debates/debates2025-09-11b conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-09-11)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-09-11b conversation_22

Alex Mayer:Does the Minister agree that extending the Dunstable-Luton busway on to Leighton Buzzard and then Bletchley would be a real boon to more fully link the area into the Oxford-Cambridge growth area? \p Simon Lightwood: Responsibility for local transport is devolved to local authorities, which are responsible for the operation of their networks, including the extension of busways. The Government are committed to the Ox-Cam growth corridor. Lord Vallance has been tasked with exploring options on how best to deliver economic growth in that area. \p Brian Mathew: A workshop taking place in Bath this morning brings together key stakeholders from the rail industry and local authorities. It focuses on the development of rail services in Wiltshire, and will include the case for building a Devizes gateway station and increasing services in Melksham. Following Network Rail’s Wiltshire rail strategic study, will the Secretary of State or Rail Minister meet me and key stakeholders to discuss taking those key projects forward? \p Heidi Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the Bath and Wiltshire metro scheme and the Devizes gateway project. Although we do not have any plans to take forward those schemes, I encourage local authorities, Great Western Rail and Network rail to continue working together to develop those plans and explore funding opportunities. \p Tom Rutland: My constituents who use the A259 coast road are being deprived the choice of safe and sustainable travel to Brighton, as Conservative-run West Sussex county council has dragged its feet for more than three decades on delivering a cycle path. What can the Government do to help me and Shoreham-By-Cycle to push for that much-needed infrastructure, which West Sussex county council has long promised but failed to deliver? \p Simon Lightwood: I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. \p Andrew Rosindell: I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have a word with her friend the Mayor of London about the appalling mismanagement of the Gallows Corner junction, where a flyover is being constructed. The gridlock, chaos and delays are affecting the whole Romford side of Essex, and east London. It really is chaos. Will she get it sorted out? \p Heidi Alexander: I am sure that the Mayor of London and Transport for London will want to do all they can to minimise disruption during any construction of the  type that the hon. Gentleman describes. I am sorry but I did not hear his question in full—did he say it was Gallows Corner? \p Andrew Rosindell: indicated assent. \p Heidi Alexander: If he wishes to write to me with the specific details of those local issues, I will come back to him. \p Mary Foy: My constituents have been very vocal about their opposition to the LNER timetable changes from December, including the removal of the 8.22 am commuter service from Durham to Newcastle on weekdays. LNER assured me that it would replace it with a similar service, but reports this week suggest that the service will now take an extra 10 minutes, arriving at 8.44. That is not an equivalent service. Will the Minister meet me and LNER to ensure that commuters leaving Durham are provided with an equivalent service? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents. I reviewed her correspondence with the Rail Minister over the summer and was aware that the 8.22 service had been reinstated, but I was not aware of the longer journey times. I would be happy to meet her to discuss that further. \p Tom Gordon: In response to a recent written parliamentary question, the Department confirmed that it is shelving improvements to Skelton junction outside York. That will have an impact on the proposed improvements to rail services for commuters in Harrogate and Knaresborough. How does that align with the Government’s vision for growth? \p Heidi Alexander: We are committed to improving rail connectivity and capacity in the north of England. I would be happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that scheme. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: I, too, look forward to working with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), in his new role. Last week, the Transport Committee heard that car clubs, peer-to-peer ride-sharing and car-sharing schemes align with Government objectives on transport integration, reducing congestion, increasing electric vehicle use and supporting residents in rural areas where public transport is poor. Unlike France and other countries, the sector in the UK operates in a policy vacuum, particularly since the Government withdrew the car clubs toolkit guidance in May. Is the Minister planning to address that policy vacuum? \p Simon Lightwood: My hon. Friend is completely right, and I thank the Transport Committee for raising that important point. I have commissioned officials to consider how we can support and promote the use of car club and car-sharing schemes, starting with a roundtable of industry stakeholders. I would be delighted if she could attend. I will ensure that that guidance is reinstated. \p Fleur Anderson: Hammersmith bridge closed six years, four months and 22 days ago, cutting off the bus routes and causing congestion in Putney.  I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), holding the first Hammersmith bridge taskforce meeting. When will the next one be held? \p Heidi Alexander: I am very aware of the problems relating to Hammersmith bridge, and I know the Minister hosted that first meeting of the resurrected Hammersmith bridge taskforce. I do have some good news for my hon. Friend: we announced in the spending review a structures fund, to assist local authorities with repairs to bridges and tunnels that are beyond their financial capacity to fund. We will set out the criteria for access to that fund in due course. \p Laurence Turner: Half the bus sector’s funding now comes from public sources, but during the summer, National Express announced changes to bus services in my constituency with just two weeks’ public notice, which will have a really negative effect on residents in New Frankley, Allens Cross and Bournville Gardens Village retirement home. Does the Minister agree that when regulation is brought in—which is welcome—consultation must be included? \p Simon Lightwood: I agree wholeheartedly. It is really important that local people are engaged when designing a network and making changes to it. \p Kim Johnson: The Liverpool city region Mayor, Steve Rotheram, has submitted a new town bid with Liverpool and Sefton councils, to regenerate the most deprived areas of the country. Does the Minister agree that for new towns to succeed, there needs to be proper funding for integrated transport, and will he commit to working and meeting with the mayor and the politicians to make that happen? \p Heidi Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have regular meetings with the Mayor of Liverpool city region. I am completely cognisant of the fact that for new towns to be successful, thriving communities, they   need public transport built in from the start. Indeed, there is capacity to almost create new towns in existing towns where public transport is already available. Those are the sorts of conversations I am having with our regional mayors. \p Pam Cox: The A12 is a major transport route into Colchester and a vital part of economic growth in the region. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the urgent need for upgrades to its western end? \p Simon Lightwood: I would be delighted. \p Rachel Hopkins: Luton station is the gateway to Luton town centre, and thanks to this Labour Government, it will soon be getting lifts to all its platforms. However, the roof still leaks. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of Luton council to see what can be done with regard to the state of the station? \p Heidi Alexander: I will talk to the Rail Minister and ask him to meet my hon. Friend. We cannot have a leaking roof in Luton station. \p Oliver Ryan: The Padiham Greenway bridge has been closed since 2021. In December last year, this Government gave £280,000 to Sustrans to get the work finished, but there is a shortfall. The Government have given £19 million to Lancashire county council through the active travel fund and the capability fund to get this project online. Does the Minister agree that Lancashire county council should prioritise this and get it done? I thank him for his extensive correspondence with me on this topic. \p Simon Lightwood: I know my hon. Friend is a very active campaigner in this area. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss what further pressure we can apply to ensure this project is delivered. \p Jerome Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the mistakes made during the counting of votes yesterday. Are you able to give some guidance to those on the Treasury Bench on the importance of the work of the Whips? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Divisions are a core part of our business in the Chamber, and the accurate recording of votes is integral to parliamentary decision making. I appreciate that there have been major changes in the Whips Office, and things have to be delivered in these new roles. I know the House team will work with the Whips to make sure we get accurate results.

I met the Chief Whip this morning and explained the concerns that were raised with me following last night, through the Deputy Speakers. We do take this seriously. My door remains open for the Chief Whip, and I hope he will use that avenue as a way for us to work together. It is unfortunate that I have not had that conversation until this morning. I will leave it at that. \p Neil O'Brien: (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States. \p Stephen Doughty: Before I respond to the question, it is important that as a House we all recognise that today is the anniversary of the 11 September attacks. Many of us will attend commemorations later, and our thoughts are with all the thousands of people who lost their lives in that despicable terrorist attack, including many British and American citizens, as well as those from many other countries.

The whole House’s condolences and thoughts will also be with the family and friends of Charlie Kirk— it was an absolutely appalling attack and murder yesterday. In this House, as we sit under the two shields commemorating our dear colleagues from across the political spectrum, we know too well the terrible consequences of political violence. I know that the whole House will be thinking of Charlie’s family, friends and others, and urging an end to that sort of political violence, which is absolutely appalling.

In light of additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In the light of that and mindful, as we all are, of the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. \p Neil O'Brien: Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this urgent question, and I agree with the words of the Minister about 11 September and Charlie Kirk.

This is yet another extraordinary error of judgment by this weak Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for yesterday securing justice for the victims of Epstein. This raises massive questions. It is not just that Peter Mandelson was Epstein’s “best pal” and said that he loved him, or that he brokered a deal for him while he was Business Secretary, but that, as we now know, he was working for Epstein’s early release after Epstein was convicted.

The simple question is this: is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister did not know about any of that at the point when Lord Mandelson was appointed? The Minister should not say that the boxes were ticked and the process followed—what did the Prime Minister know at the point of Lord Mandelson’s appointment? The Minister said this morning that his understanding was that all the information was present—is that correct? Did the Prime Minister know? Will the Government now publish all the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s  vetting? If the Minister says that the Prime Minister did not know at the time, when did he become aware of the revelations?

Peter Mandelson quietly stayed at Epstein’s house while Epstein was in prison. Mandelson now says that he was wrong to think that Epstein was innocent. That is his defence—but Epstein had pleaded guilty. There are huge questions here. Did the US State Department give any warnings to our Government ahead of this appointment? Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, give any warning? Have any employees of Global Counsel visited our Washington embassy since Peter Mandelson’s appointment?

Next week will be the state visit. This is huge turmoil ahead of that, and I cannot believe that the Government have put our monarch in this terrible position. I am glad that Peter Mandelson has now gone. The Foreign Secretary has said that protecting women, girls and victims is her priority; how on earth does that square with the behaviour of the Government over recent days, squirming and twisting to try to protect Peter Mandelson, rather than the victims?

To be clear, this is a Government in which we had a corruption Minister having to resign over links to corruption; a former police officer having to resign over having not been clear with the police; a housing Minister having to resign over not paying tax on a house; and now we have our ambassador to Washington in the middle of the biggest scandal in Washington. This is a weak Prime Minister, with error after error of judgment. \p Stephen Doughty: The first thing that we all need to be clear on across this House is that the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of all our minds—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with that. Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls.

Obviously the hon. Gentleman wrote his remarks before the events in the last few hours, but I reiterate what I said to him. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment; in particular, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. Lord Mandelson has resigned and that decision has been taken. That is a very clear answer to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. \p Andy McDonald: I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on the appalling fire at her office overnight. We send our very best wishes to her and her staff.

May I thank the Minister for his statement? The Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision, and I think that has to be acknowledged. He has moved at pace to put it right—[Interruption.] Don’t be ridiculous. Treat this seriously. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Please—this is very important. A lot of people will be listening to what is going on in this Chamber, so let us give some courtesies to each other. \p Andy McDonald: Clearly the appointment process did not pick up these issues; that is self-evident. Can we have an assurance that there will be an inquiry into why that was not the case and that this House will be kept informed? \p Stephen Doughty: First, I was not aware of the terrible incident that my hon. Friend refers to; I have just been informed of that this morning. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I know how seriously you take the safety and security of Members of this House, Mr Speaker, particularly in the light of international events and the tragic loss of colleagues. That underlines all the more why we must be able to go about democratic debate in this country, whatever our views, in a safe and secure way.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his comments on the decision. As I said, the decision has been taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Mandelson has resigned. My hon. Friend asked about the process. Any candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course; I point him to the formal processes outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic service undergo. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: Our thoughts are with the friends and families of the victims of 9/11. I also express my regret and sadness at the murder of Charlie Kirk, and I hope that the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and her staff are all okay following the incident at her office. Political violence should have absolutely no place in society.

Lord Mandelson was tasked with overseeing the UK’s relationship with Trump, and the accusations surrounding him cast a damning shadow, so it is right that the Prime Minister has withdrawn his support for Lord Mandelson. Yesterday the Prime Minister stood by Lord Mandelson’s appointment and confirmed that rigorous background checks had taken place. What has changed since then? Questions remain over what the Government knew and when about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with the sex offender, whom he had previously described as his “best pal”. Did he resign, or was he sacked?

It is vital that the Civil Service Commission now investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these revelations sooner. Was the vetting process pushed through too fast? Will the Minister confirm that an investigation will take place so that no such incidents can happen again? Reports have surfaced that the Cabinet Office suppressed the release of a memo about Mandelson’s relationship because it could compromise relations with the US. Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case? \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the hon. Member for her remarks regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. Again, I underline the importance of us all being able to go about our roles  in a safe and secure way, whatever our political views and beliefs. In the light of international events, particularly in the United States, that should be at the forefront of our minds today.

In the light of the additional information in the emails written by Lord Mandelson, I have been very clear that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. That is very clear; the decision was taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Those emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. \p Alan Gemmell: I associate myself with hon. Members’ condolences and concerns about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).

I thank the Minister for his statement. I too am disgusted and appalled by Epstein’s actions, and my thoughts are with the victims of his crimes. Will the Minister confirm that we have an excellent deputy ambassador in Washington, who will ensure that our mission continues and that next week’s visit will go ahead? \p Stephen Doughty: We have an excellent team overall in British embassy Washington. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work of all our diplomatic service colleagues across the world, who do an excellent job in representing this country and ensure that our security and prosperity is at the forefront of their work. Of course, our special relationship and unique security partnership with the United Staes is crucially important. I will be at the United States embassy later today. It is our closest and most important relationship. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is an excellent team in British embassy Washington. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Obviously this is a very sad day for the United States, with 9/11 and the assassination last night. Our relationship with the United States is crucial, and there is a dark cloud over the upcoming state visit, so will the Minister forgive me if I give him some gentle advice? In my experience of such scandals, the cover-up, the lack of due process and allegations of cronyism are much more serious than any original offence, or alleged offence. Will he ensure that every single document about the process is released post haste, including about the meeting that Mandelson requested with Prime Minister Blair over Epstein? We need everything released straightaway, and we need to move on and get a new ambassador. \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of our relationship with the United States. The upcoming state visit is very important, and we have an extensive team working on it. His Majesty the King is obviously very much looking forward to welcoming President Trump, and many, many officials are working diligently day and night to ensure the visit is a success. I will not get into the individual issues and claims that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but what I will say is that this is a decisive action. In the light of the additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. \p Kim Johnson: I would also like to offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). That incident follows a number of others that she has experienced this week. It is out of order.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I am really pleased that Lord Mandelson has been sacked, but I would like to know what due diligence was undertaken prior to his appointment. Everybody knew about his relationship with Epstein before it. \p Stephen Doughty: As I have made very clear, it was in the light of additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. I know my hon. Friend well, and I know that her thoughts and the thoughts of us all will be with the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes. \p David Davis: The House needs to understand the sheer size of the failure of the vetting process here. It is in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had to resign for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and that he had to resign on a second occasion because he had helped a business friend to get a passport. Beyond that, there are still unresolved doubts about his behaviour as the European Trade Commissioner, when he gave concessions to the Russians, which helped his other dubious close friend, Mr Deripaska.

