting the door and hoping for the best. That is how the Government deliver for Britain. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition. \p Kemi Badenoch: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I remember almost two years ago meeting three mothers whose children had been stolen from them on 7 October and held captive in terror tunnels. They were living a nightmare unimaginable for any parent. Many of us on the Conservative Benches have met hostages and their families, and heard their stories and supported them. Yesterday, it was truly momentous to finally see the return of the 20 living hostages, who are now back home in Israel after over 730 days in terrorist captivity. The hostages released yesterday showed superhuman endurance in the face of evil. We send every best wish to them and their families as they begin the process of rebuilding their lives. We also mourn those hostages killed by Hamas, and continue to call for all their bodies to be returned to their families.

We must never forget what happened on 7 October 2023. The abduction of men, women and children was a calculated cruelty to break body, mind and soul after  inflicting the mindless horror of rape and murder. There is no cause and no grievance that can ever justify what happened that day; I for one will never forget. The response from some in the west—the equivocation, the indulgence in whataboutery and the drawing of false equivalence—shows how far moral clarity has eroded. We have a job to do here at home to fix that.

On the Conservative Benches, we stand alongside Israel in our shared fight against Islamist terror. The conflict could have ended a long time ago if the hostages had been returned. So many Palestinian lives have been needlessly lost because of this war. Hamas are a genocidal terrorist organisation. A sustainable end to the suffering of civilians in Gaza means the complete eradication of Hamas and the dismantling of their terrorist infrastructure. Even now, we know that Hamas are still killing Palestinians in Gaza.

The initial phase of the US-backed peace plan represents a significant breakthrough. I thank the US Administration, President Trump and regional mediators for having secured this outcome. They put in the hard yards and found solutions, making clear that all progress would depend on the release of the hostages—a condition that some other Governments forgot.

With this peace deal, there is much to be hopeful for in the middle east. If the Abraham accords are expanded, a new age of peace will have arrived. We will see diplomatic normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab world—something that many of us have longed to see. It saddens me that the Prime Minister’s statement does not appear to show that the UK was at the heart of any of these efforts specifically. It is quite clear that UK relations with Israel have been strained by the Government’s actions. Israel’s view—it has been stated publicly—is that it looks like the Prime Minister, under pressure from his Back Benchers, has taken the wrong decisions time and again, diminishing our influence in the region. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] Labour Members can shout “shame” as much as they want. Within weeks of Labour coming into power, the Government decided to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have not forgotten that. [Interruption.] They say “yes”; that is an organisation whose members assisted in the kidnapping of the hostages whose release we are celebrating today.

Relations with Israel have been so damaged that when Israel launched strikes against Iran—a country that has been a direct threat to us for years—the UK was out of the loop. Labour Members may not like it, but that is the truth. Then, in a move praised by Hamas, Labour decided to recognise a state of Palestine, without imposing the condition that hostages still held in the tunnels of Gaza be released, rewarding terrorism. [Interruption.] They may chunter from a sedentary position; I remind them that the British-Israeli former hostage Emily Damari called that a “moral failure”.

I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that recognition contributed to the peace deal. We all know that the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, condemned that recognition, saying that it had made ceasefire negotiations harder. That is what the US said. The truth is that as historic events have unfolded in the middle east, Britain has been out of step with the US. The US ambassador to Israel even called the Government’s claim that they had played a key role in the ceasefire “delusional”, which Israeli Foreign Ministers agreed with.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s promise to scale up protection for Jewish people in our country. Britain has always been a sanctuary for British Jews, but after the tragic murder of two British Jews outside a synagogue in Manchester, the Government must now do everything they can do eradicate antisemitism. The anti-Israel protesters who have turned our streets into theatres of hate have been relatively silent about the good news of a ceasefire and hostage return, showing us their real motivation.

The Prime Minister mentioned in his statement the Palestinian Authority. Will he tell us whether the Government’s preference is for the Palestinian Authority to take the reins in Gaza if they have committed to ending the pay-for-slay policies that reward families of terrorists for killing Israelis? Will they deal with antisemitism in education and are they demonstrating any democratic progress?

There are also domestic implications. We need to strengthen our borders. Hamas are still running Gaza, and those allowed to leave can do so only with Hamas’s approval. We should not bring anyone to Britain with links to extremism, to antisemitism, or to Hamas and other terrorists. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm whether he intends to bring people from Gaza to study, for healthcare or for other purposes? What measures are in place to ensure that we do not import extremism, antisemitism or anyone linked to Hamas and other terrorists?

Britain is a great country and still a powerful one. We still have agency to shape the world around us. The Government must do better and show that they have the backbone to use Britain’s power to make a better world. \p Keir Starmer: May I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the hostages a moment ago? I know how heartfelt they are.

I was surprised and saddened that she spent more time attacking what we actually did to help the process than even mentioning the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, without setting out in terms the number of people who have been killed, who are starving and who have been subjected to denial of aid. When the immediate task for any serious Government is to work with allies to get that aid in at speed, I would have expected at least an acknowledgment of that terrible situation. It shows, yet again, just how far her party has slid from a serious statesperson’s approach to diplomacy.

This is not the time for a fight about what role any individual played. I am proud of what Steve Witkoff said about our National Security Adviser. He was negotiating this, he knows the role that we played, and this House should be proud of that. We were able to play that role only because of the relationship that this Government have with the Trump Administration: we are a trusted partner, working both before this peace deal and afterwards. And yes, I did discuss recognition of Palestine with President Trump when he was over here, because that is what grown-up, responsible partners do—unlike the discussion here. I stand by my words that in New York that was the first time that other countries in the region were clear in their condemnation of Hamas. That was a key aspect of what has now happened.

On her other questions, the Leader of the Opposition will know, from the reforms that have already been committed to, that the Palestinian Authority will not tolerate any election of individuals or parties that are not committed to a peaceful process. That is an absolute red line, it is part of the agreement and it is what we have been talking to other allies about for a very long time. On healthcare cases, as I reported, we have had such cases coming to the United Kingdom, as well as students. We are extremely careful in the checks that we carry out on everybody who comes to this country.

I return to the fact that this is a historic deal. It is important for the region and it is important for the world. It is to be celebrated across this House because of the relief it brings to the hostages and their families in particular, and to the many thousands of people in Gaza. As I said, I was surprised and saddened that the Leader of the Opposition has overlooked a really important part of the resolution of the conflict. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the International Development Committee. \p Sarah Champion: I thank the Prime Minister, his Ministers and all the officials who I know have been working incredibly hard behind the scenes for the past two years to get to this historic point. He is right; it is a chance for peace. I am nervous about the next stages, but it is definitely a chance to get aid flooding into Gaza. Will he give us some more details about how that will happen in practice, with Israel controlling all the borders? Will he also speak about the role of UNRWA? I say to the Leader of the Opposition that UNRWA is a UN organisation that acts as the local authority, providing education, medical services, sewerage and desalination. It is an organisation that is central to supporting the Palestinians facing starvation and dealing with the consequences of genocide. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to rally the international community to put pressure on Israel to let that aid flood in and to ensure that the Palestinians are central in the future of their communities. \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for her hard work over many years on this issue and for raising the question of aid. The critical test of the next few days and weeks will be whether that aid gets in. Of course, there is the goal of a two-state outcome, but the immediate task over the next days and weeks is to get that aid in. It is beginning to go in, but not in sufficient quantity and not at sufficient speed. I spent a lot of yesterday, along with our teams that are working with others—particularly the King of Jordan—on what practical assistance the United Kingdom can give to ensure that aid gets in as quickly as is needed. It is probably one of the most central issues in the coming days and weeks, and I thank her for raising it. \p Edward Davey: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I join him in condemning the evil, antisemitic terrorist attack that killed Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz at their synagogue in Manchester. Antisemitism must be stamped out and British Jews must be able to feel safe in our country.

After the horrific Hamas terror attacks of 7 October and two years of appalling death and destruction since, the ceasefire in Gaza comes as an enormous relief to us  all. It finally offers a moment of hope, but it is only the beginning and there is a lot of work to do. Already today we can see how precarious the situation is, with Israeli forces killing Palestinians who they say crossed the yellow line and both sides accusing each other of violating the ceasefire. The immediate priority must be to ensure that the ceasefire holds, as well as ensuring that lifesaving food, water and medicine reach all those facing starvation and disease. Will the Prime Minister set out in more detail what the UK is doing to get aid into Gaza as quickly as possible, and will he keep the House updated on those vital efforts?

It was so moving to see the images yesterday of families weeping with joy as hostages were reunited with their loved ones. However, does the Prime Minister share my anger and the anger of bereaved families that Hamas have still not released the bodies of all deceased hostages? Those terrorists captured innocent people, held them hostage and killed them, and even now, they deny their families the chance to bury them and mourn them properly. Palestinian families are starting to return home too, but for many, their homes are now rubble and the process of rebuilding will be long and difficult.

A ceasefire is not the same as a lasting peace. Only a two-state solution can deliver that, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to finally recognise Palestine last month. What work is he doing with partners to help build a viable Palestinian state that can live peacefully alongside Israel? Has he spoken to President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu to make it clear that the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank must stop?

Israelis and Palestinians have suffered unimaginable trauma and much of it will never be healed, but today they can at least begin to hope that their children will grow up free of this appalling cycle of violence. \p Keir Starmer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the content and tone of his response. On his questions, we are working with others on getting aid into Gaza. Until recently that had been mainly airdrops, but what we really need is trucks going in. That is what we focused on in the practical work we were doing yesterday in Egypt, and we will continue to do so. I will take up the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to update the House on that. Personally, I think that in these early days it is probably one of the single most important things that we need to absolutely focus on. Yes, it was an historic day, but implementing the plan is really important. Any misstep—any step backwards—would have the potential to undermine what happened yesterday.

I absolutely agree that the bodies must be released. Those poor families need to be able to grieve properly and they cannot do so. It is cruel that the bodies have been held for so long and they must be immediately released.

The two-state solution is necessarily and rightly the long-term objective. I do not believe there will be lasting peace without a two-state solution—a safe and secure Israel, which we do not have; and a viable Palestinian state, which we do not have—so that must be the end goal, and we are working with others to ensure that remains the goal. Along the way there has to be the work on the governance, security and reconstruction in Gaza. I have to say that once the media are fully into  Gaza, I think we will be having quite some debate in this House, when the full horror of what has happened there and the devastation is finally seen.

On illegal settlements, yes, I absolutely have made it clear, in relation to the west bank, what must happen—or not happen, I should say—in relation to the illegal settlements. It is important that we ensure that this process leads to a lasting peace for Israel, for Gaza and, of course, for the west bank as well. \p John Martin McDonnell: The Prime Minister mentioned his conversations with President Sisi, so may I take this opportunity to thank him for his conversations and interventions with President Sisi and his team to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah from an Egyptian prison?

We are all elated at the release of the hostages and the detainees and prisoners, but there is some confusion about whether two prominent Gazan Palestinian doctors have been released. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya and Dr Marwan al-Hams were both detained and unfortunately ill-treated in Israeli prisons. It would be really helpful if the Prime Minister could confirm whether they have been released and, if they have not been, make further representations to the Israeli authorities. \p Keir Starmer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his words in relation to Alaa Abd el-Fattah and for his long campaign to raise that important issue. On the two doctors, what I can say is that the cases have been raised. I do not yet know what the status is, but I will do my best to find out and get a better answer to him as quickly as we can. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Beneath all the peace rhetoric, the brutal Hamas regime were openly executing people yesterday, and refused to give up their weapons. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that he is going to remove them by force if necessary, and he refuses to accept a state in the west bank. It may be naive, but cannot both sides of the House unite in saying that we are absolutely, completely committed to creating a Palestinian state in the west bank? That is their God-given right and it is the only way we are going to end the cycle of despair and violence. \p Keir Starmer: That sounds like the old Tory party I used to know, and I am really pleased to hear it. In a sense, it is only by uniting across this House in the face of a conflict that has gone on for far too long, and by being clear-eyed about the only way there can be peace that is lasting, that we will be able to play a full part as a country in bringing that about. I welcome the old tone and the old content that I just heard. \p Melanie Ward: The emotional scenes in recent days in Palestine and Israel are proof that only politics and never violence can bring security to the people of the region. Accountability for the heinous killing that has taken place must be part of the future, too. As someone who, as an aid worker, stood in a hospital in Gaza last year, I know that the UK can play a key role in rebuilding  Gaza’s decimated health system. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss this? And will he convey the thanks of those on the Government Benches to the National Security Adviser, who has played a truly vital role in making the ceasefire happen? Not for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition has no idea what she is talking about—and her Back Benchers know it as well. \p Keir Starmer: I do acknowledge the important role that the National Security Adviser played. It was a typical UK role: quiet, behind-the-scenes and diplomatic, but bringing about really helpful steps towards the desired end. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister on the other issues. \p Andrew Mitchell: Was not yesterday an historic and much-longed-for day for which this Government and the last one worked tirelessly since the dreadful events of 7 October? Does the Prime Minister agree that, just as real progress at Oslo was made on the back of the intifada, so now we must use the exceptional connections and deep historical knowledge that Britain has throughout the region to help secure a definitive resolution for the middle east to problems that have disfigured the world and poisoned the well of international progress and opinion for so many generations? \p Keir Starmer: First, I acknowledge the role that the right hon. Gentleman played in office just before the election, what he personally brought to the table in relation to this issue, and the cross-party way in which he worked to ensure that the House as a whole could bring to bear pressure to bring about change. He is right about the goal that we need to achieve and the way we want to achieve it, so I wholeheartedly agree with him. \p Clive Efford: Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that not every statement in this House is an opportunity for political knockabout? This is one of those occasions that required a statesperson.

There are reports that militia groups are seeking to gain control of certain areas in Gaza. What can be done to make sure that it is the people of Palestine who determine their future, and not the biggest gangs? What can we do about this situation? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. There are concerning reports of what gangs are getting up to. The immediate next steps need to be, on the one hand, getting aid into Gaza and, on the other, getting better security arrangements in Gaza. That has to come in two stages. The stabilisation force will take some time, but immediate steps are needed to stabilise the situation now. \p Stephen Flynn: I begin by expressing relief at the release of the hostages, but anger that so many have not lived to see this day, and relief that Palestinians are not sheltering from the skies today, but anger that so many are doing so without friends and family by their sides and without homes to return to. As we all embrace that collective relief, let us not forget that access to aid is essential. Access for the world’s media and investigators to document crimes against humanity is essential. A two-state solution is essential.  Accountability is essential. With those words in mind, I say to the Prime Minister what I said to his predecessor two years ago: history will judge us by our response and by our actions. Up until now, on too many occasions we have failed. Let us not do so any more. \p Keir Starmer: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that aid is the immediate issue, and I agree that the media absolutely need to be allowed in to document what has to be seen. On a two-state solution, of course there has to be accountability. \p Paul Waugh: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and warmly welcome the ceasefire, both for the beginning of the end of the suffering of the children of Gaza and for the release of the hostages, one of whom is Nimrod Cohen, whose brother I met in Jerusalem earlier this year and whose family are eternally grateful for everything that this country and the United States have done to secure their release. I also thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis today on the need to flood Gaza with aid, something we have not seen done at all adequately until now. Does he agree with the UN’s Tom Fletcher that more Governments need to urgently fund the UN’s flash appeal for the Occupied Palestinian Territories? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree that flooding aid is the essential next step, and I took the opportunity to have a discussion with Tom Fletcher yesterday about what more we could do in that regard. \p Kit Malthouse: Setting aside the fact that we find ourselves in a situation where conditions have been placed upon the cessation of the annihilation of an entire people and the strange delineation between hostages on one side and prisoners held in administrative detention on the other, we should all of course, as the Prime Minister said, express profound relief at the end of the killing, not least of one child every 45 minutes for two years.

Is not the lesson of the last two years that when the UK finally moves on from empty rhetoric to take concrete action, there is movement in the parties to a conflict like this, and that therefore we should be thinking about what more concrete action we can take, in particular in three areas? First, can we please have concrete steps to deter Israeli territorial ambition in the west bank, including a ban on settlement goods, now that we have officially recognised that territory? Secondly, could we have a reassertion of UK support for international law and the institutions that support it? In particular, could the Prime Minister use his relationship with President Trump to have the sanctions on individuals at the UN and the International Criminal Court lifted? Finally, if we are to support or participate in an international stabilisation force, could we insist that it also covers areas B and C of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where the Israel Defence Forces too often act as cover for incidents of Israeli terrorism? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I will take each of the three parts in turn. Certainly, on the west bank, we have taken action, as he knows, and we will continue to look at what further action we can take where we can with  other countries. It is important, as we focus on Gaza, that we do not forget the situation in the west bank, as he rightly knows.

On international law, yes of course we are committed to international law and proud to uphold it, and I am pleased to hear him say so. That was once the proud position of his party as well. Sadly, that is no longer the case. On the stabilisation force, the terms of reference are still being drawn up. There is a United Nations Security Council resolution on the establishment of the force, or I hope there will be, but the wider terms of reference are not yet agreed. I will bear in mind what he has said. \p Debbie Abrahams: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and add my congratulations to him, the National Security Adviser and all his Ministers on the months and months of work that they have done that has contributed to this—it was so generously acknowledged by the US envoy to the middle east, if not by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as work towards a just peace continues apace, the principle of Gazans for Gaza, whether that is in the governance arrangements or in reconstruction, must apply? \p Keir Starmer: I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s championing work on this issue, and I agree with her that we must now all work towards a viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel as the only way in which we will have lasting peace. \p Layla Moran: I want to feel happy this week, but I find it impossible, because with so much destruction, so much devastation and so many lives lost, I look back over the last two years and ask the question, what on earth was it all for? But history teaches us that from the depths of such despair can often launch a positive future. There is only one way to achieve the everlasting peace that President Trump so rightly talks about: that is a two-state solution—Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in dignity and security.

I would like to thank this Government for recognising the state of Palestine. That was a promise made to my great-grandfather finally made good, but it is an empty promise unless it is followed by statehood, so my question to the Prime Minister is simply, will he make the Palestinian state a reality, and will he give it his personal attention over the course of his premiership, so that this is the last time we see this devastation? We do not want to see a repeat of that cycle of violence that we have always seen in the past. \p Keir Starmer: I first acknowledge the impact that this has had on the hon. Member, her family and her extended family. That is evidence of the despair that she rightly describes, and we must, from the depths of that despair, build a better future. I do believe that that will be lasting only if we have a two-state outcome. We have seen too often in the past what appears to be a step forward and what is rightly seen as a point of relief, only for things to fall back. I give my personal commitment that we will work tirelessly to ensure that this time we build on the signing of the agreement yesterday, through all the work that is going  to have to be done along the way, until we get to that final lasting solution, which will have to be a two-state solution. \p Gurinder Josan: I thank the Prime Minister for updating the House on the three points. I join him in his condemnation of the antisemitic terrorist attack in Manchester and the arson attack on the Peacehaven mosque, and I welcome his commitment to fight hatred in all its forms and the support provided for security at synagogues and mosques. I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that security at all our places of worship remains a priority.

On the approach taken by the Prime Minister on the middle east and the ongoing engagement with India, pragmatic engagement had been shown to be the correct approach. Does he agree that the British values of democracy, respect, internationalism and perseverance are going to be key to the ongoing work required to deliver a two-state solution, but also further economic progress and trade deals that will benefit the people of the UK? \p Keir Starmer: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must provide the security needed at all our places of worship. I know that across the House, people will be saddened and concerned to know that some of our places of worship require the sort of security that we are seeing today. That is something we must all work to alleviate. That is partly a question of putting in more resource, but it is much bigger than that in terms of the change that we need to bring about. I do believe that the approach that we are taking of diplomacy, sticking to our values and being in the room to argue is of benefit to this country in relation not only to the middle east but to India and the wider world. \p Oliver Dowden: After the horrors of Manchester, there is a sense of joy and relief in synagogues in my constituency at the final release of the hostages, many of whom were sponsored by synagogues, but there is also a sense of trepidation when they see Hamas terrorists patrolling the streets of Gaza and carrying out summary executions, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment that Hamas can have no role in Gaza. While he is on the issue of Islamic extremism, does he agree that now is the time to review the UK Government’s approach to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been banned in many other countries, such as the United Arab Emirates? \p Keir Starmer: I join the right hon. Gentleman in noting the feeling of trepidation, because I think that across the country we can all feel the trepidation and fear following the terrible impact that the Manchester attack had on all our communities, but the Jewish community in particular. I absolutely assert and am clear that Hamas must play no role whatsoever. That is why it is so important that we work with our international allies on the follow-through from what happened yesterday—aid, security and making sure that the steps are in place to move on at speed—and that is the biggest risk, frankly, to this agreement: that we are not able to move sufficiently quickly on those important issues. We do keep the Muslim Brotherhood question under constant review. \p Marsha de Cordova: I welcome this long-overdue ceasefire and phase one of this peace plan. The devastating number of Palestinians killed, including more than 18,400 children, is intolerable, and countless others have life-changing injuries. The devastation we have witnessed happened as a result of previous bombardments happening without any accountability; those atrocities were awful. What action will be taken to ensure that this time, justice and accountability—for the destruction of Gazan civilians’ infrastructure, for the man-made famine and for the mass killing of civilians—are made a reality? \p Keir Starmer: The immediate focus is obviously on following through on the agreement, with the practical next steps; I do think that is of first importance. I reiterate again our commitment to international law and to accountability, including, of course, accountability for what happened on 7 October, which was the worst single attack on Jews since the Holocaust. \p Richard Tice: We all welcome the release of the hostages, the ceasefire and the beginning of the end of the suffering in Gaza. I know the joy that the hostage families I met a couple of weeks ago in Israel will be feeling; they will be ecstatic. As we hope that the divisions start to reduce in the middle east, we must also hope that we can reduce the heat and division of this debate here in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has quite rightly referred to the rise of antisemitism. Does he join me in hoping that now is the time to bring to an end the protests we have seen on our streets, with antisemitic chants such as, “From the river to the sea,” as we try to unify, to bring people together and to move forwards? \p Keir Starmer: I agree that we need to take this moment to work to bring all our communities together. I was genuinely saddened to see some of the protests taking place in Whitehall on the very day of the Manchester attack and then again at the weekend, notwithstanding the quite reasonable request, “Please exercise your right of freedom of expression on a different day, in a different way.” I genuinely thought that human decency would prevail there. I agree with the hon. Member that now is the time internationally to work on the agreement and, in the United Kingdom, to do everything we can across this House to bring our communities together. \p Danny Beales: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which we all hope will bring an end to two years of awful bloodshed. I visited Israel and Palestine one month before 7 October and met civil society organisations working on a cross-community basis. It struck me how vital they will be in building a potential future long-term peace, but they lack funding and they lack legitimacy and support in Israel and in Palestine. What thought and consideration has the Prime Minister given to the UK’s role in an international peace fund, similar to the Northern Ireland peace fund, which could fund civil society organisations working cross-community to support leaders of the future, to build peacemakers and to start to heal the rifts? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for touching on this point. One of the great tragedies of what happened on 7 October was that that cross-community work—particularly involving the next generation in Israel  and Palestine, trying to ensure that they would have a better future and could take things forward—fell away, as did some of the interfaith work in this country, which we all thought was stronger and more robust than it turned out to be. We must do all we can to restore that work and build on it, because it is essential as we go forward. \p Joy Morrissey: We all welcome the peace in the middle east and I do not think there is a Member here who does not welcome a two-state solution, but there are concerns across this House about Hamas leading one of those states, when their fundamental goal is to drive the other state into the sea and have a total eradication of that race. That hatred has been translated to the streets of London and the UK. It is affecting our British Jews every single day, and they are afraid. What will the Prime Minister do to alleviate the level of antisemitism that is transferring to the streets of London and Manchester, and across the UK, because of a war that has happened in the middle east? Can we rise above this, and will the Prime Minister rise above this and find a way forward for British Jews here in the UK? \p Keir Starmer: I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. There can be no way that Hamas can play any role in a Palestinian state. That is the absolute red line of all those that recognised Palestine earlier this year, and the red line of the New York declaration. It is a really important and fundamental red line that has to be kept to—for all the reasons that she has set out and that I think everybody across this House understands.

On the security and safety of Jews in this country, of course we must step up. That needs to be done in a number of ways, including through practical support and financial support. Sad though it is to say that we need to put even more security around our synagogues and schools, so that children can go safely to school in this country, we must do it. The Government have already been working on that for some considerable time. I took the time, on the day after the Manchester attack, to talk to the Community Security Trust and other leaders about what more we can do in that regard. I am more than happy to work across the House on this; we owe it to our Jewish community that we are seen to be working together on these important measures, and I thank the hon. Member for her support. \p Naseem Shah: May I first associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister regarding the heinous attack in Manchester and on Peacehaven mosque? An attack on any place of worship is an attack on our democracy and way of life.

I thank the Prime Minister, his team—in particular, his Ministers—and our National Security Adviser for all their efforts and for the recognition of Palestine. As was stated earlier, it is long overdue and, historically, puts right what we should have done a long time ago. That has no doubt contributed to where we are today, so I once again want to say a huge thank you.

Over 92% of homes in Gaza have been erased, with more than 730,000 people displaced, including 520,000 children, could the Prime Minister outline in detail what more is being done to rebuild Gaza in addition to aid and to our conversations? \p Keir Starmer: Reconstruction is a really important task. It will be extremely difficult, given the levels of devastation. We are working with others on a plan—we are hosting a conference later this week in relation to that issue—and we will continue to do so, but we need to do so at pace, working with our allies. We have a huge task ahead of us. \p Calum Miller: The ceasefire, the release of the living hostages and the flooding of aid into Gaza is a moment of hope for us all. The Prime Minister has responded to a number of questions on accountability, and he will know the importance of this moment for starting to gather evidence about what has taken place in Gaza—both the atrocities committed by Hamas and the actions of the IDF and the mercenaries working for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation under direction of the Israeli Cabinet. Can the Prime Minister spell out in a little more detail what support the UK Government are giving to those agencies that will gather the evidence that will allow for full accountability in future? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Member for championing and raising these important issues. It is important that, as we move on from the agreement and rebuild, there is accountability. That is why it is important that the media and others are allowed access as soon as possible, and that those charged with holding others to account have what they need in order to do so. \p Chris Murray: I know I speak for my whole constituency when I welcome this long-overdue ceasefire. May I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister and Foreign Office Ministers for the many opportunities to put my constituents’ views to them?

As we turn to the ceasefire, our thoughts turn to rebuilding, but that is not just physical. Children make up 50% of the population of Gaza. They are traumatised, and their educations and futures have been profoundly disrupted. Giving them a future is the best guarantor of future peace, so what can the British Government do to ensure that the children of Gaza have a real future? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Children in Gaza have not been to school for the best part of two years—that has had a huge impact. We are already working at pace with others to see how quickly that could be one of the first issues addressed in the rebuilding process, because it is so essential for those children to ensure that they have a better future. \p Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister has said again today that there can be no place for Hamas in governing the Gaza strip, but who can physically prevent Hamas from retaining their weapons and regaining control, as they did in 2006? When he talks about antisemitism in Britain, is there any other interpretation of the demand to internationalise the intifada than as a call to attack Jewish communities around the world? \p Keir Starmer: There is no other interpretation. I am pleased that the right hon. Member raises, and gives me the opportunity to agree with him on, that important point. On his first point about decommissioning,  of course that will be difficult, but it is vital. It was difficult in Northern Ireland in relation to the IRA, but it was vital. It is why we have said that we stand ready, based on our experience in Northern Ireland, to help with the decommissioning process. I will not pretend that it is easy, but it is extremely important. \p Stella Creasy: I suspect that one reason our optimism is cautious is that many of us are acutely aware that the damage that has been done will last a generation—on all sides of the conflict. For some, the damage can never be repaired. I thought yesterday of my constituent Sharone Lifschitz, whose father, Oded, was brutally murdered by Hamas. He had spent his life driving ambulances across the border for Gazan children because he wanted a two-state solution.

The Prime Minister spoke of the evacuations. I am very proud to have worked with Project Pure Hope, which was the first organisation to get children out of Gaza and to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. Now we have a scheme, but many more people continue to need assistance—the sort that medical teams in the United Kingdom can provide. Will he update us on the commitment to that scheme, how long it will be, and how we in this House can make that Oded’s legacy? \p Keir Starmer: We are evacuating and have plans to continue doing so. I am happy to update the House—either myself or through other Ministers—on what we are doing and how we are doing it. \p Sammy Wilson: The DUP welcomes the release of the hostages and the prospect of long-term peace in that area of the middle east.

I know this will probably stick in the throat of many Labour Members, but we must thank President Trump for the role he has played in delivering this deal. He recognised that weakness will never move terrorists and that only strength will do so—a lesson that, unfortunately, our Government need to learn. Hamas were encouraged by our Government’s recognition of the Palestinian state. That lesson needs to be applied at the next step. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Hamas can have no role in the future of Gaza. What steps does he intend to take to ensure that Hamas do not have the guns that enable them to have control, that they relinquish that control, and that they can never again use Gaza as a launching pad for their terrorist attacks? \p Keir Starmer: The right hon. Member will know that I have thanked President Trump a number of times. I am absolutely clear that but for President Trump, this peace agreement would not have been reached. I have had the opportunity to say that to him publicly as well as privately—as the House knows, he and I get along, and that is good for our relationship with the US and our ability to influence events.