On the positive vetting process for when Peter Mandelson came to be a Minister again in 2010, section 3.1 of the ministerial code says:

“Ministers…must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”

Secretaries of State do not have private diaries. He spent time in Mr Epstein flat, it seems quietly meeting other people involved in the Sempra deal. That cannot be seen as following his proper duties as Secretary of State. It was in the Government documents—it does not have to be a private email. Was that investigated, and was a judgment made on it? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically about vetting. As I have said, all candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. I point him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic service undergo. Again, I point out that, in the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. \p Sarah Coombes: I agree with the Minister’s utter condemnation of all the horrendous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Does he agree that as soon as this new information came to light, the Government took decisive action very swiftly, which is different from the Conservatives? When they were in government and there were serious misgivings, it was actually the independent ethics adviser who ended up resigning. \p Stephen Doughty: I agree that this is decisive action. The Prime Minister has acted in the light of that additional information, the Foreign Secretary has acted, and Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador to Washington. \p Stephen Flynn: I am sure that the Minister is delighted that he has not had to shred his own reputation like his ministerial and Cabinet colleagues have had to do on the broadcast rounds over the course of recent days, including this morning, in trying to defend Lord Mandelson and the lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister. I do not know what it is about the decades of scandals and being best friends with a notorious child trafficker and paedophile, which should have rung some alarm bells in No. 10 before this decision was taken. If I listened correctly, the Minister did not confirm to the Father of the House that all relevant materials will be published. Did the Prime Minister know about these emails prior to standing up at the Dispatch Box just yesterday to say he had confidence in Mr Mandelson, and does he retain the Labour Whip in the House of Lords? \p Stephen Doughty: What I can commit to is that we will keep the House updated on these matters. A decisive decision has been made. As I have made very clear, all candidates are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. The Prime Minister, in the light of the additional information, has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. In particular, the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. But I agree, of course, with the right hon. Gentleman on the appalling crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, and the thoughts of all of us are with his victims, as they are every day. \p Andrew Pakes: I associate myself with the comments that others have made about the disgusting crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.

Twenty-four years ago today, on 9/11, I was sat in the TUC Congress as a delegate when we were made aware of what had happened. May I put on the record my tribute to the first responders and public service workers in New York who came to the aid of people? Many of them are still paying the price today.

A lot has changed in politics in the past 24 years. One of the motivations that got me into public life was about the lack of accountability that we saw from senior Ministers when the Conservative party was in government, their failure to resign when scandals came up and the failure of Front Benchers to take action, so I welcome the swift action that this Government have taken now that new information has come to light. Can the Minister assure us that lessons will be learned and that, if these things arise again, this Government will uphold the highest standards and take the action needed to protect public life? \p Stephen Doughty: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend of that, and this is decisive action. He refers to the 11 September attacks, and I think we all remember where we were on that fateful and tragic day. That is why we remember the victims, particularly on the anniversary today. \p Bernard Jenkin: May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman, who I am sure has visited our embassy in Washington on many occasions, will know that we have an excellent and dedicated team there, as well of course in the Foreign Office in King Charles Street in London. They are working on many aspects of that crucial security, defence and economic relationship. We are working diligently in preparation for the state visit, and I commend them for that work.

The hon. Gentleman asked about new information. I have been very clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. I have gone into the particular items, and in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. \p Perran Moon: The Prime Minister has acted swiftly and decisively. What a contrast with the Conservative party. I note that the shadow Foreign Secretary is not in her place today. What happened when she broke the ministerial code? The Conservatives promoted her. Does the Minister agree that we will not take lectures on ethics from them? \p Stephen Doughty: I have been very clear that the Prime Minister has acted decisively on this matter and, in the light of that additional information, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. That is decisive action and that is responding to that information, and I have explained the reasons for it. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) has just mentioned another Member. I presume that he has contacted her to let her know that he was going to do so. Is that the case? \p Perran Moon: No, Mr Speaker. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Please do not do that again. We are meant to treat each other with respect. This message is for all Members: if you are going to mention another Member, do them the courtesy of ensuring that they are first made aware of the fact. \p Richard Foord: On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have seen the high calibre of career diplomats who usually take up the most senior ambassadorial appointments, so it is not obvious to me why the British ambassador to the United States was a former MP. In the emails that have leaked overnight, it  appears that Lord Mandelson thinks that to govern is to schmooze. He famously declared in an election victory speech that he was a fighter, not a quitter, yet he urged the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, that to fight for early release was the right thing. And Lord Mandelson did not do the decent thing and quit. Does the Minister regret the original appointment? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman asks about precedent. He will know that there is precedent, and we do have excellent ambassadors and high commissioners around the world—he and I have met many of them directly as they represent this country diligently. I have been clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. \p Roger Gale: The Minister is a decent man, and the House knows that the business of the House was delayed while he hurriedly had to rewrite the statement that he was expected to make, but he is stretching the bounds of credibility too far. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that he had full confidence in a man who befriended the vilest of convicted paedophiles. He should not have been appointed in the first place—that was a gross error of judgment and everybody in this House knows it—and the Prime Minister has to take responsibility. Now that Lord Mandelson has gone, will there be a Cabinet Office inquiry into the manner in which Mandelson was negotiating with a convicted paedophile while he was a Minister? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on his last remarks. What I will say is that the Prime Minister has acted decisively in the light of the new information, and he has taken the decision to ask the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. Again, for the House’s information, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The emails show the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at the time of Lord Mandelson’s appointment. Again, in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: The idea that our country should be represented in America or on the world stage by somebody who tried to get a paedophile out of prison early will fill us all with revulsion. Can the Minister be clearer? He has said that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw the ambassador. He said the Prime Minister made the decision, but he also said in his statement that Mandelson resigned. Did he resign or was he sacked? \p Stephen Doughty: I have been very clear: the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. That is the process, and he  is no longer in his position. I agree with the hon. Member about our absolute revulsion across this House at Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. \p Rupert Lowe: I concur with the comments about Charlie Kirk that the Minister made at the beginning. It shows that anybody who is brave enough to put themselves up for public service and try to change the world for the better faces such dangers and risks.

May I ask the Minister, first, to reassure us that we will have total transparency about the process that was followed in this ambassadorial appointment? Secondly, assuming we get over that hurdle, can he please explain to the House why the appointment of a man who described President Trump as a “danger to the world”, whom the Americans described as an “absolute moron”, who has close links with China and who has a history of misfeasance in public office was the right appointment for the relationship with the most important and powerful country in the world, and one that is essential to this country? \p Stephen Doughty: On the hon. Member’s first comments, he and I fundamentally disagree on many issues, but we know that we conduct our robust debate in this House, in our media and in our political society, and we do not engage in any form of political violence. What has happened in the United States over the past 24 hours is simply appalling, and our thoughts are with all of Charlie Kirk’s family and friends. As somebody who worked very closely with our late colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess, it has shocked me to the core. I think it has shocked all of us to the core, and it can never be acceptable.

The hon. Member asked about the processes, and I have been very clear. All candidates for ambassador positions are subject to extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course, and I refer him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code. I assure him that we will keep the House updated on these matters. \p Gagan Mohindra: While the whole House welcomes the withdrawal of Lord Mandelson as head of mission, can the Minister confirm whether he is still being paid as a civil servant? \p Stephen Doughty: My understanding is that Lord Mandelson is still an employee, and proper employment processes will take place, but I will write to the hon. Member to confirm my answer to that question. Lord Mandelson has recently been asked to withdraw as ambassador, and I will come back to the hon. Member with a detailed answer, but I do not want in any way to inadvertently mislead the House on an important matter. \p Tom Gordon: It seems that there is a broad consensus across the whole House that this felt as though it was a question of when, not if. So during the extended vetting procedure, was there ever any interference or pressure from either No. 10 or the Prime Minister? \p Stephen Doughty: As the hon. Member will know, I simply am not going to go into the vetting procedures, which are conducted independently. He can certainly  look at the detail of how vetting processes are under- taken in the diplomatic service code, which outlines the processes. \p Gavin Williamson: The diplomatic service code states that diplomats’

“behaviour, action or inaction must not significantly disrupt or damage the performance or reputation of the Diplomatic Service.”

It also states that diplomats

“must…set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible”.

In the light of that, did Lord Mandelson set out how many payments he had received from the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to accounts in this country, Switzerland or other areas, and has there been one set of rules for civil servants and another set of rules for friends of the Prime Minister and Jeffrey Epstein? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the essence of the decision that has been taken. In the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein are materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the procedures, and he knows that I do not have the documents relating to the vetting process in front of me. \p Jim Shannon: On behalf of my party, may I convey my support to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? I was in her company yesterday and she is very much in our thoughts. I also, on behalf of my party, express deep sadness at the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative influencer who engaged with young people across the United States of America. I know he is in heaven. I pray for his wife and children; I think we should all do that.

At times like this, it is essential that we have an ambassador in place to convey our sincere sympathy with our allies. The removal of Peter Mandelson is to be welcomed. In my humble opinion, he should never have been in the post in the first place. Does the Minister believe that it is imperative that we have an ambassador in place, and that they must have adequate history and qualifications, rather than our having a jobs-for-the-boys mentality? What changes will the Minister make to the appointment process to restore confidence in the role? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Member is rightly known as one of the kindest and most generous Members of this House. I thank him for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and the attack that she endured this morning. I wholeheartedly agree with his comments on Charlie Kirk. He can be assured that we are already conveying our condolences to the United States. I expect to be with the United States ambassador in London later today, where I will be able to do that in person.

From a practical point of view, as the hon. Member will know, many ambassadors or high commissioner posts are vacant for a time. We have excellent teams who then do that job. Of course, when ambassadors or high commissioners are travelling, there is a team in post who are able to represent this country and ensure our that interests are pursued. That is exactly what will happen in this case. \p Luke Evans: This is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. By Mandelson’s own admission, there is more very embarrassing information coming, so the Prime Minister could have said to the House yesterday, “I will suspend him, pending further investigation,” but he did not; he backed him. Can the Prime Minister be 100% sure that, in making any trade deals, or in any negotiations, Mr Mandelson has not been compromised by the information that has now come forward, and will he commit to investigating that? \p Stephen Doughty: I bring the hon. Member back to the fundamental point, which is that in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. \p Paul Holmes: I associate myself with the Minister’s words about 9/11 and the untimely and tragic death of Charlie Kirk.

Yesterday, it was reported that in 2008 Lord Mandelson emailed Epstein and said that his conviction in the United States

“could not happen in Britain”,

and encouraged him to go for early release. The whole House can see that the Prime Minister has an issue when it comes to judgment, acting only when he is pushed to by events in this House. Will there be an investigation of Lord Mandelson’s meetings while he was ambassador, to see if there was any conflict with his current business interests? Will the Government remove the Whip from him in the House of Lords, yes or no? And will Lord Mandelson be entitled to severance pay after this sacking? \p Stephen Doughty: On the question about the Whip, as an employee of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Lord Mandelson was on a leave of absence from the other place, so that is very clear. As I said, the emails show that the depth and the extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known about it at the time he was employed. In particular, his suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and that is why the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to Washington. \p Graham Leadbitter: The Prime Minister was hiding behind process yesterday, and is doing the same today. Did the Prime Minister know about these messages before Prime Minister’s questions yesterday? \p Stephen Doughty: I am updating the House in real time on actions and decisions that have been taken. I have been very clear about the new information that has come to light, and the decision that the Prime Minister has taken as a result. \p John Lamont: The Minister claims that new information has come to light, which has resulted in the ambassador being sacked. Can he confirm that this is the only new information, and that all the other information was in the Prime Minister’s knowledge? \p Stephen Doughty: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I have already made. \p Neil O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that the only reason why Peter Mandelson had to resign was the additional information that he had campaigned for the early release of Epstein. The Government are not saying exactly what they did or did not know at the point of appointment. The only way for this House to know exactly what they knew is for the Government to publish the documents relating to his vetting. If the Government will not publish those documents, as the Minister says they will not, would it be possible for this House to attain those documents using the Humble Address mechanism? \p Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a decision for me. The Treasury has heard, and if the Minister wishes to respond, I am more than happy to let him. He is not going to. \p Stephen Flynn: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: I am not going to continue the debate, but I will take a point of order. \p Stephen Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would welcome clarity further on points just made. The Minister was asked on numerous occasions when the Prime Minister was made aware of the additional email information that led to Mr Mandelson’s sacking. He has not provided the House with that information. What avenues are available to us Members to find out when the Prime Minister knew this additional information? \p Lindsay Hoyle: The right hon. Member and party leader knows very well the mechanisms that he can use. I do not think that today is the end of the matter. I think this will be returned to at some point. In fairness to the Minister, he said that the House would be updated as and when the Government had the information. The points have been taken, and I expect the questions to be answered at some time. There is a long weekend before we get to Monday. Let us leave it there; I do not want to continue the debate. \p Paul Holmes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the issue we have been discussing, but is about the House procedures. What I took from the Minister’s answer was that Lord Mandelson, a Member of the House of Lords, had not given a full account of his past actions while going through vetting processes. What disciplinary mechanisms can be used by the Lords to make him accountable for that, if true? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I have enough to do, dealing with the House of Commons. Responsibility for the House of Lords is not for me, and I will certainly not take it. \p Julia Lopez: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if she will make a statement on the cancellation of life sciences investment. \p Ian Murray: I start by welcoming the hon. Member to her new role. I wanted to do that yesterday, but time ran away from us during questions. I am answering this question on behalf of the Secretary of State.

As a significant life sciences company that employs more than 1,600 people and plays a leading role in delivering new treatments for diseases such as cancer, Merck—known as MSD in the UK—is a valued partner to this Government, and a key player in the life sciences ecosystem. MSD’s decision to not progress its investment in King’s Cross—a commercial decision for MSD—is therefore deeply disappointing.

King’s Cross is a shining example of the strengths of UK life sciences clusters. It is one of the biggest in Europe, employing more than 60,000 people in the area. It has had investment from major life sciences companies, including Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. It houses world-leading institutions, such as the Francis Crick Institute and the Wellcome Trust, as well as some of the country’s leading biomedical research centres. University College London hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital and Moorfields eye hospital are also based there.

We are proud of this industry; it has delivered great things for our country in the past, does so today and will continue to do so in the future. That is why life sciences is one of the eight priority sectors in the industrial strategy, and is backed by £2 billion of public investment to enable it to grow, lead the world and make great discoveries, such as personalised cancer vaccines and the new test for Alzheimer’s disease. MSD’s investment in the area would have enhanced the sector’s status further, and the fundamentals of the UK market are actually more advantageous today than when it made the decision to invest in this project. What has changed are the US and international fundamentals.

The UK has become the most attractive place to invest in the world, but of course, there is still a lot more for this Government to do. The academic environment in the UK continues to produce innovative ideas, and the talent to run with those ideas, which attracts foreign investment. The environment for research is outstanding; we have great academics; and the NHS provides a research platform that is second to none.

The decision is in part due to a broader effort by MSD to ensure that the company is optimising its investment and focusing its resources on its key drivers of growth. As such, it is not continuing its job discovery operations in the UK. The company has recently announced in its quarterly report that it is to cut $3 billion a year from its operating costs, resulting in a significant impact on its share price. That is compounded by an ever more challenging and uncertain global economic situation as regards trade and tariffs.