Decommissioning is such a serious issue. It is very hard to see how there can be lasting peace unless Hamas are ridded of their weaponry and capability. That is where the decommissioning work will be hugely important. It is part of the 20-point plan. It now needs to be turned into real action, working with others. The United Kingdom has—sadly, in some senses—experience of the challenges of decommissioning, which we can bring to the table. \p Jonathan Brash: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and, of course, the peace deal. I also welcome his crystal clear statement that there can be no lasting peace or viable Palestinian state in which Hamas is involved in any way. Similarly, there can be no lasting peace without the reconstruction that is now desperately needed. The Prime Minister has said on a couple of occasions today that the public will be surprised when they see the extent of the devastation that has taken place. Right now, 400,000 tonnes of rubble need to be removed before a single bit of reconstruction can take place. Will he reject the isolationist calls from some quarters and agree that this country will rightly play its full role in ensuring that reconstruction takes place? \p Keir Starmer: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I genuinely think that that is the position that most Members across the House would want the Government to take and that they would support it. \p David Mundell: I very much welcome the release of the hostages and what the Prime Minister said about aid. However, flooding Gaza with aid is not an end in itself; this is about its distribution to those who need it most. What reassurances can he give the House that gangsters and criminal gangs will not play any part as intermediaries in the distribution of that aid? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the right hon. Member for raising that. First, let us be clear: aid is not flooding in today; it is beginning to go in today. It needs to flood in, but it is not flooding in yet. We need to get it in. He is absolutely right that distribution then becomes a critical next issue. That is why we are working with others on what security arrangements need to be in place as soon as possible in Gaza, to ensure that aid gets to where it needs to be. Volume, speed and effective distribution are absolutely key. We are working with others to ensure that we play our part in that. \p Apsana Begum: In September of last year, the Government announced that they had suspended 30 arms export licences for Israel, with around 350 licences remaining active. The Government have repeatedly said that they were blocking the sale of items for use in Israel’s military assault in Gaza, but a new Channel 4 report has found that Israel imported nearly £1 million of UK munitions in the first nine months of this year, with a total of 110,000 items categorised as bullets going from the UK to Israel in August alone. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether UK-made munitions were used in Israel’s military assault in Gaza, and does he agree that a world of justice and lasting peace must be one without those bullets and bombs? \p Keir Starmer: The Government’s position in relation to banning arms has been set out on many occasions and has not been altered. \p Ellie Chowns: I warmly welcome the ceasefire and was deeply moved, as I am sure we all were, by the scenes of Israeli and Palestinian families being reunited yesterday. One Palestinian prisoner who has not been released is Mr Marwan Barghouti, a  Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council who has been in prison since 2002. He did not have a fair trial and was subject to human rights abuses. What representations have the Government made in the past few days to secure the release of Mr Barghouti, given his widespread popularity as a unifying voice for Palestinian rights, dignity and freedom, and therefore his potential crucial role in securing a meaningful and lasting peace in the region? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that individual case. I offer to provide her with further information on it as soon as we can. \p Yuan Yang: I deeply welcome this long-awaited ceasefire and the release of the hostages. I thank the Prime Minister and his Ministers for their tireless work and international leadership on this front, including in the upcoming Gaza recovery summit, which is to be held in the UK later this week. I am glad to hear of the Prime Minister’s commitment to reconstruction and aid. I note that recent report of the UN commission of inquiry described how the obstruction of aid getting into Gaza has led to what it calls the “destruction of Palestinians”. What is the current situation for UN agencies’ access to Gaza, and what can we do to ensure that aid flows freely? \p Keir Starmer: Tom Fletcher is leading our work in relation to this, and we have been clear throughout that aid cannot get in at the scale and volume that is needed without the UN. That is why we have always championed and said that the UN should be part of that distribution. \p Julian Smith: It is fitting that this statement is followed by one on Northern Ireland. The UK has world-leading experience in sustaining peace, whether it is security, intelligence or military, and whether it is decommissioning, policing or political institutions. Could I urge the Prime Minister to do an audit of the generations of civil servants and, dare I say, special advisers who have experience in this area and put them on offer, to sustain this peace deal? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the right hon. Member for that suggestion. I also want to acknowledge his role in Northern Ireland. He was rightly held in high respect in Northern Ireland and across this House and continues to be, because of what he did and the way in which he went about it; that should be a model for so many more of us in this House. The idea of reaching into the expertise we have across different parties and different Governments is one that I will take up, so I thank him for that suggestion. \p Andy McDonald: I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and we all achingly welcome the longed-for ceasefire in Gaza and the safe return of prisoners and hostages, but does the Prime Minister share my concern that the 20-point plan is without Palestinian input? Will he acknowledge the need for Palestinian self-determination and their consent for any governance or stabilisation arrangements? Will he ensure the continued pursuit of war criminals, and will he work to achieve an end to Israel’s illegal occupation of all Palestinian territories and the full engagement of a sovereign Palestinian state? \p Keir Starmer: Can I just be clear on the 20-point plan? It was widely and warmly received by so many countries yesterday. My hon. Friend will have seen the representation at the summit in Egypt yesterday including the Palestinian Authority. It is really important that when we get an achievement like this, we now focus on implementing it rather than trying to unpick it. I think across this House, by and large, there is agreement that there will not be lasting peace without a two-state solution. We must therefore act to implement the 20-point plan, but we must also—as the plan itself envisages—work towards a two-state solution and not lose sight of that goal. \p Ann Davies: The images of ceasefire and families reunited are deeply heartening and a moment of relief and celebration amid such immense suffering, yet this fragile peace remains vulnerable, particularly to the corrosive effects of misinformation. True and lasting peace must be built on openness, transparency and the free flow of information. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to press Israel to grant journalists access to Gaza as part of a broader commitment to truth, accountability and a just peace? \p Keir Starmer: I agree with the hon. Member that the situation is vulnerable, and that is why we must not lose sight of what has to happen next. We are pressing for media access, which is hugely important and needs to happen as soon as possible, in my view, so that the extent of the devastation can be properly assessed, which will help with the necessary next steps. \p Cat Smith: As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Christianity in the holy land, I was fortunate enough to be on a delegation in Jerusalem and the west bank last week, and it was clear to our delegation from speaking to Palestinian Christians that they are delivering hospitals and schools for Palestinian communities. Given that education and healthcare are a key part of long-term peace, what conversations are the Government having with the Christian community in Israel and Palestine to ensure that they are part of the conversation as well? \p Keir Starmer: We are having conversations with all, particularly on the question of education and healthcare—on many other issues as well, but education and healthcare are absolutely fundamental. We are having those discussions, and I will ensure that any further information my hon. Friend may have is fed into what we are doing. \p Andrew Murrison: The Hamas leadership are making it clear that their fighters, many of whom will have been involved on 7 October, will not disband but will merge into the nascent army of a Palestinian state—a state which the Prime Minister unwisely and prematurely recognised. Is he comfortable with that? \p Keir Starmer: The 20-point plan is really clear on the steps that need to be taken. That is what has been hammered out with the support and approval of so many countries. That is not easy, but it is a step that many thought was unachievable. We now have to operate to that plan, ensuring, as is absolutely clear from the  plan and from all our statements, that Hamas can have absolutely no role in the governance of Palestine. That is a clear red line. We need to operate to the 20-point plan now. The widespread agreement to it is something many people thought could not be achieved. It has been achieved, and now we must build on that. \p Florence Eshalomi: I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the awful attack in Manchester and the attack in Peacehaven.

I want to highlight the issue of aid workers and the work of UNRWA with many British aid organisations including Oxfam, and Christian Aid and Islamic Relief, which are both based in my constituency. The UN has highlighted that to date, over 500 aid workers have lost their lives, including British aid workers. We must recognise the hard work that aid workers are doing. The Prime Minister has been very clear—and we are united in this House—that Hamas must not have any role in the rebuilding of Gaza. It has to be led by Palestinian civil society and the communities who have faced decades of siege, occupation and military violence. Does the Prime Minister agree that any initiative that bypasses the Palestinians in favour of externally imposed initiatives will fail? \p Keir Starmer: First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend for raising the specific issue of the aid workers who have lost their lives in this conflict. Very many lives have been lost. Almost all aid workers have lost colleagues, friends and family members; I have heard some of that testimony at first hand, and it is extremely powerful. This must now be a process that does involve Palestinians in their own future—of course it must. That is the only way to get to the two-state solution that we need. \p Christine Jardine: Like everyone else in this House, I am sure, I feel enormous relief at the fact that a ceasefire has been achieved, but that can be nothing compared with the relief felt by those Israeli families who thought they would never see their loved ones again and those thousands of children in Gaza who were able to sleep last night without the fear of being bombed. But we have been here before, and for their sake we cannot let the hope of today disappear in the same way that the promise of the Oslo agreement did. Crucial to that will be confidence in the peace process. The Prime Minister has alluded to the lessons we can bring to that process from Northern Ireland. One of them is on decommissioning. Can he tell us what support the US Administration will offer to allow us to use that expertise and experience? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Member. There is huge relief, but she is absolutely right: the relief for the hostages and their families and for civilians in Gaza is huge by comparison to ours. Yes, we have been here before, and therefore we must drive through with confidence. As to the specific way in which decommissioning might work, we are at the early stage of that discussion with the US and others. At this stage, we simply say we stand ready to play our full part. I think and hope we will be taken up on that, and then we can work actively with others. \p Rachael Maskell: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today and also for this peace—may it be long lasting. Over 1,700 health workers have lost their lives in Gaza, and many more have been physically and psychologically traumatised by the conflict. There are not the health workers now to provide the healthcare that is urgently needed at this time. Will he ensure that the UK plays its part in providing healthcare to Gaza, and with the decimation of all the universities in Gaza, can we also play a part in training the healthcare workers of the future? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Lady for making that important point. We are working with others: the Foreign Secretary attended a conference in Paris last week where on the agenda, among other things, was how we can support the restoration of healthcare, which is vital. As we do that, we will update the House on the measures that we are taking. \p Bob Blackman: Over the past two years, as co-Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel, I have hosted innumerable meetings where the families of hostages have come before us pleading for our support and help. In addition, we have screened multiple films of the terror events on 7 October 2023 that use real-life footage captured from Hamas terrorists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said, the Jewish community in this country feels unsafe and that this is not a safe place to live any more. The Prime Minister rightly alluded to the growing rise in antisemitism in this country. What will he do on a concrete basis to eliminate that scourge, in particular at our places of education, including at universities, so that our Jewish students feel safe on campus, and at all our schools, so that young people growing up in this country are no longer exposed to antisemitism? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is important that we rise to that challenge and ensure that our Jewish communities feel safe, secure and part of who we are in this country. That requires concrete steps in relation to security and safety measures. We need to go further on education, particularly but not only in our universities. Although he did not mention it, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that we need to ensure that we drive out any instances of antisemitism in the NHS. I look forward to working with Members from across the House on all those initiatives, because we also need to ensure that our Jewish communities see that this House is united in ensuring that they have the safety and security that they deserve. \p Nadia Whittome: I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. After two years of relentless genocide committed by Israel, killing many tens of thousands of innocent people, a ceasefire is an historic and hopeful moment, even though it took far too long to achieve. Watching released Palestinians and Israelis reunite with their families yesterday was deeply moving, but Palestinians are far from free. Their rights are still being denied, they are still living under occupation and they will continue to suffer. Does the Prime Minister agree that Palestinians must be able to exercise their right to self-determination  and that Israel must face accountability for its crimes against them? What action will he take to make that a reality? \p Keir Starmer: I agree that there will be no lasting peace without a two-state outcome, and that is why we must continue to strive towards it. Of course there must be accountability for all those who have committed atrocities, including those who were involved on 7 October. \p Adnan Hussain: Does the Prime Minister agree that real and lasting peace can only be achieved if there is accountability and justice? Overwhelming international consensus, both legal and scholarly, concludes that Israel’s actions in Gaza were genocidal. Does the Prime Minister agree that the perpetrators of genocide must face justice? What steps will this Government take to ensure that justice is achieved? \p Keir Starmer: I agree that accountability and justice are important in the middle east. We are strong supporters of international law and the role that that needs to play in relation to justice in the region. \p Kim Johnson: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, and I welcome the ceasefire and the release of hostages as part of this historic but fragile peace deal. I also welcome the release of Palestinian women and children who were held in Israeli military prisons without trial. What steps will the Government take to ensure that justice and accountability is made a reality for all victims of international law violations in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is important that I am clear that this Government are committed to international law and to the accountability that that brings. \p Greg Smith: There is a widely held belief that the catalyst for the pure evil that happened on 7 October was the fear among Iran and its terrorist proxies that Saudi Arabia was close to signing the Abraham accords. The good news is that the Abraham accords peace agreement, between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, has endured over the past difficult two years and is a model for regional economic co-operation and peaceful co-existence in the region. On the back of yesterday’s agreement, what concrete steps will the Prime Minister take to encourage and extend the Abraham accords as a key part of the emerging picture in the middle east, with particular reference to getting Saudi Arabia back to the table? \p Keir Starmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the wider picture. The settlement across the wider middle east forms an important backdrop and is part of the backbone of what has happened and what needs to happen in the future. We are talking to all parties about the immediate steps for the Abraham accords, and also about the wider settlement, if that is possible, because that will play an important part in stabilising the region, which is what most decent and reasonable people want. \p Jonathan Davies: The world held its breath over the past few days as a glimmer of hope was on the horizon. I thank the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Government and British officials for the progress that they have made with the United States to bring about this progress. Peace will be embedded and sustained only if it is built with ordinary people—Palestinians and Israelis—who yearn for peace, so what steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that that happens? \p Keir Starmer: It is important to involve Israelis and Palestinians across the board, from all communities, in the physical rebuilding as well as the rebuilding of the relationships that were in place just over two years ago, which held at least the prospect of a better future for the next generation. We need to rebuild that on all fronts. \p Robin Swann: I congratulate the Prime Minister on getting us to this point. The Labour Government’s role in decommissioning in Northern Ireland is not as complete as portrayed. In a memo of 17 January 2003, an adviser to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said:

“The IRA will never be able to account for all their weapons or retrieve them. What we should perhaps aim for is a few more big symbolic acts of decommissioning, and then declare that the process is complete…”

That adviser was a certain Jonathan Powell, now the National Security Adviser. So will the Prime Minister give assurances that, should the Government be given such a role, they will not be as lax? \p Keir Starmer: The work on decommissioning in Northern Ireland was really important, and that is the basis on which we have put forward our offer to stand ready with others to work on decommissioning in the middle east. \p Olivia Blake: I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condemnations of the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack on the Heaton Park synagogue and the arson attack in Peacehaven. The Prime Minister emphasised the UK’s commitment to humanitarian support. While we all welcome the ceasefire, we know that the humanitarian crisis is still very much ongoing. Will the Prime Minister confirm what extra monitoring, new mechanisms and assurances he is seeking to ensure that parties on the ground are able to get essential aid to every single person who needs it within Gaza? \p Keir Starmer: We are having conversations about the practical measures that can be taken on the ground with others, particularly the Jordanians, in terms of the physical arrangements that they think need to be in place to allow the aid in and for it then to be dissipated at pace. We are working tirelessly on that project at the moment. \p Gregory Stafford: I associate myself with comments on the warm and welcome news of the ceasefire, and I hope it leads to a lasting peace. What assurances has the Prime Minister received from neighbouring partners, particularly Egypt, and what specific actions will he take, first to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach Gaza and, secondly,  that it is only humanitarian that reaches Gaza, and that weapons, personnel and matériel that could aid terrorists do not enter Gaza? \p Keir Starmer: The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. The basis on which we are having our discussions is that it must be humanitarian aid—humanitarian in the sense that it is genuinely for that purpose, and that it is getting to the people who most need it. That comes down to the nuts and bolts of the practical arrangements on the ground with some of the neighbouring countries, and those are the discussions that we are having. \p Claire Hanna: I do not think anybody could fail to be moved by yesterday’s scenes of hostages finally being reunited with their families and of Gazans being able to contemplate days and nights without hunger and bombardment. I would love to be able to celebrate and believe, as they are doing and as they should be given the space to do, but like many I am anxious, because we know that a ceasefire is not the same as a lasting peace. Can the Prime Minister assure my constituents that the UK Government will continue to pursue accountability for past crimes; that building and rebuilding will be done with survivors, not over the top of them; and that there will continue to be justice for those who face aggression in the west bank every day? \p Keir Starmer: Let me be clear: in the rebuilding that must go on, there has to be the bringing together of communities and also the accountability and justice that is necessary for a full rebuilding towards a lasting settlement. \p Monica Harding: I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to flood Gaza with aid. The UN estimates that $4 billion is needed this year to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, of which just 28% has been pledged. The UK’s contribution to humanitarian relief this year will total only $116 million, so with the entire population of Gaza in need of some form of humanitarian assistance, does the Prime Minister believe that the UK’s contribution to Gaza’s relief is adequate? \p Keir Starmer: We have made a significant contribution. As we go forward, we are looking at public and private commitments to the reconstruction project that needs to take place—not just the aid, but the rebuilding. That is a huge challenge that faces us all, and we will rise to that challenge with others. \p Rachel Hopkins: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and I hugely welcome the ceasefire and the initial Gaza peace plan, including the release of hostages and prisoners, the stopping of the bombardment of Gaza and the aid starting to trickle in. However, peace is fragile, so can the Prime Minister reassure the House of this Government’s long-term commitment to working with international partners to support the rebuilding of Gaza—physically and politically—to ensure a lasting peace and a pathway to Palestinian statehood? \p Keir Starmer: I can give my hon. Friend that important assurance, and I thank her for her question. \p Danny Kruger: This ceasefire is tremendous news, and I sincerely congratulate everybody who was involved in bringing it about, whoever they were, including the British Government. I was in Israel last week, and on the day that the ceasefire was announced, I visited the Nova festival site and spoke to civilians and soldiers on the Gaza border. The Israelis I spoke to were deeply dismayed that the British Government had decided to recognise the state of Palestine before Hamas had released their hostages, let alone disarmed. Does the Prime Minister understand why Israel cannot tolerate the idea of a state on its border that poses a security risk to its citizens, and will he undertake not to move forward to support the establishment of a Palestinian state until there is more than a promise—there is actually the reality of security for Israel? \p Keir Starmer: The terms on which we recognised Palestine, and those on which all the countries that recently recognised Palestine did so, expressly acknowledged that Hamas can play no part in its governance. That is at the heart of the New York declaration as well, and it is absolutely part of the 20-point plan. It is really important that we assert that and reassert it. That has been the constant position of this Government and my personal position, so I can give the hon. Member that reassurance. \p Peter Swallow: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly his commitment to seeking a lasting, long-term peace in the region, because Israel will not be secure and the Palestinian people will not be free until we break this endless cycle of violence. Turning to the immediate situation on the ground, the Gazans still face a man-made famine, so I really welcome the flooding-in of aid that the Prime Minister talked about in his statement. However, could he say a little more about the timescale for that, and how soon we can start to see that aid getting in and having an effect on the ground? \p Keir Starmer: We need it to go in today, tomorrow and in the coming days—we cannot delay on that front. That is among the most essential tasks that lie ahead, particularly in relation to the man-made famine. \p Lee Dillon: I add my support for yesterday’s ceasefire and the first tentative steps on the journey to peace. President Trump has spoken about a board of peace, and one of the names that has been floated for membership of that board is our former Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. Could the Prime Minister confirm whether Sir Tony Blair, if he were to take a seat on the board, would do so as a private citizen or as a representative of His Majesty’s Government, and what role can this House play in scrutinising any future appointment and the progress of that board? \p Keir Starmer: The board is an important part of the architecture. It is for others to decide what its membership will be, but I can give the commitment that we will report to the House on any developments in that regard. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: It is a huge relief to all of us that the hostages are sleeping at home with their families, where they belong, after two years of  unimaginable horror. However, this plan and the recognition of Palestine must only be the start of peace and accountability. Children are dying from a man-made famine, so can the Prime Minister please assure us that we will flood Gaza with aid and continue to respect the judgments and decisions of international courts and tribunals? \p Keir Starmer: I can give my hon. Friend our assurance on both those issues. \p Shockat Adam: I welcome the ceasefire and the release of the hostages, and I take solace in the knowledge—or at least in the hope—that unlike other debates of this nature, at the end of this one countless Palestinian children will not have been killed by the IDF. However, does the Prime Minister agree that the people of Gaza do not need a colonial viceroy, Tony Blair, anywhere near determining their future? The former Prime Minister, who has been in meetings with the Trump Administration, is proposing a US-administered Gaza, rebuilding Gaza as a resort on top of the mass graves of men, women and children. Will the Prime Minister condemn this plan and Tony Blair’s involvement in rebuilding? \p Keir Starmer: I am not going to condemn a plan that I welcomed yesterday. I think it is a really important step forward—it is a step that almost everybody in this House has welcomed, including the hon. Member. What is important now is that we build on that plan. It will be for others to decide the particular representation, but of course there is the committee, which will be really important in relation to the day-to-day matters in Gaza and on which there must of course be proper Palestinian representation. These matters are still to be determined, but I really think it would be better if we did not try to unpick where we got to yesterday before we have even started to implement it and try to move forward. That would inevitably take us backwards. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: We know that humanitarian aid saves lives, rebuilds lives and plays a crucial stabilising role, so I thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis on getting aid into Gaza. It has been heartening to hear from the UN agencies that are now crossing the border for the first time since March, getting in vital supplies such as cooking gas and medicines. However, some non-governmental organisations, including British NGOs, are still struggling to get the permissions they need to operate, so what more will the Prime Minister do to ensure that these immediate humanitarian relief efforts become a sustained, scaled-up part of Gaza’s recovery, and that our British NGOs can also play their full part? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I can reassure her that we are raising that issue with partners, for all the reasons she has set out. \p Clive Jones: As the Prime Minister and President Trump get along, does the Prime Minister think he can secure President Trump’s support for genuine progress towards securing a two-state solution, which is the only path to ensuring peace, security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians? \p Keir Starmer: I certainly agree that is the only path, and we are of course talking to our allies about it, including our American allies, in the way that the hon. Member would expect: as trusted, respected partners trying to address one of the most intractable problems in recent history. We will continue to do so. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Like others, I welcome the ceasefire and the return of hostages to their families, but that is very much tempered by the loss of thousands of lives over these past two years—loved ones who will never return home. Elected representatives, humanitarian organisations and individuals across the world, including our constituents, have given voice to the plight of the people of Gaza these past two years. Can the Prime Minister tell me what efforts will be made to ensure that its people will be safe and free to shape the future of Gaza, and that their voices will be heard in the months and years to come? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that however welcome the news, it is tempered by the loss over the past two years in Gaza and in Israel. It is essential that the voices of those most affected by this are heard and are part of the rebuild that is now necessary. \p Jim Allister: I gladly join in the tributes of appreciation to all, including President Trump, who made the long-awaited release of the hostages a reality yesterday. May I press the Prime Minister on the disarming of Hamas? For the Prime Minister, is that wholly non-negotiable? How is it to be delivered? If it is not delivered in totality, where does that leave this nation? We would have recognised a Palestine that then would have a continuing presence of an armed and controlling Hamas. \p Keir Starmer: Disarmament must be non-negotiable, and that is why it is written into the 20-point plan, and it is why we are now putting ourselves forward to play a part in the decommissioning. It is only by decommissioning that we can ensure that the threat from Hamas is removed. That is why it is in the plan, and it is why we want to play our full part. We will do everything we can with other allies to bring that about. \p Lizzi Collinge: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and I welcome an end to the killing in Gaza. What guarantees are in place to ensure that humanitarian aid can now reach Gaza without interruption? Will that aid be independent of the whim of the Israeli Government or any other actor on the ground? \p Keir Starmer: We are doing all we can to ensure that is the case, because it is important, for all the reasons that she well understands. That now involves the practical measures, working with other countries to ensure the aid can get in at speed and at volume. It is beginning to go in, but it is by no means in the right volume or at the right speed even now, after the agreement. That is what we need to focus on. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I associate myself with the tributes paid to Lord Campbell across the House, and I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I also welcome the release of all hostages and several hundred Palestinian detainees, but we must  remember that more than 10,000 captives—some prisoners, but many held without charge—are still held in Israeli prisons. I hope that the Government will work towards the release of the innocents being held. The rebuilding and the interim and final governance of Gaza must be Palestinian-led, not led by western actors. The Palestinians have suffered over two years of relentless genocide and decades of Israeli siege, occupation, military violence and oppression. I totally agree with the position that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine, and there is no excuse for what happened on 7 October, but one of the root causes that is preventing a two-state solution from becoming reality is the unlawful— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please get to his question? \p Iqbal Mohamed: Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House when the Government will be in full compliance with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on not doing anything that helps perpetuate the unlawful occupation? \p Keir Starmer: We will come back to the House on that. We proudly uphold international law. \p Douglas McAllister: The Prime Minister’s statement on the middle east included a celebration of our newly formed relationship and trade deal with India. Did his discussions with Prime Minister Modi last week also include raising the case of my West Dunbartonshire constituent Jagtar Singh Johal? If so, did the Prime Minister insist upon Jagtar’s immediate release and return home to his family in Dumbarton? He has been arbitrarily detained for eight years in India. Enough is enough. Prime Minister, it is time to bring him home. \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his work on this case. Yes, I did raise it with Prime Minister Modi. UK officials regularly raise it, and the Foreign Secretary will be meeting Jagtar’s family in the coming weeks, and we will keep my hon. Friend updated. \p Jim Shannon: We very much welcome the news that there is a ceasefire and that the hostages have finally been returned home after two long years in unimaginable conditions. The smiles on the faces of family members are a joy to behold. While President Trump deserves much credit for the peace deal, our Prime Minister and our United Kingdom Government also deserve some credit for the role they have played in trying to get to the peace. What discussions have been held with the United States of America to ensure that Hamas terrorists’ murderous intent is stopped? Hamas have been systematically murdering all those who have stood up against them since the ceasefire took place. There have been many examples of executions within the Gaza township. Hamas must be destroyed. What is being done to see Hamas’s weapons removed and their influence eradicated entirely? \p Keir Starmer: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member on the spirit and intent behind his question. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that has inflicted violence and destruction on far too many individuals,  and they can play absolutely no part in the future. Our recognition of Palestine was expressly on that basis. We will continue to work with other countries to ensure that that is the situation, because it is vital that that is part of a peaceful and lasting settlement in the region. \p Patricia Ferguson: I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, and I thank him, his ministerial team and their advisers for all the work that has been done over many months to get us to this point, where there is some hope for peace in Gaza and also for peace for Israel. In this process, as we go forward and try to build peace, can he ensure that the voices of women, who are so often excluded from such processes, are heard, and that women are at the table when decisions are being made? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and we must ensure that women are part of the future build, and we will do so. \p Sarah Smith: I welcome yesterday’s ceasefire agreement and the Prime Minister’s statement today, and I recognise the leadership that he and his Ministers have shown on this issue so tirelessly and for such a long time. We know that sustaining the peace is dependent on humanitarian services scaling up rapidly in Gaza, and many NGOs are struggling with Israel’s restrictive and politicised new registration measures, which are leaving many in limbo and unable to work alongside UN agencies to scale up those services. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that we address and tackle that and ensure that the needs of Palestinians are met as quickly as possible? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend raises an important issue about some of the hurdles and barriers that are put in the way of those wanting to deliver aid, and we are working with others to scale up the volume and speed with which aid can get in. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. \p Hilary Benn: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the legacy of the troubles, which still hangs heavily over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

The Good Friday agreement—that extraordinary act of political courage—brought peace. Although its architects knew that legacy would have to be dealt with, they were not able to do so. This is therefore the unfinished business of that agreement, and it is why so many—too many—victims and survivors are still waiting for answers about what exactly happened to those whom they loved so much.

The previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed to win support in Northern Ireland, failed to comply with our international human rights obligations and was undeliverable. Whatever its intentions, it was no basis for trying to move forward. That is why the Government are today introducing new primary legislation and laying a draft remedial order under the Human Rights Act as we seek to fulfil our King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. This legislation will give effect to the framework that I announced with the Irish Government on 19 September, which reflects the principles of the Stormont House agreement and contains sovereign commitments by both the UK and Irish Governments.

The new troubles Bill will reform the independent commission, to be renamed the legacy commission, giving it statutory oversight to provide accountability and confidence, and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. It will significantly strengthen the governance of the commission, with two co-directors of investigations, statutory conflict of interest duties, and appointments made only following independent advice. It will enhance the investigative powers of the commission and put in place a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has the powers that it needs to find answers for families and can make public the maximum possible information, consistent with the state’s responsibility to protect life and national security.

The Bill will fulfil the commitment that we have made to restore the small number of troubles-related inquests that were stopped in their tracks by the legacy Act, and refer the other inquests that had not yet commenced to the Solicitor General for independent consideration of whether, in each case, they are dealt with most appropriately by the reformed legacy commission or via the coronial system. It will enable the reformed commission to hold new proceedings in cases that are transferred to it from the coronial system. Consistent with the provisions in the Inquiries Act 2005, that will provide for public hearings, the consideration of sensitive information in closed hearings, and effective next-of-kin participation, including participation through legal representation.

We will also address in the Bill, rather than in the remedial order, the UK Supreme Court ruling in the Adams interim custody order case regarding the application of the Carltona principle. We must put beyond doubt Parliament’s intention by clarifying the fact that the relevant legislation allowed such orders to be made by junior Ministers as well as by the Secretary of State.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 250,000 Northern Ireland veterans who served with honour and distinction to keep people safe, and who worked with the police and other emergency services in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Their service and their sacrifice will never be forgotten. That is why, having worked closely with the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, the Government are introducing strong safeguards for veterans that respond directly to the concerns that have been expressed to us. Those safeguards will also apply to other people, such as former police officers. They will mean that no witnesses will need to travel to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy mechanisms. They will have a right to do so remotely, because coroners and judges in the commission will be legally required to allow it, and support for veterans will be available to assist them in that regard. The commission will be under a duty not to duplicate aspects of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential. The welfare of veterans will be given proper consideration as part of any assessment of whether they are required to give evidence, and that will include the right of veterans to seek anonymity when doing so.

Our protections will not be limited to legislation. Any contact with veterans will be facilitated through the Ministry of Defence, protecting veterans from cold calling, and veterans will not be required to rehearse the historical context surrounding incidents when such information can be obtained from other sources, including the Ministry of Defence. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans’ commissioners have called for: not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

The remedial order, which I am also laying today, will remove the last Government’s much-criticised immunity scheme, which offered false promises, was never introduced, and would have enabled those who had committed the most appalling terrorist crimes to be granted immunity from prosecution—the principal reason why the Act was so strongly opposed in Northern Ireland—and it will lift the current prohibition on troubles-related civil proceedings.

I am grateful to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and his team for their open and constructive approach in reaching the framework agreement, which recognises that helping families affected by the troubles is a shared responsibility. That is why the joint framework contains specific and unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with a reformed legacy commission, to establish a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to deal with troubles-related cases, which will include investigating all outstanding cases in Ireland, and to make a financial contribution of €25 million to help fund legacy mechanisms. That is, of course, in addition to the £250 million already committed by the UK Government. Where required, legislation will be introduced by the Irish Government to implement those commitments. We are also establishing with the Irish Government an independent commission on information retrieval—initially on a pilot basis—to give families an additional means of obtaining information.

Since my appointment last year, I have had many discussions with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and others affected by the troubles. Given the views held by so  many people—often diametrically opposed—it was always going to be impossible to set out a plan that gives everyone everything that they want. There will be elements of our approach that some people will welcome and others will not. I also recognise that, because of what has gone before, there is a great lack of trust in all of us in the House on the part of victims and survivors. That is, unfortunately, the reality; but it is not, and it never has been, an argument for not trying to find a way forward. I hope that those who want to see a fair and effective approach to legacy that can command greater support in Northern Ireland will recognise that these measures represent fundamental reform, and that they will therefore be given a chance to succeed.

Time waits for no one, least of all for the many families who lost loved ones, and they, ultimately, will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long. I hope that we will together be able to grasp this opportunity, and so help the people of Northern Ireland to look to a future freer of the burden of the past. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Alex Burghart: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

The last Government legislated to draw a line under troubles-era litigation. That litigation was inevitably weighted against those who sought to protect our country from terrorism. It was inevitably weighted against those who keep records, and whose servicemen are easy to locate and contact. Even today, vexatious claims are being made. Only last week a judicial review of a 1991 case was rightly thrown out by the High Court in Belfast. The judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from…reality”, but not before the former special forces soldier at the centre of it had had to endure four years of investigation. Mindful of cases such as this, the last Government sought to draw a line. Through their actions today this Government are erasing that line, and as they do so, many former servicemen will again feel, with profound unease, that the lawyers are coming. I hope the House will spare a thought for them this afternoon.

I know we will have a lot of time to debate the legislation that the Government are laying, but there are a number of specific questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. First, on the resumption of inquests, will he tell the House how many inquests will be restored and how many will be referred to the Solicitor General? Can he specifically tell the House whether that list will include the 1987 Loughgall case?

Secondly, civil cases are to reopen. It is thought that at the time of prohibition, many hundreds of such cases—affecting perhaps thousands of people—were before the Belfast courts. What is the Northern Ireland Office’s calculation of the number of civil cases that are now likely to proceed? I ask that because there are clear financial consequences to reopening legacy in this way. The Secretary of State referred to the £250 million already committed—indeed, it was committed by the last Government to deal with the legacy as we framed it—but it is now clear that the new legacy commission is  to have a much bigger remit than the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. If so, will its budget be increased? If not, how will it be expected to function?

Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has raised very serious concerns about the amount of money that it will need to support reopened inquests and civil cases. Policy Exchange has placed the cost on the police at around £90 million, at a time when police numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. There is a very real prospect that without additional funding from the Secretary of State, frontline policing in Northern Ireland will be further reduced. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that that will not happen?

Thirdly, the Government have today briefed journalists that legislation will ban Gerry Adams from receiving compensation for his detention in the 1970s, but the Secretary of State’s statement made no reference to that. Can he tell the House unequivocally that Mr Adams will not receive one penny of compensation?

Fourthly, the Secretary of State listed a number of protections for veterans in court, but it is already the case that anonymity, age-related considerations and remote hearings are available at the discretion of the court. That was apparent to the Tánaiste on 19 September, when he emphasised that no new protections would be available to veterans. Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr Harris? There has also been some confusion about whether these protections will extend to paramilitaries. On 25 September, the Prime Minister claimed that they will not. Can the Secretary of State be definitive for the House?

Lastly, there is the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in legacy. This has proved deeply controversial, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be asked questions about it this afternoon. However, I was interested to see that the Republic has made commitments to get the Garda to investigate unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction, and to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the legacy commission. If that is to happen, it is to be welcomed, because during the troubles the UK repeatedly sought extraditions from the Republic to bring terrorist charges. In the vast majority of cases, they were turned down.

Following 1998, the former Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, said that the Irish Government gave a de facto amnesty to the IRA. Indeed, there are many instances of possible collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, which have never received the attention they deserve: Kingsmill, the murder of Ian Sproule, Bloody Friday, Teebane, La Mon—the list goes on. I sincerely hope that the Republic will now engage sincerely, deeply and honestly, and I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that it does. \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. He says that the last Government sought to draw a line, but it did not work. In the act of seeking to do that—this is the one question that the now Opposition have never been able to answer—they decided that they would give terrorists immunity from prosecution. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, that is what the last Government did, and I have never heard a justification.  [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, they did, and it did not work. It did not have support in Northern Ireland. How can Northern Ireland proceed to deal with the legacy of the troubles, when the legislation that the last Government passed had no support in Northern Ireland?