The problem with NHS medicines goes back 15 years— I wonder who was in charge over that period. Spending on NHS medicines has fallen from 15% to 9% in that time, and the last joint agreement on medicine prices by the sector and the previous Government was in 2023. We are living with the consequences of under-investment by the previous Government, who took their eye off the ball when it comes to NHS medicine investment. My right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary made a £1 billion offer to the sector in the summer. However, the Government also recognise that we need to do more to support and grow our life sciences sector. We have already started delivering on the work of investing £600 million in the health data research service alongside the Wellcome Trust, and are committing up to £520 million for life sciences innovation and manufacturing, unlocking billions of pounds. We continue to work closely with the sector to unlock growth and ensure life-changing treatments and technologies for this innovative sector.

MSD will continue to be a key investor in the UK. I welcome its continued investment in clinical trials, and its significant partnerships with our institutions, such as Our Future Health. MSD will continue to employ 1,600 people. We remain closely engaged with MSD as we take forward the life sciences sector plan and the 10-year NHS plan. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I say this gently, as Ministers are in new positions, but you are only allowed three minutes in an urgent question, not the five minutes you get for a statement. I am sure that you are coming to the end now, Minister. \p Ian Murray: Thank you for your advice, Mr Speaker. I am on my last sentence. We will continue to explore opportunities to partner with MSD further and build on our long-standing relationship. \p Julia Lopez: I hope you will give me the same flexibility if I go a little over my time, Mr Speaker. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Don’t count on it. \p Julia Lopez: Last night, US pharmaceutical giant Merck cancelled the construction of a £1 billion drug research centre in the Prime Minister’s constituency. Eight hundred jobs that were going to be provided have now evaporated; 125 scientists were to be employed—no longer. The message from Merck executives was unsparing: simply put, the UK is not internationally competitive. The Government must wake up now.

If AstraZeneca’s announcement on investment was the canary in the mine for UK life sciences, last night’s announcement should be a klaxon sounding across Whitehall. Will the Minister assure us that he is arranging urgent meetings with Health, Business and Treasury Ministers today?

The facility was going to specialise in diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. It was going to feed into the work of a cluster of life sciences bodies, such as the Francis Crick Institute. Did the Government engage with Merck before its decision? What damage will this cause to research and medicine access for our constituents who are affected by those conditions?

The Government told UK taxpayers that their devastating national insurance hike would boost the NHS, but NHS leaders admit that the money has gone on national insurance, wage deals and drug price inflation, not better services, and there is no money left for negotiations with life sciences companies. In fact, life sciences have faced a £1.6 billion tax bill and a real-terms cut to research and development. What are Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology doing to push the Health Secretary for progress on health data, advanced therapies, price negotiations and regulatory reform of the kind that will improve our life sciences offer?

For the last year, Labour has dined out on deals secured by the last Conservative Government. We were promised that a US-UK trade deal would open doors for business. Instead, American firms are cancelling projects, and our ambassador, who should have been batting for Britain, was battling for survival. Now that Lord Mandelson has slinked away—again—who is speaking to the Americans about this collapsed deal? What will the Prime Minister be doing ahead of President Trump’s state visit to help UK life sciences?

I welcome the Minister to his place, but where is the Secretary of State? In her very first week, she has overseen a £1 billion investment collapse. If she does not understand that this is the most important thing in her brief right now, and if the Government do not change course, it will not be the last deal to collapse. \p Ian Murray: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for bringing the urgent question to the Chamber, as this is an incredibly important issue. Let me answer some of the questions—I think there were some questions in there.

The shadow Secretary of State asked what message America has given to the Government, but the message was from Merck in its quarterly report just a few months ago, when it had to cut $3 billion a year from its operations. That is a significant amount of money, and the company’s share price reflected the significance of that announcement. There is no doubt that MSD makes the world’s most profitable and popular cancer drug, which goes out of patent in 2028. It said in the quarterly report that that is causing some pressure with its share- holders. The US trade deal, which the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, said that we would use best endeavours to improve the conditions for US pharmaceutical companies in the UK, and the tariff for pharmaceutical companies to the US remains at 0%. The EU has a 15% blanket tariff.

In terms of NHS medicines, it is a common theme that shadow Secretaries of State come to this Chamber and bemoan the state of the economy and what has happened in the NHS. Waiting lists are falling from the record levels they were at. Satisfaction with the NHS when we left government in 2010 was at its highest level ever. It is now at its lowest— \p Dr Caroline Johnson: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We cannot have points of order in the middle of the Minister’s response; they come at the end. \p Ian Murray: There is no doubt that spending on NHS medicines has fallen from 15% to 9%, which is part of the problems in the pharmaceutical industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made a £1 billion offer to the pharmaceutical industry over the summer, but it chose not to vote on that, so he withdrew from negotiations.

We are trying to clear up the mess that has been left after 14 years of Conservative government. The shadow Secretary of State should realise that that mess is deep and wide, and it will cause problems in the sector, but as the Health Secretary has stated a number of times, including when he made that £1 billion offer, he is trying to resolve some of these underlying issues. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Chi Onwurah: I welcome the Minister to his place, but I wish it was under better circumstances. The loss of Merck’s investment, following the loss of AstraZeneca’s investment in January, will certainly be perceived as a blow to the UK’s life sciences sector, though we must not forget the amazing work that businesses, start-ups and researchers do in constituencies across the country, including my own. We also must not forget the importance of value for money in NHS spending.

The Select Committee will hold an urgent session on Tuesday to examine the issues in the life sciences sector, including tariffs, investment incentives from the US, access to capital and the relationship with NHS pricing. In the meantime, it is clear that the life sciences sector plan, published in July, does not reflect market conditions. Could the Minister update us on how, and how quickly, he plans to revise that plan? \p Ian Murray: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that constructive approach, and I look forward to the session on Tuesday to examine this really important issue. She mentioned the life sciences sector plan, which is really important. It comes with significant investment in research and development, improving clinical trial performance, and moving money and support from other key sectors into the sectors that are in the industrial strategy. Life sciences benefit from that. There is £2.5 billion a year going into life sciences from this Government, and that contributes to the £9 billion that the private sector invests every year.

As the Chair of the Select Committee will know, the Chancellor gave the most generous settlement for research and development ever in the spending review last year, with £86 billion over the spending review period. That is to support the industrial strategy, of which life sciences is a key sector. I know from companies in my constituency that the sector is growing and needs more support, and we are determined to deliver that. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Ian Sollom: I welcome the Minister to his place. It is incredibly disappointing that MSD has pulled out of this billion-pound investment in the UK, including the loss of more than 100 jobs in important life sciences infrastructure. However, this has been on the cards for some time, and the warnings to Government have fallen on deaf ears. Earlier this year, AstraZeneca also cancelled planned upgrades to its production, and Novartis has described  the UK as “largely uninvestable”. One pharmaceutical company reducing its UK operations is a problem, but there is a worrying trend that threatens a crisis in the sector.

The UK is becoming less and less attractive to the life sciences industry, and with good reason. First, the Budget saw huge rises in costs to all businesses, including through Labour’s jobs tax. Secondly, there has been a notable lack of investment across the life sciences sector, including in job creation, critical skills and creating a commercial environment that can compete internationally. The Lib Dems continue to call for the Government to make research and development investment 3.5% of GDP, and the life sciences would be a key focus. That would be coupled with extra support for academic institutions to commercialise research. How do the Government plan to restore confidence among pharmaceutical companies that the UK is a competitive place for research and development and manufacturing? \p Ian Murray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. It is important to lay out to the public and to the House that MSD will continue to employ 1,600 people and be a key part of the life sciences sector. There are many companies that are investing in this country—Moderna, BioNTech, Isomorphic Labs—and in my own constituency, Roslin CT is expanding at such a great pace that it cannot keep up with the amount of space and the wet lab facilities it requires. Those are all the challenges that we have to try and deal with.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman: the second sentence of his contribution was about the national insurance increases for employers and the fourth was about spending more money on R&D and life sciences. They cannot both be true. If we want to spend money on our priorities—political parties will have different priorities—we have to raise that money. We cannot have it both ways. The message to the industry is: this is the best place in the world to invest. Bring your investment here and this Government back you through an industrial strategy and a life sciences sector plan. \p Steve Race: I welcome the Minister to his place. Exeter has a very strong life sciences and R&D sector and just recently the University of Exeter was awarded £10.5 million from UK Research and Innovation to set up the metamaterials hub—that is real cutting-edge science—which also leveraged extra private sector investment of another £10 million. Does the Minister agree that that sort of investment and commitment to research and development will enable cities such as Exeter to thrive and grow in future? \p Ian Murray: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work with the university in his constituency in a whole number of areas. All who represent university towns— I do as well—know that there is significant investment going into research and development and the life sciences, because that is the future for this country.

This country is committed to growth, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will do everything I can in this role to ensure that we invest in that. I gently remind the House again that the spending review saw the largest ever settlement for research and development in this country at £86 billion. That says to the industry: we are open for business; come and invest here and put life sciences at the top of that investment. \p Roger Gale: Discovery Park in my constituency at Sandwich is the phoenix that rose from the ashes of Pfizer. It is now a cluster of over 100 enterprising and successful small companies in the life sciences field. The loss of cornerstones such as AstraZeneca and MSD could have a devastating effect upon the architecture of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. What are the Government going to do, practically, to reverse the decline in confidence in that industry? \p Ian Murray: I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the utmost respect, that in the first part of his question he quite rightly promotes the wonderful work that is going on in his constituency at the Discovery Park and then says that everything is doom and gloom. That is not the case. This Government are investing in research and development to the tune of £86 billion, we are investing in the life sciences—it is one of the eight key sectors in the industrial strategy—and I hope that the business park in his constituency benefits fundamentally from that. I merely repeat that MSD is not leaving the UK. It will still employ 1,600 people here and be the cornerstone of research in this country. \p Lauren Sullivan: I welcome the Minister to his place. This is devastating news for the research scientists and the fantastic work they do on neuroscience, inflammation and immunology. Some of that is being carried out at the Francis Crick Institute, where I declare I am unpaid visiting research scientist. Does the Minister agree that the UK has so much expertise to offer and that he needs to look at the whole life science ecosystem, from bench discovery to dispensing at the bedside? Will he join us at the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on Tuesday afternoon when we can go into those issues in depth? \p Ian Murray: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work, unpaid, at the research institute. It will be good to hear from her about what she sees from inside the sector. She raises, I think, the most important point in any debate about science, research and development and life sciences in particular in this country: we have world-class institutions and companies and they are made so by the world-class scientists and academics that work within them. We should cherish that, we should grow it and we should have more \p John Glen: At Porton Down in my constituency, there is a hub of life science businesses. I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I recognise the difficult dilemmas that all Governments have in where to focus investment. However, the Minister must surely recognise that the additional cost of employing people, with the additional rights and burdens that that puts on employers—particularly small employers—plus 11 weeks of speculation about further tax increases will not make any sector feel more comfortable about where to invest in this country. \p Ian Murray: The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister, so he understands some of the issues involved here. I would merely point him to the report MSD released to its shareholders for the first quarter, in which it said that it had to divest from $3 billion a year  in operating costs—that is a huge part of its operating agenda. It is a geopolitical issue as well as a commercial decision. \p Bob Blackman: The Minister will know that the part of London where MSD was going to invest has received significant investment for medical research, particularly research of brain-related diseases. This decision casts doubt on the future of the greater King’s Cross area. What are the implications of the decision to disinvest on that particular proposal, which has cross-party support? \p Ian Murray: At this stage, I am not aware that there will be any downside to the entirety of the ecosystem that revolves around the King’s Cross area of London. This decision has obviously come very late to the Government, and we will work with MSD on the future. However, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), there is a very bright future for this particular cluster, and for all the other clusters we have heard about from other Members across the Chamber this morning. \p Danny Beales: For transparency, I should declare that I was the director of the Knowledge Quarter partnership in King’s Cross and cabinet member responsible for negotiating the MSD headquarters deal. It is disappointing news today. Turning to my current constituency, I hear from a number of life sciences and pharmaceutical companies that they have concerns about the previous Government’s levy under VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—and how it is working in practice, in particular that it is focused on revenue, not profit, and does not take into account the differential level of R&D needed. Celltrion, a South Korean company in my constituency, highlights that biosimilar medications require a lot more investment than other forms of pharmaceuticals. Will the Minister or his counterpart meet me and Celltrion to discuss the biosimilar sector and how we can support it to grow? \p Ian Murray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and would be happy to take him up on that meeting to hear about his experience directly. He raises the big issue around the legacy left by the previous Government after 15 years of underinvestment in medical pricing. The Health Secretary made a £1 billion offer to the pharmaceutical industry over the summer, which the pharmaceutical industry decided not to vote on, so it was withdrawn, which was disappointing. The last deal was done in 2023 under the previous Government. This is a long-term issue that must be resolved. \p Kim Johnson: Life sciences play a significant role in the economy and public health initiatives across the Liverpool city region. It was a blow earlier this year when AstraZeneca pulled out of the £450 million deal to expand its plant in Speke. How is the Department supporting the Liverpool City Mayor and the life sciences investment zone to build confidence and secure greater investment for the sector? \p Ian Murray: Very simply, the life sciences sector plan has been set out to give the industry certainty over the longer term that this Government are serious about the  investment that both we and the industry will make in the sector, with £2.5 billion a year from this Government and, at £86 billion, the largest settlement for R&D ever in the spending review. I hope that gives reassurance to my hon. Friend’s constituents and to the life sciences companies in her constituency and around the region that this Government are serious about backing them. \p Graham Leadbitter: I welcome the right hon. Member to his new role, although admittedly I am surprised that Labour have adopted the fire and rehire strategy. Scotland has one of the highest concentrations of life sciences hubs, and in the past five years has created six innovation centres directly aligned to life sciences. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this announcement on Scotland’s research and development sector, and what support does he plan to put in place? \p Ian Murray: I visited RoslinCT in my own constituency last Friday. The life sciences sector in Scotland is indeed buoyant and flourishing. There are lots of opportunities for it to expand. It is probably a dividend of the Union. \p Adam Jogee: I am very pleased that the Minister has confirmed and reiterated that the life sciences remain a priority in the industrial strategy. Keele University in Newcastle-under-Lyme is at the heart of our life sciences sector, which is particularly important for jobs and opportunities in the industrial heartlands in communities like mine, so will the Minister find time to meet me to talk about how we can support the work at Keele—or, even better, will he get on the train to come and see us? \p Ian Murray: I am very happy to do so. I think that is my third invite already this morning. The question and the invite to Newcastle-under-Lyme demonstrate the thriving life sciences sector all across the country. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we intend to back the life sciences sector. Although the decision from MSD in relation to their new building at King’s Cross was incredibly disappointing, the sector is a thriving one, and many companies are investing and growing very quickly. \p Tom Gordon: This is just the latest in a series of blows to UK life sciences. Companies have been pulled towards the US with incentives and tariffs, while we have no detailed industrial strategy, an uncompetitive tax regime from the Treasury, and a Department of Health and Social Care that undervalues drug access. When the Government announced their life sciences plan, it fell short of what the industry and the sector expected, so will the Government commit to an updated cross-party refresh and give businesses the stability they need to invest in Britain? \p Ian Murray: The hon. Member talks about yet more spending but with no idea of how the revenue would be increased. This Government had to make some incredibly difficult decisions in order to balance the books to give that stability in the economy so that we could invest in R&D, including in the life sciences. The NHS 10-year plan is moving from treatment to prevention, which require medicines; moving from hospital to community, which will require medicines; and moving from analogue  to digital, which will enhance and better target medicines for patients. That is just one example of what we are doing in the NHS to improve our life sciences sector. It is a key part of the industrial strategy—one of the eight key sectors—and we intend to back it through the strategy. \p Peter Swallow: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) to his place as life sciences Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care.