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, nine inquests will be restored and the remaining 24 will go into the sifting process. Those nine inquests will include Loughgall, because the Conservative Attorney General ordered a new inquest into Loughgall 10 years ago—a point never referred to by the Opposition. It was one of the cases that had begun, and it therefore falls within the group that will be restored. The rest will be considered by the Solicitor General in the sifting process. The number of civil cases will depend on those who choose to bring them or resume them.

On the PSNI, I say to the hon. Gentleman that prior to 1 May last year, the force had over 1,000 cases on its books, and that is no longer the case. The legacy commission, which the UK Government are funding, is now responsible for looking at all cases referred to it. That cost is borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. To the extent that cases are no longer inquests but will go to the commission, the cost will be borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

On the issue of interim custody orders, as I indicated to the House a moment ago, the legislation will make it clear that the signing of those orders by junior Ministers was always lawful, but we have also decided, in placing a draft remedial order before the House today, that sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act will now remain in place until the provisions of the Bill take effect. That will deal with the point that some people have made about avoiding a gap, but we all have to recognise that sections 46 and 47 proved to be an ineffective way of dealing with this issue—the hon. Gentleman smiles, but he knows that that is the case.

On the protections we have brought in for veterans, we have done so with the motivation of protecting veterans. On the involvement of the Republic of Ireland, I join the hon. Gentleman—a point of unity at the end—in welcoming the commitment of the Irish Government to this partnership. The history of Northern Ireland teaches us that a lot of progress is made when the two guarantors of the Good Friday agreement work together, and many people in Northern Ireland would like to get answers from the Garda and the Irish authorities. At the moment, the Irish Government are refusing to co-operate. Why? Because of the last Government’s legacy Act. I look forward to the Irish Government participating in the process in the months and years ahead. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. \p Tonia Antoniazzi: I am pleased to see from the joint framework that the Government have listened to some of the key concerns voiced by stakeholders during my Committee’s inquiry into legacy. Those stakeholders will no doubt want to study the detail of the proposals that my right hon. Friend is publishing today. To that end, what consultation have the Government  had with victims and survivors groups since the joint framework was announced, and in what ways has this informed the legislation laid today? \p Hilary Benn: The legislation is about to be published, but in the 14 months since I took up this post, I have had many conversations with families, victims, and the other organisations and groups that I listed in my statement. The Bill that the House will see is the result of that process of discussion, listening, drafting and attempting to respond—not in a way that will please everyone—to the mess that this Government were left by the last Government, who passed a piece of legislation that did not work, did not have support and was found by the courts not to be compatible with our obligations in a number of respects. The question now for all those groups, having seen the framework agreement that we have reached with the Irish Government, is: do they feel that the legislation gives effect to that, and will it enable Northern Ireland to move forward in dealing with these really intractable problems? \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As this is my first statement as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland, I want to begin by recognising the deep scars left by the troubles on families and communities across the island of Ireland and these islands. The pain, loss and legacy of that conflict remain deeply felt to this day.

Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the recent agreement between the British and Irish Governments, the true test of this deal will lie in the detail of the legislation that follows. The Government’s stated intention—to promote an honest attempt at reconciliation and to draw a line under decades of division—is one that every Member of this House can understand. Victims’ families deserve truth, justice and closure. Equally, our veterans deserve and must be afforded fairness and protection from injustice. As the Secretary of State has said, the legacy Act, introduced by the Conservatives, failed to gain the support of any of the parties in Stormont, victims groups or the Irish Government. This lack of consensus speaks volumes but is not loud enough, it seems, for His Majesty’s official Opposition.

I look forward to examining the contents of the new Bill in detail and to tabling constructive amendments. My party will engage fully with the Government, as lasting reconciliation depends on transparency, fairness and independent oversight. That means an effective information retrieval body with statutory disclosure powers, meaningful participation for victims, and safeguards to uphold both justice and compassion for veterans and victims alike.

I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, how will this Bill ensure that reconciliation is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up? Secondly, based on the many meetings my party has had with veterans and their representatives, what specific safeguards will the Government include to ensure fairness, proportionality and proper protections for those who serve with integrity? Lastly, how will this Government ensure that prosecution under the law, or the possibility  of it, can never be used to harm, oppress or discredit those who fought for our country, regardless of the final verdict? \p Hilary Benn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role, and I genuinely look forward to working with him on these and other matters, given his interest in Northern Ireland, which is shared right across the House.

Let me turn to his three specific questions. First, no legislation can enable people to feel reconciled in some way to what happened. In the end, reconciliation has to come from within. The title “reconciliation” will not be in the new name of the legacy commission, because it is a consequence of a process that we are trying to put in place, if families can find answers. I urge the House to concentrate on that, because that is what this is all about—trying to enable families to find answers. Secondly, I did draw attention to the safeguards in my statement, and when the Bill is published later, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see how they are given legal expression.

Lastly, on the hon. Gentleman’s point about prosecution, I would simply say that people have made one or two comments in these discussions about politically motivated prosecutions or vexatious prosecutions. I think it is very important that the House upholds the integrity and independence of the prosecutorial authorities. A fundamental bedrock of our legal system is that independent prosecutors make such decisions, and to suggest that they are in any way politically motivated is in my view profoundly mistaken. \p Fleur Anderson: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces for working so hard to achieve this new phase of the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. As we celebrate peace starting in the middle east, this statement is a reminder of how long it takes to build peace and how important justice is for peace. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that by shutting down investigations, including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers, without an adequate alternative, the unlawful legacy Act failed so many families and victims of the troubles, and the mess had to be undone? \p Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but above all for her great service in the Northern Ireland Office. It was a real pleasure to work with her, and she did so much during her time in the Department.

I do agree with my hon. Friend, because those service families want to find answers. Some time ago, I met the family of Tony Harrison, who served and was murdered in Belfast. His mother and his brother told me how outraged they were by the legacy Act, because it proposed that those who had killed her son could get immunity from prosecution. It is so important that we put that misguided approach on one side, so that all families—service families and others—can find answers. \p Julian Smith: It is worth remembering that most victims are not in a group, are not in the media and are not taking action; they just want to know what happened to their loved ones. As we debate the forthcoming legislation, I hope we can all collectively remember that, because investigations are key to delivering for those families.

I want to ask the Secretary of State two specific questions. First, there is some concern that there will be protection for combatants who may have been involved in rapes and other sexual activity. Could he look at that as the Bill proceeds to make sure that victims are able to talk and have protections, as those ex-combatants have? Secondly, what thought has he given to a change of Government in the south should Sinn Féin take power, and to the delivery of the Irish contribution and commitments in such a scenario? \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman for his wise words, and I once again pay tribute to the distinguished role he played in trying to move forward some of these and many other Northern Ireland questions during his time as Secretary of State.

On the latter point, it is not for me to speculate on what is going to happen as a result of the decisions of the Irish electorate. The current coalition Government have given a commitment, and this partnership was two Governments coming together, each making sovereign commitments and promising to carry them out in their own jurisdictions. I think it is a hugely significant moment, because we have to go back 11 years to the last such time, when the last Government were able to reach agreement with the Irish Government in the form of the Stormont House agreement.

On the first question, when the right hon. Gentleman sees the Bill, he will see that we are making changes to allow some other matters to be investigated, because I am conscious of the point he has raised. \p Katrina Murray: I welcome the statement and the progress made by both this Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, we on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have heard of the heartbreak of many of those who lost loved ones over the course of the troubles, and regardless of the background of those loved ones, they deserve answers.

The response we have consistently received is that Operation Kenova is an example of good practice—that many of those in the island of Ireland are too close to this matter, and bringing in suitably qualified individuals from other parts of the UK should be considered as part of any process. Can I ask the Secretary of State if that has been considered in the new Bill? \p Hilary Benn: I would make two points. First, as I have alluded to, we have drawn on the experience of Operation Kenova, in that the Bill will create a statutory victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that, in the way it goes about its work, the commission takes account of victims and survivors, and that will include a representative of those who served the state during the troubles.

On the second point, we are putting together much tougher statutory provisions in place relating to conflicts of interest. That is why there will be two directors of investigation—one will have experience of investigating cases in Northern Ireland, the other will not—which will address the concerns some families have about who will be looking into their case. We should not forget  that, despite the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, which I welcome, far too many families in Northern Ireland have said that they will not be going anywhere near the commission. Part of the purpose of what we are seeking to do is to build confidence on the part of more families in Northern Ireland to go to the commission and get answers. \p Gavin Robinson: First, I welcome the Minister to his place and to the Department, and I welcome the new shadow spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I personally thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the role she played in her time in the Northern Ireland Office.

That the announcement with the Irish Government was made during a House of Commons recess, one could consider as cynical; that we stand here today during a statement on legislation that has yet to be introduced, and therefore we have no detail on, as disgraceful; and the suggestion that the Irish Government have committed to legislate at all as entirely fanciful—they have not. But the detail we do have is that the Secretary of State wishes for the Solicitor General to be the person to carry out the sifting process on whether cases should go to inquest through the coronial system or to the legacy commission.

In Northern Ireland, we have an Advocate General. The Advocate General is England and Wales’s Attorney General. I am clear in my mind that Richard Hermer would be wholly inappropriate to have his hands anywhere near cases touching on the legacy of the past, given how he has conflicted himself. Will the Secretary of State indicate: has the Attorney General of this country recused himself from this process? Has he, as Secretary of State, decided to exclude the Attorney General from this process? Is he legislating in a way that will exclude every Attorney General from this process, or is it just Richard Hermer? \p Hilary Benn: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am sorry to have heard what he has just said in relation to very substantial proposals contained in the framework document. I grant him that the Bill will be published shortly, and he will have a chance to read it. I have been accused of many things in my time in public life but being cynical is not one of them, so that is a first. The truth about the announcement of the framework—[Interruption.] Well, it may be the beginning of a number of such accusations, but I will leave that to others who want to take the debate in that particular direction.

The framework was announced when it was because it is a joint framework between two Governments and that means there had to be a negotiation about when it came out, but I did undertake to Mr Speaker at the time that I would come to the House as quickly as possible to make a statement. I laid a written ministerial statement in the House yesterday, and I came today at the first available opportunity with Members here, bearing in mind the Whip we had yesterday, to subject what had agreed to scrutiny.

I have every confidence in the Solicitor General, and I am sure she will do an excellent job in sifting these cases against three criteria, which will be laid out in statute. The first will be about the impact that sensitive information will have on the ability of inquests to  actually complete the case. The second will be speed—time waits for no one. The third will be the view of those who are involved in the cases, including families. \p Alex Baker: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I welcome the Government’s focus on a protections package for veterans. Last week, I met David, Ishbel and Gary from Yateley and Hawley Royal British Legion, who do an excellent job supporting veterans in my community. We discussed the new veterans protection package announced by the Government, including the protections against repeated investigations. Many veterans from my constituency served courageously for our nation in very, very difficult conditions and they asked me to raise a number of questions on behalf of veterans who served in Northern Ireland. How will the Government ensure that the protections are absolutely watertight in practice, so that veterans are not subjected to repeated, distressing investigations in old age? What steps are being taken with the Irish Government and other partners to ensure that accountability and justice are applied consistently and fairly on all sides? \p Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is such a strong advocate for the many veterans she represents. I encourage her to look at the legislation to see the nature of the legislative commitments to give effect to the veterans’ protections. There will be a couple that will not be in legislation because they are entirely in our own hands, agreeing a protocol with the commission to ensure that there is no cold calling.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my new deputy, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to the House. It is very remiss of me not to have done so. This is the first chance we have had to sit together on the Front Bench. I pay tribute to the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), from the Ministry of Defence, who has played a really important and significant role in putting the protections in place. I note that Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, has said that the Confederation

“welcomes the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”

I, too, welcome that recognition of what we have done. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Obviously the devil lies in the detail in these things, and never more so than in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill comes eventually before us, we really cannot say for certain whether it is good, bad or indifferent, as is often the case.

I will raise two points. First, I will mention the agreement—I find it a little wishy-washy—over Ireland’s role in all this, which, as has been said by my hon. Friends, has a huge amount of history attached to it, given that Ireland has previously refused to hand over people who really were guilty of the most vexatious, disgusting attacks on civilians and soldiers. It does seem to me rather peculiar. We will wait and see what that actually means. Ireland says it is committed—I would love to see what that commitment actually means.

Secondly, I will mention vexatious prosecutions. The note we have here talks about protection from repeated investigations

“unless there are compelling reasons to do so”.

My concern with things like that is that they are little hooks that allow development through legislation, instead of being powerful tools to do what the Secretary of State says. I therefore urge him right now to be very clear when this legislation comes forward that this cannot be broken through and to tie down the definition of “compelling”. \p Hilary Benn: I note the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the past, and I am not going to dissent from what he said, but this is an attempt to move beyond the past and the history and to move forward to something that is better. In the end, people will judge the commitments that this Government and the Irish Government have made, but the deal has been signed in good faith, and we are committed to doing what we promised to do.

The commission was established by the previous Government, after all, and I took the decision not to abolish it, but to reform it. Many people criticised that—they wanted it scrapped completely and for us to start again, but I thought that would have been a mistake, because time waits for no one. We would have wasted all the money and stopped the investigations that are taking place, which are really important to the families. Every single investigation is important to every single family, because each is about the death of a loved one.

I am sure we will debate the specifics of the legislation at length in the House. The state has a duty, of course, to properly investigate cases where it has been involved in a death. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. It is a duty that all of us should uphold. \p Claire Hanna: I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their work on this package, including the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who was so well regarded by everybody who came across her in Northern Ireland. I also thank the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin for their work, because that partnership is vital to moving forward.

The Social Democratic and Labour party acknowledges the progress in this package if it is faithfully captured in the legislation. When we push for more and better, please know that that comes from a sincere and long-held determination to get this right for families, survivors and our society as a whole. Despite some opinions to the contrary, including recently, I do not believe that most people believe that any murder in Northern Ireland was justified, inevitable, useful or worthy of cover-up, and perpetuating those narratives is an enormous challenge for the present and the future, too.

Does the Secretary of State agree that all the work invested by families, campaigners and his officials will be worth nothing if those who created victims—whether republican or loyalist paramilitaries or the state forces who assisted them—do not approach this with full transparency and disclosure and put honesty and the needs of victims over the needs of their own narratives? \p Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my extraordinary officials, some of whom are present today. It has been the privilege of my  life to work with them on this. I know that my hon. Friend will hold us to the highest standards, and I accept what she says in the spirit in which it is offered. As I indicated to the House earlier, I want there to be maximum provision of information to families, but we must also acknowledge that any and all Governments have responsibilities for the security of the state and to protect life, and this Government will uphold both. \p Al Pinkerton: I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to his ministerial position, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to his new place as spokesperson—frankly the best job anybody could have in opposition.

I have spent the summer speaking to veterans about the vital commitment they need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution. While many of those veterans recognise that they went to Northern Ireland in order to restore the rule of law and think that they should be subject to the laws of this land, they none the less remain incredibly anxious about the possibility that the process of prosecution becomes persecution. Has the Secretary of State had the official backing of any veterans group for the approach that he has taken? Separately, has he had any assurances from the Republic of Ireland Government that they will, as a result of the publication of this Bill, drop the inter-state case against the United Kingdom? \p Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the role he played as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland. The truth is that with the passage of time, the possibility of prosecution becomes increasingly remote. We all know that to be the case. Most of the families I have met—not all, but most—have said, “I know that no one is going to be held to account through the judicial process, but I just want to know what happened. That’s what I want.” It causes such pain and grief that that answer cannot be provided. It really is difficult.

As far as the Irish Government are concerned, I believe that they will honour the promises they have made. This partnership with the Irish Government is a significant moment, because moving from non-co-operation to co-operation will open up the possibility for more information to come to families. The inter-state case is a matter for the Irish Government, but I am very clear of one thing, which is that the last legacy Act created circumstances in which the law that was not compatible with our international obligations, and that is the basis of the inter-state case. The legislation I am bringing before the House will fix that and deal with it, and in those circumstances the inter-state case will no longer have a basis. \p Graeme Downie: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today, particularly his focus on answers, which are what people want. As someone who lost a friend, Tim Parry, when he was murdered by the IRA in 1993, I know exactly how important it is for families and everyone who knows victims to get the answers that they deserve. The agreement is vital in getting the process moving again so that victims and families can get those answers. How  will the Secretary of State continue that work with families and victims both during the process of the legislation and afterwards to make sure that answers remain at the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve? \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I spoke yesterday to the victims’ commissioner in Northern Ireland. On 19 September when the framework was published, the Tánaiste and I met the victims and survivors forum in Northern Ireland and explained what the framework seeks to do. I made a commitment to the victims’ commissioner yesterday that I will come back to meet the victims and survivors forum once it has had a chance to look at the legislation to find out what it thinks. \p Simon Hoare: In the interests of trying to solve this issue, I wish the Secretary of State well and hope that he will bring forward the Bill and deal with its progress in the spirit of compromise and co-operation between the parties to find the best landing spot possible. He mentioned good faith, which is a precious resource that is often in short supply when it comes to this issue. I think it would be helpful if he works vigorously with the Irish Government to get them to ascertain at speed and pace what, if any, legislative measures they require to make good on what they have committed to, and could he as best as possible work those two pieces of legislation in lockstep to give confidence to both sides, who have concerns when it comes to good faith—or rather the absence of it? \p Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I hope he knows that I will do anything and everything I can to try to find a way forward, in partnership with as many Members of the House as possible. For a long period of time, this question has been subject to the bipartisanship which, in the main, has characterised relations between the parties in the House on matters to do with Northern Ireland. I recognise that there are disagreements in relation to one aspect of what we are putting forward; that does not mean that we cannot work together on the others.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of seeing the legislation required in Ireland to give effect to the proposals. I was standing next to the Tánaiste when he made it quite clear—to give an example—that he would ensure legislation was in place to deal with the commitment to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh public inquiry before the hearings resume in March. That seems to be an important example of good faith. \p Colum Eastwood: I suppose that the Secretary of State will forgive some of us for being cautious before we are ready to believe that the Government, the state and any paramilitary organisation will give over the information that is required. In fact, right now there are families across the road in the Supreme Court in legal dispute with the Government because the Government are withholding information from them. We know that there is a pattern.

When it comes to inquests, will the Secretary of State look again at the sifting process? Will he give family views primacy when it comes to deciding which cases  will have an inquest? Will he drop his proposal to give himself the power to appoint judges in that inquisitorial mechanism? The important principle of the independence of the judiciary needs to be held up. \p Hilary Benn: On inquests, there are three statutory tests that the Solicitor General will have to apply. In answer to an earlier question, I indicated what they are. Family views will be one of the considerations, but if inquests cannot proceed because of sensitive information, would it not be more sensible to put it into the commission, which can deal with sensitive information, because it has provision for closed hearings?

No doubt my hon. Friend will make the point about appointment processes when we come to discuss the Bill. However, on the agreement on the information-retrieval mechanism, I point out—this is also relevant to the point made by the Opposition—that that was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government and the Irish Government, and it formed part of the Stormont House agreement. What is the purpose of it? It is to enable those who have information to pass it to the body, which can then pass it to the families, and that information will be a protected disclosure, which is not the same as immunity.

That system has worked well through the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains in recovering quite a number of the remains of those who were abducted, tortured, murdered and buried by the IRA. I hope that it is a step forward in going back to what was agreed at Stormont House by the previous Government, the Irish Government and the political parties—well, not all of them—and will be welcomed on all sides. \p Sorcha Eastwood: The Secretary of State referred to this as unfinished business. In the last statement, we heard about the successes of the peace process in Northern Ireland. I was 12 years old when the Good Friday agreement was signed; I now stand here 40 years of age as the MP for Lagan Valley, and my constituents deserve truth and justice as much as anybody else.

We have heard a lot today about veterans. My family were part of that cohort. They proudly served, along with many others. They do not want an amnesty. They do not want immunity. They do not want equivocation with terrorists, which was proposed by the outgoing Government.

We hear about people in Northern Ireland who were in the wrong place at the wrong time whenever they died. They were not; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place, doing the wrong work. We must send out a clear signal, no matter what our political opinion, that terrorism was wrong in the past and is wrong now. Will the Secretary of State give me his guarantee that he will discuss that with the Northern Ireland Executive and my ministerial colleagues to ensure that those families who so rightfully deserve truth and justice have the resource to be able to get that? \p Hilary Benn: May I say to the hon. Member that I agree with every single word that she has expressed so powerfully and forcefully? I encourage those who have been chuntering from a sedentary position during the course of these exchanges to reflect on her point that  there are many people who say they do not want immunity and they certainly object to it being given to those who committed the most appalling crimes.

Voices in Northern Ireland really need to be listened to. The failure to do that, including under the last legacy Act, is why I made the point that there has been a terrible lack of trust in politicians over a long period of time. I will not make a party point, but there is a terrible lack of trust in politicians because there have been attempts before and they have not worked. We have to try to make this work, and I have already begun the process of talking to the hon. Member’s colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive. \p Jo White: Following the last question, I want to say that the Tory’s immunity system would have meant immunity for the perpetrators of terrorist crimes across the UK. Our domestic courts have determined that. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government have no choice but to rectify the situation? \p Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point extremely forcefully. It did not work and it was never deliverable. There never was immunity; it was a false promise made to veterans who were badly let down and badly served by the last Government. Whoever won the election last year would have had to deal with the mess that we have inherited, and that is what we seek to do. \p David Davis: In March of this year, it was widely reported that the Secretary of State gave his word to Mairead Kelly, the sister of IRA murderer Patrick Kelly, that there would be an inquest on the Loughgall incident. Is this remedial order a fulfilment of that promise? If so, it means that 30 years on, the Government are dragging veterans into court over an operation that stopped eight heavily armed IRA murderers—men who had already killed and who were on their way to kill again, with weapons that had been used in 40 previous murders.

Let us be clear: by stopping the attack, those soldiers prevented the murder of many more innocent Northern Ireland citizens. What justice is served by punishing those brave soldiers with a stressful and unnecessary process? The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) described it as a persecution, punishing them for doing nothing more than their duty. Is this really what the Secretary of State intends? \p Hilary Benn: The fact is that this Government were elected on a commitment. There was a lot of opposition to the ending of inquests under the legacy Act—maybe not from the right hon. Gentleman but from a lot of people in Northern Ireland. The Government came in committed to restoring the inquests that had started and were stopped. The reason that I said what I said is because Loughgall, as I have already indicated to the shadow Secretary of State, is one of those nine cases.

It is for the independent coronial system to take a decision about that, but one of the factors that coroners have to take into account is how they will deal with any sensitive information that is provided. We know from other inquests that there have been a number of cases when the coroner has said that they accept that the information cannot see the light of day. They have examined the public interest immunity certificate and  have reached the conclusion that they cannot take the case any further. In those circumstances, the sensible thing would be for cases to move into the commission, where sensitive information can be considered. \p Lauren Sullivan: I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to new protections for veterans. Will he update the House on the discussions that he and Ministry of Defence Ministers have had with veterans and their representative groups about the measures? \p Hilary Benn: The Minister for the Armed Forces, the Defence Secretary and I have had many such discussions. The measures that I have announced that will be contained in the Bill and the other non-legislative measures are the result of those discussions. We have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed by veterans and we have come forward with what we think is a fair, reasonable and balanced package of measures that will provide protection while also taking forward our responsibility to enable families, including forces families, to find answers. \p Stuart Anderson: I am against the repealing of the legacy Act, and I served in Northern Ireland. As I am now doing in opposition, I raised when we were in government the major concern and dishonour when none of those on the Labour Benches had the decency to come to this House and debate all the points the Minister is making now. They let the legislation go through, but it is recorded in Hansard that very few people bothered to come to the Chamber to debate it when we took it through the House.

I want to make two quick points on the support for veterans. First, you have spoken about the process they will have to go through; I want to know what support will be available, as you have mentioned. Secondly, given that the terrorists did not keep records but the British Army did, how will you ensure fairer disclosure throughout the process? \p Judith Cummins: Order. I remind Members not to refer to “you”, as that means me. \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point. Support is available for veterans through the Ministry of Defence, and the Armed Forces Minister is very committed to making sure that veterans get all the support they need, which is in part reflected in the package we have announced.

On disclosure, we are making a number of changes, including amending the definition of “sensitive information” so that it is not designated by virtue of the body that held it. That is one of the reasons why the courts found that the disclosure arrangements were not compatible with our commitments. The Secretary of State will have to conduct a balancing exercise on what should be disclosed; the Secretary of State will be required to give reasons for any decision not to disclose, to the extent that that does not risk harm to national security; and, of course, any decision that the Secretary of State makes can be subject to judicial review. \p Lewis Atkinson: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the way he and the Minister for the Armed Forces have engaged on this matter in recent months. I have many constituent veterans in Sunderland Central who served with distinction in Operation Banner; the Secretary of State rightly praised the professionalism and service of our armed forces in that operation, and I welcome the protections he has set out today. May I press him a bit more on the need for continuing work with veterans groups, so that as the protections are being implemented there will be a process of ongoing review to ensure that they provide effective protection from vexatious lawfare? \p Hilary Benn: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have made these commitments because we want them to work, and the Government are determined to ensure that that is the case. \p Robin Swann: On that assurance from the Secretary of State about the protections for veterans, on 19 September he stood beside the Irish Government when he made this announcement, and later that evening the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, went on Irish media and clearly said that there were no added protections for veterans in the legacy deal. Will the Secretary of State give assurance to the House: are there protections for veterans in this legacy deal, or not? \p Hilary Benn: When the hon. Gentleman sees the legislation, he will see that the protections that we have said will be backed by legislation are in the legislation. In addition to that, there are the provisions relating to cold calling and on not requiring veterans to rehearse the historical context when it is possible for someone from the Ministry of Defence, for example, to do that to assist both inquests and the commission. \p Peter Swallow: As the Secretary of State knows, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have been very engaged in this issue, not least because of the ruling of our courts that the previous Government’s attempt to legislate on this issue was unlawful because it would potentially grant immunity to, among others, terrorists. That is no way to serve justice to families and victims, and it is no way to serve justice to our veterans. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the legislation we are bringing forward will not grant immunity to terrorists? That is a simple request and it is remarkable that I have to make it, but given the legislation that the previous Government attempted to pass, it is important to have it on the record. \p Hilary Benn: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The legislation was passed; it was never commenced. It was struck down by the courts, and the remedial order will remove it from the statute book, because we do not agree with giving immunity to terrorists. We do not agree with the principle of immunity because we believe, as I hope the whole House believes, in the rule of law. \p Julian Lewis: I am surprised that no one has mentioned the letters of comfort that were given to the IRA and the question of whether or not they still hold water, but let me go back  to what the Secretary of State said about the possibility of IRA bosses like Gerry Adams claiming compensation on technical grounds that the “wrong” Minister signed their internment papers. As I understand it from what the Secretary of State said earlier, the remedial order that he is laying before Parliament will open up the possibility of such people suing the Government for compensation, which the new legacy legislation that he is bringing in will nevertheless then rule out. He referred to a possible gap between the new legislation coming into force and the remedial order opening the gap. It has been suggested to me that the Government are briefing the press that the remedial order will not actually be voted on until the new legacy Bill has gone through Parliament. Is that his policy, and if not, what is his policy? \p Hilary Benn: The aim of the remedial order is to remove from the statute book provisions in the previous legislation that have been found to be incompatible with our obligations. I would just say that the letters of comfort did not offer immunity. That has been quite clear from Lady Justice Hallett’s review and what the Chief Constable and others have said.

I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on the interim custody orders. The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020. The last Government did not know what to do about that: it was not a judgment that the Government expected, and they did not know how to deal with the question of potential compensation. In the end, two Members of the other House introduced what are now sections 46 and 47. They were voted on, but they were subsequently found to be ineffective in achieving the objective, when the court said that they were incompatible.

What I have just told the House is that the new draft remedial order will not remove them from the statute book. Sections 46 and 47 will remain in place until such time as the new legislation I am introducing takes effect. It is a flimsy defence, because it has already been found by the courts to be ineffective, but it will remain in place. It shows that I have listened to the representations that were made about sections 46 and 47, and it is placed in the remedial order. I am now going to deal with the problem by legislation in the way that I set out. \p Jim Allister: Scores, if not hundreds, of people in Northern Ireland lost their lives because of the safe base and the haven that the Republic of Ireland offered their IRA murderers. That was where they had their arms dumps, that was where they had their training camps and that was where they returned to for sanctuary, safe in the knowledge that extradition would invariably be refused. Yet it is with the Government of that territory that the Secretary of State has chosen to co-design these proposals. He did not co-design them with the innocent victims of terrorism; he chose to co-design them with the Government of the territory that facilitated the victim makers. Why, then, should any innocent victim have any confidence in these proposals, particularly as they still require nothing meaningful from the Republic of Ireland? There is a tentative promise that, if necessary, there will be co-operation, but there is no apology for the Republic’s role in facilitating terrorism for years. Did the Secretary of State even seek an apology publicly from the Republic of Ireland? That is the same Government who to this day continue with  an inter-state action against this Government. How could any of this proposal command widespread support when that is its genealogy? \p Hilary Benn: I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we can remain stuck in the past and think of a thousand reasons why, “This isn’t good enough,” and, “We shouldn’t do this,” or, “We shouldn’t do the other.” The responsibility on the House is to try to find a way of moving forward, because the fact that so many families do not have answers is a product of—if I may say so—people being stuck in the past, and we need to move beyond that.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken, if I may gently chide him, in saying that these proposals have been co-designed with the Irish Government. I have said already that I would have taken these steps regardless of whether we reached an agreement with the Irish Government, because the mess left to us by the last Government forces whoever is in office now to deal with the consequences of a piece of legislation that did not work. But I will agree with him on one thing: in the end, it will be the families who will decide whether this new approach allows them to find the answers. I cannot say too many times that that is what really matters in all this, because it is those families who have influenced me more than anyone else in the discussions I have had. \p Andrew Murrison: The young men sent out to do the state’s business during the troubles are now old men, often sick, often disabled. Some of them are my constituents. They will be listening carefully to the Secretary of State and will be hearing honeyed words. They will be reading those words in this framework document, even as the protections given by the legacy Act are stripped away from them and they listen for the metaphorical knock on the door as activist, left, liberal human rights lawyers construct, open and reopen cases that will do them in in their failing years. Is that what the Secretary of State wants? Is this not a beanfeast for lawyers? Is it any wonder that no veterans groups have come out to support the framework that he has announced today? \p Hilary Benn: I have great respect for the right hon. Member and his service, both as a Minister and in our armed forces. I gently say to him that protections are not being stripped away because they never existed in the first place. It is important for the House to appreciate this: the provisions that were passed in the legacy Act were never commenced. They were then struck down by the courts. They do not exist; they never have existed. [Interruption.] That is just a fact. Nobody has been granted immunity because the provisions of that Act have never ever been applied. One cannot strip away something that never existed in the first place.

I am afraid what the last Government did was to offer a false promise to veterans. One of the consequences of the widespread failure of the legacy Act is court case after court case where people have said, “Well, we need to find another means of getting an answer to the question about what happened to our loved ones.” That involves expensive court cases. I am under an order to establish a public inquiry into one case. It is—I think the phrase has been used—a legal wild west that the legislation opened up, and we are trying to put things back together again. \p Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State indicated that the Government are introducing what he described as “strong safeguards”, and he says that the legacy commission will be

“under a duty not to duplicate aspects of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential.”