I am incredibly ambitious for the life sciences in my constituency of Bracknell and across Berkshire; it is a key industry for us. Will my right hon. Friend share my ambition and agree to meet me, or set up a meeting with the life sciences Minister, to discuss what more we can do to support the sector in Bracknell? \p Ian Murray: In the interests of time: yes. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Medical isotopes are critical for the treatment of cancer, for diagnoses and for other medical applications, yet there have long been concerns about security of supply. Through Project ARTHUR—advanced radioisotope technology for health utility reactor—the Welsh Government are working with the nuclear-licensed site at Trawsfynydd in my constituency to develop the means of producing medical isotopes for security of supply here in the UK. What is the Minister’s Department doing to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to find a way of bringing that forward? \p Ian Murray: I have just been working with the Department of Health and Social Care to try to bring that forward. I do not know the exact answer to the right hon. Lady’s question. If I knew the answer, I would give it. I do not, so I will write to her. \p Laurence Turner: I welcome the Minister to his place.

The life sciences sector is helping to regenerate parts of south Birmingham’s economy, from the new Waters pharmaceutical factory on the old Longbridge MG Rover site in my constituency to the University of Birmingham’s life science incubator. The Minister has been extremely generous in agreeing to meet Members today, so continuing in that spirit, would he be willing to meet south Birmingham MPs to discuss what more can be done to support this very important part of our local economy? \p Ian Murray: I am tempted to say no, just to see what reaction that gets! But of course I will meet any hon. or right hon. Member across the House to discuss the life sciences sector. Whether we are talking about the north, south, east or west, including in my own constituency, the life sciences play a key role and will continue to do so. \p Gregory Stafford: I must declare that my wife works in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry. The Minister and the Chancellor claim to want to boost growth, yet investment is fleeing the very sectors that he claims are a priority. Is it not the case that the vague aspirations of the Government do   not meet the real-world test and that the people who are going to suffer from this are his constituents and, unfortunately, mine? \p Ian Murray: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s wife on what she does in the sector—she is the only one in the family with a real job. That shows the depth and breadth of the sector across the country; everyone will know someone who works in it. We have £86 billion from the spending review going into research and development, and £2.5 billion backing the life sciences sector plan. Economic and geopolitical issues are of course affecting the pharmaceutical industry at the moment. As I said in my opening remarks, MSD’s quarterly report said that it had to take $3 billion out of operating costs over the next few years; unfortunately and regrettably, this decision is part of that plan. \p Richard Foord: I represent people who work at the excellent Living Systems Institute at the University of Exeter. The purpose-built institute was launched in 2017 to bring together physicists, mathematicians, biologists and biomedical scientists, with the expectation that the life sciences sector was going to enjoy substantial foreign direct investment in the years to come. What effect do the Government anticipate the withdrawal of private investment for life sciences will have on research students, including those at Exeter? \p Ian Murray: I would say to life sciences students in the fledgling part of their career that it is a career they should be in for the long term. Life sciences is the future, which is why it is one of the eight key sectors in   our industrial strategy. The news the Government have had today on MSD’s commercial decision is incredibly disappointing, but lots of wonderful stuff is going on in the sector, so we should not talk it down. Moderna is investing more, BioNTech is investing more, Isomorphic Labs is investing more, and RoslinCT in my constituency is investing more. Right across the Chamber today we have heard about the companies that are investing more in life sciences. It is a growing industry, so I say to fledgling academics and people who want to get involved in the industry: get in there. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers. I think we are all seeking reassurance in relation to the sector. The news that MSD has withdrawn its plan for a research centre in the United Kingdom, with the loss of 125 potential jobs and staff, is devastating for our science plans. It shows a lack of faith in long-term planning by the investors we are so reliant on. How will the Minister seek to reassure global partners that science investment is a priority for this Government? Will we see a swift return of investment to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? \p Ian Murray: Our workforce are the very best in the world, and our world-class institutions are made world class because of that world-class workforce. This is the best place in the world to invest at the moment. We are in discussions with the US in respect of the pharmaceutical industry and the tariffs in the EU-US economic deal. Lots of positive stuff is going on in the industry, and if we are to send out one message to the industry from the House today, it is that the industry is thriving. It is one of the eight key sectors in our industrial strategy and this Government back it. We are backing it with money, with our strategy, and as a whole Government. \p Jesse Norman: Will the new Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the new Leader of the House and thank the previous Leader of the House. I am looking forward to this session! \p Alan Campbell: Probably more than I am, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 15 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

Tuesday 16 September—Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill.

The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 16 September and return on Monday 13 October.

The business for the week commencing 13 October includes:

Monday 13 October—General debate on baby loss. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 14 October—Remaining stages of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 15 October—Remaining stages of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill.

Thursday 16 October—Second Reading of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.

Friday 17 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 20 October includes:

Monday 20 October—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill. \p Jesse Norman: I thank the Leader of the House for the business.

On this 24th anniversary of 9/11, I know the whole House will want to join me and, I am sure, the Leader of the House in sending our best wishes to the families and the friends of the victims of those horrendous terrorist attacks.

So, too, our best wishes go to those grieving the murder of Charlie Kirk in the USA, and to our own great colleague, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for the terrible news she has had this morning.

I thank the recently departed Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). She and I had our disagreements; I do not think there is much doubt about that. She supported the wrong football team, and I struggled to get her to answer my questions, but she was diligent and effective in responding to Members across the House, as well as in Committee. Without getting too teary about it, I will even miss her appalling puns.

But it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Hurricane tax dodge blew away the Deputy Prime Minister and destroyed the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted phase  two, but it has brought us the former Labour Chief Whip! He was a history teacher, and there cannot be many better forms of public service than that. After his distinguished career channelling industriously away in the usual channels, I warmly welcome him blinking into the bright lights of the Dispatch Box.

I had somehow thought that, having plumbed the depths of incompetence over the summer, the Government would now settle down a bit. How naïve—how desperately foolish—I was. The No. 10 team were obviously taking the mickey. They were laughing at us. “You think this is incompetent?”, they said, “We have hardly got going. We can do vastly better than that. Resets are for wimps—let’s have a full-blown crash reshuffle. Let’s have a new Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, as well as a new Deputy Prime Minister. And let’s undermine the Chancellor of the Exchequer by ostentatiously lining up the former Chief Secretary to replace her. The markets will really welcome that. Even better—let’s have an election for deputy leader of the party. People are already scared to death about all the taxes coming in the Budget, but they will be completely reassured if we run a Labour leadership election at the same time. Ideally, we can make the deputy leader a former Cabinet Minister whom the Prime Minister has just abruptly fired. That’ll be good for stability. Oh, and we can go further! We can actively undermine relations with our closest ally if we throw in a major scandal over the Prime Minister’s personal choice as ambassador to the USA.”

If only this were a joke—instead, it is a tragedy. It is like we are trapped in an unending episode of “The Office”, with the Prime Minister as David Brent. The unions are ratcheting up their pay demands. The RMT is holding seven days of rolling walk-outs. The tube has come to a standstill. The only people who probably will not be affected are junior doctors in London, who have voted to have strikes until the new year, so they will be staying at home anyway. As the former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies remarked, it all shows how “staggeringly unprepared” Labour was for government, and it is we across this House and all our constituents who are paying the price for their arrogance and negligence.

The Leader of the House will only just be coming up to speed now, of course—one perfectly understands that—but, if I may, I would make one early request of him, with the utmost seriousness. He will know that many thousands of veterans, including hundreds in my constituency and in his, have had their lives thrown into uncertainty and bad—desperate, in some cases—anxiety by the Government’s decision to repeal the Northern Ireland veterans legislation, the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That was more than a year ago now. The Government promised a legally sound and effective legislative solution to the problem they had created, so could the Leader of the House let us know—now or in a written update before the recess—when the Northern Ireland Secretary will come to the House and publish that solution? \p Alan Campbell: First, may I add my tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for her excellent work as Leader of the House over the last year? She spearheaded the revival of the Modernisation Committee, which was a manifesto commitment, and oversaw the packed legislative programme that formed the basis of  this Government’s first King’s Speech. I know that I am among many MPs across the House who want to thank her for her diligence and hard work.

I would also like to express my thanks to Colin Lee, the Clerk of Legislation, who retires this week, having joined the House service in 1988. MPs from across the House have valued his wise counsel over many years, and I know the whole House will wish him well.

I know that the House will also share my sadness about the death of Sir Roger Sands, who was Clerk of the House from 2003 to 2006. Sir Roger was a distinguished servant of the House for 41 years, and the House will want to convey our condolences to Lady Sands and Sir Roger’s family.

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for welcoming me to my place. Before I turn to his remarks, I should caution him, and indeed the House, that the last time I answered a question at the Dispatch Box was in the same year that the iPad was released. Both you and I, Mr Speaker, had a little more hair and of a darker hue. At the time the average price of a pint of beer was £2.91—there are people sat behind me who were not even old enough to buy alcohol then.

I am looking forward to these sessions with the shadow Leader of the House. We have been in the House together for a decade, but I cannot claim to know him particularly well, so I also went to Wikipedia to find out a bit more. He is a philosopher, a historian and an author of note. It is clear that he is a thinking Conservative, which is an increasingly rare commodity.

I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the anniversary of 9/11, and about the death of Charlie Kirk. Let us remember that, in these circumstances, Mr Kirk’s family have been robbed of a father and a husband. There is no justification at all for political violence, whatever the views of the person involved.

I know that there will inevitably be a degree of knockabout about the state of the Government, and indeed of the Opposition, at business questions. I am happy, any day, to have a debate on the comparison between this Government’s 14 months and the right hon. Gentleman’s disastrous Government of 14 years. The only thing that we were unprepared for was the scale of the state that this country was in.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s substantive point about Northern Ireland, he knows that those are difficult matters and that the Government have given a commitment to bringing forward legislation. It is important that reassurances are in place, and I can tell him that the Government will be saying something shortly.

Let me finish with this. The shadow Leader of the House and I both have a deep respect for Parliament. I can give him and the House the reassurance that I take my responsibility, both as the Government’s representative in Parliament and as the House’s representative in Government, very seriously indeed. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I expect this to run for around an hour, so Members can help each other with short and punchy questions. I call Elsie Blundell to set a good example. \p Elsie Blundell: I welcome the Leader of the House to his place. I applaud the Government for the bold action that they are taking to reform the criminal justice system, but more must be done to safeguard communities from violent reoffenders. In Middleton, I have been in touch with the courageous family of Michael Hoolickin. Michael was tragically killed in 2016 by a prolific offender who, despite supposedly being under the supervision of the local probation service, was not prevented from committing that appalling act, which has devastated the lives of Michael’s family and friends. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time so that Members may consider how to mitigate reoffending by violent perpetrators, and to give voice to the countless bereaved families out there, who deserve our compassion and focus? \p Alan Campbell: That is without doubt an appalling tragedy, and my thoughts are with Michael’s family. It is important that we address reoffending—that is critical to public safety. On Tuesday we have the Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill. It aims to reduce offending, which has a devastating effect on victims. I encourage my hon. Friend to consider speaking in that debate. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: I welcome the new Leader of the House to his place. I join him and the shadow Leader of the House in thank the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for her sterling efforts, especially with so many people bobbing to ask questions every Thursday morning. I look forward to working with the Leader of the House in the various Committees on which we serve. I hope that he will follow the Government’s mantra to go further and faster, especially in modernisation.

Today is a big day for news. In particular, I echo the words condemning the appalling attack on the office of the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—for whom I have a huge amount of respect.

I also join other colleagues in recognising that today is the 24th anniversary of 9/11. I am sure that the whole House agrees with the importance of remembering the victims, including British citizens, their families and those who continue to be affected physically and mentally by the attack and its aftermath.

This week, I again met victims and family members who have been subjected to ongoing injustice in our health system, in particular women and their children who were affected by shocking failures of medical devices or by the prescription of drugs that had devastating and life-changing consequences. While pregnant, my constituent Mary was prescribed the anti-epilepsy medication, sodium valproate. Very sadly, Mary joined so many other parents whose children were consequently born with significant birth defects. Like any parent of a disabled child, Mary is incredibly worried about their future and what support will be in place to look after them when she is no longer able to.

Victims and their families are exhausted. They have campaigned for many years to draw political attention to such matters, but it seems that successive Governments  are not listening. Indeed, the Government have yet to respond to the Hughes report on the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals that was published more than 18 months ago. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to make a statement to this House to provide an update urgently? \p Alan Campbell: I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her question. I, too, look forward to working with her on the Commission and the Modernisation Committee. I commend her for campaigning on these important matters. Our sympathies are with those affected, and we are fully focused on how best to support patients and to prevent future harm. The Government will continue to listen to those affected in this complex area, and I will ensure that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care and in the Cabinet Office have heard her concerns. If my hon. Friend wishes to meet them, I will seek a meeting. \p Mary Foy: I had the pleasure of meeting Fergus, Freddie and Michael, members of the band Jam Tub, on a recent visit to Framwellgate school in Durham. These musicians are passionate about contributing to Durham’s cultural vibrancy, performing at events such as the much-loved Durham fringe festival. They contacted me after they noticed a distinct lack of venues across the whole of County Durham for young bands to perform and practice in, limiting their opportunities to grow as musicians. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the importance of addressing regional cultural inequalities that are having an impact on the opportunities available to talented youngsters not just in Durham, but across the country? \p Alan Campbell: As a Durham lad, I concur with my hon. Friend. It is a question not just of venues in Durham, but of venues across the country. The Government and, in particular, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are cognisant of that. We will be doing everything that we can to support them. Such issues affect a lot of constituencies. Therefore, should she choose to seek a Backbench Business debate or even an Adjournment debate, I am sure that she would receive support from across the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. I hope that we can have an early meeting to ensure that Back Benchers can have their voice heard in this Chamber, as before.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for 13 October, when we return from the conference recess. Given past experience of when we return from recesses, with the likelihood of statements and possibly urgent questions, and given that 78 people want to speak on the baby loss debate, I ask him to consider giving it protected time, so that they are able to relay their stories.

In addition, the business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 16 September will be a debate on the International Day of Democracy. On 16 October, there will be a debate on World Menopause Day, followed by a debate on Ada Lovelace Day and Government support for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  On 23 October, there will be a debate on histological testing of excised moles, followed by a debate on the impact of NHS workforce levels on cancer patients.

I was very tempted to ask a question about the legalisation that happened in an employment tribunal earlier this week that means it is now possible to discriminate against people because of the football team they support. However, there is a much more serious issue: the situation in Nepal.

Following the deaths of 20 protesters, the Prime Minister of Nepal has resigned, the Parliament building has been set on fire and there is the threat of a military coup. I have many constituents with relatives in Nepal, and they are worried about the situation for their families. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to give a statement next week on what we are doing, as the United Kingdom, to protect those families and support the families in the United Kingdom? \p Alan Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and I look forward to working with him. I will commit to an early meeting with him and also to regular meetings. He will know I have long taken the view that we need to take care on Mondays, whether it is with Backbench business or Government business, when we return from recess. I will give some thought to protected time, but the reality is that we can often manage the business of that day. The Government can manage the number of statements that go on; there is an issue around managing urgent questions, which is not the Government’s decision, but it nevertheless can be managed. I will return to that issue if need be.