What will he do when—not if, but when—the Republic of Ireland’s Government come under severe pressure from other sources to make compelling reasons to him that there has to be something investigated that the person who is the subject of that investigation believed they would be excluded from? What will he do then? \p Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, asks what is, in fairness, a totally hypothetical question. [Interruption.] Well it is a hypothetical question. The fact is that it will be for the commission to interpret the legal obligation that will be placed upon it by the legislation, which refers to such reinvestigation being essential. Ultimately, the commission will judge, and if people do not like the way in which it has interpreted things, they have a remedy available to them in judicial review. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: As a veteran, I am deeply concerned by the Government’s dogged pursuit of this legislation, which has the support neither of Northern Ireland veterans nor of veterans in my generation, who have concerns about their own service in Iraq and Afghanistan. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give the British public that this legislation will achieve justice and that terrorists guilty of the murders of British service personnel will now be held to account? How many cases does he believe will be reopened in order to pursue IRA terrorists in the way that British personnel are now vulnerable to being pursued? \p Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. If he looks at the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, he will find that they include the Guilford pub bombing, the M62 coach bombing and the Kingsmill massacre. The commission has the powers it needs—in this respect, I pay tribute to the previous Government—to get the information required to do the job of investigating. Having met the investigators, I can say that they are very committed to their task. The families who have chosen to refer the cases—which is what has governed the 100 cases that the commission is looking at—have said, “Please, can you look at this?” I want more families to do that, so that more of them get answers. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the number of cases, he will see that it reflects in reasonable measure who was actually responsible for the vast majority of deaths in Northern Ireland. \p Sarah Pochin: Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s continued hounding of our brave Northern Ireland veterans—many of whom should be enjoying well-earned retirement after their loyal service to the British Government, not living in fear of prosecution for simply following orders—is nothing short of shameful? \p Hilary Benn: The Government do not wish to see anybody hounded. We have put these protections in place precisely because we have listened to the concerns  that veterans have expressed to me, to the Defence Secretary and to the Minister for the Armed Forces. I gave one example of a veteran welcoming the fact that we were putting the protections in place. I would ask people to look at the protections when the legislation is presented, and to understand that what I say about the risk of prosecution diminishing rapidly over time is, looking back over recent years, reflected in what the facts tell us. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Will the Secretary of State set out how many of the proposed six protections for veterans will also be available to former paramilitaries? \p Hilary Benn: When they introduced immunity, the previous Government said that it would apply not just to veterans but to others, including terrorists, and that is what the legislation did in those circumstances. There are provisions that apply to witnesses, but the reason for the package is the determination of the Government to protect veterans. The hon. Member will see that a number of those protections are laid out in the legislation. Others will be steps that the Ministry of Defence will take. \p Desmond Swayne: Like the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State should stop using the phrase, “The legislation was struck down by the courts.” The courts have no such power. As Jack Straw made clear from the Dispatch Box, a declaration of incompatibility is no more than a declaration; it places no obligation or expectation on Parliament. But may I thank the Secretary of State for at least listening to my representations in delaying the repeal of sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 until the new legislation is in place? Of course, he is doing so because they are effective. Otherwise, there would be no point in delaying their repeal, would there? \p Hilary Benn: I suppose I should take that praise from the right hon. Gentleman at face value. The fact is that sections 46 and 47 were found to be incompatible, but I have listened, and I hope Members of the House will find me willing to listen. I must, however, correct him, because when it comes to the immunity provisions, they were found to be incompatible, and he is correct in what he describes, but they were also struck down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. That is why they are not operational. \p Jim Shannon: It is no secret that I have major concerns over the legacy Bill, not least that innocent victims were precluded from taking their path to justice. What seems to be before us now is carte blanche for political inquiries and yet no hope for the Kingsmill families. It instead highlights the role of the Irish Government in British matters after their continued refusal to engage and their collusion to protect IRA murderers across the border.

In the penultimate paragraph of his statement, the Secretary of State said that

“the many families who lost loved ones…will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long.”

Quite clearly, that will not be the case for many families, and the Secretary of State will know that a member of my family was murdered on 10 December 1971. It shows that the Government have no heart for the victims but have an ear instead for the victim maker. Does the Secretary of State not understand why these feelings exist? When will he put right thinking and good people of the Province above being seen to be politically correct by the enemies of peace and justice in Northern Ireland? My family seek justice, and I do not see it on the other side. For all the other families that I represent and that we all represent, we seek that justice, but not within this. \p Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman has spoken before most powerfully and movingly about the impact that the death of family members has had upon him. He exemplifies, if I may say so, what so many people in Northern Ireland say when they meet us and talk to us: some will open up and some will weep, and some will not be able to open their mouths to describe what happened because the pain runs so deep after all these years. We are trying to create a mechanism and a means of enabling every single family who wants to come forward and say, “Can you please look at this case and see if we can find more information?” to do that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Kingsmill massacre. As I have already indicated to the House, that is one of the cases that the commission is currently looking into. There was the inquest verdict, and we know what it found. I will simply say to the House that probably the most difficult conversation I have had since I took up this post was to listen to the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, Alan Black, describe to me exactly what happened on that dark and dreadful night. \p Alex Easton: I personally do not have a great deal of faith in this Government or previous Governments on issues to do with legacy. Can the Secretary of State give assurances that in addressing the legacy of the Northern Ireland troubles, terrorists will not be allowed to rewrite history and that our history will be recorded truthfully, with the focus on innocent victims rather than on those who committed acts of terrorism? Can he further reassure me that veterans will not be chased for prosecutions vexatiously? Can he also reassure me—given that Irish Governments for 56 years of my life have failed to give information to our Government about acts of terrorism from their side of the country? Can he tell us what inquests will actually go ahead now? If he could name them all, I would really appreciate that. \p Hilary Benn: I will write to the hon. Gentleman in response to his last question, if I may.

What the hon. Member describes is exactly what the commission is there to do. I am making a number of changes in the commission to create greater confidence on the part of families to come forward. I have great respect for Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, and for the work that they are doing. The fact that a hundred families have approached them is very significant, but as the hon. Gentleman will know very well, there are many families in Northern Ireland who will say, “Because of the circumstances of its creation, and the  closing down of inquests and civil cases, we do not trust the commission to look independently and properly at our case.” I am trying to make it possible for more families to come forward so that more can find the answers they seek.

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about co-operation from Ireland. The reason why I was so keen to try to reach an agreement with the Irish Government is that we have got, as a result of our negotiations, a commitment to co-operate with the commission. At the moment, the Irish Government will not do so because of the legislation passed by the last Government. Once we have made these changes, they are committed to co-operating. In the end, we will all be judged on how this goes and how it proceeds, and whether the answers are found for families, but we will be in a much better position than we are with the total mess that the last Government left us. \p Sammy Wilson: When we cut through the waffle of this statement and the Secretary of State’s answers this afternoon, one fact remains: soldiers who served in Northern Ireland who have already had cases tried will be able to be dragged back into the courts and will be subject to interrogation there. The Secretary of State talked about all these wonderful protections, so let us look at them: they will not have to travel to Northern Ireland—they can appear remotely; they will be given help to appear remotely—I assume that means that somebody will show them how to work an iPad; and they will not have a knock at the door from anybody other than the military police, so the PSNI will not be coming over from Northern Ireland and knocking at their door at 6 o’clock in the morning. That is hardly any reassurance to the people who served in Northern Ireland.

Then we are told that dealing with the families who were affected by the troubles is a joint responsibility with Irish Government. There is no obligation in this statement on the Irish Government, other than to throw 30 pieces of silver at the legacy mechanism to assuage their guilt for protecting terrorists over 30 years and for covering up for the collaboration of some within the Irish establishment who helped the IRA in their job. \p Hilary Benn: I would say two things to right hon. Gentleman. First, I would not be quite so light with the importance of that commitment to allow our veterans to give evidence remotely. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I have both spoken to veterans for whom having to go back to Northern Ireland would bring back memories that they have been having to deal with ever since they served. That is actually a very important protection and one that the Government are committed to putting in place.

Secondly, how would the right hon. Gentleman propose that we move this question forward? For all the criticisms —no doubt, I will receive many, many more—the people I most wish to hear from are those who have practical proposals as to how we can create greater confidence on the part of the victims, survivors and the families so that they get the answers they are looking for. Anyone who comes forward with helpful suggestions will find a ready partner in me. \p Mark Francois: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, when we have a Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers the Budget and then the Red Book, with all the fine detail, the numbers and the graphs, is immediately made available to MPs, so that they can at least glance through it and ask the Chancellor questions. Conversely, this afternoon we just have spent nearly an hour and a half debating a statement about a Bill and a very important remedial order that we were quite deliberately not allowed to see. Surely it would have been better if hon. Members had been allowed to receive the Bill and the remedial order—at least to glance at it for a few minutes—so they could have asked much better informed questions of the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has organised this cynically to prevent that. Madam Deputy Speaker, how do we prevent that from happening again? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but as is usual practice, when the Bill is presented, it will be available in the Vote Office. \p Anna Dixon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the summer, I was the subject of two online death threats, which the police are investigating. These were posted in response to a video published by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). The video accused me of not telling the truth on a very sensitive subject: the horrific abuse of children by grooming gangs. If the hon. Member had made those remarks in Parliament, they would have been deemed unparliamentary. As well as the death threats, that video elicited a torrent of misogynistic, racist and offensive comments, which remain online.

As Members of this House, it is incumbent on us to do all we can to prevent the escalation of abuse. The actions of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley were at best irresponsible, and at worst inflammatory. I call on him to apologise, to withdraw the video, and to commit to refrain from personal attacks against me and other elected officials in future. Online abuse has a psychological impact on all of us who are subject to it—on our staff, our families and our friends. It has a chilling effect on democracy, stifling debate, putting good people off standing for election and creating a climate of hate. Therefore, I also hope that the Committee on Standards will review the code of conduct, to ensure that the same standards expected of Members in this place are upheld in their words and behaviours outside this place, particularly online. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and I am aware that she has notified the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley in advance of raising this matter in the Chamber. Although it is not strictly a point of order for the Chair,  Mr Speaker takes the security and safety of Members very seriously, and I would always encourage Members to treat each other with courtesy and respect. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Hilary Benn, supported by Secretary John Healey and Secretary David Lammy, presented a Bill to make new provision to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 310) with explanatory notes (Bill 310—EN). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Alison Bennett, supported by Helen Morgan, Helen Maguire, Dr Danny Chambers, Ian Sollom, Pippa Heylings and Charlotte Cane, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure the availability of hospice services for all people at the end of life; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the adequacy of funding for children’s and adult hospice services, including an assessment of whether any funding increases are necessary to maintain such services; to require the Secretary of State to publish a five year plan for hospice funding; to make provision about the availability of specialist palliative care in emergency care services in hospitals; to make provision about supporting patients receiving palliative care in the community in certain circumstances; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a workforce plan for hospice services; to require palliative care advice to be available through non-emergency NHS advice services; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 311). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Liz Jarvis, supported by Daisy Cooper, Alison Bennett, Rachael Maskell, Mr Will Forster, Sorcha Eastwood, Dr Ellie Chowns, Cameron Thomas, Alex Brewer, Sarah Dyke, Siân Berry and Tessa Munt, presented a Bill to require schools to maintain a record of pupils with caring responsibilities; to make provision about support in schools for pupils with caring responsibilities, including requiring schools to designate a member of staff as having responsibility for supporting young carers; to require schools to provide specified academic and other support to pupils with caring responsibilities, including support in relation to public examinations and provision of counselling; to make provision about support for future employment for pupils with caring responsibilities, including through mentoring and a programme of skills development; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 308). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that any birth, death or marriage certificate issued in Wales be issued bilingually in English and Welsh; to make provision for the issuance in England of birth certificates bilingually in English and Welsh where either parent named on the certificate is a Welsh speaker; to make provision for the issuance in England of death certificates bilingually in English and Welsh where the deceased person lived in Wales or was a Welsh speaker; and for connected purposes.

I extend my thanks to the Clerks and the team in the Public Bill Office for their invaluable and diligent assistance, and to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), for his support and for being in the Chamber today.

There is an old saying in Cymraeg—in Welsh: “Mae’r tegell yn berwi a dwi’n barod.” It means, “The kettle is boiling and I am ready.” The kettle has been on the boil for a long time in Wales, and Welsh people have been ready for decades to ensure they receive birth, marriage and death certificates in the Welsh language.

This Bill aims to give Welsh people, after registration, the right to receive such certificates in Welsh only, English only or bilingually. It is not the first Bill on this subject to come before this House or the other place—politicians from both Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have presented Bills on this matter. The late Dafydd Elis-Thomas presented a Bill in the House of Lords as far back as 1999. As a proud Clwyd boy, I am pleased to say that next was a Bill by the then Clwyd West MP, Gareth Thomas, who presented the first Bill in the Commons. In 2009, he was followed by Hywel Williams, who presented another Bill to the Commons. While Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have led on this subject, there has also been notable support from politicians of other parties, including Lembit Öpik for the Liberal Democrats and Michael Fabricant for the Conservatives—the cheeky boys of the noughties.

This exceptionally broad support across the political spectrum shows that this is not a party political subject, nor should something as important and treasured as the Welsh language ever be party political. On that note, I acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has shared many discussions with me on this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with her.

People who have lived in Wales may well have received their child’s birth certificate or a parent’s death certificate in both English and Welsh and be thinking, “What is the problem? What is the purpose of this Bill?” Sadly, there are many circumstances where people might not receive a Welsh or bilingual certificate and instead receive an English-only one. There are no rules or laws that say if someone lives in Wales, or is Welsh and lives in England, they can or must receive such a certificate in Welsh or bilingually.

That is what happened to a constituent of mine, Afryl Davies. I am delighted that Afryl is in the Gallery today, and I pay tribute to her and her family for their  fortitude in the light of the tragedy they faced. Sadly, Afryl’s husband, Aled, passed away. Aled was a proud Welshman and a proud Welsh speaker, but his family did not receive a copy of his death certificate bilingually. They received only an English-language version. They wrote many letters, including to the coroner, the registrar and the General Register Office, requesting that his death certificate be reissued bilingually, but sadly they were turned down at every opportunity because of how the law currently operates.

Worse still, my constituent was told that their only option was to turn to the courts to attempt to secure a reissued certificate in Welsh. Afryl came to one of my regular advice surgeries to see if I could help, and I have got to admit that I was dumbfounded that this situation was somehow still possible in 2025. The Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 were put in place to ensure that the Welsh language has parity and equal legal status with English and must not be treated less favourably, yet here we are, with a proud Welsh person who lived and sadly died in our capital city, and his family are as yet unable to receive his death certificate bilingually.

I think we can all agree that people living in Wales and Welsh people living in England should be able to receive their birth, death and marriage certificates in Cymraeg—in Welsh—or in English or bilingually, if they so choose. The previous Labour Government agreed with that and were in the process of making that law. That started in 2002, when there was a UK Government White Paper and a consultation exercise on the future of civil registrations. The “Birth, Marriage and Death Registration in the 21st Century” White Paper stated:

“The Government will extend the facility for bilingual (English/Welsh) birth registration to include events occurring in England to Welsh speaking parents. Presently, only births that occur in Wales can be registered bi-lingually in English and Welsh. This can cause a problem, for example, if a Welsh mother gives birth in a hospital over the border in England and cannot then obtain a birth registration in bi-lingual format. After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages…In line with birth registration, the Government will extend the facility to register a death in English and Welsh to include deaths which take place in England. After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages.”

Following the subsequent consultation period, the General Register Office was instructed by the then UK Labour Government to start looking into plans to make that provision possible. In 2009, the then Wales Office Minister Wayne David, stated that

“the Government remain firmly committed to producing Welsh language certificates, and the General Register Office is exploring the best way to do that.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 283.]

Unfortunately, the UK Labour Government of the day were not able to get that through the House of Commons before the 2010 general election, and the succeeding Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government would go on to abandon the plans, despite support from some of their own MPs, as I have already mentioned.

My constituents were told that they could not receive their beloved family member’s death certificate bilingually, because following the inquest the certificate was first sent to the registrar in English only, before then being sent bilingually. However, because the certificate had first been received in English, the death was accordingly registered in English only.

As I have said, because of the way in which the law currently works, my constituent has been left with no option other than to turn to the courts to attempt to secure a reissued death certificate. Afryl should have been afforded the dignity of receiving Aled’s death certificate bilingually, but she is instead faced with the indignity of having to consider recourse to the courts to try and secure it. That cannot be right. It is inhumane and it is unfair, and in 2025 it should not stand. If the last Labour Government’s proposals had become law, my constituents would have received that death certificate bilingually, because death certificates would be translated after the registration of death. This a key part of my Bill. The 2002 White Paper states:

“After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages.”

That, in a nutshell, is what my Bill is about: giving people living in Wales, and Welsh people in England, the right to have their or a family member’s birth or death certificate issued in Welsh, English or bilingually after registration. If no preference is given, such birth or death certificates should be issued bilingually by default. As for marriage certificates issued in Wales, those too should be issued bilingually by default. All of that was a policy aim under the last Labour Government, and it is a policy that still has cross-party support.

This is a long-overdue process, and I am determined to make it happen. We know that the last Labour Government asked the General Register Office to look into making it happen. A feasibility study must have taken place, so we know that a lot of work has already been done. We also know that with the law as it currently  stands, there appear to be shortcomings in the procedural guidance for registrars, specifically in circumstances in which they are not Welsh speakers and a bilingual certificate has been requested. These issues raise broader questions about equity of service for Welsh-speaking citizens. I urge the General Register Office and others to look at them now and while, hopefully, my Bill is making progress. After all, the Bill does not need to begin from the starting line; we are picking up the baton in a race that we have already begun, so let’s get it to the finishing line.

I was born in Llanelwy—St Asaph, the “city of music”. I will not give my age away, but my parents wanted their children’s birth certificates to be in English and Welsh. Today, my constituents want their relative’s death certificate to be in Welsh or bilingual, but they have not been given that option by default. Instead, they are left to fight for it. This cannot be right in a modern Wales—a Wales proud of its language, a population proud of its country. I ask the Government to consider my Bill, and let us in Wales be proud of our country and proud of our language. “Cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon”—a nation without a language is a nation without a heart.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Tonia Antoniazzi, Gill German, Andrew Ranger, Carolyn Harris, Dame Nia Griffith, Liz Saville Roberts, Ben Lake, Ann Davies and Henry Tufnell present the Bill.

Mr Alex Barros-Curtis accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 309). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Third Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Mental Health Bill, HC 601, and the Government response, HC 1217.] \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part VIII (Miscellaneous Functions of Local Authorities and the Secretary of State), after section 118 insert—

‘118A National strategy on mental health units

(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of the Mental Health Act 2025, publish a national strategy to set out how the Government will ensure that all relevant mental health units meet or exceed “good” safety standards as assessed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

(2) A strategy issued under this section must address the following matters—

(a) recruitment, retention and training of mental health staff,

(b) patient-to-staff ratios, and

(c) safe staffing levels during crises and night shifts.

(3) Following publication of the strategy, a report on implementation progress must be laid before Parliament annually.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant mental health unit” is a facility used for treatment under this Act.’”—(Zöe Franklin.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy, followed by an annual progress report, on how the Government will ensure that all mental health units used for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 are rated “good” or above by the CQC.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Zöe Franklin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Impact assessment: children and young people in temporary foster care—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament an impact assessment on the impact of this Act on children and young people who are in temporary foster care.

(2) The impact assessment under this section must consider—

(a) whether the ordinary residence provisions result in delays or inequities in accessing treatment or after-care under this Act;

(b) the effect of transitions between placements on continuity of treatment under this Act; and

(c) any unintended consequences for children and young people in temporary foster care arising from the application of subsections (3) to (5) of section 125G of the Mental Health Act 1983.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish an impact assessment on the impact of this Act on children and young people in temporary foster care.

New clause 4—Adequacy of accommodation: review—

“(1) The Mental Health Bill 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) After Section 131A (Accommodation etc. for children) insert—

‘131B Adequacy of accommodation

(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, publish a review of the quality of accommodation for any patient who is—

(a) liable to be detained in a hospital under this Act;

(b) admitted to, or remains in, a hospital in pursuance of such arrangements as are mentioned in section 131(1) above.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the publication of the review under subsection (1), publish a strategy to implement the recommendations of that review.’”

This new clause would require a review of the quality of accommodation for people detained or admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 and require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to implement the recommendations of this review.

New clause 5—Review of impact of this Act on detention—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, commission an independent review into the impact of relevant provisions on reducing the number of people detained under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

(2) In subsection (1), ‘relevant provisions’ include—

(a) sections 4, 5 and 6,

(b) section 8,

(c) section 21, and

(d) sections 46 and 47.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the publication of the review in subsection (1), publish a strategy to implement the recommendations of that review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a review into the impact of relevant provisions in the Act in reducing the number of people detained, in particular the provisions relating to people with autism or a learning disability, on grounds for detention and for community treatment orders, medical treatment, care and treatment plans, and on after-care, and to implement any recommendations within 12 months of the publication of the review.

New clause 6—Transfer of patients: out of area placements—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 19 (transfer of patients), insert—

‘19A Transfer of patients: out of area placements

(1) The Secretary of State must reduce to zero, within five years of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, the number of patients transferred to a hospital outside of the area in which the patient is ordinarily resident.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish, within six months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, a report to outline how the duty under this section will be met, including how provision for treatment under this Act will be increased.’”

This new clause would require the transfer of patients to hospitals outside of their area to be reduced to zero within 5 years, and for the Secretary of State to produce a report on how this will be achieved.

New clause 7—Children detained on adult wards—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 131A (Accommodation, etc. for children), insert—

‘131B Children detained on adult wards

(1) The Secretary of State must reduce to zero, within five years of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, the number of children detained on adult wards.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish, within six months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, a report to outline how the duty under this section will be met, including how provision for treatment under this Act will be increased.’”

This new clause would require the number of children detained on adult wards to be reduced to zero within 5 years, and for the Secretary of State to produce a report on how this will be achieved.

New clause 8—Report on the impact of this Act on patients with eating disorders—

“(1) Within a period of 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of relevant provisions in this Act on patients with eating disorders.

(2) In subsection (1), ‘relevant provisions’ include—

(a) section 5 (Grounds for detention),

(b) section 11 (Making treatment decisions),

(c) section 17 (Urgent treatment to alleviate serious suffering),

(d) section 21 (Care and treatment plans), and

(e) section 47 (After-care services).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of this Bill on patients with eating disorders within 12 months of the passage of this Bill.

New clause 9—Report and Guidance: Improving Outcomes for LGBT Patients—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the mental health outcomes of patients who are treated under the Mental Health Act 1983 and who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—

(a) any differences between non-LGBT patients and LGBT patients in—

(i) the extent of the use of detention measures under the Mental Health Act 1983; and

(ii) treatment outcomes following detention, and

(b) the availability and accessibility of ‘culturally competent’ mental health treatment under the 1983 Act for LGBT patients.

(3) Following publication of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish guidance for responsible bodies and individuals working with patients under the Mental Health Act 1983, including but not limited to those working in—

(a) mental health hospitals;

(b) places of safety;

(c) crisis accommodation; and

(d) relevant community mental health services.

(4) The guidance under subsection (3) must include—

(a) provisions about updated training standards for staff regarding the specific mental health needs and experiences of LGBT individuals, including training on non-discriminatory practice and inclusive communication approaches;

(b) steps to improve safety for LGBT patients in relevant mental health settings, with particular regard to addressing discrimination and harassment; and

(c) a definition of ‘cultural competent mental health treatment’ for the purposes of subsection (2).

(5) Responsible bodies and individuals working with patients under the Mental Health Act 1983 must have regard to guidance published under subsection (3).

(6) In preparing the report under subsection (1) and the guidance under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) patients with a mental disorder who identify as LGBT;

(b) the families or carers of patients with a mental disorder who identify as LGBT;

(c) relevant professional bodies;

(d) integrated care boards;

(e) local authorities;

(f) providers of mental health treatment; and

(g) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(7) The Secretary of State must update the guidance under subsection (3) at regular intervals, and no less frequently than every three years.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on mental health outcomes and disparities for LGBT patients in treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 and publish guidance covering training and safety for this specific group.

New clause 10—Report and Guidance: Transition to Adult Mental Health Treatment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on improving provision for patients transitioning from treatment in a hospital environment for children and young people to one for adults when they attain the age of 18.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—

(a) the current pathways and outcomes for young people transitioning between hospital environments for children and for adults;

(b) any gaps in care or support experienced by patients during this transition;

(c) best practices for ensuring safe and effective transitions.

(3) Following the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish guidance for integrated care boards, local authorities, and providers of mental health treatment on improving outcomes and ensuring continuity of care for patients transitioning to a hospital environment for adults.

(4) The guidance under subsection (3) must include—

(a) specific steps to guarantee continuity of care for patients transitioning between treatment in a hospital environment for children and young people and one for adults;

(b) measures to identify young people requiring transition support at an appropriate stage;

(c) provisions for joint working and information sharing between providers of treatment for children and young people and for adults;

(d) requirements for the review and updating of care and treatment plans to reflect the needs of patients transitioning to a hospital environment for adults.

(5) Integrated care boards, local authorities, and providers of mental health treatment must have regard to guidance published under subsection (3).

(6) In preparing the report under subsection (1) and the guidance under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) young people with experience of transitioning between children and young people’s and adult mental health services, and their carers and guardians;

(b) relevant professional bodies;

(c) integrated care boards;

(d) local authorities;

(e) providers of mental health treatment;

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(7) The Secretary of State must update the guidance under subsection (3) at regular intervals, and no less frequently than every three years.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the transition of patients from children's to adult mental health settings for treatment at age 18 and publish guidance for relevant bodies on improving provision and ensuring continuity of care during this transition.

New clause 11—Reporting: racial disparities relating to community treatment orders—

“(1) Within a period of 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of racial disparities which relate to the use and administering of community treatment orders.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—

(a) an assessment of whether certain racial or ethnic groups are disproportionately represented among individuals subject to community treatment orders compared to their representation in the general population;

(b) a review of the outcomes and effectiveness of community treatment orders across different racial groups, including health outcomes, and patient experiences.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the findings of the review before Parliament within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause seeks to gauge the Government’s view on prevalent racial disparities as they relate to the use of community treatment orders under the Act.

New clause 12—Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space—

“(1) Any person detained under sections 3, 37, 41 or 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 must be offered support from the mental health crisis breathing space debt respite scheme.”

This new clause ensures that MHCBS, a debt respite scheme, is offered and available to patients detained under sections 3, 37, 41 and 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

New clause 13—Addressing and reporting on racial disparities and other inequalities in the use of the Mental Health Act 1983—

“After section 120D of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—

‘120E Mental health units and services to have a responsible person

(1) A relevant health organisation that operates a mental health unit or community mental health service for qualifying patients must appoint a responsible person for that unit or service for the purposes of addressing racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics related to functions discharged under the Mental Health Act 1983.

(2) The responsible person must—

(a) be employed by the relevant health organisation, and

(b) be of an appropriate level of seniority.

(3) Where a relevant health organisation operates more than one mental health unit or service, that organisation must appoint a single responsible person in relation to all of the mental health units or services operated by that organisation.

(4) A patient is a qualifying patient if they are—

(a) liable to be detained under this Act, otherwise than by virtue of section 4 or 5(2) or (4) or section 135 or 136;

(b) subject to guardianship under this Act;

(c) a community patient.

120F Policy on racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics

(1) The responsible person must publish a policy on how the unit plans to reduce racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics in that unit or service.

(2) The policy published under subsection (1) must cover the following topics—

(a) the application of the guiding principles to all aspects of operation of this Act;

(b) staff knowledge and competence in connection with promoting equality and anti-discriminatory practice in relation to this Act;

(c) workforce demographics, recruitment, retention and progression;

(d) implementation of the patient and carer race equality framework (England only) and any other requirements of relevant national policies;

(e) care planning and decision-making in the use of this Act including section 56A (making treatment decisions);

(f) the availability of alternatives to detention and involuntary treatment;

(g) take-up of independent mental health advocacy;

(h) the cultural appropriateness of independent mental health advocacy;

(i) access to and use of advance choice documents;

(j) what steps will be taken to reduce racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics in that unit or service.

(3) Where a responsible person is appointed in relation to all of the mental health units operated by a relevant health organisation, the responsible person must publish a single policy under subsection (1) in relation to those units or services.

(4) Before publishing a policy under subsection (1), the responsible person must—

(a) consult any persons that the responsible person considers appropriate;

(b) have regard to the following matters—

(i) the views, wishes and feelings of people from ethnic minority communities who have been detained;

(ii) the views, wishes and feelings of people with other protected characteristics who have been detained.

(5) The responsible person must keep under review any policy published under this section.

(6) The responsible person may from time to time revise any policy published under this section and, if this is done, must publish the policy as revised.

(7) If the responsible person considers that any revisions would amount to a substantial change in the policy, the responsible person must consult any persons that the responsible person considers appropriate before publishing the revised policy.

120G Training in racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics

(1) The responsible person for each mental health unit or service must provide training for staff that relates to addressing racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics in that unit or service.

(2) The training provided under subsection (1) must include training on the topics covered in section 120F(2).

(3) Subject to subsection (4), training must be provided—

(a) in the case of a person who is a member of staff when this section comes into force, as soon as reasonably practicable after this section comes into force, or

(b) in the case of a person who becomes a member of staff after this section comes into force, as soon as reasonably practicable after they become a member of staff.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the responsible person considers that any training provided to the person before this section came into force or before the person became a member of staff—

(a) was given sufficiently recently, and

(b) is of an equivalent standard to the training provided under this section.

(5) Refresher training must be provided at regular intervals whilst a person is a member of staff.

(6) In subsection (5) “refresher training” means training that updates or supplements the training provided under subsection (1).

120H Annual report by the Secretary of State

(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year, the Secretary of State must conduct a review in consultation with relevant bodies with commissioning functions on the use of treatment and detention measures contained in the Mental Health Act 1983 broken down by race and other demographic information.

(2) Having conducted a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on the progress made in reducing inequalities in treatment outcomes and the use of detention measures in the use of this Act on people who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.’”

This new clause requires mental health units and services to appoint a responsible person tasked with addressing racial disparities related to functions discharged under the Mental Health Act 1983.

New clause 14—General duty to secure sufficient resources for services in the community—

“(1) It is the general duty of integrated care boards to ensure, insofar as is reasonably practical, that services in the community responsible for delivering care, treatment, or detention provisions under the Mental Health Act 1983 and this Act have the necessary resources, including financial support, to meet service demands.

(2) Additional forms of resource may be determined by integrated care boards in consultation with relevant local authorities or health care service providers and may include—

(a) sufficient numbers of trained medical professionals;

(b) purpose-built facilities for patient care;

(c) community services responsible for out-patient care.

(3) Each Integrated Care Board must conduct an assessment of its resources every two years to evaluate its ability to deliver services in the community effectively.

(4) Each Integrated Care Board must publish a report outlining its findings upon completing the assessment in subsection (3). The first reports must be published within one year of the passage of this Act.”

This new clause places a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community have the necessary level of resource to meet demand on services to ensure that the provisions of the Bill function as intended and to assess and report on this every 2 years.

New clause 15—Report: statutory competency test for under-16s—

“Within 12 months of day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of whether a statutory competency test for under-16s in determining their ability to make a relevant decision would be expedient for the purposes of this Act or the Mental Health Act 1983.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of whether a statutory competency test for under-16s would be expedient for the purposes of this Bill and the Mental Health Act 1983.

New clause 16—Duty to promote mental health wellbeing—

“After section 142B of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—

‘Duty to promote mental health wellbeing

(1) It is a general duty of local authorities and anybody in carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to promote mental health wellbeing.

(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), local authorities and commissioning bodies must have regard to—

(a) the prevention of mental illness,

(b) the promotion of positive mental health,

(c) the reduction of stigma and discrimination associated with mental health conditions, and

(d) the provision of accessible and appropriate support services to individuals experiencing mental health challenges.

(3) Local authorities and commissioning bodies must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken to discharge their duty under subsection (1), including an assessment of—

(a) progress in improving mental health wellbeing in their area for persons affected by the provisions of this Act, and

(b) any barriers to promoting mental health wellbeing for such persons and proposed actions to address them.

(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1), and local authorities and commissioning bodies must have regard to such guidance.’”

This new clause would require local authorities and commissioning bodies to promote and report annually on mental health wellbeing, with regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State.

New clause 17—Funding and reporting—

“(1) For each financial year until all sections of this Act have come into force, of the total health service expenditure by the bodies (taken together) in subsection (2), the proportion which relates to mental health spending—

(a) under the Mental Health Act 1983, and

(b) under this Act or which, in future, would be made under provision inserted into the Mental Health Act 1983 by this Act,

(taken together) must not decrease.

(2) The bodies are the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and integrated care boards.”

This new clause would require that mental health spending as a proportion of health service expenditure must not decrease in the implementation period of the Act.

New clause 18—Mental Health Commissioner—

“After section 142B of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—

‘Mental Health Commissioner

142C Independent Mental Health Commissioner:  establishment

(1) There is to be an office known as the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner.

(2) The Office in subsection (1) must be established by the Secretary of State three months after the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed.

(3) The Office of the Mental Health Commissioner will be led by an individual appointed by the Secretary of State titled the “Independent Mental Health Commissioner”.