On the really important matter of the situation in Nepal, let me say the recent loss of life and violence in Nepal is appalling. We support fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights, including the right to protest and peaceful assembly, but violence is not the way forward. I expect that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be across this matter, but I will draw his remarks to its attention. \p Liz Twist: School holidays are great, but they can be a really tough time for some families. Programmes such as the holiday activities and food programme help to bridge the gap by providing not only meals, but opportunities to build social skills and confidence with age-appropriate activities and a side serving of fun. This year I attended a HAF Plus event hosted by Northumbria University, at which young people aged 13 to 16 could do just that by taking part in activities from baking to gaming and martial arts, which were designed by young people themselves. I am delighted that the Government have invested to extend the scheme for another three years. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can build on the success of HAF? \p Alan Campbell: I am delighted to hear about the success of the programme; as an alumnus, I am not surprised that Northumbria University is helping to deliver such successful programmes. It is a fantastic thing for our region. We recently announced that £600 million is being invested to extend the holiday activities and food programme for another three years, and it has already reached more than half a million children in the past year. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s question this morning. \p Karen Bradley: I welcome the Leader of the House to his place and pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell)—I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that she supports exactly the right football team.

People in Staffordshire Moorlands are very concerned that they should have their say about what happens in devolution plans. I am sure the Leader of the House will share my astonishment that the Reform-led Staffordshire county council has put forward a proposal for an east Staffordshire unitary authority, which would see not just Staffordshire Moorlands, but Burton, Uttoxeter, Tamworth and Lichfield drawn into a greater Stoke-on-Trent. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of local people having their own say on what happens in their local area? \p Alan Campbell: I have to say to the right hon. Member—I was going to say my right hon. Friend, which she is in many ways—that I do not share her astonishment about that at all, because that is not unique in places where Reform has councillors and is running councils. Nevertheless, it is an absolute shame that Reform councillors appear to have gone back on their word in this case. One of the themes that must run through the work we do in local government is listening to local people. I have no doubt that she will continue to make that case, and I urge her to do so by organising a debate on the matter. \p Sarah Coombes: The Sikh Helpline is a fantastic charity in my constituency that supports Sikhs and people from all backgrounds with abuse, addiction and mental health issues. Over the summer, it did a 350-mile bike ride from Scotland to West Brom to raise money. Will the Leader of the House congratulate all the riders who took part and make time for a debate on the importance of such civil society organisations? \p Alan Campbell: I first want to recognise the fantastic work that my hon. Friend did as my predecessor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. I thank her for what I assume, therefore, is her first business question. A 350-mile bike ride is a terrific achievement, and I join her in recognising the importance of the work that the Sikh Helpline does for its local community. That is the sort of matter that could perhaps be raised in an Adjournment debate. \p Roger Gale: I too welcome the new Leader of the House to his position. I suspect he will have rather more fun at the Dispatch Box than his successor in the Government Whips Office will. I associate myself with his kind remarks about Colin Lee, whose service as one of the Clerks of the House has been exemplary. As one of the longest-serving members of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs, I have had the pleasure of working with Colin over very many years. He will be sorely missed, and the House owes him a huge debt of gratitude.

Charities in the United Kingdom working in Africa tell me that as a result of the withdrawal of the United States Agency for International Development, women and children are dying in droves. The House will not be sitting when President Trump visits the United Kingdom,  so we will not have an opportunity to send a clear message from this House at that time, but the Prime Minister will have an opportunity. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to place on the agenda for discussion in the margins the withdrawal of USAID from Africa, which is having such a devastating effect? \p Alan Campbell: I will commit to making the Prime Minister aware of what the right hon. Gentleman has asked, and I hope that will be heard when the President visits. Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience and voice, I am pretty sure that message will be heard loud and clear. \p Jessica Asato: One of the concerns that my constituents in Lowestoft raise is the closure of our public toilets due to the local council’s redevelopment of our old Wilko site. I am concerned that older and disabled residents in particular are being dissuaded from spending their time and money in our town centre’s shops due to fear of being caught short. I recently met the British Toilet Association, and I learned that in the US there is a national standard of one toilet for every 10,000 people. I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate in Government time on the need for more toilets on our high streets. \p Alan Campbell: I could not agree more about the importance of the availability of toilets in our town centres. I am sure that issue comes to MPs’ attention very often. For many people—particularly those with complex needs or health conditions—the lack of a toilet can be the deciding factor in whether they leave the house. As the issue is clearly one for so many colleagues across the House, I think it would be a great topic for a Westminster Hall debate. \p Wera Hobhouse: I too welcome the Leader of the House to his place.

Just three days ago, the BBC revealed how effortlessly an illegal vape laced with Spice can be purchased through Snapchat. One in six confiscated vapes in schools now contains Spice, which is described as a zombie drug—a prison drug. That is potentially condemning young people to a lifelong addiction and a criminal life, yet this week Ofcom wrote that such evidence does not meet the bar for enforcement action, even under the new Online Safety Act 2023. Can we have a statement from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explain why Ofcom is refusing to hold social media companies accountable for drug dealing on their platforms, which puts thousands of young people at risk? \p Alan Campbell: As a former drugs Minister, I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern. I have always thought that a strong line should be taken, and of course social media plays a role in that. I thank her for raising that really important issue, which is important for many people, not least parents. I will draw her concerns to the attention of the new Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary. \p Jo Platt: Our high streets in Leigh and Atherton are being undermined by illicit shops that are used for money laundering, illegal working and counterfeit goods. Raids on shops  have taken place this week, leading to the seizure of over £10,000-worth of illicit goods, but the shops reopen within hours. Criminals are exploiting loopholes in the Licensing Act 2003, and councils are struggling to act. Will the Leader of the House confirm that restoring town centres is a Government priority, and will he allow time in Parliament to debate strengthening licensing laws and closing these damaging loopholes? \p Alan Campbell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her recent marriage. She raises a very important matter, and she is a doughty campaigner for her local community. High streets are a cornerstone of our local communities, and we are delivering 13,000 more officers in neighbourhood policing roles to tackle these matters. I will draw her comments to the attention of the relevant Department, but I encourage her to attend the next Home Office questions next week in order to raise this issue with Ministers directly. \p John Glen: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role.

May I echo the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) in drawing his attention to the reply that his predecessor gave to me on 27 February concerning the Government’s response to the report on valproate? It really is necessary that we get a response. Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the Independent Foetal Anti-Convulsant Trust came to see me this week. They are grateful for the opportunity to meet a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, but they really need a formal response to the commissioner’s report of 19 months ago. \p Alan Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am new to this role, but I give him a commitment that I will follow that up after this session. Hopefully, I will be able to arrange a meeting with the Minister and get a response, which sounds overdue. \p Sam Carling: I have been supporting constituents living in ex-military housing on Embry Road in Wittering, in my constituency. The Ministry of Defence sold the homes years ago, but my constituents have been left in limbo because their properties remain wrongly classified under MOD commercial energy contracts. Despite repeated attempts, many have been unable to set up domestic accounts and are now suddenly facing backdated gas and electricity bills of up to £6,000. Does the Leader of the House agree that the issue of billing errors deserves a debate in Parliament? Will he ensure that Ministry of Defence officials contact me so that we can get those homes reclassified, which would allow my constituents to access fair tariffs and avoid further financial distress? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and recognise that his constituents who have been affected will have gone through a great deal of stress in trying to deal with it. I will ask colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to reach out to him, in the hope that these matters can be resolved as soon as possible. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: May I, too, welcome the new Leader of the House to his place?

The Trussell Trust’s “Hunger in Wales” report, which was published this week, shows that families with three or more children are far more likely to be forced to turn to food banks. The two-child limit is at the root of this injustice. It deliberately punishes children because of the number of brothers and sisters they have, and it is driving thousands of families into needless hardship. Will Labour in Westminster and Labour in Cardiff work together to grant debates in Government time on the urgent need for this impoverishing policy to be scrapped? \p Alan Campbell: The right hon. Lady knows that we are already taking action to help working parents. For example, free breakfast clubs will put £450 in the pockets of working parents. We have doubled the amount of free childcare for eligible working parents, we are expanding free school meals and we are extending the household support fund. I mentioned earlier in my remarks the holiday activities and food programmes. We are doing a great deal.

I know that there are discussions and debates about what other action can be taken. The Government have a child poverty taskforce, which reports from time to time and will be reporting soon, regardless of whether it has something to say about this issue. I have no doubt that these will be hot topics in the run-up to the Budget, and there will be ample time to debate them. \p Michael Payne: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to his place.

I recently had the privilege of visiting Lambley reed pond. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking and paying tribute to Bonnie Bramwell and all those on the Lambley reed pond committee, who have worked tirelessly to protect and enhance one of the most beautiful hidden gems in my constituency? \p Alan Campbell: Yes, I will. Environmental matters are so important in constituencies, and the work of community groups is so important, because they are the heart of what makes a true community. I pay tribute not just to that group, but to my hon. Friend for his tireless work on their behalf. \p Alison Griffiths: Two nights ago, a man in his 30s was stabbed in the centre of Bognor Regis, and that follows a fatal stabbing earlier this year. Will the Government bring forward a debate to consider how to make high streets safer and tackle the increasing prevalence of knife crime in small seaside towns such as Bognor Regis? \p Alan Campbell: We are taking action to tackle knife crime. In fact, we have given a commitment to halve it over the next decade and, I hope, go even further. The hon. Member said two things that are particularly relevant to me. One is that, as a former Home Office Minister, I am acutely aware of the importance of levels of knife crime. The other is that, as an MP for a seaside town, I know how important it is that they are safe places not just for people to visit, but for people to live. The Government are absolutely determined to bear down on violent knife crime, and I am sure there will be opportunities to discuss that in future legislation or should she choose to seek a debate on the matter. \p Dave Robertson: Many right hon. and hon. Members will know the name Armitage Shanks as the company that has been making basins and toilets for over 200 years. However, fewer people will know that it takes its name from the village of Armitage in my constituency. Sadly, Armitage Shanks is planning to scale down its operation there, shutting one of its kilns and threatening up to 100 jobs. I am working closely with the GMB union to make sure that those affected can find other opportunities and to safeguard as many livelihoods as we can, but the impact of those job losses on the community will be serious. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on how the Government can help protect historic brands such as Armitage Shanks? \p Alan Campbell: The news of job losses that my hon. Friend brings to the House is disappointing. It is always disappointing when jobs are lost, and I know the whole House will share his concern, particularly as it is a well-known name employing a large number of people. We are committed to supporting British industry, and Armitage Shanks is a name well known throughout the land. The Chancellor has announced the date of the next Budget, which will turn to the long-term reforms that Britain needs to unlock growth and ensure that the economy works for working people. I will of course bring forward time for a debate following the Budget in the usual way. \p Andrew Rosindell: This is a truly sad and tragic day for our friends in the United States of America as they remember the events of 9/11 in 2001, and given the tragic assassination last night of Charlie Kirk. I was privileged to welcome him to the Houses of Parliament in 2018 and take him to Speaker’s House for a Christmas reception. He was a friend of the United Kingdom, he stood up for freedom and his Christian faith, and we mourn his loss and send our condolences to his family and friends.

Talking about someone of principle who stands up for freedom, 13 October—the day the House returns after the conference recess—will be the 100th anniversary of the birth of our finest post-war Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, which was to restore the British economy, stand up for Britain around the world, defend freedom and not give away British islands but protect, defend and restore them, as she did for the Falkland Islands in 1982? \p Alan Campbell: I echo the remarks I made earlier about Charlie Kirk. Whether we shared views or not, political violence is never acceptable.

Should the hon. Member wish to seek a debate on the anniversary of Mrs Thatcher’s birth, I can assure him that it would be well attended. I can also assure him that there would not be the unanimous approval of her legacy and record that he perhaps thinks there would be. I come from a community that was devastated by the loss of heavy industry, and to be honest, many of those communities are still suffering. The difference between those days and today is that when there is industrial change, this Government stand with working people to lessen the impact and ensure that new growth brings new jobs. \p Kim Johnson: I think I am the only MP who can say they have two amazing football stadiums and two majestic cathedrals in their constituency. Liverpool Riverside is in the top 10 areas nationally for jobs, economic income and economic value. However, the hospitality sector is still struggling to recover from covid and the rise in national insurance contributions. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time to discuss how we can bring the UK closer to EU competitors by reducing VAT and providing the maximum discount for hospitality sites with a rateable value of under £500,000, to stimulate demand, boost competitiveness and keep venues open? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner not just for her constituency, but for her city. The Government are always concerned about the state of hospitality and making sure that we encourage investment in hospitality, which is at the centre of many of our constituencies, not least mine. We must ensure that there is not just decent pay and conditions, but respect for the people who work in the sector. I gently say to my hon. Friend that I know the importance of getting the tax situation right, but we need to raise national insurance contributions in order to fill a financial hole. These were not easy decisions, but they were made, and people cannot have it both ways—they cannot have more spending on public services or hospitality support unless we actually raise the money in the first place. \p Richard Foord: I would like to request a debate on rural broadband and rural 4G. Broadband coverage in much of Devon is poor, in spite of the last Government saying that they would spend £5 billion on it. These 4G notspots are widespread, but the Government scheme to get rid of them bears absolutely no relation to the broadband scheme. Will this Government please get a map of those areas without proper broadband, plot the 4G notspots on it and at least get everyone I represent one or the other? \p Alan Campbell: I will draw these issues to the attention of the relevant Department, but we are investing £500 million this year to deliver Project Gigabit and the shared rural network, to drive the roll-out of digital infrastructure in parts of the UK that are currently underserved. That will improve full nationwide connectivity by 2030, with more than £2.3 billion of contracts signed to connect over 1 million homes in some of Britain’s most remote locations. \p Julie Minns: I welcome the new Leader of the House to his place and thank him for all the help and support he gave those of us who were newly elected to this place 12 months ago in his previous role.

Last Friday, Cumbria’s first community county flag was unveiled at a special service at Carlisle cathedral. Cumbria county flag is the result of a county-wide competition and public vote, won by Cumbrian artist Ben Walker and presented to the lord lieutenant by the 1st Wetheral Brownies. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Mr Walker on his excellent design and thank Cumbria’s lord lieutenant for organising such a fantastic initiative that celebrates community cohesion and pride? \p Alan Campbell: I am happy to send my congratulations to Mr Walker and the lord lieutenant. We are proud of our flags, both national and regional. I know that Mr Speaker likes to mark historic county days by flying flags from Parliament’s flagpoles, so we may see Cumbria’s new community flag flying in Parliament Square in the future. \p Luke Evans: May I ask the new Leader of the House for some help? I have been working with the Hinckley school to try and get its science and technology building project sorted. That has been going on for a couple of years and we are at a crucial point with contractors. With the reshuffle, the Minister in charge of that portfolio has been moved on, and we are therefore in a pending position. I have already sent the information to the Leader of the House and I would be grateful if he would contact the Department for Education on my behalf to put pressure on to ensure that we get a decision made on this, so that the development can get started before the winter sets in. \p Alan Campbell: I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue with Ministers before, and I also understand that officials from the Department for Education reached out to discuss the matter on Monday. I pay tribute to him for campaigning on the matter as an assiduous constituency MP on behalf of children, predominantly, but also parents and staff of the school. He will appreciate, as he has acknowledged, that new Ministers are in post after the reshuffle, and there is indeed a new Minister in this role. I will ensure that this is raised with the Minister at the earliest opportunity, in the hope that the hon. Gentleman gets the earliest response possible. \p Charlotte Nichols: I warmly welcome the Leader of the House to his new role and associate myself with the support across the House for my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). Members have raised many times the unacceptable level of threats that we face. Increasingly, abuse and threats are being driven and whipped up by one platform in particular, X, previously known as Twitter, which has become a sewer of antisemitism, racism, misogyny and dangerous conspiracy theories. Its owner has specifically targeted Members of this House. With a new director of communications in No. 10 and a refreshed Front Bench, may we have a debate in Government time on whether it is appropriate for that platform to continue to be used for official Government communications? \p Alan Campbell: What my hon. Friend says about X is truly shocking. We are very much in favour of free speech, but we are also against incitement to violence. We have delivered the Online Safety Act 2025 to seek to strike the balance between user protection and freedom of speech. On the matter of the Government’s use of X, it is right that the public are kept up to date with information and a number of people still use X, although of course many are moving to other platforms. I am sure that the Government will take that into account in our deliberations in future, and we also keep our wider social media practices under review. \p Rupert Lowe: My new political movement, Restore Britain, is currently running a membership poll on support for deporting all illegal  migrants. The response, from thousands of people, is almost unanimously in favour. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on mass deportations, given the extraordinary level of public support, and ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate not just the moral imperative but the legal and operational reforms required, including secure detention facilities, bilateral returns agreements, foreign aid suspensions, remittance taxes, visa cancellations, the introduction of a true hostile environment and plenty more, in order to deliver the mass deportation of every last illegal migrant at scale and pace? \p Alan Campbell: I am tempted to give the answer that one of my predecessors, Ted Short, gave, which is to say, “No”. However, I will not do that because these are important matters. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that I regard my role in this House as respecting the views of Members and making opportunities for Members to debate those, even if they are—I have to say—abhorrent. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that there are many ways in which these matters can be raised—he has just done so now. I am resisting the temptation to recite the very important work that the Government are doing, but if he seeks a debate on these matters in the usual way, perhaps he will be successful. \p Lola McEvoy: I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role and hope to see him being as generous with Government time as he was with his own time in his previous role. As he knows well, this month our country will celebrate 200 years since the world’s first passenger railway journey took place on the Stockton to Darlington railway. This momentous innovation changed the world and led to a huge industrial boom for our region. Hundreds of thousands of skilled workers have been employed in manufacturing and engineering roles over the past 200 years, but those jobs have declined recently due to the last Government’s neglect of British industry and manufacturing. Given how vital the ambitions of our region are for the industrial strategy, will he grant Government time to debate how this Government will back British workers, back British industry and get our region booming again? \p Alan Campbell: I commend my hon. Friend for the way she speaks for her constituency. It is important that we remember the 200th anniversary of the Stockton to Darlington railway, as it allows those of us from the north-east to claim that we are the cradle of the industrial revolution. As she alluded to, these things change over time. The Government are absolutely committed to bringing growth to every part of our country, including our north-east. That means working through our elected mayors as well as making sure that the skills we have in those engineering industries are kept—even though they are changing skills—and reskilling takes place. We must also have the support in place for companies who seek to invest in our region. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. About 20 Members are still on their feet and I am aiming to finish questions to the Leader of the House at 1 o’clock, so please keep your questions very brief. \p Ben Maguire: I welcome the new Leader of the House to his place. Grave breaches of international humanitarian law continue in Gaza, including the unlawful blockade of aid and illegal settlements. According to an aid worker I met recently, sanitary products are being withheld from women and girls. Meanwhile, our Prime Minister rolls out the red carpet for the Israeli President, a man who has said on the record that the entire Palestinian nation is responsible for the 7 October attacks. Will the Leader of the House please commit to a debate in Government time on the UK’s duty to ensure that international law is always upheld and on how we must work with law-abiding international partners to guarantee that carries real weight on the world stage? \p Alan Campbell: The Government have been clear in their condemnation of many of the things that have been happening over the last time in Gaza. They have made it clear that it is important that aid gets into the area and that we move towards a ceasefire to resolve this. But when the hon. Member talks about whom we might talk to about that, I say gently that most conflicts end with some kind of diplomacy, and that requires people to talk to each other, even though they may not agree. That allows the UK Government and the Prime Minister to put views across, which is really important. International law is at the heart of everything that the Government seek to do. As for an opportunity to raise that, there have been many statements and debates in this place about this important matter, and my intention is that that will continue. \p Tom Hayes: I have enjoyed many Bournemouth air festivals, so its cancellation has left a huge gap. I recently met an event organiser who has a plan, and I am open to meeting more organisers. The BH Area Hospitality Association, under the leadership of Rosie Radwell, has launched “Check In – Chill Out”, which is a campaign to showcase how great Bournemouth is. Does the Leader of the House agree in the strongest possible terms that Bournemouth is the best seaside town? Will he congratulate the campaign? Will he grant a debate on tourism, particularly for coastal and seaside towns? \p Alan Campbell: I very much congratulate Bournemouth on how it is promoting its town, as well as my hon. Friend on how he is promoting it. I have to say he is stretching it a bit by asking me to say it is the best seaside town since I have Whitley Bay in my constituency, but it should not be a competition. What we need to do is promote seaside and coastal towns. They are fantastic places to live and to visit. \p Tom Gordon: Last weekend, I met residents of New Park, alongside local Liberal Democrat councillor, Monika Slater. Residents are frustrated about the new Tesco that has been built and its impact on local businesses, with contractors regularly flouting the planning rules to work outside permitted hours. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on local authority enforcement powers and, perhaps, how we can get Tory-run North Yorkshire council to use them? \p Alan Campbell: I am not sure of the detail of this case, but it is not unfamiliar to many of us to see the stress that big developments sometimes cause to residents. Again, this is the sort of thing the hon. Gentleman should seek an Adjournment debate on. \p Chris Webb: I recently had the pleasure of attending this year’s switch-on of the iconic Blackpool illuminations, lighting up our promenade and attracting millions and millions of visitors each year since 1879. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Kate Shane, Richard Williams and all the people at Visit Blackpool, Blackpool council and Lightworks for delivering such an impressive event this year, and join me in encouraging more people, far and wide, to join us in Blackpool for the illuminations this year? \p Alan Campbell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kate Shane and everyone at Visit Blackpool on their hard work. I also congratulate him, because he is a champion not just for Blackpool’s cause, but for seaside and coastal towns in general. I have very fond memories of holidays in Blackpool—I have to say some time ago—and trips to see the illuminations. From the illuminations, the tower, the piers and the Pleasure Beach, my hon. Friend’s constituency really has something for everyone. I encourage people to visit the illuminations, not least because they ensure the town has attractions all year round and it is not just seasonal—that is very important. \p Susan Murray: One of my constituents has raised their concerns with me about the SEEMiS software used in the Scottish school system and the ability of staff to alter cases with no record of changes being made. Transparency in our public bodies is vital to the public trusting both our institutions and us. In these times when public trust in bodies is so low, will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on upholding the Nolan principles across all public bodies, so that taxpayers can have confidence that decisions are made with integrity and transparency? \p Alan Campbell: Again, I have to admit that I am not across this issue. We would be very supportive on the general principle of transparency. As I am not sure where responsibility lies for such decisions, I suggest that the hon. Lady writes to me, and she might seek a debate on the issue. \p Andrew Pakes: I am aware that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are a strong champion of animal welfare, so you might be pleased to know that tomorrow, for the end of our lido season, is a “bring your dogs to come and swim” day. You might also be pleased, alongside the Leader of the House, to know that this year over 37,000 people have visited Peterborough lido since it opened its doors in May. That is an incredible turnaround since we faced the risk of it closing earlier this year. I pay tribute to Clare Marshall, the Friends of the Lido and the staff of the lido for that amazing work. We can now look forward to the Year of the Lido in 2026, as the lido celebrates its 90th anniversary. I am not ambitious enough to invite the Leader of the House to come for a swim with me in the lido, but will he join me in congratulating everyone who supports our lido in Peterborough, and may we have a debate in Government time about the vital role that lidos play in so many of our communities? \p Alan Campbell: I am not sure that would be a particularly attractive sight, I have to say, because my memory suggests that my costume has a hole in the  knee. [Laughter.] But I do want to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Clare Marshall, the Friends of Peterborough Lido and of course its staff. A number of MPs have similar concerns—particularly seaside and coastal MPs, but also in other places around the country—and this is exactly the sort of topic that would be good for a Westminster Hall debate or a Backbench Business debate. I urge him to apply. \p Jim Shannon: I welcome the right hon. Member to his new role. There is less pressure as Leader of the House in contrast to the onerous duties of Chief Whip. He referred to the colour of his hair, but he still has his hair whereas mine has been disappearing for many years.

Concerning reports have emerged that the Indian Government are increasing efforts to forcibly return Rohingya refugees to Burma, following the deportation of 40 individuals in May. Rohingya refugees face the risk of severe human rights violations and persecution upon their return. Given the UK’s longstanding obligation to the principle of non-refoulement and the special relationship with India, will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to provide a statement outlining what action the Government will take to address this deeply concerning development and to ensure that the rights and safety of Rohingya refugees remain a priority? \p Alan Campbell: Perhaps this job is less pressured than my last one, but I confess that this morning it did not feel that way. As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. This Government are committed to defending human rights abuses, and regularly engage with the Government of India on a range of human rights matters. I will ensure that the Foreign Office has heard the concerns he raises, and I am sure that at the next Foreign Office questions he will also seek to raise the matter. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: While I will not be able to get everybody in, I will get more in if Members can keep their questions to about two sentences. To provide a good example, I call Matt Rodda. \p Matt Rodda: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—no pressure. Earlier this week, I was notified that Southern Gas Networks wants to dig up a major road in Reading for 18 weeks. This is the latest in a series of sudden and abrupt interventions by utility companies. Can we have a debate in Government time on the behaviour of utility companies and how better to regulate their activities digging up roads? \p Alan Campbell: Again, these are issues that affect constituents across the country. I am sure that if my hon. Friend sought a debate on these matters, either in Westminster Hall or a Backbench Business debate, he would find that it was well attended. \p Alex Mayer: Sadly, last week in my constituency there was yet more flooding. This follows on from a very dry period and the hottest summer on record. Clearly, the weather is changing. Would the Leader of the House consider bringing forward a debate on building resilience to more extreme weather events, as he makes the political weather? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I am sure there will be a lot of people across the country, particularly those who were hardest hit by the very fine and dry weather, concerned about what might happen going forward, in both the short and long term. Our flood resilience taskforce is focused on the long-term delivery of our flood resilience strategy and investment. Should she seek a debate, it would allow Ministers to set out our plans. \p Danny Beales: In recent days I have been contacted by many residents concerned about increasing hate crime, racist graffiti, vandalism and even violence against police at protests. Will the Leader of the House join with me in the view that there is no place for hate in Hillingdon or anywhere in the UK, that our diversity is our strength, and that those coming to our community to work in our hospitals, in social care and to set up businesses are very welcome? Will he also make time in this place for a debate about a national cohesion strategy, and local strategies to follow? \p Alan Campbell: I absolutely join with my hon. Friend in his remarks. I am proud to say that this country is overwhelmingly inclusive, but it would be wrong to say that we do not face challenges in some communities. The Government are committed to developing a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion. Housing, Communities and Local Government questions will take place once we return from recess. The subject would also make a timely Westminster Hall debate. \p Steve Race: The women’s rugby world cup is providing a fantastic sporting showcase, including the seven matches hosted by Sandy Park in Exeter to sell-out crowds. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the organisers, including the staff at Exeter city council and the teams for an excellent tournament so far, and send the best of luck from this place to all the home nation teams as they enter the knock- out stages this weekend? \p Alan Campbell: With record-breaking crowds at the rugby world cup and tens of thousands of fans packing out the Mall for the Lionesses’ victory parade after their amazing success in the Euros, we are showing ourselves to be true world leaders in women’s sport. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the organisers, but also in wishing success for the home nations. As he knows, there is a game this weekend between England and Scotland —both home nations—so it is a case of which side to pick. \p David Williams: This week, 6 Towns Radio, a community radio station broadcasting to the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme celebrates its 15th birthday. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Dan Townley, Terry Bossons and all the volunteers at 6 Towns Radio as it celebrates its milestone? Does he agree that community radio has played, and will continue to play, an important role in connecting our communities? \p Alan Campbell: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating 6 Towns Radio on its 15th anniversary and community radio right across our country. The Government recognise the importance of community radio and continue to support the sector as part of a  diverse media landscape. He may wish to go further than just seeking congratulations for what is happening in his area and consider a Backbench Business debate on the matter, because I am sure that many colleagues would wish to speak in such a debate about their own community radio stations. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Last Saturday, the Linlithgow Union Canal Society celebrated its 50th anniversary with a flotilla from Winchburgh to Linlithgow, marking five decades of volunteer-led preservation and promotion of Scotland’s inland waterways. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the society and its volunteers on that milestone and wish them all the very best for the next 50 years? \p Alan Campbell: I do not have any canals in my constituency for pretty obvious reasons, but I love them and I think they are fantastic. Local waterways are so important; they do not just link communities but bring them together. I am pleased to offer my congratulations and again point to the fact that community organisations are the absolute backbone of our constituencies and I wish them well going forward. \p Jayne Kirkham: I congratulate Cornwall on being in wave one of the Government’s innovative roll-out of the neighbourhood health services. We are one of 43 areas making that shift and we have provided services locally, such as community health and wellbeing workers, which have been very well received and which make a difference. May we have a debate in Government time on that shift to community care, with the recognition that urgent and emergency care is an area where Cornwall, like others, has struggled, so alternative services should always be in place as we make that switch? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend will know that the NHS is one of our priorities. She will also know that we are beginning to invest more and to turn the NHS round, but that it is a considerable challenge given the state that we found it in 15 months ago. I urge her to seek a debate on these matters, so that local communities can raise their own specific concerns, which are real and tangible. The Government have very optimistic plans for what can happen with regard to services. It is important that people are treated close to home and indeed, in some cases, at home. That is a considerable challenge, but it is one that we intend to meet. \p Amanda Hack: I welcome the Leader of the House to his place. Last weekend, I had the pleasure of attending the 100-year   anniversary of the Midland Red Coalville bus garage, which showcased some fantastic buses through history for people to enjoy. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Leicester Transport Heritage Trust, the vehicle owners, Coalville Heritage Society, Snibston Heritage Trust and the district and local councils for their hard work in showcasing their buses and putting on this amazing event? Will he also recognise the work of local volunteers and their contribution to our local communities? \p Alan Campbell: As yesterday’s debate highlighted, the whole House cares deeply about bus services and their role in our local communities. This sounds like a fantastic event to celebrate an impressive anniversary and a great deal of hard work to organise it. I am happy to pay tribute to everyone concerned and delighted to hear about the event’s success. It might have been for the anniversary of the Midland Red Coalville bus garage, but it is about celebrating buses and volunteers as well. \p Adam Jogee: The forced adoption scandal has outraged people in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and up and down the country. This week I heard from Karen Constantine, who gave birth aged 15 in the late 1970s. She was forced out of education in north Staffordshire and into a mother and baby home in Birmingham, and was pushed to give up her child. Although she did not give up her child and fought really hard against others who tried to force who to, other women were not so fortunate. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on local authorities to preserve and protect all adoption records, so that mothers are able to get the justice they deserve and find their children? Can I also urge him to do all he can to get a formal apology from the Dispatch Box to those women, who so desperately deserve justice? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter and for raising Karen’s case. As he points out, others were less fortunate than Karen. However, these are remarkably distressing and life-changing situations. Such abhorrent practices should never have taken place, and our deepest sympathies are with those affected. We take these matters extremely seriously and continue to engage with those impacted to provide support. We are also improving access to adoption records, including by asking adoption agencies to preserve records for at least 100 years, and I will ensure that the Education Secretary hears about my hon. Friend’s concerns. \p Judith Cummins: That concludes business questions. I thank the Leader of the House for his time. \p Liam Byrne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You rightly expect the Executive to provide timely information to this House. On 13 August I wrote to the Secretaries of State for Defence, for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and for Business and Trade to ask for important information about the legality of F-35 exports. We want that information ahead of a ministerial appearance before the Business and Trade Sub-Committee on Economic Security, Arms and Export Controls on Monday.