(4) The role in subsection (3) is referred to as the “Mental Health Commissioner”.

(5) The Mental Health Commissioner may appoint staff to the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner they consider necessary for assisting in the exercise of their functions in section 142D.

142D Functions of the Commissioner

(1) The Mental Health Commissioner is responsible for overseeing the implementation and operability of functions discharged by relevant bodies and persons under the provisions of this Act, the Mental Health Act 1983, and the Mental Capacity Act 2025 particularly regarding the provision of treatment, care, and detention of people with a mental disorder.

(2) The Mental Health Commissioner must publish an annual report on the use of functions discharged under this Act, which must assess—

(a) the quality of mental health care treatment provided by relevant services;

(b) the accessibility of mental health care treatment services;

(c) the relationship between mental health and the criminal justice system;

(d) inequalities of mental health care provision regarding protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010;

(e) the use and effectiveness of detention measures under this Act, including but not limited to Community Treatment Orders, for the purposes of therapeutic benefit outlined in section 1(2B);

(f) challenges surrounding stigma of mental health conditions;

(g) the accessibility of advice and support to mental health service users, their families and carers on their legal rights;

(h) other issues deemed appropriate by the Mental Health Commissioner.

(3) In fulfilling their duties under subsection (1), the Mental Health Commissioner may review, and monitor the operation of, arrangements falling within subsection (1), (2) and (3) for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and to what extent, the arrangements are effective in promoting the principles in section 118(2B) of this Act.

(4) Subject to any directions from the Secretary of State, the Commissioner may take action necessary or expedient in connection for the purposes of their functions.

(5) This may include—

(a) collaborating with health services, public authorities, charitable organisations, and other relevant entities, including NHS bodies, the Care Quality Commission, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman;

(b) ensuring enforcement authorities and public bodies under the Mental Health Act 1983 have the necessary capacity and resources to adequately discharge duties under the Mental Health Act 1983 and this Act.

142E Appointment, Tenure, and Remuneration of the Mental Health Commissioner

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision for the appointment, tenure, removal, and general terms of appointment of the Mental Health Commissioner.

(2) The Secretary of State may also by regulation determine the Commissioner’s remuneration, allowances, and pension entitlements.

142F Examination of cases

(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the examination by the Mental Health Commissioner of the cases of those who are detained under this Act receiving treatment by authorised mental health care providers.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner to access and examine relevant data on mental health treatment provision held by NHS England and any other authorities the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

142G Regulations

A statutory instrument containing regulations under sections 142E and 142F may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’”

This new clause establishes the office of the Mental Health Commissioner and makes provisions for relevant duties and responsibilities.

New clause 19—Duty to provide advice and support to families and carers—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 117B insert—

‘117C After-care: provision of support and advice to families and carers

(1) The responsible integrated care board must ensure that, as part of the provision of after-care services under section 117 of this Act, advice and support is offered to the family or carers of the person discharged where the person consents.

(2) This support must include—

(a) information about the person’s condition and recovery;

(b) guidance on how to support their recovery at home and avoid relapse;

(c) access to financial, housing, and social care advice services relevant to the situation of the person’s family; and

(d) procedures for family members or nominated persons to notify the integrated care board of concerns that the person is at future risk of detention under Part 2 of this Act.

(3) Where a concern is raised under subsection (2)(d), the integrated care board must—

(a) consider whether the individual meets criteria to be included on the register of persons at risk under section 125D of this Act; and

(b) take reasonable steps to involve the family or nominated person in planning of subsequent support, subject to—

(i) the person’s consent; or

(ii) if they lack capacity, the person’s best interests.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance under section 125B of this Act on the format and provision of support under subsection (3)(b).’”

This new clause would require the integrated care board, as part of the aftercare services offered under the Mental Health Act 1982, to offer support and advice to the family or carers of the person being discharged from treatment.

New clause 21—Assessment for admission: clinicians with outstanding complaints—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part II (Compulsory Admission to Hospital and Guardianship), after section 6 insert—

‘6a Assessment for admission: clinicians under investigation

(1) For the purposes of the written recommendations required under sections 2(3) or and 3(3) of this Act, a recommendation may not be made by a medical practitioner who is, at the time of the assessment or written statement—

(a) under investigation by the General Medical Council or the hospital due to concerns relating to the medical practitioner’s care of the patient being assessed; or

(b) subject to a complaint to the General Medical Council or the hospital by the patient or the patient’s close associates.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”

This new clause would prevent a patient from being assessed to be detained by a doctor under investigation by the GMC or hospital trust, or subject to a complaint, in relation to their care of that patient.

New clause 22—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—

“After section 142B of the Mental Health Act 1983 insert—

‘Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer

142C Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer: establishment

(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer ("the Officer") to oversee the treatment and care of veterans under this Act.

(2) The Officer shall—

(a) oversee the cases of veterans who are—

(i) at risk of detention under this Act;

(ii) currently detained under this Act; or

(iii) following detention under this Act, subject to community or outpatient treatment or other post-discharge mental health provisions;

(b) advocate for mental health assessments and care tailored to veterans' service-related experiences;

(c) collaborate with mental health professionals, veterans' services, legal representatives, and third-sector organisations to safeguard veterans' rights and well-being within relevant treatment settings;

(d) promote diversion from detention where clinically appropriate, including the use of veteran-specific support services; and

(e) submit an annual report to Parliament detailing—

(i) detention rates of veterans under this Act;

(ii) outcomes and recidivism rates for veterans detained under this Act;

(iii) recommendations for service improvement.

(3) In this section—

“veteran” refers to a person who has served or currently serves in the armed forces of the United Kingdom or a Commonwealth nation;

“relevant health authority” includes NHS England, regional NHS boards, or their successors.’”

This new clause introduces a dedicated oversight role for veterans within the framework of the Mental Health Bill, recognising that service personnel have unique needs and experiences that need to be considered in mental health care and detention decisions.

New clause 23—Mental Health Act: interim support for a child or adolescent at risk of detention—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 33, insert—

‘33A Interim support for child and adolescent patients

(1) Where a child or young person (“P”) is referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and—

(a) P has not yet attended their first appointment, and

(b) P is at risk of detention under this Part, in the opinion of a family member or close associate,

the responsible authority must ensure that interim support is available.

(2) Interim support under this section must include at least one of—

(a) regular contact with a family support worker;

(b) access to GP appointments;

(c) regular contact with a school nurse or equivalent healthcare professional; or

(d) access to a peer support group, youth group, or youth club offering appropriate emotional support.’”

This new clause would ensure adequate interim support for children at risk of detention under Part II the Mental Health Act while awaiting an appointment with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

New clause 24—Report: Mental health services for children and young people—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of passing this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the provision of specialist mental health services for patients aged under 18.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—

(a) the number of patients aged under 18 receiving specialist mental health services;

(b) the availability of specialist mental health services based outside of hospital settings;

(c) any gaps in care and support experienced by patients aged under 18;

(d) the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether there are sufficient resources to deliver mental health services for patients aged under 18;

(e) the views of children, young people and families with experience of receiving specialist mental health services.

(3) For the purpose of this section—

(a) “specialist mental health services for patients aged under 18” means—

(i) inpatient mental health services specifically designed for individuals aged under 18 years, including specialist eating disorder services;

(ii) community-based mental health services specifically designed for individuals aged under 18 years as an alternative to inpatient care.

(b) “resources to deliver mental health services” include—

(i) finances;

(ii) appropriate trained medical professionals;

(iii) appropriate facilities for patient care.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the availability of specialist mental health services for patients under 18.

New clause 25—Determination of competency for persons under 16—

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person aged under 16 (referred to in this section as a child) is able to make a relevant decision if they can—

(a) understand the information relevant to the decision;

(b) retain that information;

(c) use or weigh that information as part of the process of making a decision; and

(d) communicate their decisions (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).

(2) Where a child is able to make a relevant decision in accordance with paragraph (1) above, that child will be competent for the purposes of this Act.

(3) A child is not to be regarded as unable to understand the information relevant to a decision if he is able to understand an explanation of it given to him in a way that is appropriate to his circumstances (using simple language, visual aids or any other means).

(4) A person determining a child’s ability to make a relevant decision under this section must—

(a) have due regard to Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and

(b) be able to show reasonable grounds for their belief that the child is or is not able to make a relevant decision.”

This new clause inserts a competency test for determining a child’s ability to make a relevant decision.

New clause 26—Duty to establish carer liaison service—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part X (Miscellaneous and Supplementary), after section 133 insert—

‘133A Duty to establish carer liaison service

(1) The managers of every hospital providing services under this Act must establish and maintain a dedicated carer liaison service.

(2) A service established under this section must provide—

(a) support to unpaid carers when a patient for whom they provide care is—

(i) awaiting admission to hospital for treatment under the Act;

(ii) receiving treatment in hospital under the Act;

(iii) set to be discharged from a hospital where they had been receiving treatment under this Act;

(b) timely and accessible information regarding the discharge of the patient they care for, including details of—

(i) the patient's discharge plan; and

(ii) aftercare arrangements under section 117 of this Act;

(c) support for unpaid carers to identify their own needs and connect to relevant local services for post-discharge support, including local authority adult social care services, general practitioners, and local carers' centres;

(d) facilitation of effective communication and collaboration between unpaid carers and the patient's multi-disciplinary clinical team regarding the discharge process;

(e) assistance to unpaid carers in developing or updating a carer's support plan in the context of the patient's discharge, including guidance on—

(i) their rights to assessment and support as carers

(ii) their participation in education or employment;

(iii) available counselling services;

(iv) support in planning for emergencies in relation to the patient;

(v) benefits for the carer and patient; and

(vi) other forms of local support; and

(f) services to ensure that the perspective of the unpaid carer, as a key provider of support, is considered during discharge planning, where appropriate and with due regard to patient confidentiality and consent.’”

This new clause would require hospitals to establish a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act.

New clause 27—Duty to identify children of patients receiving treatment—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part X (Miscellaneous and Supplementary), after section 133 insert—

‘133B Duty of managers of hospitals to identify children of patients

(1) Where a patient liable to be detained under this Act is in a hospital or registered establishment, the managers of the hospital or registered establishment shall take such steps as are practicable to identify children of the patient.

(2) The managers must ensure, where children of patients are identified, that—

(a) information is provided to the family about support available for the child;

(b) the appropriate practitioner consider whether the child might be a young carer and whether they might benefit from additional support including—

(i) a Young Carers’ Needs Assessment under section 17ZA of the Children Act 1989, or

(ii) additional support from their local authority or local young carers service.’”

This new clause would require hospitals to identify children of patients and provide support or provide guidance on available support to them, particularly if they are a young carer.

New clause 28—Duty to mitigate adverse effect of compulsory measures on parental relations—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 131A, insert—

‘131B Duty to mitigate adverse effect of compulsory measures on parental relations

(1) Subsection (2) below applies—

(a) where—

(i) a child is subject to any measures authorised by virtue of this Act; and

(ii) the measures will or will be likely to impair the personal relations or diminish direct contact between the child and any person with parental responsibilities in relation to the child; or

(b) where—

(i) a person with parental responsibilities in relation to a child is subject to any measures authorised by virtue of this Act; and

(ii) the measures will or will be likely to impair the personal relations or diminish direct contact between that person and the child.

(2) Every person having functions by virtue of this Act shall take such steps as are practicable and appropriate to mitigate the impairment or diminution referred to in this section or, as the case may be, the likelihood of that impairment or diminution.

(3) In this section—

“child” has the meaning given by section 105 of the Children Act 1989; and

“parental responsibilities” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Children Act 1989.’”

This new clause would create a duty to mitigate the adverse effect of compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 on relations between parents and their children, mirroring provisions in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

New clause 29—Age-appropriate treatment for children—

“(1) Section 131A of the Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1), insert—

‘(1A) A patient to whom this section applies must not be detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward unless the managers of the hospital consider that—

(a) there are exceptional circumstances which justify the patient’s detention in, or admission to, an adult ward; and

(b) the decision is in accordance with the best interests of the child.’

(3) After subsection (3), insert—

‘(3A) Where a patient to whom this section applies has been detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward, the managers of the hospital must record in writing the reasons for the admission, including—

(a) the reason, or reasons, why other options for accommodation were not available or suitable for the patient;

(b) details of the measures to be taken by the hospital to ensure that, while the patient is detained or otherwise accommodated in the adult ward, the patient is provided with care in a safe environment; and

(c) unless it has been determined that an adult ward is the most appropriate environment for the patient in accordance with subsection (1A), the steps being taken by the hospital to transfer the patient to more appropriate accommodation.

(3B) Where a patient to whom this section applies is—

(a) detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward or in a local authority other than the local authority in which the patient was ordinarily resident; and

(b) the detention or admission is of more than 24 consecutive hours' duration, the managers of the hospital must notify the regulatory authority immediately, setting out why they consider that the requirements under subsection (1A) above are met and providing the information set out in subsection (3A).

(3C) Subsection (3D) applies when—

(a) the managers of a hospital accommodate a patient to whom this section applies in an adult ward for a consecutive period of at least 28 days; or

(b) detain or admit a patient to whom this section applies who—

(i) was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted in the area of a local authority other than the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated, or

(ii) was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority.

(3D) Where this subsection applies, the managers of the hospital must immediately inform the appropriate officer of the responsible local authority—

(a) of the patient's detention or admission, and

(b) when the patient's detention or admission ceases.’

(4) Leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘(4) In this section—

(a) “adult ward” means a ward in a hospital to which persons aged 18 or over are detained in or admitted to;

(b) “the appropriate officer” means—

(i) in relation to a local authority in England, their director of children's services, and

(ii) in relation to a local authority in Wales, their director of social services;

(c) “hospital” includes a registered establishment; and

(d) “the responsible authority” means—

(i) the local authority appearing to the managers of the hospital to be the authority within whose area the child was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted, or

(ii) where it appears to the managers of the hospital that the patient was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority, the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated.’”

This new clause seeks to ensure that children are only placed on adult wards where there are exceptional circumstances, and it is in their best interests. It includes procedural safeguards for determining the reasons behind (and suitability of) admitting a child to a hospital environment in which adults are simultaneously accommodated or in an out of area placement, along with notification requirements.

New clause 30—Application in respect of patient already on hospital grounds—

“(1) Section 5 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Application in respect of patient already in hospital) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after ‘or,’ insert ‘that the patient has attended a hospital or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient or,’.

(3) After subsection (2), insert—

‘(2A) If, in the case of a patient who—

(a) is an outpatient in hospital; or

(b) has attended hospital to seek treatment as an outpatient; or

(c) has attended hospital to seek admission as an inpatient,

it appears to the registered medical practitioner assessing the patient that an application ought to be made under this Part of this Act for the admission of the patient to hospital, the registered medical practitioner may furnish to the managers a report in writing to that effect; and in any such case the patient may be detained in the hospital for a period of 72 hours from the time when the report is so furnished.’

(4) In subsection (3), after ‘(2)’ insert ‘or (2A)’.”

This new clause would allow people who have attended or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to be detained for assessment under the Mental Health Act.

New clause 31—Costed plan to ensure community provision for individuals with learning disabilities and autism who are at risk of detention—

“(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a fully costed plan for how Integrated Care Boards and local authorities will ensure provision of adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people who are at risk of detention under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

(2) As part of the development of that plan, a formal consultation process must take place to determine how the decision to enact the relevant parts of this Act will be made.

(3) The consultation must include input from relevant stakeholders, including—

(a) individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people;

(b) carers for people with learning disabilities and autistic people;

(c) healthcare professionals; and

(d) advocacy groups.”

This new clause would require a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under Part 2 of the 1983 Act, informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders.

New clause 32—Mandatory Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews for patients detained in long-term segregation—

“In the Mental Health Act 1983, after section 142D (inserted by section 52 of this Act) insert—

‘142E Mandatory Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews for patients detained in long-term segregation

(1) A notification of any use of long-term segregation for a patient detained under this Act must be issued to the Care Quality Commission, the hospital’s Board of Directors and the relevant NHS Commissioner within 72 hours of the person being placed in long-term segregation.

(2) Upon receipt of a notification under subsection (1), the Care Quality Commission must appoint a qualified professional to conduct an Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Review.

(3) The independent reviewer must—

(a) conduct a face-to-face assessment of the patient,

(b) consult with the patient’s family or carers, where appropriate,

(c) review the patient’s care and treatment plan, including the rationale for continued segregation, and

(d) assess whether alternatives, including ward or community-based alternatives, were considered prior to the implementation of long-term segregation.

(3) Where the assessment under subsection (3)(d) reveals that alternatives were not adequately considered, the independent reviewer may require the detaining organisation to—

(a) provide justification for this omission, and

(b) outline steps to ensure that alternative options are considered in future cases.

(4) The independent reviewer has authority equivalent to a second opinion appointed doctor to—

(a) confirm the appropriateness of the long-term segregation,

(b) recommend amendments to the treatment plan, and

(c) require alternative interventions if long-term segregation is deemed inappropriate.’”

This new clause requires independently chaired reviews for any person detained in long-term segregation, in line with the recommendations of Baroness Hollins’ report on solitary confinement for people with autism and learning disabilities.

New clause 33—Mandatory Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews for patients with autism or learning disability detained for more than 5 years—

“In the Mental Health Act 1983, after section 142D (inserted by section 52 of this Act) insert—

‘142E Mandatory Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews for patients with autism or learning disability detained for more than 5 years

(1) Where a person with autism or a learning disability has been subject to compulsory detention under this Act, including by virtue of a community treatment order, for a continuous period of 5 years or more, the Care Quality Commission must appoint a qualified professional to conduct an Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Review (ICETR) of that person’s care and treatment.

(2) The independent reviewer must—

(a) conduct a face-to-face assessment of the patient,

(b) consult with the patient’s family or carers, where appropriate,

(c) review the patient’s care, education (where applicable), and treatment plan, including the rationale for continued detention or the continuation of a community treatment order, and

(d) assess whether alternatives to continued compulsory detention, including community-based or less restrictive options, have been adequately considered.

(3) The Care Quality Commission must ensure that a further ICETR is conducted at intervals of not more than 12 months for so long as the person remains subject to compulsory detention under this Act or to a community treatment order.

(4) Where the assessment under subsection (2)(d) reveals that alternatives to continued detention or community treatment were not adequately considered, the independent reviewer may require the detaining organisation or responsible commissioner to—

(a) provide justification for this omission, and

(b) outline steps to ensure that alternative options are fully considered in future reviews.’”

This new clause provides for a new process with independently chaired reviews for any patient with autism or a learning disability subject to detention or community treatment orders for long periods of time.

New clause 34—Grounds for detention—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2 (admission for assessment), in subsection (2)—

(a) omit the ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (a);

(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

‘(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person; and

(c) given the nature or degree of the harm, the patient ought to be so detained.’

(3) In section 3 (admission for treatment)—

(a) in subsection (2), for paragraphs (c) and (d) substitute—

‘(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is so detained,

(c) it is necessary, given the nature or degree of the harm, for the patient to receive medical treatment,

(d) the necessary treatment cannot be provided unless the patient is detained under this Act, and

(e) appropriate medical treatment is available for the patient.’

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘(d)’ substitute ‘(e)’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘(c)’ substitute ‘(b) to (d)’

(4) In section 5(4) (detention for six hours pending application for admission), for paragraph (a) (but not the ‘and’ at the end) substitute—

‘(a) that there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is immediately restrained from leaving the hospital;’

(5) In section 20 (renewal of authority for detention of patient detained in pursuance of application for admission for treatment etc), in subsection (4), for paragraphs (c) and (d) substitute—

‘(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment,

(c) it is necessary, given the nature or degree of the harm, for the patient to receive medical treatment,

(d) the necessary treatment cannot be provided unless the patient continues to be liable to be detained, and

(e) appropriate medical treatment is available for the patient.’

(6) The amendment made by subsection (5), so far as relating to persons who are liable to be detained by virtue of Part 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, applies in relation to such a person whether the person became so liable before or after the coming into force of this section.”

This new clause is intended to replace Clause 5 (see Amendment 43). It would remove from the criteria for detention any reference to ‘likelihood’ or ‘may be caused’, replacing those words with language related to an individual’s risk, in order to simplify a psychiatrist’s assessment of a patient’s levels of risk.

New clause 35—Community treatment order: conditions—

“(1) Section 17B of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Conditions) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(8) The responsible clinician must ensure that a community treatment order complies with the code of practice as set out in section 118(2B) of this Act.

(9) A community treatment order has a maximum duration of 12 months, unless the conditions set out in subsection (10) apply.

(10) The responsible clinician may extend the duration of a community treatment order beyond 12 months only after the responsible clinician has—

(a) consulted the patient, the patient’s nominated persons, and any relevant mental healthcare professional involved in the patient’s treatment or care planning;

(b) undertaken a review to evaluate the ongoing necessity and therapeutic benefit of the community treatment order; and

(c) consulted a General Medical Council registered psychiatrist regarding the conditions of the community treatment order and obtaining their written agreement that an extension is necessary and in accordance with the principles set out in section118(2B).

(11) A tribunal may recommend that the responsible clinician consider whether to extend, vary, or terminate the duration and conditions of a community treatment order.

(12) A community treatment order with a duration of less than 12 months is not subject to the conditions set out in subsection (10).

(13) Where a community treatment order is extended beyond a period of 12 months, the order must be reviewed at intervals not exceeding six months from the date of the extension, in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection (10).

(14) At the conclusion of the initial 12 month period or of any extended period, the responsible clinician must undertake a review to assess the effectiveness of the community treatment order at complying with the code of practice set out in section 118(2B) of this Act.’”

This new clause would set out conditions for the extension of a community treatment order beyond 12 months, and would require such an order to comply with the Mental Health Act’s code of practice.

New clause 36—Age appropriate treatment for children—

“(1) Section 131A of the Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1), insert—

‘(1A) A patient to whom this section applies must not be detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward unless the managers of the hospital consider that—

(a) there are exceptional circumstances which justify the patient’s detention in, or admission to, an adult ward, and

(b) the decision is in accordance with the best interests of the child.’

(3) For subsection (3), substitute—

‘(3) For the purpose of deciding how to fulfil the duty under subsection (2) above, the managers must consult—

(a) someone with parental responsibility for the child, unless it is not deemed in the best interests of the patient for someone with parental responsibility to be consulted; and

(b) a person who appears to them to have knowledge or experience of cases involving patients who have not attained the age of 18 years which makes the person suitable to be consulted.’

(4) After subsection (3), insert—

‘(3A) Where a patient to whom this section applies has been detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward, the managers of the hospital must record in writing the reasons for the admission, including—

(a) the reason, or reasons, why other options for accommodation were not available or suitable for the patient;

(b) details of the measures to be taken by the hospital to ensure that, while the patient is detained or otherwise accommodated in the adult ward, the patient is provided with care in a safe environment; and

(c) unless it has been determined that an adult ward is the most appropriate environment for the patient in accordance with subsection (1A), the steps being taken by the hospital to transfer the patient to more appropriate accommodation.

(3B) Where a patient to whom this section applies is detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward, and the detention or admission is of more than 24 consecutive hours’ duration, the managers of the hospital must notify the regulatory authority and the responsible authority within 48 hours of the patient’s admission, setting out why the managers of the hospital consider that the requirements under subsection (1A) above are met and providing the information set out in subsection (3A).

(3C) Subsection (3E) applies when the managers of a hospital accommodate a patient to whom this section applies on an adult ward for a consecutive period of at least 28 days.

(3D) Subsection (3E) also applies where the managers of a hospital detain or admit a patient to whom this section applies who—

(a) was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted in the area of a local authority other than the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated, unless the hospital is less than 20 kilometres from the patient’s ordinary residence; or

(b) was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority.

(3E) Where this subsection applies, the managers of the hospital must inform the appropriate officer of the responsible local authority without delay—

(a) of the patient's detention or admission, and

(b) when the patient's detention or admission ceases.’

(5) Leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘(4) In this section—

“adult ward” means a ward in a hospital to which persons aged 18 or over are detained in or admitted to

“the appropriate officer” means—

(a) in relation to a local authority in England, their director of children’s services, and

(b) in relation to a local authority in Wales, their director of social services;

“hospital” includes a registered establishment; and

“the responsible authority” means—

(a) the local authority appearing to the managers of the hospital to be the authority within whose area the child was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted, or

(b) where it appears to the managers of the hospital that the patient was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority, the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated.’”

This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which a child can be admitted to or detained on an adult ward for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983, require the hospital to notify the local authority when they have done so, or when they have placed a child in a ward outside their local authority, and require that the parents or legal guardians of the child have access to their child and are consulted about their admission to an adult ward.

New clause 37—Roadmap for the provision of sufficient services for autistic people and people with a learning disability—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a roadmap to outline the Government’s plans for ensuring sufficient community services for autistic people and people with a learning disability to facilitate the operability of section 3 of this Act.

(2) When developing the roadmap under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must engage with relevant stakeholders, including—

(a) autistic people and people with a learning disability;

(b) carers for autistic people and people with a learning disability;

(c) health and care professionals; and

(d) advocacy groups.

(3) Within twelve months of the publication of a roadmap under subsection (1) above and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a monitoring statement on progress made towards implementing the roadmap, including its targets and milestones.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a roadmap outlining its plans for ensuring sufficient community services to enable the implementation of the Act’s provisions on ending the detention of autistic people and people with a learning disability.

Amendment 33, clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—

“(2BA) The Secretary of State shall ensure that each of the following matters is addressed—

(a) the provision of access to advocacy services for patients who have not attained the age of 18, including patients admitted to, or who remain in, hospital in pursuance of such arrangements as are mentioned in section 131(1);

(b) the assessment of ‘competence’ in relation to patients who have not attained the age of 16;

(c) the preparation of care and treatment plans for patients who have not attained the age of 18, including patients admitted to, or who remain in, hospital in pursuance of such arrangements as are mentioned in section 131(1);

(d) matters to be taken into account by an approved mental health professional when deciding who to appoint as a nominated person in circumstances in which the patient has not attained the age of 18 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 of this Act applies;

(e) steps to be taken by managers of the hospital when section 131A of this Act applies including—

(i) matters to be taken into account when determining whether the patient’s environment in hospital is suitable having regard to the patient’s age (including article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (‘the best interests of the child’));

(ii) measures to be taken in cases where a patient who has not attained the age of 18 has been admitted to an environment that provides care and treatment to patients who have attained the age of 18, including—

(A) safeguards to ensure that the patient is provided with care in a safe environment; and

(B) action to be taken to ensure that the patient is transferred to a more age-appropriate environment as soon as reasonably practicable;

(f) matters to be taken into account when determining whether a patient who has not attained the age of 18 should be admitted to a hospital for the purpose of treatment (or assessment, or assessment followed by treatment) of mental disorder which is located in an area falling outside the local authority in which the patient was ordinarily resident, or otherwise living in, prior to such detention or admission and the safeguards to be followed if the patient is so admitted;

(g) an explanation of the arrangements for the commissioning and provision of community and inpatient mental health services for those who have not attained the age of 18.”

This amendment inserts commitments related to children and young people which the Government made in the House of Lords into the section on principles to inform decisions on the Code of Practice.

Amendment 2, clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert—

“(iv) accommodation and relocation, and”.

This amendment ensures the impact of accommodation and relocation is considered in care and treatment reviews for patients with autism or learning disabilities.

Amendment 6, page 5, line 23, at end insert—

“(v) the patient,

(vi) the patient’s nominated person, and

(vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.”

This amendment would ensure that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive copy of a care, education, and treatment review meeting report for children and young people with autism or a learning disability.

Amendment 7, page 5, line 31, for “12” substitute “six”.

This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months.

Amendment 8, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(iii) housing, and”.

This amendment ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care and treatment review meetings.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(v) the patient,

(vi) the patient’s nominated person, and

(vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.”

This amendment ensures that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive a copy of a care and treatment review meeting report.

Amendment 10, page 7, line 40, for “12” substitute “six”.

This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months.

Amendment 11, page 8, line 12, leave out “must have regard to” and insert

“have a duty to carry out”.

This amendment ensures that integrated care boards and local authorities responsible for a patient's treatment and care have a duty to implement recommendations arising from a care and treatment review.

Amendment 12, page 8, line 27, at end insert—

“(ba) the person is under 18 years old and satisfies the conditions in (b)(ii).”

This amendment inserts a new subsection that extends the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to all children and young people under the age of 18.

Amendment 3, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

“(6) The risk factors specified in regulations under subsection (5) must include—

(a) homelessness;

(b) addiction;

(c) domestic abuse;

(d) miscarriage and traumatic birth;

(e) experience of armed conflict; and

(f) bereavement.”

This amendment would specify risk factors for detention for people on the register of people at risk of detention under Clause 4.

Amendment 36, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

“125DA Registers: reviews

(1) Each integrated care board must make arrangements for ensuring that care and treatment review meetings take place in relation to a person included in that board’s register under section 125D if either—

(a) the person consents to meetings taking place and to the disclosure of information in accordance with the arrangements, and to the use of the information in accordance with this Act, or

(b) the person lacks capacity to give that consent but the board considers that it is nonetheless in the person’s best interests for the meetings to take place, and information to be disclosed and used, as mentioned in subsection (a).

(2) In this section ‘care and treatment review meeting’ means a meeting, convened by the integrated care board, for the purpose of reviewing a person’s case in order to—

(a) identify any needs of the person for—

(i) social care provision,

(ii) medical treatment, or

(iii) financial support, and

(b) make recommendations about—

(i) whether and how any such needs can be met,

(ii) how the person’s safety can be ensured while they are at risk of detention, and

(iii) how to reduce any risk of the person being detained in a hospital or registered establishment.

(3) The arrangements under subsection (1) must include arrangements for—

(a) the preparation of a report (whether by the board or another person) setting out the needs identified, and recommendations made, at each meeting, and

(b) the provision of a copy of the report, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which a meeting takes place, to each of the following persons (other than any who prepared the report)—

(i) the responsible commissioner,

(ii) the person’s responsible clinician,

(iii) the integrated care board, and

(iv) the local authority in whose area the person is ordinarily resident.

(The arrangements may also include provision authorising or requiring a copy of the report to be given to other persons.)

(4) The integrated care board shall arrange appropriate provision within 28 days of receipt of a report under subsection (3) to address any needs identified and recommendations made.

(5) The arrangements under subsection (1) must include arrangements for ensuring that—

(a) the first meeting in relation to the person takes place within the period of 28 days from their inclusion in the register under section 125D, and

(b) a further meeting takes place at least once in each successive period of 24 months for which the person remains on the register, beginning with the day on which the first meeting takes place.

(6) A person may withdraw consent to the taking place of meetings and to the disclosure of information in accordance with arrangements under subsection (1).

(7) The arrangements under subsection (1) must include provision about—

(a) how consent to the taking place of meetings or the disclosure of information may be withdrawn;

(b) what is to happen when consent is withdrawn (which may include provision about who is to be informed).”

This amendment replicates the provisions for care and treatment reviews for patients under sections 125A and 125B but for people with autism and learning disabilities who are at risk of detention, in order to identify needs and ensure that those needs can be met without detaining them.

Amendment 37, page 9, line 26, after “125D(3)(c)” insert “and 125DA(3)”.

Amendment 13, page 9, line 29, at end insert—

“(c) seek to ensure that the needs of children and young people can be met without detaining them under Part 2 of this Act.”

This amendment extends the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.

Amendment 38, page 9, line 32, after “125D(3)(d)” insert “and 125DA(3)”.

Amendments 37 and 38 are consequential on amendment 36 and would ensure that integrated care boards and local authorities have regard to reports from care and treatment review meetings with people on their registers when commissioning services.

Amendment 24, page 9, line 38, at end insert—

“125ZF Crisis accommodation: duty to assess and provide

(1) In exercising its functions under section 125E, an integrated care board must assess the need for appropriate crisis accommodation for autistic people and people with a learning disability within its area.

(2) Where such need is identified under subsection (1), the integrated care board must ensure appropriate crisis accommodation is available, either—

(a) within its area, or

(b) through arrangements with other integrated care boards for regional provision.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘appropriate crisis accommodation’ means accommodation which—

(a) is designed to meet the specific needs of autistic people and people with learning disability during periods of acute mental health crisis;

(b) is staffed by persons with specialist training in supporting autistic people and people with learning disability;

(c) provides a safe alternative to detention under section 136 of this Act;

(d) is developed through co-production with autistic people and people with learning disability.

(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the assessment of need and provision of crisis accommodation under this section.”

This amendment requires ICBs to assess need and ensure provision of appropriate crisis accommodation, either locally or regionally, designed specifically for autistic people and people with learning disability in crisis.

Amendment 14, page 10, line 5, at end insert—

“125FA Report: sufficient commissioning services for people with autism or learning disability

(1) Within four months of the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a plan to allocate sufficient resources for commissioning services regarding the treatment and detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities to ensure operability of provisions in this Act.

(2) The plan must include—

(a) revised assumptions of the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who may require detention under this Act;

(b) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure community services are available to meet demand after the 28-day detention period;

(c) plans for data collection to support commissioning sufficient services;

(d) plans to allocate appropriate resource to ensure operability of services, including, but not limited to, financial resource;

(e) plans to ensure that responsible bodies and individuals receive the necessary training to carry out support, diagnostic, and treatment plans.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a plan within four months to ensure sufficient services, resources, data, and training are in place to support autistic people and those with learning disabilities under the Act.

Amendment 25, page 10, line 5, at end insert—

“125FA Assessment: provision of services for autistic people and people with a learning disability

(1) Each financial year, an integrated care board must—

(a) conduct an assessment of the availability and adequacy of services within its area for autistic people and people with a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act;

(b) publish the results of the assessment; and

(c) publish an action plan to address any gaps in provision identified.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of—

(a) the availability of appropriate crisis accommodation;

(b) the availability of appropriate community support services;

(c) the adequacy of training for responsible bodies and individuals to carry out support, diagnostic and treatment plans; and

(d) the experiences of autistic people and people with a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers.

(3) The integrated care board must consult the following in conducting the assessment—

(a) autistic people and people with a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers;

(b) the relevant local authority or authorities;

(c) providers of relevant services; and

(d) such other persons as the integrated care board considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the conduct of assessments under this section, and integrated care boards must have regard to this guidance.”

This amendment would require integrated care boards to conduct and publish annual assessments of the provision available for autistic people and people with learning disability at risk of detention and to prepare action plans to address any identified gaps.

Amendment 26, page 10, line 5, at end insert—

“125FA Report: services for autistic people and people with a learning disability

(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this section coming into force and annually thereafter, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the availability of appropriate accommodation for autistic people and people with a learning disability detained under this Act;

(b) the number of instances where appropriate accommodation could not be found within statutory timeframes;

(c) the progress towards implementation of sections 3 and 4 of the Mental Health Act 2025 and the impact of any delays to implementation on autistic people and people with a learning disability; and

(d) progress made towards meeting the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability without detaining them under Part 2 of this Act.

(2) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) autistic people and people with a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers;

(b) integrated care boards;

(c) local authorities; and

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the availability of appropriate placements for autistic people and people with learning disability and on progress implementing the relevant provisions of the Act.

Amendment 28, page 10, line 5, at end insert—

“125FA Training standards

(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about training standards for responsible bodies and individuals working with autistic people and people with a learning disability in—

(a) mental health hospitals;

(b) places of safety designated under sections 135 or 136 of this Act;

(c) crisis accommodation; and

(d) such other settings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—

(a) specify minimum training requirements;

(b) require training to be co-produced with autistic people and people with learning disability and their families or carers;

(c) require regular refresher training; and

(d) include training on de-escalation techniques and alternatives to restraint.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the standards set out in regulations under subsection (1).

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on minimum training standards for staff working with autistic people and people with learning disability in mental health settings and require that training be co-produced with people with lived experience and their families.

Amendment 43, page 11, line 15, leave out clause 5.

Amendment 44, clause 6, page 12, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert—

“(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment,”.

This amendment is linked to NC34

Amendment 45, page 12, line 29, for “degree and likelihood” substitute “or degree”.

This amendment is linked to NC34

Amendment 15, page 12, line 40, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Any person subject to a community treatment order must be informed orally and in writing at the time of the making of the order of their right to an independent mental health advocate under section 130A of this Act.’”

The amendment would ensure that people who are to be subject to a community treatment order would receive information about their right to advocacy.

Amendment 16, clause 8, page 14, line 13, after “treatment” insert

“including the setting in which treatment takes place,”.

This amendment ensures that the definition of appropriate medical treatment includes the setting in which treatment takes place.

Amendment 17, clause 18, page 26, line 22, at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may only be made to provide for circumstances where—

(a) the treatment is immediately necessary to save the patient’s life,

(b) obtaining a second opinion would cause a delay that places the patient at a significant and imminent risk of death or serious physical harm, and

(c) the treatment is reversible.”

The amendment limits the power to dispense with a second medical opinion for urgent electro-convulsive therapy to exceptional, life-threatening cases, introduces periodic reviews of its use, and ensures transparency by prohibiting retrospective application.

Amendment 4, clause 21, page 29, line 28, at end insert—

“(ab) containing steps to alleviate social and financial stressors contributing to the patient’s risk of requiring detention in future; and”.

This amendment would require social and financial stressors be addressed in care and treatment plans.

Amendment 40, page 29, line 30, at end insert—

“(c) containing an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community.”

This amendment would require consideration to be given to public safety in care and treatment plans.

Amendment 18, page 29, line 39, at end insert—

“(iii) the discussion of the person’s finances and financial situation.”

This amendment ensures that the care and treatment plan includes matters relating to the patient’s financial circumstances.

Amendment 1, page 29, line 41, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of preparing a plan under this section, a discharge planning meeting must be held.

(4B) A meeting under subsection (4A) must include—

(a) the patient;

(b) the patient’s nominated person;

(c) any independent mental health advocate acting for the patient;

(d) a representative of the integrated care board;

(e) a local housing officer;

(f) a local authority social worker;

(g) a representative from the Department for Work and Pensions; and

(h) any other person or agency involved in the patient’s care or likely to support recovery in the community.

(4C) A care and treatment plan under this section must include—

(a) actions agreed by relevant agencies to support the patient’s recovery;

(b) provisions to address clinical, financial, housing, and social needs;

(c) steps to reduce the likelihood of readmission or further detention under this Act; and

(d) a record of any points of disagreement and how they are to be resolved.

(4D) Where an agency listed under subsection (4B) fails to attend a discharge planning meeting, the responsible clinician must take reasonable steps to obtain their input in writing and record it in the plan.

(4E) For the purposes of subsections (4A) to (4D), the Secretary of State must issue guidance on best practice for discharge planning meetings and multi-agency collaboration.”

This amendment would require the clinician preparing a care and treatment plan to hold a multi-agency planning meeting to inform it, and specifies what must be included within the plan.

Amendment 19, page 29, line 41, at end insert—

“(4A) The information authorised or required to be included in, or attached to, a care and treatment plan by virtue of regulations under subsection (3) must include provision to protect the patient's housing and accommodation during and immediately after they are subject to a care and treatment plan.”

This amendment ensures that protection of housing and accommodation are considered as part of care and treatment plans.

Amendment 20, page 30, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) following the patient turning 18 years of age during the course of a care and treatment plan.”

This amendment ensures that individuals turning 18 during a care and treatment plan have their plans reviewed to maintain continuity of care while transitioning from child to adult services.

Amendment 39, page 30, line 26, at end insert—

“(vii) for a relevant patient who has not yet reached the age of 18, the parents or legal guardians of the relevant patient, unless that is not deemed in the best interests of the patient.

(5A) Any care plan prepared under this section, if prepared for a relevant patient who has not yet reached the age of 18, must include provision for the parents or legal guardians of the patient to be directly involved in the care and treatment of the relevant patient, unless such involvement is not in the best interests of the patient.

(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), the parents or legal guardians must be given regular access to the relevant patient through attendance on the hospital ward.”

This amendment would require a practitioner to consult the parents or legal guardians of a child patient when preparing the patient’s care and treatment plan, require parental involvement in patient care through the plan, and enable those parents (or guardians) regular access to the patient on the hospital ward.

Amendment 27, page 29, line 41, at end insert—

“(4A) Where a patient has autism or a learning disability, the care and treatment plan must—

(a) identify specific crisis prevention strategies appropriate to the patient's individual needs;

(b) identify suitable crisis accommodation options in the event that the patient's current placement becomes unable to meet their needs;

(c) specify how the patient's sensory needs will be met;

(d) specify communication approaches appropriate to the patient's needs; and

(e) record the views of the patient’s family members or carers, where appropriate and with the patient's consent.”

This amendment would ensure that care and treatment plans for patients with autism or learning disabilities include specific components addressing their particular needs, including crisis prevention strategies and identification of suitable crisis accommodation options.

Amendment 22, clause 45, page 56, line 37, at end insert—

“(5A) An ‘advance choice document’ under subsection (5) should include consideration of the person’s financial circumstances.”

This amendment ensures that the advance choice document includes matters relating to the patient’s financial circumstances.

Amendment 32, page 58, line 2, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (3), insert—

‘(3ZA) After-care provision under subsection (3) above may include, for patients who have not yet reached the age of 16, appropriate Early Help services in the community.’”

This amendment would ensure that, when a tribunal is discharging a child who has experienced a mental health crisis, the tribunal may recommend that they are referred to appropriate Early Help services as part of their after-care planning.

Amendment 29, clause 46, page 59, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) After subsection (6), insert—

‘(6A) After-care services under this section may include provision for authorised community pharmacies to dispense emergency and ongoing medication in line with after-care plans.

(6B) Community pharmacies providing services under subsection (6A) must be—

(a) given access to suitable training and resources;

(b) integrated into the local primary care team, with appropriate access to prescribing professionals and multidisciplinary support; and

(c) given appropriate remuneration and reimbursement for providing after-care services.

(6C) Responsible bodies must carry out due diligence of any pharmacy operator before authorising them to provide after-care services under this section.

(6D) Due diligence checks under subsection (6C) must include ensuring that—

(a) the operator is not in significant arrears in respect of staff wages, supplier payments or other financial obligations;

(b) the operator can demonstrate the financial capacity to sustain additional locations without compromising existing services; and

(c) the operator has an established record of compliance with relevant regulatory and contractual requirements.

(6E) Where due diligence checks under subsections (6C) and (6D) determine that a pharmacy operator is failing in its existing financial obligations, the pharmacy operator must not be authorised to take on new after-care service locations.’”

This amendment would allow community pharmacies to be reimbursed for dispensing medication under the aftercare provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, and would ensure that they have access to relevant training, that they are integrated into the primary care team, and that the responsible body carries out due diligence checks on their financial health.

Amendment 30, page 59, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) After subsection (6), insert—

‘(6A) After-care services provided under this section must include the availability of family support workers.’”

This amendment would require the provision of family support workers as part of the after-care provisions under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Amendment 31, page 59, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) After subsection (6), insert—

‘(6A) When determining the adequacy of after-care services for a specific patient, responsible bodies must take into account—

(a) whether the patient lives in a rural or urban area;

(b) associated travel times between the patient’s residence and after-care services;

(c) the patient’s levels of contact with others in their community; and

(d) the views of local transport authorities and operators and relevant community transport or volunteer groups on levels of accessibility to after-care services.

(6B) The responsible body must ensure the provision of outreach or visiting services to isolated individuals eligible for after-care under this section, including to those in remote or agricultural areas.’”

This amendment would ensure that the needs of individuals living in rural areas are accounted for when providing after-care services under the Mental Health Act 1983, and that local transport operators are consulted on how easy it is to access these services.

Government amendments 34 and 35.

Amendment 41, schedule 2, page 77, line 21, at end insert—

“(3) Where the patient has not yet reached the age of 16 (the ‘child patient’), the nominated person must be a person with parental responsibility for the child patient, unless the factors set out in sub-paragraph (4) below apply.

(4) A person who has parental responsibility for a patient under the age of 16 (‘the parent’) must not be the nominated person if—

(a) the parent is subject to a prohibited steps order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989;

(b) a local authority is taking action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard the child patient or otherwise protect the child patient’s welfare due to concerns about the parent; or

(c) the local authority has made enquiries under section 47(1) of the Children Act 1989 and concluded that the child patient is suffering, or is likely to suffer, harm at the hands of the parent (within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10) of that Act).”

This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under the age of 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient, unless there are safeguarding concerns.

Amendment 42, page 80, line 13, after “2(2))” insert

“, has parental responsibility for the patient, subject to conditions (see paragraphs 2(3) and 2(4)),”.

This amendment is connected to Amendment 41; it would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient, unless there are safeguarding concerns about that parent.

Amendment 5, page 86, line 38, at end insert—

“18A In section 130B (arrangements in relation to independent mental advocates: England), after subsection (3)(d), insert—

‘(e) support the patient’s carer and family members to prepare for the patient’s discharge from hospital treatment, and

(f) support the patient to access help with social and financial stressors that might otherwise increase their likelihood of future detention.’”

This amendment extends the support offered by Mental Health advocates to cover social and financial stressors and support for family carers and other members of the household when the patient is discharged.

Amendment 23, schedule 3, page 90, line 32, after “patient” insert

“or English qualifying informal patient under 18”.

This amendment extends the provision of opt-out advocacy services in England to informal in-patients under 18. \p Zöe Franklin: I am honoured to open today’s debate on Report and to have served in Committee, where it was clear that Members on both sides of the House shared a commitment to high-quality mental health care for those in crisis. I thank my colleagues who also served in Committee; it was an informative and moving discussion. It is that commitment to high-quality mental health care that underpins new clause 2. It addresses a critical issue: the inconsistency and inadequacy of care in mental health units across England.

I am sure we have all heard distressing accounts of vulnerable individuals being placed in units that are understaffed, unsafe and ill equipped for recovery. Families entrust the system with their loved ones during moments of crisis, only to find that trust undermined—not by a lack of compassion, but by a lack of national direction. New clause 2 seeks to change that by establishing a national strategy and annual reporting to ensure that every mental health unit is safe, well-staffed and fit for purpose.

In my Guildford constituency, a family recently shared with me their experience of a loved one’s stay in a mental health facility. The unit was understaffed from the outset and wards were mixed in age and illness, with little therapeutic structure. There was no clear advocate or caseworker, and the family did not know whom to contact. They described a system that, in their words,

“dishes out drugs without improving mental health or wellbeing.”

The setting was so short-staffed that their loved one was able to self-harm—an unacceptable failure in any care setting. New clause 2 aims to prevent such failures from recurring.

The Care Quality Commission has repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of mental health wards, citing staff shortages, poor infrastructure and environments that are unfit for therapeutic care. In 2023, the King’s  Fund reported that 40% of NHS mental health providers were rated “requires improvement” or “inadequate” on safety—figures that would be intolerable elsewhere in the health system. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body has identified systematic risks in in-patient mental health care, including delayed responses to distress, inappropriate use of restraint and a lack of therapeutic staffing models. Perhaps most starkly, the British Medical Journal reported over 17,000 serious incidents in mental health services between April 2022 and March 2023. Each one was a moment when care went seriously wrong. These are not just statistics; they represent real people who deserve better.

New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish a national strategy within 12 months to ensure that all mental health units meet or exceed “good” safety standards under the CQC framework, and to report annually to Parliament. It focuses on three key areas: recruitment, retention and training of staff; safe staffing levels and patient-to-staff ratios, especially during nights and peak times; and ongoing accountability through public reporting. The new clause would make patient safety a national obligation, not a postcode lottery. It is about responsibility and transparency.

Although the Bill modernises detention criteria and patients’ rights, it does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to guarantee basic safety and staffing standards, and new clause 2 would fill that gap. Some may worry that it would be too prescriptive or add bureaucracy, but it would not replace local management; it would support it. It would build on the CQC’s role by ensuring that action is taken when failings persist, and it would turn inspection findings into a driver of national improvement.

On cost, unsafe care is already expensive. It leads to readmissions, litigation, staff burnout and the loss of public trust. A national strategy would allow for smarter investment, preventing failures rather than paying for them later. We have had decades of guidance and reviews, but what we have not had is statutory accountability. My new clause would deliver that.

New clause 2 is focused, deliverable and urgently needed. It complements the Bill by ensuring that the rights it enshrines are backed by safe, well-staffed and properly regulated environments. Without it, we risk legislating for rights in theory while leaving patients unsafe in practice. By supporting it, we affirm that mental health care deserves the same national standards as any other branch of healthcare. I urge Members to support new clause 2 and make safety, dignity and accountability a permanent part of our mental health law, and I look forward to the debate in this House today. \p Lewis Atkinson: Many Sunderland families, including mine, share stories of Cherry Knowle, the Sunderland borough asylum in my constituency, which opened in 1895. Severe mental illness has always been a feature of society. Thankfully, the legislative framework and services have developed somewhat since 1895, but arguably they have not developed fast enough, particularly over the 42 years since the Mental Health Act 1983 was passed. At the start of my NHS career, I spent time shadowing staff on the wards of the then Cherry Knowle, which in 2014 was replaced by a  much better facility in Hopewood Park in Ryhope in my constituency. To this day, 2,825 adults are detained under the Mental Health Act in Sunderland Central as a result of that facility.

I commend the Government’s work on this Bill in continuing to develop the much-needed rights of patients subject to the Mental Health Act. Today, I want to focus on new clause 35, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), and new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), particularly on the community elements of the Bill.

The Government are rightly committed to parity of esteem between physical and mental health. As mental health services have developed in recent years, they have increasingly and rightly been delivered in the community, in the least restrictive environment possible, but for that to be done safely and appropriately, there needs to be parity of esteem and access to community mental health services just as there is to physical health services, which is not currently the case.

There are unacceptably long waits for community mental health. There are nearly 15,000 people waiting over 18 months for community mental health treatment, which is eight times as many as for physical health treatment, yet the Government’s 18-week referral to treatment standard applies only to physical health conditions and not to mental health. It is true that there are serious challenges methodologically in measuring mental health waits, and we have to be careful not to introduce a target that distorts clinical behaviour. However, if we are serious about parity of esteem, I urge the Government and all others to consider how to improve mental health waiting times and, indeed, the reporting of them. New clause 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, addresses some of those challenges by requesting that the Secretary of State reports on the adequacy of community services for people with autism and learning disabilities. She is absolutely right to highlight that, and it is the same for all patients subject to the Mental Health Act.

A lack of resources in community services also has an impact on the implementation of community treatment orders, and having the opportunity to review then adequately is key to their not feeling like an ongoing sentence, as the charity Mind has highlighted. New clause 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, is to be commended in that it would ensure that community treatment orders are sufficiently and robustly reviewed.

When I spoke to a senior NHS mental health leader recently, he told me that, through community services, the NHS already knows nearly everyone who gets into a mental health crisis or ends up getting sectioned and detained in a mental health in-patient bed. Improving mental health community services is key to improving the mental health of the nation, as is ensuring that resources for mental health are used appropriately. The clinically led review of mental health standards in 2022 under the last Government recommended a four-week access standard for mental health services, yet the current average wait is more like six weeks. As this legislation is operationalised, I would like to see work on how to bring down those waits. Would the Minister reflect on that in his speech?

NHS England recently introduced six pilots for the transformation of community mental health services. Some of that work is being delivered by my local mental health trust—the Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS foundation trust—and I think it shows promise. As we consider these amendments to the Bill, I would be interested to see how the learning from those pilots can be taken forward to further improve community mental health services. \p Sojan Joseph: Similarly, a community service called Mental Health Together has been introduced in my area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole mental health system is so complex, with different practices in different parts of the country, and that not having continuity and a standard across the country is a big issue for mental health? \p Lewis Atkinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his intervention. Part of the issue around poorly reported waiting times is that it is less easy to see that differential access than it would perhaps be in physical health services. Indeed, over the years when specialist teams have been set up—for example the early intervention and psychosis teams and assertive outreach teams, which I know my hon. Friend knows well given his professional background—they have been introduced with very good intentions and to target specific needs, but they sometimes make it more difficult for patients to get overall care rather than very specialist care for individual conditions.

I will not take any more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will just say that the mantra of investment and reform applies to mental health services, as it should apply to all our health services. For us to make further progress in pursuing parity of esteem between mental health and physical health, we not only need to consider these amendments today and pass the Bill to modernise the legislation, but ensure the Government have sufficient political priority on producing and improving mental health services. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Members will have noticed that many people are standing to speak and there is not a significant amount of time for the debate, so with the exception of Front-Bench contributions, there will be an immediate four-minute time limit. I call the shadow Minister. \p Luke Evans: When we last debated the Bill on Second Reading, I said that protecting someone’s freedom for their own safety is not a licence to own their life, but a duty to help them find it again. That principle still guides us today, because good intentions alone do not mend a troubled system. Compassion without competence is not care; it is sentiment without substance.

On Second Reading, I spoke of bridges and rough roads, and of how resilience and recovery depend on the strength of the structures that carry people through their hardest times. Tonight, we return to that bridge. The question before us is not whether we believe in reform—after all, there is cross-party agreement on that—but whether the Government have built the foundations to make it stand. Warm words are plentiful, but the reality is that too many people are still falling  through the gaps: detentions are still present, community services are stretched, and families are left navigating a maze of bureaucracy while waiting for help that may never come.

We all know that reform cannot be delivered on aspiration alone. It requires a delivery plan, a workforce and a system capable of learning from its own mistakes. We know the chapter on delivery is missing from the 10-year NHS plan and there is further risk tonight that we miss another opportunity. After all, the principles in the Bill are the right ones. They are even on the face of the Bill—choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and treating the person as an individual—but those principles need power behind them and that power lies in delivery.

This Report stage is our chance to turn those words into commitments. New clause 31 requires the Government to publish a fully costed delivery plan within 18 months of the Act passing into law, setting out how integrated care boards and local authorities will deliver adequate community services. Crucially, the plan must be developed through consultation with those who know best. That is vital, because although we support the many aims of the Bill, the Government already have a pretty dismal record of announcing reforms without any credible plan to deliver them.

Let us take the ongoing NHS reorganisation. In March, Ministers made a surprise announcement of the abolition of NHS England and its absorption into the Department of Health and Social Care, yet six months on they cannot say what it will cost, how many staff will be lost or how it will be paid for. The Health Service Journal reports growing confusion inside the system and warnings from NHS leaders that the lack of clarity risks paralysing decision making. Written questions to the Government simply receive the answer

“some upfront cost in the millions”

yet independent estimates say the cost is over £1 billion. Even the chief executive, Sir Jim Mackey, points out that the Treasury must agree funding for integrated care board redundancies within weeks or the NHS will have to turn to a plan B.

The same chaos is playing out across integrated care boards, with local leaders warning that there is already destabilisation due to the 50% reductions. If Ministers cannot manage their own top-down reorganisation, why should anyone believe they can deliver a more ambitious overhaul of mental health services without a clear costed plan, especially when waiting lists have risen in the last three consecutive months?

This Labour Government have already cut the proportion of spending on mental health. As Dr Lade Smith CBE, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said at the time:

“It is illogical that the share of NHS funding for mental health services is being reduced at a time of soaring need and significant staff shortages.”

Going on, she said that:

“The proportion of NHS funding allocated to mental health services will decrease”,

which will

“equate to these vital services missing out on an estimated £300 million or more that they would have received if their share…had been maintained.” \p Layla Moran: It is a decrease in the proportion of the mental health investment standard for the first time in, I believe, nine years. It is incredibly concerning. It was hard-won, cross-party support that made that proportion go up over time. It was incremental, but it was starting to make a difference to the system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Government clarified whether that will continue in 2025-26? When Baroness Merron came to our Committee, she could not confirm that. If there is not going to be a continuation, the system needs to know by now, frankly, so that it can prepare adequately for it. \p Luke Evans: The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is absolutely right. A simple answer from the Minister today, on Report, would go a long way to alleviating those fears from the mental health sector. I look forward to his response on that.

Amendment 40 would add a simple but important requirement that each care and treatment plan must include an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community. The purpose of the Bill is right; the Government want to make the system more compassionate, therapeutic, patient-centred and modernised, and we strongly agree with that ambition. However, modernisation must go hand in hand with public confidence, and the public and patients themselves must know that every plan for treatment and discharge is rooted not only in care, but in safety.

In Committee, I argued that the framework still omits one dimension, which is public safety. As far as I can see, there is still no explicit requirement in the Bill for clinicians to assess and record the level of risk posed to the public. \p Joy Morrissey: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Constituents have come to me about patients with schizophrenia, for example, who had been released before their psychosis had fully passed, with one such instance tragically ending in the death of another resident. All of these situations could have been prevented if the patient had been kept safely in a bed until they were at a proper level of medication and the psychosis had passed. Does the shadow Minister agree that that is something we need to take forward in this Bill? It is a win-win for all parties. \p Luke Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. Those are the kind of cases that this amendment seeks to deal with. We have only to look at the tragic cases of Nicola Edgington and Valdo Calocane to see how escalating risk happens, with huge consequences for the families, patients and victims.

When I raised this matter in Committee, the Minister gave a very thoughtful answer. He said that:

“if any risk at all to public safety is perceived, that must be documented… It is a basic expectation of the professional management of a particular patient that any risk identified to public safety and protection must be in there.”

I welcome that.

With amendment 40, I am simply asking, if that is indeed the Government’s position, why not make it clear in the Bill? The Minister conceded in Committee that

“I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on whether or not it should be in the Bill. I will come back to him on that, because I would be rather surprised if it were not made very clear somewhere that  that is a basic expectation; if it were not, that would obviously need to be looked at, but I am reasonably confident that it is.” ––[Official Report, Mental Health Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2025; c. 171.]

Unfortunately, expected in practice is not the same as required in law. We know from past reviews that there is a gap in the risk assessment and that communication can be too inconsistent. Putting such a requirement in statute would not be bureaucracy; it would simply clarify that. The Minister may argue that it already exists in professional codes, in the Mental Health Act code of practice or even in risk management frameworks, but the statutory duty does not. Our amendment would put that duty squarely in the Bill.

Talking of safety, I will turn to new clause 29, which would ensure that no child is placed on an adult mental health ward except in truly exceptional circumstances, and only when it is demonstrably in their best interests. The Government argue that guidance already covers that, but this guidance has no teeth; it can be ignored or inconsistently applied. Again, guidance without legal backing is too easily ignored. That was why the Joint Committee on Human Rights argued in its letter that this part of the Bill needs strengthening. The Minister also said that placing these safeguards in legislation would remove flexibility for clinicians in emergencies, but new clause 29 does allow for exceptional circumstances; it simply requires that they are justified, recorded and subject to oversight.

Research from University College London found that there has been a 65% increase in the number of children and young people admitted to adult wards for mental health disorders, and this increase is sharpest among teenage girls with eating disorders. They are the most vulnerable, and they are the ones who bear the brunt of this. \p Joy Morrissey: That is another reason why I am shocked that the mental health budget is decreasing. I am seeing an increase across my constituency—and I am sure it is the same in many others—of girls in secondary school presenting with severe mental health issues, suicidal tendencies and eating disorders, and they are desperately crying out for additional mental health support. \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that support needs to be there. Fortunately, it is not the budget that is reducing but the proportion of funding, and it shows the priorities of this Government when it comes to mental health.

I am concerned that without new clause 29, a child may be harmed or traumatised and placed in an adult ward without proper justification—and it will be little comfort for the family to hear that guidance was breached.

Amendment 41 stands up for the simple but vital principle that when a child is detained under the Mental Health Act, the person legally recognised to act for them—their nominated person—should hold parental responsibility. Only where there are legitimate safeguarding concerns should that be set aside. At first glance, this may seem technical, but it speaks to something profound about how the law views childhood, family and the balance between protection and autonomy.

The Government are right to use the Bill to modernise the old “nearest relative” system, which was too rigid, too bound by bloodline and at times blind to the complexities of family life. Under the Bill, however, a child under 16 deemed competent could nominate any adult—that could be a 19-year-old boyfriend or peer or someone exercising control—and once nominated, that person gets full control. It is a legal authority. We need to ensure that protection is there for the person if there is a breakdown on the family side. [Interruption.] I see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to wind up, so I will solidify my comments into a more erudite approach.

The point is that in law this principle is already clear in the Children Act 1989, which defined it as the foundation stone of what families should look like. With this amendment, I believe we have solved the concerns the Minister had at Committee stage about the state of a family in the modern era. In any other walk of life the legal framework exists, so why would we weaken it when it comes to mental health?

We discussed the issues with A&E and the grey area there in Committee, and I was grateful to the Minister for meeting beforehand to discuss them. I know that he took on my comments about solving the practicalities, and I hope he will look at them seriously.

For this House, there is no greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves—where care ends and where control begins. That is exactly what the House is addressing with this Bill: how to protect without diminishing, how to act with compassion without surrendering precision, and how to empower without imposing. Involuntary care must never be the reflex of a system, be it under pressure or out of principle. The House agrees on this position; the challenge is delivery. Compassion demands more than good intentions. It demands delivery, discipline and detail. With this Bill, the Opposition lays the challenge of delivery. It must be not just a pledge but a plan. The public will judge us all not just on how kindly this House speaks, but on how faithfully it serves those who depend on us most. \p Richard Quigley: I will speak to new clauses 28 and 36 and amendment 39, which I tabled not just as an MP but as a father. After what my family have been through, I believe that any parent would do the same.

Yesterday, alongside the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I had the privilege of hearing Dr Kate Szymankiewicz speak about her daughter Ruth. She shared not only the tragic circumstances of Ruth’s death but the type of person Ruth was: her dream of becoming a vet, her kindness, and how friends described her as a character straight out of an Enid Blyton novel. That is the Ruth her family remember and cherish. As parents, we became part of a world we never wanted to know. I am privileged to have met Kate, but we agreed that we wished our paths had never crossed because of what that meant.

Ruth was admitted to an in-patient facility for treatment of an eating disorder, but instead of receiving the care she needed, her family were shut out and allowed only two two-hour visits per week. They spent more time travelling than they did with their daughter. Ruth was just 14 years old when she fatally self-harmed, just five months into her stay.

Three months from that date, my family were faced with the same hospital, Huntercombe, as the only choice of a bed for our daughter. At that same hospital, when a child asked if they could have an extra type of jam for breakfast in the morning, they were told it did not have the budget, and when asked why Minstrels were no longer part of snack time, they were told that they were eating too many. That is the problem with NHS-funded private provision: even at £900 a night, the operators plead poverty.

My wife and I have two vivid memories of our youngest being prised from us without any warning. We thought that was normal. Six months of nasogastric tube feeding—we thought that was normal. Illegal restraint so bad that it caused post-traumatic stress disorder—we thought that was normal. Forgetting to feed our daughter 11 times—we started to realise that that was normal, but not acceptable. Instead of wishing to improve its practice, the hospital has accused me of making this up.

If a child is facing any other physical illness such as cancer, or even something more short-term that requires a hospital stay, parental visits and involvement are quite rightly seen as a means of enhancing care. I genuinely struggle to understand why our clinical consensus around mental health continues to support a model where already vulnerable children are isolated from their parents—the very people who know and love them most. Children on these wards are treated as wilful—they are not; they are children—and without empathy or sympathy. Many consultants we encountered opted not to apply the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Staff were poorly trained and in fear of psychiatrists, who ruled the roost and prevented people from speaking up. The private equity firms are focused not on long-term treatment but just on turning mental health into money.

My amendments do not seek to undermine the Bill’s strengths, nor the important work undertaken by the Department. In fact, the cross-party support I have received, including from the right hon. Member for Salisbury, reflects how uncontroversial they are.

The Minister and I have had robust and constructive discussions on the matter, but I ask him to confirm that he will do everything in his power to ensure the following. Parents must not be shut out of their child’s care, as evidence shows that regular parental contact enhances care outcomes. The placement of children on adult mental health wards under the Mental Health Act must be limited strictly to exceptional circumstances, and practitioners must be actively compelled where appropriate to involve themselves in the development and delivery of a child’s care and treatment plan.

We have a duty to ensure that the tragic circumstances surrounding Ruth’s death are never repeated. The Government were elected with a phenomenal majority, winning places we never thought possible—including my own constituency of Isle of Wight West—on a platform of meaningful change. If we do not use this moment to do the right thing and acknowledge that children in mental health services need their parents more often than not, I fear that we may never get another chance. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Danny Chambers: I begin by thanking colleagues across the House who have worked so constructively on this long-awaited Bill. There has been a shared recognition that the current mental health system is failing too many people and that reform is urgently needed. I thank the Minister for engaging with us so constructively throughout the process, including as recently as yesterday; it is much appreciated.

When I speak to people in Winchester—I know that hon. Members have very similar stories—mental health is one of the issues that comes up the most. We have families waiting months or even years for treatment, we have parents watching their children deteriorate, and we have people languishing on waiting lists when they would rather be working or studying.