This is important, because the Al-Haq judgment handed down by the courts on 30 June made it very clear that under our constitution, the acutely sensitive and political issue of the legality of exports is a matter for the Executive—who are democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately the electorate—and not for the courts. We have not had that information yet, and the hearing is on Monday. What steps can you advise me to take to get the information that the Committee needs? \p Judith Cummins: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ replies to correspondence, but all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government, particularly when they are asking for information on behalf of a Select Committee on which the House has conferred formal powers to seek information and to hold the Government to account. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the right hon. Member’s comments, and I hope that the Business and Trade Committee will be provided with all the information it requires as soon as possible. \p Andrew Rosindell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the decision in February 2010, our national flag—the Union flag or   Union Jack—must fly from the Victoria Tower every day of the year, but in summer a much larger flag is flown; in winter only a small flag is flown. Can you please ask Mr Speaker to raise with the House authorities why the larger summer flag has been removed and replaced by the smaller flag? When I last checked, British summer time does not end until 26 October, so surely the larger Union Jack should fly at least until that date. May I also say that 26 October is also Essex Day, so maybe we can fly the flag of Essex as well? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the flag flying from the Victoria Tower. I will ensure that his request is raised with both Mr Speaker and the House authorities and that he receives a response. \p Nigel Farage: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My mind is filled with the horrendous images of the assassination yesterday of Charlie Kirk: an American, a conservative, a Christian, a family man—gunned down. He had attracted the following of many millions of young Americans and had a growing online presence in our country, especially after he spoke at the Oxford Union last month.

I absolutely believe in free speech, but we all understand that there are limits to free speech: incitement, constant personal vilification, the use of horrendous historical images. This is not a left/right issue. It is not a left/right debate. I think it is incumbent upon all of us—whichever side of the divide we are on, however passionately we feel—to behave with personal responsibility, and I mourn the loss of my friend. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It serves as a timely reminder of the need for respect in this place and in our politics. While it is not a matter for the Chair, he gives the House an important opportunity to offer our condolences and to express our horror at the events in the USA yesterday. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Judith Cummins: We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Mr Alistair Carmichael will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches, and questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not to the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers, however, may take part in questioning. \p Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make the statement, which marks the publication of the third report by our Committee in this Parliament.

Our report is titled “Biosecurity at the Border: Britain’s Illegal Meat Crisis”, and it really is a crisis. It is a crisis that has been brewing for years, if not decades. It is also a crisis that matters not just on the national level but on the individual and personal level. We should never underestimate the impact that animal disease outbreaks have on the mental health of farmers, veterinary professionals and others in our rural communities when biosecurity breaks down. In 2001, over 6 million animals were slaughtered across the United Kingdom following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Rural communities were devastated. The cost of the outbreak to our economy would be £13.8 billion in today’s prices. Experts at the time concluded that the infected meat that precipitated the outbreak had been imported illegally.

In January this year, foot and mouth disease was again reported, this time in Germany. Experts there told the Committee that it was likely caused by illegally imported food. That single outbreak of foot and mouth disease cost the German economy €1 billion, and it required the culling of 336 animals and the testing of thousands more. In response, the UK Government announced import restrictions, but still, at-risk commercial consignments bypassed border control posts for six days, despite the ban on affected products. We will address that matter in our next report.

We have no idea how much unchecked produce was able to enter through personal imports. We do know that, although border officials are now making far fewer seizures of animal products than in the years following the 2001 outbreak, they are seizing unprecedentedly high volumes. Last year, 235 tonnes of illegal animal products were seized at the UK border. Given the low levels of checks taking place, that must be just the tip of the iceberg.

Port health workers tell us that they have seen a huge deterioration in the hygiene presentation of illegal meat, and say that shipments are increasing in size. That meat is heading to our high streets, our farms and our kitchen tables. Frontline workers are anxious that a disease  outbreak is imminent, and we should share their anxiety. In her evidence to the Committee, the chief vet described port health authorities as our eyes and ears at the border. In that, she is quite correct, but still, Dover is the only port health authority in Britain being funded to support the work of Border Force in seizing illegal meat and dairy products.

Even Dover’s funding has been under threat. This year’s funding was secured at the last minute and only after the intervention of stakeholders, including our Committee. We visited Dover and saw the entirely unsuitable facilities in which port health workers are being required to work. We saw vans stuffed with room temperature meat products packaged in plastic bags, newspaper and cardboard boxes. This meat had travelled across Europe, unrefrigerated, from countries where African swine fever is widespread.

The Minister responsible for biosecurity committed to visiting the Port of Dover to see the situation for herself. At the time of our report’s publication, she still had not done so. I find that regrettable and very much hope it will be attended to in early course. The relationship between DEFRA and the Dover Port Health Authority is poor. That serves no one’s interest and requires immediate ministerial attention.

We know that when commercial imports from certain countries have been banned, criminals have found a new way to make money and are bringing in products undeclared, under the guise of personal imports. DEFRA has reassured us that Border Force is delivering “intelligence-led checks”; we are concerned that this language hides the reality on the ground. The reality is a limited and incomplete intelligence network, strained enforcement capability, and port facilities unsuitable for seizing significant volumes of potentially contaminated meat.

At the very least, farmers and the public deserve greater transparency about the risks we face. We have called on the Government to start publishing quarterly data relating to seizures of illegally imported animal products. We have also asked the Government to model the amount of animal products entering Britain, and the risks this poses to our livestock.

Meat smuggling was described to our Committee as

“the biggest threat to food security we have had for a long time”.

We do not know how these animals were reared and slaughtered, or how the meat has been handled or stored. It carries increased risks of viruses, bacteria and parasites that can make people sick, and falls far below the strict standards that we require of British producers and legitimate importers, and that consumers expect.

Illegally imported meat and dairy products are being sold online and via door-to-door sales to households and businesses. Illicit products can be found in markets, shops, takeaways and hospitality venues, where consumers trust that the food they are buying is safe and meets high welfare standards. In some cases, meat is misrepresented as being of British origin.

We heard that the cost of living crisis is fuelling the market for cheap, illegally imported meat, as is demand for culturally preferred products, like pork from eastern Europe. Other meat and dairy products are illegally brought into Great Britain for personal consumption because individuals are unaware of the prohibitions or because they are willing to take the risk. DEFRA banned imports of most animal products from the EU   in April this year, but many travellers do not know what the rules are or why they are in place. We think travel operators should be legally compelled to inform travellers of food prohibition rules for EU countries, as they are for other countries.

There is currently no ownership in Government of the issue of illegal imports of animal products. Responsibility is so fragmented across agencies that outdated, inefficient ways of working have been allowed to persist, and the scale of the crisis has escalated to an intolerable tolerable degree. We have called on DEFRA to establish a taskforce to bridge the divides. It should lead on the design and delivery of a strategy for tackling meat smuggling.

We also found that Border Force is not adequately fulfilling its responsibility to enforce rules at the border. It has too many competing priorities, and officers lack understanding of the risks and rules associated with products of animal origin. Port health authorities are willing to step up and support Border Force, but are needlessly inhibited by a lack of powers and funding. Such authorities should be given stop, search and seize powers in relation to animal products, and funding for enforcement presence at the border.

There is currently no deterrent to meat smuggling, so smugglers are operating with impunity. DEFRA must immediately deliver a plan to start to fine and prosecute repeat offenders and those who are attempting to smuggle significant amounts of animal products. Successive Governments have been aware of the scale and risks of illegal meat imports and have failed to deliver a response proportionate to the challenge.

We have identified the risks and some of the solutions. It is essential that DEFRA takes those risks seriously and acts to mitigate them with urgency. The stakes are too high for further inaction. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and to members of the Committee for looking at this important issue. I am very proud of the farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, whom I meet as often as I can—I am particularly proud of the highest-quality meat and milk that they produce in very difficult circumstances. Just yesterday I met Howard to talk through some of his thoughts and challenges, and one of the key things that came through was the mental health impact on some of our farmers and those in our farming community. I note from the report and the evidence from the Farming Community Network that there are calls for real action. Can the Chair of the Committee say what thought the Committee will give to unpicking some of the real challenges facing farmers up and down the country? \p Alistair Carmichael: Even as things currently stand, we have a mental health crisis in the farming industry. We know from our own personal community experience from 2001 that that was a moment of genuinely acute mental health crisis from which many people have not yet recovered. The truth of the matter is that one of the biggest challenges facing the livestock sector is maintaining a critical mass of livestock numbers. If we were to go through the same sort of cull that we went through in 2001, starting from where we are today, I think we would risk losing that critical mass, and that could have a catastrophic impact on farmers right across the country. \p Richard Foord: I should say to my right hon. Friend that I think it is an excellent report—I am amazed to hear that 235 tonnes of illegal meat were detained at the border. On 18 August, the Government announced they will pause the planned introduction of physical checks on live animals at the border with the EU to support businesses ahead of some sort of deal on sanitary and phytosanitary products. What effect does he think that deal, if it takes place, might have on illegal meat trade? \p Alistair Carmichael: Obviously, the question of legal commercial imports is slightly different in its operation from what we are bringing to the House’s attention today, but I think we have to look at the whole thing in the round. There are opportunities if we are able to get that SPS deal, and the Committee will be looking at that in the near future. We will be visiting Brussels and speaking to Commission officials about where the deal has got to. We all know it is easy to agree that we need to agree, but actually reaching the agreement will always be the difficult part. Whatever we have by way of an SPS agreement, there will have to be rigorous checks at the border, but it may be that the SPS agreement would make some of that an awful lot easier than it is at the moment, and for everyone—importers, consumers and producers—that has to be good. \p Jayne Kirkham: As a member of the Committee, I attended the trip to Dover where we saw just how much meat could have been coming in in the white vans that were flooding in. Border Force is very busy and has numerous duties, and the powers and hours for the Port Health Authority were far too limited; it was obvious that it was not able to do as much as it would like. Those poor facilities and that capacity for checks were things that we really thought should be improved and increased, yet Sevington and Bastion Point were sitting underused or empty nearby. Does the Chair of the Committee think that they could and should be repurposed to help with this task? \p Alistair Carmichael: First, I thank the hon. Lady and all other members of the Committee for their engagement in this report and for the way in which they approach the work of the Committee as a whole. I may be slightly biased, but I really think they are quite excellent in the way they go about their business—I could not ask for a better membership.

What we saw at Dover was truly shocking. We are still close enough to lunch that I am not going to give too many details, but the photographs that were provided to the Committee were truly horrendous. The hon. Lady suggests that the control points at Sevington and Bastion Point could be repurposed, which is an obvious solution. The conditions in which the Port Health Authority workers operate were disgraceful: working in big sheds that we probably would not keep cattle in, with holes in the roof and pigeons flying around. Meanwhile, just a few miles up the road, there are purpose-built facilities where workers would at least be able to change into their personal protective equipment and have proper showers at the end of the day.

I place on the record the Committee’s gratitude to, and my personal admiration of, Lucy Manzano and her team at the Dover Port Health Authority, who  have done a remarkable job and a significant public service in bringing this to the attention of the wider population. \p Josh Newbury: On the Committee’s visit to the Port of Dover, we heard that many seizures of illegal meat include scales and tills—clear indications that the meat would be sold commercially. Most worryingly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, some of those imports are headed straight for farms, so the potential for a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease, African swine fever or many other diseases is huge. Does he agree that, regardless of any potential SPS agreement with the EU, we certainly cannot afford to scale back checks if we are serious about protecting British farming? \p Alistair Carmichael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the Committee’s work, which is—I hope the Whips are here to hear this—a textbook example of how a Government Back Bencher should go about his business in Committee. He is absolutely right that seeing scales was worrying. It is obvious that that product is then going straight to the market and goodness knows where after that. Our real concern is that we are bringing in pork products from eastern Europe and places where African swine fever is already present. A lot of that meat is, we suspect, destined for eastern European workers in our pig industry. One does not have to be Einstein to work out the scale and nature of the risk there.

We heard two things. One of the witnesses said that we were one carelessly discarded ham sandwich away from disaster—that is absolutely right. The other thing that we were told was that the possibility of an outbreak of African swine fever could be the death knell for the British pork industry as a whole. To my mind, that really illustrates just how high the scale of risk is here. \p Ben Goldsborough: I congratulate and thank the Committee for this valuable work. Biosecurity is national security. The pork industry is worth £1.8 billion a year, and the sector is vital to Norfolk, particularly South Norfolk. As others have said, it is estimated that an outbreak of African swine fever would cost £100 million. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in our efforts to protect UK biosecurity, we need also to focus on small ports and airports as places of weakness? \p Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We risk ending up playing a whole game of whack- a-mole, tightening the controls at Dover and seeing the effort displaced to other communities and ports. Notwithstanding that, the priority is still the short straits, as the significant volume of imports come through them. That all underlines the view of the Committee that what is needed is for somebody in Government to take control of this issue, with a strategy for dealing with it, because there is no point in having the best national security at one port if all we do is displace the effort to others. \p Judith Cummins: I call Catherine Atkinson, who will speak for about 15 minutes. \p Catherine Atkinson: I beg to move,

That this House has considered regional transport inequality.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. It was originally due to take place on the first day back from the summer recess, but there was not time because so many people wanted to speak. I am grateful to those in attendance today.

The importance of transport is completely understandable. Whether for travel to work and to healthcare appointments, meeting family and friends, or getting goods to the businesses that need them, transport keeps our country running, keeps life moving and keeps us all connected. This Labour Government are committed to opening up opportunities across our country, so it is important to address the historic and long-standing inequalities between regions when it comes to transport.