The Bill represents the biggest reform of mental health care in over 40 years. It strengthens patient autonomy, modernises detention procedures and rightly removes police stations from the definition of places of safety. These are vital and much needed steps forward and I know that Members on all sides welcome them.

I will speak briefly to several new clauses tabled in my name, each aimed at strengthening the Bill’s impact for some of the most vulnerable people it seeks to protect. New clause 26 would ensure that every hospital has a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act. This is a vital step to support carers during what can be an unimaginably difficult time and to close blind spots that too often exist when someone is caring for a loved one with serious mental illness.

We know that parental mental health concerns are now the most common factor in children’s social care assessments, and that those children are at much higher risk of developing mental ill health themselves. Yet only about a third of mental health professionals in in-patient settings ask whether a patient is a parent. These children and the carers who support them are too often invisible. By identifying and supporting carers properly, new clause 26 would help close those gaps and ensure that no family has to struggle in silence. \p Luke Evans: We did not discuss this specifically in Committee, but I would be interested to know about the interaction between the independent mental health advocates, which are being expanded and which we all agreed with in Committee, and a new liaison service. I worry about the duplication. Will the hon. Member explain how that crossover would work in practice? \p Danny Chambers: That is a prescient point. At the moment, there is no responsibility to ensure that children in particular, and other carers too, are identified. Even if they are put in advance choice documents, if the person making those decisions does not identify them, that will not come about. We would have to be careful that there is not unnecessary duplication; however, the initiative the hon. Gentleman puts forward is not a belt-and-braces approach to identifying young carers and other carers who are struggling.

New clause 7 seeks to end the detention of children on adult wards, requiring the number to be reduced to zero within five years—other Members have discussed that today—and the Secretary of State to set out how that will be achieved. It simply cannot be right that  children are still being treated on adult wards. It is unacceptable and can seriously hinder recovery and effective care.

Although the Bill rightly focuses on hospital-based treatment, the process has also laid bare how fragile our wider mental health services have become, with the lack of early support in primary and community care and the shortage of initiatives that help people long before they reach crisis point. That is why new clause 14 would place a duty on integrated care boards to ensure that community services have the resources they need to meet the demand and report on that regularly. Keeping people well in their communities must be at the heart of any modern mental health strategy, because if we get the community care right, we prevent crises, reduce pressure on hospitals and help people live healthier, more independent lives.

Finally, new clause 22 would establish a veterans’ mental health oversight officer. That dedicated role would ensure that those who have served our country receive the understanding and tailored care they deserve when they come into contact with mental health services. Too often, veterans experience mental ill health, sometimes linked to their service, and they find themselves in systems that do not fully recognise their unique experiences. The proposal would help change that by providing proper oversight; encouraging joined-up working across the NHS, veterans’ services and the third sector; and ensuring that compassion and accountability sit at the heart of how the Mental Health Act is applied to veterans.

Taken together, the proposals are about making our mental health system even more humane, more joined up, and more focused on prevention and recovery. I hope the Government will take them in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to strengthen this important Bill, which we very much support, and deliver a system that truly supports those who need it most. \p Abtisam Mohamed: I will speak on new clause 35, which sets out the conditions under which community treatment orders can be extended beyond 12 months. Like many across my constituency of Sheffield Central, I know personally how overstretched our mental health services are. My brother lives with complex mental health needs and our family has seen at first hand the impact of a churning workforce, long waiting lists and a lack of community support services, brought about by an unrelenting crisis in funding.

Our system has not been properly expanded or adapted to meet the challenges. Instead, far too many people are detained and restricted, rather than supported to recover. We see this nowhere more acutely than in the overuse of community treatment orders, which were supposed to be a bridge from hospital to home for those who are constantly readmitted to hospital. People have described them as

“a tag that nobody can see, but you know it’s around your mind.”

The evidence shows that they have not met their intended purposes, with three major studies having found no reduction in readmissions or hospital time through their use. Yet despite the previous Government having promised reform, community treatment orders have continued. Reform has been too slow and too narrow in scope.

In Sheffield, we are proud to be one of six national pilot areas for the neighbourhood mental health centres scheme, providing round-the-clock access to local joined-up care. But if these ambitions are to work, they must be matched by real investment, not only in our hospitals and clinical teams but in the voluntary and community sector that so often holds the system together. The community organisations, peer-support groups, faith networks, youth workers and cultural centres are the glue that keep people well between their appointments. They offer culturally competent, person-centred care, reach those whom statutory services often miss, and rebuild trust where the system has failed. Yet too many of these groups are stretched to breaking point, expected to do more with less to fill the gaps left by underfunded public services.

All that is why my new clause would reintroduce a 12-month standard for community treatment orders. It would require a formal review after a year, involving the patient, their nominated person and a second doctor. It would ensure transparency, scrutiny and, crucially, a patient voice in the process. I welcome Ministers’ assurances that a code of practice can provide these safeguards, but guidance can only reflect the law; it cannot replace it. That must be what we do in this House. If we want people to trust mental health services, we must write into legislation the expectation of good-quality, tailored and reliable services; if we want people to have enforceable rights, those rights must be written into legislation; and if we want evidence-based healthcare, we must be bold enough to follow up when the evidence does not demonstrate a policy’s benefit, and reflect that in legislation. \p John Glen: I rise to support new clauses 29, 28 and 39. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who mentioned my constituents and the tragic case of the loss of their daughter, Ruth. My experience of listening to her story has made me support the new clauses.

I want to finish my remarks with what Kate asked me to say in this House. Kate Szymankiewicz is a GP in Salisbury and her husband is a surgeon. Their daughter, Ruth, took her own life aged 14. She was unlawfully killed while in a child mental health facility—that is what actually happened. That is what was exposed in the court case this summer. What happened to Ruth was a tragedy. The system did not work as it was supposed to work. I am anxious today that the Minister should not rely on the advice and understandings of officials, or on the guidance that is in place. I ask that he is really assured in his own mind that the legislation he is going to take forward will mean that this will not happen again.

I will not go into the whole story but, essentially, Ruth was placed in a facility that was a two-hour drive from her home. She was not technically placed out of area, but the family would spend more time driving to see her than they would be allowed to actually spend with her. These are wonderful, loving parents who did everything they could—everything in their power—to support their daughter through a condition that she could and should have recovered from. But because she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act to allow her to be force fed, her parents technically lost many of their rights to involvement in their daughter’s care.  They had a wonderful, loving relationship with their daughter. She was a happy child who was determined to get better, and her family were keen to see that that happened. She was sectioned only to allow her to be fed, but the knock-on consequence was that the dynamic between the parents and their daughter, who was a patient, changed as adult protocols were put in place.

When Kate visited Parliament yesterday, I asked her, “What would you like me to say on your behalf?” And she said this:

“If your child is unwell and must go into hospital, whether that is because of a physical illness such as cancer, or a mental health illness like an eating disorder, they need to know that their mum, or dad, or caregiver, can be there with them, whenever they need, to help them through a scary and vulnerable time.

Children cannot be treated in isolation. They need the support of those who love and know them best—their family. Families need to be at the heart of our health system in order for children to heal and for their families to heal with them.

When the next child is in crisis, which is right now, I ask you all not to turn away, but to grasp this opportunity to make the Mental Health Act a champion for their wellbeing. Please include all these…amendments to safeguard this generation of young people”. \p Richard Baker: The Bill addresses fundamental flaws in our current mental health legislation in relation to the rights of people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I will focus my comments on new clauses 32 and 33, which I have tabled. They are also about vital rights within our mental health legislation and relate closely to the powerful comments made by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley).

New clause 32 would provide for mandatory independent care, education and treatment reviews for patients detained in long-term segregation. In her report, “My heart breaks”, Baroness Hollins highlighted the harms and sufferings that are so often associated with long-term segregation, and assessed how introducing care, education and treatment reviews can reduce the incidence and use of segregation. I very much welcome the provisions on reviews of care and treatment that Ministers have already included in the Bill, but it has now been demonstrated that independently-chaired reviews are making a real difference and lead to inappropriate long-term segregation being challenged and addressed. The human impacts are substantial. New clause 32 would make such reviews a requirement when someone has been placed in segregation for 72 hours.

New clause 33 seeks to introduce a new level of scrutiny in cases where patients with autism or learning disability have been detained for more than five years. I believe there is a very strong case for an additional check and balance when people have been under detention and compulsory measures for so many years. I understand that the latest data for England shows that 350 people with a learning disability or autism who are currently in in-patient units have been detained there for more than 10 years.

In a previous role, I provided advocacy for the family of a young man, Kyle, who has a learning disability. He is a patient in the State hospital in Carstairs in Scotland, but his family live in the north-east of Scotland. His mother and grandmother have to make a round trip of nearly seven hours to see Kyle for visits which have in  the past been restricted to a single hour. Kyle was convicted of no crime when he was admitted to Carstairs in 2009. He has been there for 16 years. The toll that this has taken on his family has been horrendous. The situation is devastating for them, and there is no end in sight. Although it is a case for the Scottish mental health system, it has provided me with an insight into what many people with learning disabilities and their families will be experiencing in England today, and the limitations of mental health tribunals in dealing with these issues.

People with learning disabilities have been losing their liberty for years because of their disability; this is a human rights emergency. It is clear that we have to do far more to prevent these situations from happening. The Bill will help to do that with its welcome measures on prevention, but where these cases are happening now, I believe there should be an additional level of scrutiny—an extra check and balance so that after so long, someone with the right level of authority and expertise can challenge providers to do better and to ask the question, “How can it be that someone has lost their liberty and their right to a family life, because we cannot make their care and treatment work in a community setting?” Although I very much welcome the introduction of the care, education and treatment reviews, I believe we should go further in these circumstances. That is why new clause 33 would make provision for notification to the Care Quality Commission when someone has been detained for more than five years.

This is an excellent Bill. It will do so much for the rights of people with learning disabilities and autism, but there are several areas where I hope the Minister can outline what further ambitions the Government have to ensure that our mental health system is fit for purpose and based on human rights. \p Nusrat Ghani: To squeeze in a few more Back Benchers, the speaking limit is now three minutes. \p Layla Moran: This is a long-overdue and very welcome Bill, but frankly it will not even touch the sides of what most of our constituents and communities need when it comes to the wider mental health landscape. I support many of the amendments to improve it, not least those laid by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I need to make a couple of quick points, because we want the Bill to succeed.

The Minister will know that since December the Health and Social Care Committee has been conducting an inquiry into community mental health services, because we recognise that unless we start tackling these matters upstream, we will not achieve the Bill’s aims. For so many, it feels like they are walking through an NHS desert: they simply cannot get the appointments they need; they do not feel supported; and no one can navigate this complex system.

Just a few weeks ago, while still on maternity leave, I decided to have a keeping-in-touch day and the Committee decided to visit an oasis in this desert—the incredible Barnsley Street neighbourhood mental health centre in Tower Hamlets. Unfortunately, the centre is one of only six pilots set up to this level across the country, but we  heard some amazing stories of how people had been diverted away from in-patient mental health units by an approach that truly puts the patient at its centre. It was inspiring. However, we heard from the centre that its funding will not continue beyond April. It is only just starting to gather the data it needs; system change is desperately needed in this space, but the concern is that the system will change without robust data behind it. My question to the Minister is, will the centres be funded beyond April? If not, how can the Department make decisions about the system based on data that does not represent a full calendar year?

I also want to speak in support of amendment 9. I pay tribute to Cyril and Dianne whose son Leon suffered from schizophrenia for many years and sadly completed suicide in January 2019. He was let down by community mental health services. Leon’s mother, Dianne, saw the illness get worse and worse, and when she tried to re-refer him into the system after he had been detained, she was told, “Computer says no.” This Bill will improve the lives of families like Dianne and Leon’s, because Dianne’s pleas would have been heard under the new nominated persons provisions. Amendment 9 would be an extra step, ensuring that the plan is shared with parents and carers—with the nominated person. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned so doggedly for the inclusion of nominated persons in the Bill. \p Anna Dixon: I am no expert on mental health law, but I do have decades of experience in the health and care sector, and my sister is a psychiatrist. I know that the decision to detain someone with severe mental illness is never taken lightly, and that psychiatrists must weigh up a range of factors and information to come to a final decision. I tabled amendments 43, 44 and 45 and new clause 34 after a number of conversations with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has expressed concern about the wording used in the detention criteria.

Taken together, the purpose of my amendments is to ensure that the detention criteria are aligned with good clinical practice. It is important that they are reflected in the primary legislation, rather than simply relying on a code of practice. They would remove from the detention criteria mention of the terms “likelihood” or “may be caused” to allow psychiatrists to make a straightforward, holistic assessment of individual risk in the context of significant mental disorder. The risk is that “likelihood” suggests that it is possible for clinicians to predict serious harms such as violence or suicide when it is not possible to do so, while the idea of causation neglects the fact that complex background conditions can be the genesis of a harm. There is a risk, too, that the language may lead to preventive detention—more detention, not less. It is always easier with hindsight, when unexpected harms have happened, to oversimplify causation and ask, “Why was this person not detained?

It is critical that those tasked with interpreting detention criteria feel comfortable with what they are interpreting. I believe that the Bill, in its current form, risks inadvertently leading to defensive practice, which, as we know, is not usually good-quality care. I hope that the Minister will explain how he will ensure that the detention criteria, as drafted, will not lead to those unintended consequences. Of course, I welcome the fact that the Bill puts into  practice the principles of the Wessely review, and in particular the aim of reducing detention in favour of supporting more people in the community.

However, there will always be instances in which people do need to be detained in an in-patient setting, so investment in those facilities is vital. I am delighted that Lynfield Mount hospital in my constituency has recently secured funding to implement a fantastic plan to upgrade its in-patient facilities, which will help to ensure that people are treated closer to home, get support to recover, maintain relationships with family, friends and colleagues, and restart their lives after detention. I commend the amendments to the Minister. \p Gregory Stafford: As a member of the Bill Committee, I had the opportunity to closely examine the development and scrutiny of this Bill alongside my Opposition colleagues. We sought to strengthen the legislation, particularly in relation to safeguarding children and ensuring robust protections for those admitted under the Mental Health Act framework.

Given the shortness of time, I will speak only about amendments 41 and 42. They make the vital clarification that the nominated person for any patient under the age of 16 must have parental or guardian responsibility unless there are clear and established safeguarding concerns. In essence, that would ensure that the parents remain the lawful decision-makers and the first and most natural safeguards for their child’s welfare.

Let us consider, for a moment, what is at stake. Imagine a vulnerable 14-year-old girl, frightened and confused during a psychiatric admission. In that moment of distress, a well-meaning adult—or, worse, someone with a hidden agenda—could persuade the child to nominate them as their representative. That individual would then gain legal powers to object to treatment or discharge decisions, while the parents—the very people who know the child best and have both a moral and legal duty to protect them—could be sidelined.

Once such a nomination is witnessed, it carries legal force. The rights and responsibilities of parents could, in effect, be overridden. Although that may sound hypothetical, it is not. Family courts have seen precisely how manipulative individuals exploit vulnerable young people. Groomers, traffickers and abusers thrive in the legal grey zones. If we are not crystal clear that only a court may displace parental responsibility, we risk leaving the door ajar for such exploitation. I ask the Minister to assure the House in winding up that no child under 16 will be permitted to override parental authority simply by nominating someone else, without a full and proper judicial process.

The Bill does have fallback provisions, which are of course welcome, but they are not watertight unless the law explicitly confirms that only a court can transfer or restrict parental rights. \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The only protections that I can see in schedule 2 are an age requirement, a stipulation not to be disqualified by a previous court order, and the presence of a witness. There is therefore no pre-emptive way of protecting people, which is why amendment 41 is so important. \p Gregory Stafford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both he and I made those points in Committee. I am surprised that the Minister does not see the risks here.  The safeguard that my hon. Friend talks about must be beyond any doubt. The amendment in his name provides exactly that clarity. It would prevent unrelated or loosely connected individuals from stepping into a role that rightfully belongs to those with both a legal duty and an emotional bond—the parents or guardians—and it would preserve the fundamental principle that parents should not find their role diminished by accident or administrative oversight.

As I was saying, this is not an abstract risk; it is a very real and foreseeable consequence of the unclear drafting. These amendments do not weaken the rights of patients. They strengthen the protections around them. They ensure that in modernising this law, quite rightly, we do not inadvertently undermine the oldest and most important protection of all: a parent’s duty to safeguard their child. We must ensure that the state can only curtail that right under the strictest judicial scrutiny, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. In doing so, we will make this legislation not only legally sound but, in my view, morally right.

New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), would require local authorities and ICBs to supply a fully costed plan to ensure they are able to provide adequate community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I support that entirely. As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and from speaking to groups in my constituency such as Last Wednesday and Growing Hope, I know that the process around SEND is complicated and not fit for purpose. Fortunately, we have a chance to help it slightly with this Bill, so I ask the Minister to support new clause 31. \p Sojan Joseph: I would like to speak in support of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). On Second Reading, I warmly welcomed the changes that this legislation will introduce regarding autistic people or those who have a learning disability. As a result, it will no longer be possible for someone to be detained in a mental health hospital indefinitely simply because they have autism or a learning disability. In the current system, autistic people and those with a learning disability have experienced inappropriate care, over-medication and extended periods of detention because of a lack of facilities in the NHS and social care, so this change is welcome and long overdue.

The Government have confirmed that the changes will be implemented once the necessary community provision is in place. Establishing strong support in the community is essential for not only enabling safe discharge from hospital settings but preventing unnecessary admissions in the first place. I recognise that the Government are working on setting out what strong community services look like and what resources they require to implement them. From serving with the Minister in Committee, I have no doubt about his commitment to ensuring that this community provision is introduced in a timely manner, but I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that there should be a road map in the legislation that will provide a clear framework outlining how those services will be introduced. After all, ending inappropriate detention requires robust community-based alternatives  to ensure that people with autism or a learning disability who would have previously been detained do not fall through gaps in the system.

Having a road map developed in conjunction with autistic people, people with learning disabilities, their carers and healthcare professionals will help to identify and address any gaps in service provision and workforce capacity. I also believe that it will help to reduce the risk of people with autism or a learning disability needing police intervention or emergency hospital care because the support is inadequate. By putting in place a road map, new clause 37 would help to ensure that we end all the sooner the injustice of people with autism or a learning disability being detained. \p Ian Sollom: I will speak to amendments 24 to 28 and 36 to 38 in my name, which address gaps in crisis provision and accountability for autistic people and people with learning disabilities.

On Second Reading, I told this House about Declan Morrison, my constituent who died aged just 26 after spending 10 days in a section 136 suite that was wholly inappropriate for his complex needs. I remind the House that section 136 suites are designed for 24-hour stays, or a maximum of 36 hours in extreme cases. The coroner who investigated Declan’s death found that

“there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken.”

The timeline of what happened in the run-up to Declan’s death shows a cascade of systemic failures. Declan’s family, Graeme, Sam and Kaitlyn, have asked me to ensure that Parliament learns from what happened. These amendments in my name reflect those lessons and the coroner’s recommendations.

In Committee, the Minister made several points about earlier versions of these amendments, which I have tried to address in these revised versions. In particular, on crisis accommodation, the Minister argued that existing duties on ICBs already cover crisis provision and that the amendment was too prescriptive, potentially restricting ICBs in designing provision, emphasising the importance of flexibility for ICBs to meet local needs. I understand the desire not to be overly prescriptive, but in Declan’s case, over 100 places were contacted and no suitable accommodation could be found anywhere in the country. Flexibility failed Declan.

The revised version of the amendment allows for regional solutions beyond the ICB, but I suspect that the Minister will still find it too prescriptive. However, the fundamental question remains: should there not be a duty to ensure that provision exists somewhere? The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB established a crisis service after Declan’s death that operated at 98% capacity, demonstrating both need and viability, but it closed when funding was withdrawn, highlighting the challenge with voluntary provision. \p Steve Darling: On funding, the Devon partnership NHS trust looks after people with mental health challenges in the Torbay community, where levels of depths of despair are particularly high. The trust is facing a £21 million cut, so does my hon. Friend agree that changes will be irrelevant if we do not have adequate funding? \p Ian Sollom: I agree that resources need to be put in place to support the many good measures in the Bill and in many of the proposed amendments. In Declan’s case, services were created in the wake of tragedy and funding was found, but too often such services disappear when attention moves elsewhere.

I recognise that the implementation challenges are real, and I appreciate that the Minister has committed to providing annual written statements on progress, but I believe the principles in the amendments around crisis provision, proactive intervention, accountability and co-production with autistic people merit consideration. As much as I would like him to, I do not expect that the Minister will have a late change of heart on the amendments today. However, I hope he will be willing to meet me after the Bill receives Royal Assent to discuss how we can work together to ensure the systemic failures that led to Declan’s death are properly addressed during implementation of the measures in the Bill. In stopping those systemic failures, we would honour the memory of Declan. \p Josh Dean: In the interest of time, I will turn straight to new clause 25, tabled in my name.

The Bill sets out a range of situations where the competence of a patient aged under 16 will be relevant, but it does not set out a framework for how it should be determined. That puts patients under 16 years old at a huge disadvantage. Unlike those aged 16 and over, there is no clear mechanism for determining whether a child under 16 can make decisions and the law assumes that under-16s cannot make decisions for themselves, unless they demonstrate they are able to do so. That means that under-16s may not benefit fully from the rights and safeguards set out in the Bill because they are assumed to lack competence to make the relevant decision. For example, they may not be able to exercise their right to choose a nominated person or to access enhanced safeguards around treatment.

There is currently no statutory test for determining a child’s ability to make decisions. While some may refer to Gillick competence, the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill noted that Gillick competence is “broad”, “ambiguous” and that there were significant inconsistencies in its application. A similar observation was made by the Court of Appeal in a decision earlier this year, which also indicated the Court’s approval of a functional test to determine a child’s competence.

New clause 25 addresses this disparity by introducing a “functional test” to determine an under-16’s ability to decide. This reflects the suggested approach in the current code of practice, adopted by some judges. The Law Commission has recommended a similar test as part of its proposed legal reform concerning disabled children’s social care. This test fills a significant gap in the Bill, providing important clarity for professionals when a child’s competence needs to be determined. Crucially, the test set out in new clause 25 is explicitly limited to decisions made under the reformed Mental Health Act. It does not cover decisions falling outside of the Act, so does not affect the existing decision-making powers of the courts or those with parental responsibility. A clear and consistent approach to assessing a child’s competence can only be achieved by including a test on the face of  the Bill, as the code of practice can only reflect the law—it cannot prescribe a test for competence. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point at the end of this debate, and if he would consider meeting me to discuss my amendment in more detail. This Bill has many strengths that will deliver for people and modernise mental health care, and it is crucial that we ensure children and young people can benefit from those strengths in the same way adults can benefit. \p Iqbal Mohamed: This Bill gives us a real opportunity to modernise mental health care and make sure that patient choice and fairness are at the heart of mental health services, but to achieve that, we must first confront the deep inequalities that still shape people’s experience of mental health care, particularly among ethnic minority communities, those facing economic hardship and young people. Like so many issues, the intersectionality between those factors means that some groups face particular challenges in navigating and accessing the help they need.

In Dewsbury and Batley, we see the human reality of that inequality. Rates of depression stand at 15.4%, higher than the national average, and schizophrenia is also more common locally, compared with other constituencies in the UK. Across Yorkshire and the north, mental ill health is consistently higher than elsewhere in England. NHS data and mental health organisations are clear that both ethnic background and wealth disparity play a major role in that gap. People in my constituency are more likely to experience a mental health condition, yet the funding for research and specialised services in the north remains lower. That means less support, fewer beds, and fewer opportunities to provide specialist care.

That is why I strongly support new clause 13, which requires every hospital to have a named person responsible for overseeing race equality in how the Mental Health Act is applied. Black people are still four times more likely to be detained under the Act and eight times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. Without accountability, those injustices will continue. I also support new clause 35, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), which seeks to put limits on CTOs.

We must also do far more for young people. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) powerfully argues for giving under-16s a clearer say in their own treatment decisions. A mother told me how both of her daughters needed mental health support, yet she had to seek private care because local services were overstretched and not up to standard. She pointed me to the Good Childhood Report, which shows that the wellbeing of children in the UK is among the lowest in Europe. I also support new clause 28, which aims urgently to address the need to stop children being placed in adult wards or sent miles away from home for treatment. I welcome the work that West Yorkshire ICB has done recently to expand mental health services for older people, but we must match that ambition for children and young people. If those commitments cannot all be secured through this Bill, they must be delivered in the forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Jen Craft to make the final contribution. All those who have contributed to the debate should make their way back to the Chamber. \p Jennifer Craft: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will be as brief as possible. I will speak to new clause 37, which stands in my name and which seeks to support the Government in ending the scandal of the inappropriate detention of people with a learning disability and/or autism. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability.

Currently, a learning disability or autism, in and of itself, can be grounds for detention under the Mental Health Act. As we all know, this is an absolute scandal—something from a previous age that should be a source of moral shame to everyone in our community. The Bill seeks to address this by removing autism or a learning disability, in and of themselves, as criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act. That offers a lifeline—a light in the tunnel of darkness that a number of people who are detained under the current Act face.

However, the impact assessment for the Bill states that the proposed changes to the detention criteria in clauses 3 and 4

“will only be switched on when systems are able to demonstrate sufficient level of community support”.

The families and carers of those have a learning disability or autism and who are detained under the Mental Health Act, and the organisations that support them and people who advocate for them, know that too often this vulnerable group of people are pushed to the bottom of a list of competing priorities, and very often slide off it.

We know that this Government and the Department of Health and Social Care have a number of competing priorities to deliver on, and the concern for people who fall into this bracket under the legislation is that their concerns just will not be addressed and that this absolute scandal will continue in perpetuity. People who have a learning disability or autism will be detained because our community services just are not up to snuff; we have so categorically failed them that the only thing we can think to do is to lock them away from society. \p Anna Dixon: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Jennifer Craft: I will not, because I am aware that I am almost out of time.

My new clause would ensure that the Government have to set out, within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, a road map that engages in a co-productive way with people with learning disabilities or autism, their advocates and organisations that champion their rights. The road map will design what they need to support them to lead independent dignified lives in the community, and there will be a report every year to say how we are getting community services to a sufficient place so that these much-needed clauses in the Bill can be switched on.

This Bill updates mental health legislation and brings it into the 21st century. It is only right that it does so for everyone in our society, including the most vulnerable. \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank everyone in the Chamber for their contributions to today’s debate. I will start by talking about the deeply moving contributions regarding the tragic death of Ruth Szymankiewicz. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Ruth’s family, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for so powerfully advocating on behalf of Ruth and her family. The circumstances around Ruth’s death were unacceptable and should never have happened. We acknowledge multiple failings in her care.

Turning to the amendments, while we are not accepting any changes to the Bill, I hope that I can assure the House, in the short time remaining, that we are taking action to address the concerns that have rightly been raised. In relation to new clauses 6, 7, 29 and 36, we absolutely do not want young people placed in adult wards, and we are clear that patients should get treatment close to home. However, further legislative restrictions on placements risks leaving clinicians without options in emergencies or preventing treatment that is in the patient’s best interests. NHS England has worked with hundreds of children and families to develop a new service specification for children and young people’s mental health services. The specification is for commissioners and providers to follow, defining the care expected from organisations funded by NHS England to provide specialised care. \p Bayo Alaba: Will the Minister give way? \p Stephen Kinnock: I will, but I have got little time and a lot of amendments to address, so I will not take any further interventions. \p Bayo Alaba: I had the privilege of meeting Helena and Christina, who shared with me the challenges they faced when their mother was sectioned when they were young girls. For two weeks, the responsibility for care was left entirely in their hands while local services struggled to find a suitable bed. Can the Minister confirm that through the Mental Health Bill, in conjunction with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, young carers will be properly identified and that the additional boost in Government investment directly into mental health services will ensure that young carers receive the support they need? \p Stephen Kinnock: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the core purposes of this Bill is to ensure that we catch such issues, particularly around the identification of children in cases where parents are required to be detained. We will reaffirm that children should be treated in the least restrictive, most age-appropriate environment and close to home and family, and that all services would work towards alternatives to admission, such as day care and intensive home treatment, with better support for visits, including with dedicated family areas and overnight stays. We have committed £75 million for systems to invest in reducing out-of-area placements, and I am pleased to report that the number of children placed on adult wards is now decreasing, and that trend must continue.

We have also committed in the Bill to reviewing the existing CQC notification requirements, including whether notification should be extended to other incidents and whether the time period remains appropriate. We will work with families, clinicians and MPs as part of that review. Indeed, following recent conversations with my hon. Friends the Member for Isle of Wight West and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), I have asked officials to host a roundtable next month with Members and experts on how we can provide greater clarity in the code. The focus will also be on NHS England’s service specifications and regulations on the placement of children and young people in adult wards, including determining if a placement is suitable.

The revised code, on which we will engage extensively with—among others—children and their families and carers, will provide further opportunities to address concerns raised in amendments 33 and 39 and new clause 28. The code will also address the issue of competency. We believe that that is more appropriate than a test for competency in the Act, as proposed in new clauses 15 and 25. \p John Glen: Will the Minister give way? \p Stephen Kinnock: I will, but can the right hon. Gentleman please make his intervention very short? \p John Glen: I am grateful to the Minister, and I am also grateful to him for what he said about my constituent. There are so many codes of best practice, and so many guidelines. Can he say a little more about what force the code would have, so that we can have some reassurance that the risks that were so tragic in the case of my constituent will be eliminated? \p Stephen Kinnock: The code of practice will be statutory. It is better to have these provisions in the code, because clinical practice evolves, and it is much easier to revise a code of practice than to go through primary legislation.

We understand the concerns expressed about young carers in new clauses 26 and 27, and recognise that despite existing duties, the right questions are not always being asked to identify children when someone is detained. While we do not agree that additional legal duties are needed, especially as multi-agency working is already being strengthened through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we do agree that we need to make the requirements more explicit. The revised code of practice will therefore specify that when someone is detained, steps must be taken to identify the children of the patient. Information about support that is available must be shared, and if a young carer’s needs assessment is required, the appropriate referral must be made. \p Alison Bennett: Will the Minister give way? \p Stephen Kinnock: I am really struggling for time. I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions, because it is not fair to Members who have tabled amendments.

Amendments 41 and 42 would prevent children with competence from choosing a step-parent or kinship carer as their nominated person if that is the most appropriate person for them. A nominated person can be overruled or displaced if acting against the child’s best interests. Parents will always maintain their rights under the parental responsibility.

Many amendments concern statutory care and treatment reviews designed to help to ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people receive the right care and treatment while detained and barriers to discharge are overcome. Reviews will happen within 28 days of detention, and at least once a year during detention. This can be more frequent, depending on needs. Patients’ families and advocates can request a review meeting at any point. In respect of new clause 32, we have consulted on making some restrictive practices, including long-term segregation, notifiable to the Care Quality Commission within 72 hours.

Let me now deal with amendments 14 and 26 and new clauses 31 and 37. I acknowledge the importance of having a clear plan to resource community provision for people with a learning disability and autistic people to implement these reforms. We have committed ourselves to an annual written ministerial statement on implementation of the Bill post Royal Assent. Following conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), we will work with stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to shape our road map for commencing changes to clause 3. The written ministerial statements will give updates on progress, as well as setting out future plans. It is not possible at this stage for us to commit ourselves to the specifics of implementation and community support, which depend on the final legislation passed, future spending reviews, and engagement with stakeholders to get implementation planning right.

As for the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) about the detention criteria in the Bill, it is vital that the work “likelihood” is included in those criteria to set clear expectations of what clinicians need to consider. However, we are clear about the fact that our intention is not to set a threshold for detention. Under the new criteria, a harm does not have to be likely to justify detention. The criteria require likelihood to be considered holistically, alongside the change, nature and degree of the harm.

I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is keen for me to deal with the question of public safety. The key point is that there are detention criteria in clause 5, which makes a clear reference to harm either to the patient or to other persons. That is clearly a consideration of public safety, and we therefore believe that amendment 40 is surplus to requirements.

I trust that, on the basis of the assurances I have given, Members will be content not to press their amendments and new clauses. \p Nusrat Ghani: Zöe Franklin, is it your pleasure that new clause 2 be withdrawn? \p Zöe Franklin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part X (Miscellaneous and Supplementary), after section 133 insert—

“133A Duty to establish carer liaison service

(1) The managers of every hospital providing services under this Act must establish and maintain a dedicated carer liaison service.

(2) A service established under this section must provide—

(a) support to unpaid carers when a patient for whom they provide care is—

(i) awaiting admission to hospital for treatment under the Act;

(ii) receiving treatment in hospital under the Act;

(iii) set to be discharged from a hospital where they had been receiving treatment under this Act;

(b) timely and accessible information regarding the discharge of the patient they care for, including details of—

(i) the patient's discharge plan; and

(ii) aftercare arrangements under section 117 of this Act;

(c) support for unpaid carers to identify their own needs and connect to relevant local services for post-discharge support, including local authority adult social care services, general practitioners, and local carers' centres;

(d) facilitation of effective communication and collaboration between unpaid carers and the patient's multidisciplinary clinical team regarding the discharge process;

(e) assistance to unpaid carers in developing or updating a carer's support plan in the context of the patient's discharge, including guidance on—

(i) their rights to assessment and support as carers

(ii) their participation in education or employment;

(iii) available counselling services;

(iv) support in planning for emergencies in relation to the patient;

(v) benefits for the carer and patient; and

(vi) other forms of local support; and

(f) services to ensure that the perspective of the unpaid carer, as a key provider of support, is considered during discharge planning, where appropriate and with due regard to patient confidentiality and consent.””—(Dr Chambers.)

This new clause would require hospitals to establish a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 327.

Question accordingly negatived. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Before I ask for the next decision, I remind colleagues in the Chamber that once the doors are locked, Members should not be forcing themselves through the doors to either Lobby.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 19 May).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 40, page 29, line 30, at end insert—

“(c) containing an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community.”—(Dr Luke Evans.)

This amendment would require consideration to be given to public safety in care and treatment plans.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 339.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 34, in page 64, line 34, leave out clause 51.—(Stephen Kinnock.)

This amendment omits Clause 51. It is no longer necessary because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 35, in schedule 2, page 76, line 37, leave out from “patient” to end of line 38 and insert

“means—

(a) a person by whom a nominated person is appointed under Part 1 of Schedule A1, or

(b) a person for whom a nominated person is appointed under Part 2 of that Schedule.”—(Stephen Kinnock.)

This amendment corrects the definition of “patient” in new section 30B(7) (which inadvertently goes too wide since in certain cases it would cover an approved mental health professional).

Amendment proposed: 41, in schedule 2, page 77, line 21, at end insert—

“(3) Where the patient has not yet reached the age of 16 (the ‘child patient’), the nominated person must be a person with parental responsibility for the child patient, unless the factors set out in sub-paragraph (4) below apply.

(4) A person who has parental responsibility for a patient under the age of 16 (‘the parent’) must not be the nominated person if—

(a) the parent is subject to a prohibited steps order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989;

(b) a local authority is taking action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard the child patient or otherwise protect the child patient’s welfare due to concerns about the parent; or

(c) the local authority has made enquiries under section 47(1) of the Children Act 1989 and concluded that the child patient is suffering, or is likely to suffer, harm at the hands of the parent (within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10) of that Act).”—(Dr Luke Evans.)

This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under the age of 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient, unless there are safeguarding concerns.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 333.

Question accordingly negatived.

Third Reading \p Stephen Kinnock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Since the Mental Health Act 1983 was passed, and since it was updated in 2007, attitudes towards mental health have shifted dramatically, and our understanding has grown, but the law has been neglected. That is why this Government were proud to announce this Bill in our first King’s Speech, fulfilling our manifesto commitment and taking the first steps towards ensuring patients are consistently treated with dignity and respect—promise made, and promise delivered.

It is clear that adults and young people with mental health issues have been let down for years, which is why we are transforming the current mental health system through our 10-year health plan, including through recruiting more than 8,500 additional mental health workers, delivering more NHS talking therapy appointments than ever before, increasing the number of mental health crisis centres, and providing access to a specialist mental health professional for every school in England.

Today, we are another step closer to delivering the reforms to dealing with people with severe and acute mental health disorders, a step closer to strengthening and clarifying the criteria for detention, and a step closer to better supporting clinicians to make the right decisions around appropriate care and treatment, including community treatment orders. We want to make sure that patient choice and patient needs are at the heart of decision making. That is why we are introducing these reforms to enshrine in law measures such as the clinical checklist, the use of advance choice documents, the role of nominated persons and the expansion of advocacy services.

We are increasing the scrutiny and oversight of compulsory detention. We are making sure that those patients who are detained have a clear path to recovery and to discharge. We are introducing statutory care and  treatment plans for all patients, so that their needs are met both during and after their hospital stay. To reduce reliance on in-patient care and ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people get the right support, we are limiting the scope for detention. We are also introducing a package of measures to improve community support, including statutory care, education and treatment reviews and dynamic support registers. We are introducing stronger safeguards for people who lack capacity or competence to consent to treatment—a potentially highly vulnerable group. Those patients will receive a second opinion-appointed doctor at an earlier stage in their treatment.

This Bill has been the product of years of work predating this Government, and it is right that we thank hon. Members and peers for their scrutiny and support over many years. We should particularly note the work of the former Prime Minister Baroness May for launching the independent review that paved the way for this legislation, along with the review chair, Sir Simon Wessely, and his vice-chairs, Steven Gilbert, Sir Mark Hedley and Baroness Neuberger.

I thank Members who served on our Public Bill Committee, including the Chairs, and the clerks and all the parliamentary staff who have worked hard to ensure that the Bill was subject to the proper scrutiny while ensuring smooth and quick passage. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and particularly Lord Alton for its report and recommendations. I am grateful to the devolved Governments for their support during the Bill’s passage and to the Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly for granting legislative consent. I thank the Bill team, my private office and all the officials and stakeholders over numerous years who have worked hard to get this legislation to where it is today.

Above all, thanks go to those with lived experience who have bravely shared their personal experiences with us through the independent review, through our consultation with stakeholder groups and through Members across both Houses. The Bill is the product of sustained effort over a number of years. That work will continue following the Bill’s Royal Assent, but none the less it is an important moment to acknowledge and pay tribute to those who have got the Bill to where it is now.

The work continues as we look to implement the legislation. The first priority once the Bill gets Royal Assent will be to draft and consult on the code of practice. We will engage closely with people with lived experience and their families and carers and with commissioners, providers, clinicians and others to do that. Much has been done, but there is much more to do. This Government are delivering on our commitment to modernise the Mental Health Act, and the work begins now to deliver that change on the ground. The Bill will of course now go to the other place, and I thank peers for their previous extensive consideration. I hope the noble Lords will be able to agree to the changes made in this House, so that the Bill can make swift progress to Royal Assent. I commend this Bill to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Stuart Andrew: I want first to recognise and thank everyone for the constructive debates we have heard here and in the other place throughout the Bill’s passage. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for everything he has done on the Bill, especially in Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his expertise, whose involvement with the Bill began before he was elected to this place. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their thoughtful contributions.

This is clearly an important and emotive issue, and the respect and sensitivity that have been shown by all sides is a testament to this House. Since the election, we have said that we would not oppose for the sake of opposition. While we have rightly asked tough questions of the Government, we have done so with the best interests of patients at heart, because everybody here wants to help and support vulnerable people better—those patients with the most severe and complex mental health needs. This Bill, which started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Baroness May for that—and continued under this Government, will achieve that. We welcome efforts to improve the patient’s voice and involvement in their own care, to ensure that patients receive effective and appropriate treatments, to minimise restrictions on liberty so far as is consistent with patient and public safety, and to treat patients with dignity and respect.

Although we are disappointed that opportunities to strengthen the Bill further have been missed, especially in public safety and the protection of vulnerable children, we listened closely to what the Minister said and to his assurances on action, for which we thank him. We will of course continue to push on these matters, not on party political grounds, but because doing so is the right thing for patients.

We are very disappointed that the proportion of health spending on mental health has been reduced. We welcome the Government’s continuation of our work looking again at how we treat and protect people with the most severe mental health illnesses, so that we can improve the safety, treatment and dignity of patients and the wider public, and ensure that our laws remain relevant and proportionate in the modern world. The Government must now turn their words into action and deliver on the commitments that they have made.

I thank everybody again for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill. We are pleased to support its Third Reading. We hope that it will bring improvements for those we all care about: the patients. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Danny Chambers: The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, which makes mental health law much fairer and more compassionate. However, reforming detention law is only half the job, because without investment in  prevention and community care, the Bill risks becoming an improved way of managing failure rather than preventing it. Without proper early intervention, people deteriorate until crisis is the only door open to them.

Melbury Lodge in my Winchester constituency shows what a good partnership can look like: NHS teams working with citizens advice to help patients sort out debts, bills and benefits before discharge—recovery is impossible if patients return home to a pile of threatening letters and bills. Yet schemes like that are the exception, not the rule. Debt, insecure housing, domestic abuse and bereavement are not side issues—they are often root causes—and care plans that ignore them are not truly caring.

Before I bring my remarks to a close, I pay tribute to the extraordinary people working at the frontline of mental health care—nurses, doctors, counsellors, therapists, support workers, carers and charities—who hold up a system that too often feels as if it is collapsing around them. Their compassion and professionalism are the reason so many people make it through their darkest moments. They deserve much more than just thanks; they deserve a system that supports them as much as they support others.

In my years of campaigning for better mental health, including as a trustee of a mental charity and, in the past year, as the Liberal Democrat mental health spokesperson, I have become more convinced that mental health cannot be seen as the responsibility of NHS services alone. It must be embedded across society, in education, healthcare, housing, farming and even in the way we support small businesses.

I thank the Minister and his team for all their work on the Bill and their cross-party engagement, as well as everyone who served on the Bill Committee and the Members who have turned up repeatedly to these debates. One thing that does unite the House is improving mental health care.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 902), dated 21 July 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.—(Jade Botterill.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.—(Jade Botterill.)

Question agreed to. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful to my constituency neighbours and near-neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Congleton (Sarah Russell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) for joining me in the Chamber this evening.

I rise to present this petition concerning the safety of the A500 Audley slip road, which has, along with a corresponding digital petition, received a total of over 260 signatures from residents in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme—the centre of our political universe.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,

Declares that the A500 Audley slip road, where it crosses Alsagers Road, is not currently fit for purpose and is not safe for local residents, drivers or pedestrians; further, recognises that if action was taken by Staffordshire County Council and National Highways to make it safe, there would be fewer accidents and near-misses and less confusion; declares that there are many ways through which safety could be improved, such as by improving signage, such as including a STOP sign, implementing more pedestrian safety measures, introducing traffic lights, reducing speed limits, improving the road layout design, introducing restrictions on re-joining the A500, reducing surrounding vegetation to allow for greater visibility, placing rumble strips on the slip road, improving visibility by redesigning the crash barriers, introducing cameras or other deterrents for dangerous driving, improving road markings, introducing changes to Junction 16 so lorries are not led onto that section of the A500, and introducing yellow lines as a warning for drivers to slow down as they approach the slip road; and further notes that a corresponding online petition on this issue has received a separate 260 signatures.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Staffordshire County Council and National Highways to take immediate action to ensure that the A500 Audley slip road is made safer for local residents, drivers and pedestrians.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme deserve no less.

[P003118] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jade Botterill.) \p Harriet Cross: I secured this debate because what is happening in north-east Scotland simply cannot go on. Hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs are being lost on a regular basis across our region from the world-class energy sector that we are so proud of, not least because of the energy profits levy. These are geologists, engineers, technicians and project managers—highly skilled workers who are nothing but of value to the UK—but they are also people with mortgages, people with families and people who have given decades to an industry that this Government are now destroying through deliberately punitive policies.

Offshore Energies UK warns that, largely because of the EPL and other Government policies on the North sea, almost 1,000 direct and indirect jobs will be lost every month. That is 1,000 livelihoods, 1,000 mortgages and 1,000 families facing uncertainty every single month. OEUK also projects that 42,000 jobs are at risk between now and 2030. Energy workers in north-east Scotland feel like they are on borrowed time. No one really celebrates when they manage to survive a round of job cuts, because they know it is likely just to be short-term relief, with more cuts coming soon.

The energy profits levy was introduced in 2022, at a time when oil and gas prices were spiking after Russia invaded Ukraine. At that time, Brent crude peaked at over $130 a barrel and averaged $99 a barrel in 2022. Similarly, in 2022, gas peaked at 640p a therm and averaged 165p a therm that year. Let us compare that with this year. In August 2025, Brent averaged $71 a barrel and gas 81p a therm. That is a 28% and a 51% drop on the 2022 averages, and oil this week is at a six-month low. The energy profits levy has ceased to be a windfall tax. The windfall has gone, and the prices have returned to normal levels. The Competition and Markets Authority found that in 2025, oil markets are now relatively stable, and exceptional circumstances seem to have receded. \p Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Nusrat Ghani: Mr Shannon on the north-east of Scotland. \p Jim Shannon: Madam Deputy Speaker, I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand to ensure that I was here to support her in what she is trying to achieve in north-east Scotland. It is very important that we add our support to her.

Does the hon. Lady agree that while investment in tidal energy has not produced the desired result of sustainable, reliable energy, the levy on energy profits has achieved a result that is absolutely undesirable and is seeing investment in our countries being moved to the USA and other regions with a more favourable approach? Does she also agree that the economic black hole cannot be filled by more levies but must be filled by investment in our businesses and creating future job security? I commend her. \p Harriet Cross: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to talk about the drain of investment and other things from north-east Scotland because of the levy. It feels as if it is a particularly punitive tax on north-east Scotland, given that our region is the energy hub of the UK.

Even though the windfall no longer exists, at the Budget last year the Chancellor still decided that she would increase the EPL from 35% to 38%, giving a headline tax of 78%.

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

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jade Botterill.) \p Harriet Cross: The Chancellor also extended the levy until March 2030. Just to ensure that the industry was hit from all angles, she abolished the investment allowance, removing the very mechanism that keeps companies investing. \p Torcuil Crichton: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I share her passion for her constituents and their work in the North sea, because my constituents, over three generations, have done the same work, and I want to see people working in the North sea for another three generations. Does she accept that some 77,000 jobs in the North sea went on the watch of the last Government, and that the move from fossil fuels to renewables is inevitable and must be managed by things like passporting people into jobs?

We must be honest about the fact that offshore jobs are dangerous. I pay tribute to the people who have gone out there for the past 50 years to earn our energy security. The danger that they put themselves in is simply not the same in the renewables sector. Does she accept that we must balance the move from gas and oil in the North sea to renewables in the wild Atlantic, probably, with a managed transition that looks after our communities? However, that does not make it an either/or question of having either carbon from oil and gas in the North sea or onshore and offshore renewables. We can and will do both, and this Government should be committed to both for another 40 years. \p Harriet Cross: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. At no point have I ever said that we should be persisting with oil and gas at the expense of renewables. We 100% need both, but both means both sides: we do not need to tax the oil and gas industry out of existence in the North sea in order to scale up renewables, because that will do the exact opposite, as he knows. I appreciate his point that jobs have been lost in the past—I know that because I live in the north-east of Scotland—but what happened to oil and gas prices during that time? Were they at a peak or in a trough? They were in a trough but they are now not, yet we are still seeing jobs cut and production decreasing faster than it needs to because of decisions made by this Government. \p Andrew Bowie: I commend my hon. Friend on her speech and on securing the debate. As she knows, this issue is also felt incredibly keenly in the neighbouring constituency  of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, which I represent. While the debate about whether it is renewables or oil and gas is a false one, the fact is that skilled workers, whose jobs are being lost in the North sea right now, are the exact workers who we will need in the future to deliver cleaner energy and a more sustainable future. Those jobs do not exist in the UK right now, and they are being lost to the United Arab Emirates, Riyadh, Australia, Mexico and Canada. We need to do what we can to maintain those jobs in north-east Scotland by supporting our oil and gas industry and removing the punitive energy profits levy, which is driving people away from the country and driving companies to make redundancies. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I remind Mr Bowie that Front Benchers do not intervene from the Front Bench in Adjournment debates. \p Harriet Cross: I agree that we want to keep the workers that we have, and the skills and expertise that they have developed, in north-east Scotland because they are of huge value to north-east Scotland. They will not stay in north-east Scotland out of virtue but only if the jobs are there for them and it makes economic sense for the companies to keep them there. That is not what is happening at the moment, and we are losing a crucial asset to our energy transition at an extraordinary rate. \p Graham Leadbitter: The loss of skills impacts investor confidence in the North sea. That investor confidence is directly linked to investor confidence in renewables, given the lack of availability of skills that will result. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to give an end date for this so-called temporary measure as soon as possible, and that that needs to be implemented as soon as practicably possible? \p Harriet Cross: Exactly—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. On that point, I will skip forward a little bit to my first question to the Minister, which is when the Treasury will publish its consultation outcome on the future fiscal regime for the North sea, and whether the Government will wait until 2030 to implement that new regime, or whether they will implement it straightaway. Investment decisions worth billions are being put on hold waiting for that answer. They need to know a month, or ideally a week—not just a vague “in due course”.

Capital investment forecasts for the North sea have fallen by 84%, from over £14 billion to £2.3 billion for the period 2025 to 2029, and Offshore Energies UK calculates that £26 billion of economic value will be lost under Labour’s EPL extension. Some 90% of OEUK’s member companies are now seeking opportunities overseas, and Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce agrees, warning that the EPL is

“eroding investor confidence and driving capital to rival overseas regions.”

Shell’s finance chief has called for certainty and a “stable environment”, noting that the UK’s 78% tax rate is “larger than most” other countries and makes it difficult to have confidence in long-term investments.

Although Norway, which the Government love to use as a comparison, has a similar tax rate, the Government know that this is a false comparison, because Norway  also offers full capital cost deductions. It refunds almost 72% of losses to companies and gives a 24% uplift on investment over four years. The result is that Norway attracts 3.8 times more investment than the UK into the same mature North sea basin. Norway’s North sea will see around £35 billion in exploration and production investment through to 2030; ours will see just £10 billion. \p John Cooper: I am from the south-west of Scotland, which is as far from the north-east as one can get in Scotland. None the less, this is a huge issue for the whole country. My hon. Friend is making a point about the North sea basin being mature. We always hear that—it is mature, it is declining—but the Norwegian investment is exploiting areas of gas and oil that previously would not have been accessible. New techniques such as horizontal drilling are delivering huge benefits for the Norwegian economy; we are denying ourselves those benefits. Is that not the case? \p Harriet Cross: It is absolutely the case—my hon. Friend is completely correct. We are forgoing so many opportunities in the North sea to secure energy for our country and safeguard the skills and jobs that we will need for the transition. There are endless opportunities that, for some reason, we are willing to leave under the North sea.

That brings me to my second question for the Minister. Does the Treasury recognise the damage that the EPL is doing to the North sea? We know that the decline in the North sea did not start with the EPL—it is a mature basin—but the EPL is accelerating that decline. Its ripple effects go far beyond the energy producers themselves. The supply chain is haemorrhaging jobs. Hunting in Aberdeenshire laid off 143 employees; Wood Group cut 200 jobs last year; Belmar Engineering entered liquidation this year, with 48 redundancies; Beam in Westhill collapsed, with 100 jobs lost; Well-Safe Solutions cut about 45 jobs; and Harbour Energy has cut 250 jobs, which is 25% of its onshore workforce. I keep coming back to the words that the Chancellor said when Harbour Energy announced its job cuts earlier this year and cited the EPL as a principal factor. She said that this was just

“a commercial decision by one company”,

but the list I have given—which is not exhaustive—is evidence that that is not the case. It shows that the Chancellor either does not understand, or does not want to understand, the impact the EPL is having.

As I am sure other Members do, I regularly visit companies in the north-east of Scotland whose order books for offshore work have completely dried up, forcing them to adapt their business models to other sectors just to keep afloat. Many of those companies do not know whether they will be here in 12 months’ time. They are not hiring, they are struggling to justify investments, and in many cases, they can do nothing more than hope for a change in Government policy. These companies are owned, grown and run by some of the most innovative and entrepreneurial people I have ever met. They are not afraid of branching out or trying new things—they have done so for their whole business careers—but they are being backed into a corner and are running out of options.

The irony is that this policy is failing on its own terms, in shrinking the very economic activity that it seeks to tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility originally  forecast that the energy profits levy would raise more than £65 billion between 2023 and 2028, but the revised forecast is £21.1 billion. We are on track to miss the target by £44 billion, and revenue from the EPL fell from £4.2 billion to £2.7 billion between 2022-23 and 2024-25. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures show that revenues from oil and gas production were down 27% last year.

When did the Treasury last carry out an impact assessment of the EPL’s impacts on production, jobs, economic activity and tax receipts? Have those assessments been revisited following those recent HMRC figures showing the downgraded forecast? Forecasts show that the policy could ultimately cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue by 2050. We have reached the point where the level of taxation means less money. The Government are taxing the North sea so heavily that tax revenues are being lost. We cannot tax jobs that no longer exist, we cannot tax production that no longer exists and we cannot tax businesses that no longer operate in the UK.

There is something else that the Government are ignoring. From the early 2030s, the Treasury will face a £2 billion to £3 billion cost each year in decommissioning rebates, a decade earlier than expected. The premature shutdown of fields, driven by the EPL making them too unviable to continue, makes that liability ever more imminent.

The policy is also undermining our energy security at a time of global instability, suppressing domestic oil and gas production and increasing our dependence on foreign imports. We are now 42% dependent on energy imports. By 2030, it is projected that our reliance on imported gas will increase to 80%, and our liquefied natural gas imports have increased by 40% in the past year alone. Those changes are partly down to geology, but the decline is accentuated by the punitive tax regime for companies operating out of the North sea.

Estimates suggest that there could be 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent remaining in the North sea that could be recovered with the right investment. We could cover half our energy needs to 2050 with North sea reserves. If we drive investment away, we will leave that resource untapped, only for imports from elsewhere to cover them. That is a huge loss of economic opportunity for the north-east of Scotland and the UK as a whole.

That brings me to my final question, and I will soon conclude. Will the Treasury please commit to de-linking oil and gas pricing in the energy security investment mechanism so that both commodities are assessed on their individual market conditions? Time is running out, and that is not an exaggeration. Every month of inaction means another thousand jobs gone. Every delayed investment decision means less energy security for Britain. Every skilled worker who leaves to go overseas is one we will struggle to get back when we need them for the energy transition.

I and, more importantly, the oil and gas sector have four questions for the Minister. First, when will the consultation outcome be published? Secondly, does the Treasury recognise the damage it is inflicting? Thirdly, when was the last impact assessment carried out by the Government? Fourthly, will the Government de-link oil and gas in the energy security investment mechanism?  The north-east of Scotland has powered Britain for 50 years. We have contributed hundreds of billions in tax revenues. We developed expertise that is renowned around the world. We have so much more to offer to meet the UK’s current and future energy needs, but only if we are given the chance. Scrapping the EPL is a vital part of that chance. \p Dan Tomlinson: Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions so far; I am sure there will be more interventions in the coming 15 minutes. I say to the hon. Member that it is clear how strongly and firmly she seeks to represent her constituents and those of her neighbour, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), as a resident in north-east Scotland. That comes across clearly in the House.

The UK oil and gas industry plays a significant role in our country, just as it has for more than half a century. Alongside its contribution to our energy supply, it has provided more than £400 billion in production taxes since the late 1960s and created thousands of jobs in the hon. Lady’s constituency and in many constituencies in that part of Scotland and across the country.

As we head towards a net zero future, the industry and the region will continue to play a vital role in the energy transition, with which I know the sector is keenly engaged. Between 2018 and 2024, the sector has acted to reduce its emissions by 34%, and we are seeing oil and gas companies make record investments in carbon capture, usage and storage on land and in offshore wind at sea. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan that it is not an either/or; we must have a managed transition in which we do all that we can to protect jobs and industry, and to grow new jobs and industry too. We are all pulling in the same direction; Government and industry are committed to a fair, orderly and prosperous transition for the region, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about that today.

The aim of our tax regime for the exploration and production of oil and gas in the North sea is to support investment in this vital resource, while ensuring that the country obtains a fair return in exchange for the use of an important national asset. I am sure the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan will be very familiar with the tax regime, and I am sure that everyone else in the Chamber is, but let me set it out for the benefit of those who may not be. The regime today includes a ring fence corporation tax that is charged at 30%, the supplementary charge at 10% and, yes, the temporary energy profits levy at 38%. As the hon. Member mentioned, that was introduced amid near-record-high prices following the recovery from covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

While we pursue our net zero targets, we must ensure that we meet the country’s energy needs. That involves energy from overseas alongside our own new nuclear, wind and solar, and, of course, domestic oil and gas. With domestic gas production, net of imports, accounting for the equivalent of about a third of UK gas demand, our oil and gas industry supports more than 100,000 jobs, and will continue to play a significant role in our  energy mix for decades to come. In supporting those jobs and the important contribution of the sector, our approach to taxation is, in my view, both responsible and proportionate. We believe in the ongoing contribution of the oil and gas industry and its skilled workforce, and the sector continues to benefit from £84.25 in tax relief for every £100 of private investment, with more relief available for decarbonisation-based investments.

The oil and gas sector is expected to contribute about £16 billion in tax receipts between this financial year and 2029-30, which is roughly equivalent to the entire year’s NHS Scotland budget. The energy profits levy alone has already raised more than £11 billion since its introduction. Yes, that is less than was forecast at the time, but in a way that should be welcome news for the hon. Member, because it means lower energy bills for people up and down the country who are affected by the cost of living—families in her constituency, and in mine. \p Harriet Cross: What lower revenues from the EPL mean is that oil and gas companies are not investing in the North sea, that production is falling in the North sea, and that, for example, revenues from income tax—which the Scottish Government might quite like—are falling as well. There is nothing welcome about the Government not meeting their forecast. It is complete madness even to believe that. \p Dan Tomlinson: If the hon. Member would have preferred energy prices to stay at their pandemic levels, and money to continue to flow in from the EPL rather than more people throughout the country receiving lower energy bills, that is, of course, a view that she is welcome to hold.

As I was saying, the levy has raised more than £11 billion since its introduction, and is forecast to raise a further £11 billion by 2030. That revenue provides vital funding for our public services, creating sustainable jobs, strengthening our energy security and independence, and supporting the energy transition.

The Government are committed to giving the oil and gas industry long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime. The energy security investment mechanism is the price floor within the EPL, and that gives the sector certainty that if oil and gas prices fall for a sustained period, the EPL will cease. That remains Government policy. The hon. Member asked whether the Government intended to de-link, but the Government policy is to stick with ESIM as it stands.

I know that Members have expressed concern about the approach to tax and how it affects investment in the oil and gas sector, but we have seen capital expenditure in the sector rise from around £4 billion in 2022 to around £6 billion last year. That is why we introduced pragmatic reforms to the levy at the autumn Budget 2024 and refrained from going further than abolishing the levy’s investment allowance, helping to support the sector’s competitiveness. I want to restate to the House today that the EPL will end no later than 31 March 2030.

Working with the sector and stakeholders, the Government published the oil and gas price mechanism consultation on 5 March to give long-term certainty on the future fiscal regime, developing an approach for how we respond to unusually high prices once the EPL ends. As the hon. Member knows, the consultation  closed earlier this year. The Government are now hard at work analysing submissions and suggestions, and we will publish our response—I will not say “in due course”; I will say “shortly”. I know that the sector wants certainty from the Government as to what will follow on from the EPL. I hear that, and I am meeting members of the sector this week to hear it directly from businesses. I want this to happen as soon as it can, but I hope the hon. Member will understand that it is not quite in my gift unilaterally to announce the dates and the precise timetable on the Floor of the House.

I understand that there is a need for certainty, and the Government understand just how important that is for businesses and workers in the sector. I reassure the House that it is definitely not our intention to wait until the EPL is about to cease before bringing in new legislation to provide that certainty. I want us to bring forward the necessary legislation for the new mechanism as quickly as we reasonably can, to ensure a smooth and orderly transition for the sector. That is hugely important, and for as long as I am in this post I will do all I can to make sure that we can do that; I hear the points made by Members on both sides of the House.

The Government are already delivering a fair and orderly transition in the North sea. Across the country, we are driving growth and securing skilled jobs for future generations, and that is just as true in the North sea, where we have seen unprecedented levels of investment in offshore wind and where this Government have signed contracts for two first-of-a-kind carbon capture and storage clusters. This endeavour also includes Great British Energy, which, from its headquarters in Aberdeen, will create thousands of jobs across the country, invest up to £1 billion in clean energy supply chains and, as a publicly owned energy company, ensure that the clean energy revolution is built in Britain. Alongside that, the Office for Clean Energy Jobs will work to ensure that we have the skilled clean energy workforce to deliver those goals, so that this investment unlocks thousands of new jobs, kick-starts growth in communities and industrial towns, and secures a cleaner and more independent energy future for the UK. \p Graham Leadbitter: Will the Minister give way? \p Scott Arthur: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Tomlinson: I shall take both interventions. \p Graham Leadbitter: A number of skilled jobs are going out of the North sea, and many of these workers will go to other countries—that was the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). That is not sustainable for the skills transfer into the offshore renewables sector, and it is denting investor confidence. There is a serious risk that the build-out of offshore renewables will not go fast enough if investor confidence disappears because of skills loss. It is hugely important that the EPL is addressed as quickly as possible to prevent that from continuing. \p Dan Tomlinson: As I said just a few moments ago, 100,000 jobs are directly or indirectly linked to the work and activities in this sector, and it is vital that we support people with that transition. In the long-term,  carbon capture and storage alone is expected to support 50,000 skilled jobs by 2050 as we move towards a clean energy transition. I am acutely aware—I have heard it from Opposition Members, and I am sure that I will hear it from my hon. Friends in a second—that we must get the balance right between the timing of phasing out and winding down production in the North sea, and ramping up the clean energy and good jobs that we need for the future. We have to do all we can to protect the sector. \p John Cooper: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p Dan Tomlinson: I will first take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Minister for giving way, but I note that he took my intervention second rather than first—I am not offended!

On the position in Scotland, it is worthing remembering that Scotland’s Deputy First Minister said at the SNP party conference at the weekend that the Scottish Government want to scrap the EPL—sorry, I meant they want to replace it with something else. But, of course, she did not say what that something else was; it is slightly cowardly not to define that detail.

The Minister was talking about the strength of the renewables sector in the UK and how it is growing under this Government, and we all appreciate and welcome that, but that sector also needs continuity and a stable framework to work within. Does he therefore share my concern about the Opposition taking the decision to ditch the Climate Change Act, which has really unsettled the whole industry? \p Dan Tomlinson: I believe the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was slightly quicker in standing up than my hon. Friend.

I do understand my hon. Friend’s points. It is very important not to be cowardly in politics, which is why I will make sure that we come forward as fast as we can to set out the approach after the EPL is set to end. This Government, under the leadership of a whole range of Cabinet Ministers, is making sure that we can provide that long-term certainty, not chopping and changing when it comes to our policies on net zero.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan mentioned energy security, which links to the challenge we have with energy bills. It is worth recognising the truth that,   even if we extracted every single drop of oil and gas in the North sea, that would not make any material difference to people’s energy bills or the prices that people pay at the pump. Oil and gas are traded on international markets, and given the declining basin on the UK continental shelf, domestically produced oil and gas do not do anything to reduce prices. In fact, it is our reliance on oil and gas that leaves British consumers exposed to unstable fossil fuel markets.

In closing, this Government are determined to provide a balance— \p John Cooper: rose— \p Dan Tomlinson: Does the hon. Member really wish to intervene? [Interruption.] Go on. \p John Cooper: I thank the Minister for giving way on that point: this is about balance. We need to find a balance in the transition of people coming out of oil and gas and moving into renewables. The difficulty is that we cannot say to these highly-skilled people that there is a great job for them in renewables but it is going to be 10 years down the line. That is no use to them at all: they have bills to pay and families to feed. The balance is out of kilter, and I am afraid that the Government are getting this wrong. \p Dan Tomlinson: I disagree that the Government are getting this wrong. We are doing our best to try to find the right balance to support people, industry and jobs.

We will continue to provide a balanced, responsible and predictable regime for the UK oil and gas industry, which I hope will continue to drive growth, support workers and communities, protect our energy security and ensure a prosperous future for the North sea as we make our way towards net zero. Our commitment, and my commitment as a Minister, to the future of the North sea is clear, and I will continue to engage closely with the industry, workers and Members across the House on this important issue.

I again thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan for securing this important discussion, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.