Those of us who had the chance to go on holiday in the UK during our hot summer, which already seems quite a long time ago, have returned better acquainted with the transport infrastructure in each other’s constituencies—those who heard, “Are we there yet?” on repeat from the back seat are perhaps too acquainted. One of the benefits of being on the Transport Committee —as well as having esteemed colleagues, a number of whom are here today—is that every trip can be an unofficial fact-finding trip. We can compare, sometimes enviously, the newest tram extension, charging network or bus lane.

Colleagues across the country are advocating for transport projects their constituencies. When we are successful in securing transport investment, that change brings people together, cuts costs for our businesses and allows people to access new opportunities, but when transport breaks down or gets cut, constituents suffer the consequences, often daily. One example in my constituency is the Darley Abbey Mills bridge, which was found to be unsafe and was shut, leaving people and businesses cut off and isolated. A temporary bridge was put in three years ago, but thanks to the new East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, funding has been secured to progress towards a business case for building a permanent bridge.

One of the reasons that I was so keen to be on the Transport Committee was that transport is essential to economic growth and decarbonisation. The connectivity that transport brings is equally important up and down the country, but the amount of investment that regions get for transport has historically been miles apart. Transport is the most unequally distributed of areas of spending, including education and health.

There are many colleagues here from the east midlands, which has the lowest transport expenditure per head of all the regions and nations in the United Kingdom. In 2023-24, it was £368 per person—just a quarter of the amount for London, and about half the average for  England. If the east midlands had been allocated the UK average in the five years between 2019 and 2024, we would have received an additional £10 billion. To ensure prosperity reaches all corners of our country, more equal investment is vital, so I welcome the direction of travel in the spending review, including the £15.6 billion of investment in local transport projects for England’s city regions over the next five years—more than double the previous capital spending rates. That includes £2 billion of funding secured by our excellent East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward.

For years, there have been concerns that the UK Green Book—the Treasury’s official guidance for appraising public investments—is skewing how areas of need are identified. There has been an over-concentration of investment in high-GDP areas, neglecting the potential of other regions, which creates a vicious cycle. I welcome the Chancellor’s review, and I look forward to the new Green Book next year.

To secure the transformational change that we need, this Labour Government are investing in areas that have been neglected and forgotten. Speaking of neglect, when it comes to potholes and the need to better maintain and improve our roads, this Government have increased capital funding to £24 billion over three years. That is particularly important for Derbyshire, which, according to the RAC, had the worst potholes in the country. With the better buses Bill, the Government have recognised the importance of bus travel. \p Chi Onwurah: My hon. Friend is making an excellent introductory speech on regional inequalities in transport. Buses are incredibly important in my constituency, and they need not only investment but support. Newcastle is yet to receive real-time bus information of the type that has been enjoyed in London for more than a decade, which makes transport more reliable and therefore more used. Does she agree that we need to ensure that the technology that supports these important services is also more equally distributed across the country? \p Catherine Atkinson: I think we can all agree that the better the technology and the real-time information that is needed, the more people will be encouraged to use our buses. We absolutely need to encourage more people to use our buses. Over the 15 years up to 2023, we saw a massive loss of bus services. Where the cuts hit has varied, but hardest hit was the east midlands region where we lost 60% of our bus services. The Transport Committee highlighted that decline in our report on buses that was published over the summer. We must not forget on whom bus investment impacts the most: the young, the elderly, those on low incomes and the disabled.

Hon. Members will be shocked that I have got this far into my speech without mentioning trains, because I talk about rail quite a lot, which is entirely understandable as a Derby MP. Derby will be the home of Great British Railways. It is the city at the centre of the largest cluster of rail companies in Europe, and arguably globally. It is the city that a few weeks ago hosted the Greatest Gathering—the world’s largest ever gathering of historical and modern rail vehicles, which was described as a “Glastonbury for trains”—to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the modern railway. However, despite this rich rail heritage in the region, there are just over 100 rail stations  for 5 million people. The region has the lowest proportion of people living within a 15 to 20-minute walk of a rail station in England, and about three quarters of those stations are served by just one train or fewer per hour. The capital of rail will be the region with the lowest train station usage per head in England.

Our midlands main line that runs through the east midlands is the only main line route in England that is not yet fully electrified. It is electrified to Wigston, south of Leicester. East Midlands Railway will be putting on new bi-mode trains by the end of the year, so those living alongside the route up to Wigston will benefit and the 9 million passengers who use the line will get that far using electrified tracks. After Wigston, however, the trains will revert to diesel, and the rest of the densely populated line will continue to be exposed to more noise and tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 every year. Hundreds of people have written to me supporting the call for electrification. \p James Naish: My hon. Friend mentions that constituents have written to her, but does she acknowledge that in addition more than 30 MPs have been working together to advocate for electrification, because of the great benefits she has described? \p Catherine Atkinson: I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend, alongside many colleagues, has shown for electrification and the benefits that it can bring. It would be a fitting celebration of 200 years of the modern railway to continue the electrification of the midland main line, which would bring jobs, skills and hundreds of millions of pounds in economic benefits particularly to the east midlands.

I love my region, and like so many in this Chamber I know my region’s strengths and can imagine the possibilities if investment were genuinely equitably distributed around our country. If our regional transport was more equal, it would create more prosperity, economic growth, social equality, regional development and carbon reduction as well as better air quality. Our transport infrastructure is the country’s circulatory system: it connects and enriches wherever it reaches. If someone’s circulation is not great, they feel the cold a little more in their fingers, as I well know. If it is restricted more, their arms and legs get fatigue, numbness and pain. In the extreme, it eventually leads to organ failure. That is where we had been heading for far too long, but over the last year the Government have been getting the blood pumping again. \p Joe Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Catherine Atkinson: I am just about to finish.

If the UK is a body, Derby is geographically at its heart and is asking to have the same chance as everywhere else to be connected. We need to maintain our change of direction to reduce the inequality in the spend per person on transport, stay on track towards the reduction, and ultimately the elimination, of regional transport inequality, and deliver fair funding for transport. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. There is an immediate four-minute time limit. \p Gregory Stafford: In just one year, this Labour Government have already failed rural Britain on transport. They have scrapped the £2 bus fare cap, pushing up costs for working people; they have wasted £250 million in the process of nationalising South Western Railway, while my commuters are still stuck with cancelled peak services; and they continue to pour billions of pounds into London, while communities such as Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook in my constituency are left behind. My constituency is just 40 miles from London, yet the difference in connectivity is stark. London enjoys a world-class system—well, when it is not being held to ransom by greedy tube driver unions, as is the case this week—but Farnham, Haslemere, Bordon and Liphook are treated very differently.

The contrast with London is outrageous. In the capital, there is a bus stop every 400 metres and services run every five to 10 minutes throughout the night. In my constituency, buses are 30 to 90 minutes apart, if they run at all, and many disappear entirely after 7 pm. Students at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham cannot get to Guildford in the evening. Meanwhile, Londoners can choose from over 100 night bus routes. Whereas passengers in London pay a fixed £1.75 fare, people in rural Surrey and Hampshire pay much more, because Labour hiked the cap.

My constituents will remember that Labour put up their fares, which is why I took action. I convened the Bordon taskforce to bring Stagecoach, local councils and local leaders around the table, and the results speak for themselves. The newly revised No. 18 bus service now runs every 30 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, and hourly on Sundays, linking Bordon, Whitehill, Farnham and Aldershot. The No. 13 service between Bordon, Alton and Basingstoke has also been strengthened, with six Sunday return journeys. Stagecoach even trialled free travel this June after my push for better value. These are tangible improvements that make life easier for thousands of people, but gaps still remain.

It is extraordinary that there is no bus connection between Bordon and Petersfield—only 11 miles apart—except for a single school service. That is why I am in talks with East Hampshire district council to establish a new route, modelled on the Waverley “hospital hoppa”—a scheme for which I secured funding in Farnham. \p Joe Robertson: I agree with the points that my hon. Friend’s is making. The train to my constituency runs through his constituency, and he has referred to it already. Unfortunately, my constituency is reliant on entirely privatised ferry companies in order for us to get there. Does he agree that if this Government’s outlook on transport is to be truly integrated, they need to connect all parts of the United Kingdom and stop focusing only on cities? \p Gregory Stafford: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. He is absolutely right: this Government are focused on metropolitan areas, and constituencies like his and mine, which are rural and semi- rural, are simply left behind. His mention of rail neatly brings me to my points on rail.

Rail tells the same story as buses. Three of my four major towns have train stations, but Bordon, the third largest one, has none, and the lines that do exist are  fragmented and unreliable. Only this week, the 7.28 from Farnham to Waterloo was cancelled. Too often, peak-time trains arrive at Haslemere or Liphook with just four coaches. When I challenged South Western Railway on that, I was told that to avoid cancellations nearer London, it reassigned carriages away from my area. I made it clear: my commuters are not second-class citizens, and that needs to change. At South Western’s Farnham depot this summer, I pressed the company directly on the £250 million Arterio fleet, which is meant to relieve overcrowding but is still sitting idle for want of drivers or because of faults. I secured assurances of change, and I will now hold the company to account.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned, the Government wasted £250 million nationalising South Western Railway. That money could have delivered a permanent Bordon-to-Liphook bus link for 1,000 years. Instead, urban areas get Crossrail and trams, while my constituents get cancellations and four-carriage trains. That is clearly not acceptable. Much more help is needed for my constituents. Rural communities such as mine cannot keep being treated as second class. Levelling up, economic growth and net zero—all laudable aims—mean nothing if millions of people in my constituency and the surrounding areas cannot get a bus on a Sunday, or a train with more than four carriages on a Monday morning. That is the reality of Labour’s transport policy: higher fares, wasted money and broken promises. That is unacceptable to my constituents and, I hope, unacceptable to the constituents of every single Member of this House. \p Elsie Blundell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this crucial debate.

High-quality, reliable and integrated public transport is often the difference between communities getting ahead or being left behind. Whether that is young people being able to realise their aspirations, older people receiving the healthcare they need, or working people getting home safely after a night shift, those issues not only have practical consequences if left unaddressed but erode trust between our constituents and the Governments they elect.

Lack of transport connectivity impedes the progress that people need and deserve to see in their communities. If we do not fix that, we make it easier for those who turn to pessimistic narratives to talk our country down. Our constituents deserve so much more. The disparity in transport investment between north and south is the result of a model that is built from the top down and the centre out, a model that has at its heart an orthodoxy that is ill-suited to the needs of passengers today, and a model I am proud to say this Government, in partnership with our regional mayors, are beginning to dismantle.

From a much-needed review of the Green Book to increased capital spending in Greater Manchester and other city regions, from the introduction of integrated settlements for combined authorities and a modern industrial strategy to the transformative English devolution Bill, those are all reasons I am proud to be a Greater Manchester Labour parliamentarian. We have a pioneering transport network, where powers devolved nationally are seen and felt on the ground. \p Adam Jogee: My hon. Friend talks about being a Greater Manchester MP, and Newcastle-under-Lyme and our part of Staffordshire are not too far away. I wonder whether she would support my calls for a direct train line from Stoke-on-Trent station to Manchester airport, which would unlock growth and cut costs for families, in particular those seeking to travel. More importantly, it would put our part of the world on the map. \p Elsie Blundell: I am sure that is something the Transport Minister has listened to and is looking at.

Greater Manchester has set the agenda when it comes to the promise and opportunity that devolution can galvanise. Through the development and expansion of the Bee Network—an integrated transport system through low fares and simplified ticketing, and an enhanced bus and Metrolink network with plans to integrate heavy rail lines in the future—the Bee Network’s utility goes far beyond getting people from A to B; it is a conduit for employment opportunities, house building and a thriving regional economy. Indeed, Greater Manchester’s productivity growth measured by gross value added in the past decade has outstripped that of every other region, including London. Transport has been central to making that happen.

Despite real success, however, we cannot take future progress for granted. Greater Manchester and other city regions remain just as deserving of our backing today, to ensure that we do not scupper economic growth in the region. We must ensure that the significant projects are moving forward swiftly and efficiently to give people hope for a more connected future, and that includes the trans-Pennine route upgrade and the Manchester-to-Liverpool rail enhancement. Getting that right is integral to transforming public transport and creating networks predicated finally on the needs of local people, rather than on the paternalism of the centre.

My constituents can speak with some experience on this. For decades, passengers living in Heywood and Middleton have been a mere afterthought, with no rail connectivity into Manchester city centre, despite being just a few miles away; bus services that do not align with the lives and aspirations of local people; and an incredibly congested road network.

In the one year that I have been the proud Member of Parliament for Heywood and Middleton North, with central Government working in lockstep with our combined authority, we have secured funding to ensure that the tram will now connect Heywood to Manchester city centre. That is thanks to the £2.5 billion of funding allocated to Greater Manchester by our Labour Chancellor in the form of transport for city regions funding, enabling the mayor and his team to plan for the longer term. It also means that local leaders, in concert with the combined authority, are working to deliver a mayoral development corporation in Middleton, with the strong possibility of a new Metrolink service there too.

This is the difference that devolution can make, and in Greater Manchester we have shown what we are capable of. But we cannot be complacent. Expertise in town and transport planning must be further developed in our regions, and our bank of knowledge must deepen. Funding cycles should become yet more assured across the country, enabling our local and regional leaders to have the confidence to innovate. Fundamentally, we  must formalise and codify engagement between the Department and mayoralties, and not just ahead of a fiscal event but consistently, so that we can build robust transport networks that support the needs of local people.

Regional transport inequalities do not have to spell out a foregone conclusion; we just need to find the political conviction to confront them. Each town, city and village has within it people who are capable of reaching the sum of their ambitions. We just need to be unrelenting in building the transport system to get them there. \p Martin Wrigley: I would like to highlight the deep inequalities in transport spending across our country and to speak specifically about the railways in the south-west. Per head of population, our region receives significantly less investment in transport than the average. In fact, the south-west region receives the second lowest funding in the country after the east midlands, as we heard from the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—only we do not have the prospect of electrification to look forward to on our main line, probably ever.

According to the House of Commons Library, transport spending in 2023-24 was £429 per person in the south-west, compared with £1,313 per person in London, £729 in the north-west and £706 in the west midlands. That is not levelling up; it is levelling down. This matters on a daily basis for my constituents in Newton Abbot and for communities across Devon and the south-west. Our transport links are essential to our economy, tourism, trade and everyday life, but all too often they are neglected.

We all remember when storms tore through our sea wall at Dawlish in 2014, cutting the south-west off from the rest of the country. The cliffs blocked the line for eight weeks, costing the south-west economy some £1.2 billion. The Dawlish rail resilience programme was split into five phases, with the last being the most critical. That vital phase has not been funded. The Government have rejected all solutions put forward by Network Rail so far, and now we do not even have the funding to develop an acceptable alternative. Every winter storm puts our connection with the rest of the UK at risk, and the Government are not taking this seriously. I urge the Government to give Network Rail the parameters they will accept and clear funding to design a solution. Lack of a solution could cost another £1.2 billion if, or when, the cliffs fail again.

Accessibility is another area where we are falling short. Too many railway stations in the south-west still lack step-free access. I would particularly like to see better access at Teignmouth station. Disabled passengers are forced to choose their journeys based not on where they want to go but on which stations they are able to use. That is not acceptable in this day and age. \p Ben Maguire: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to Teignmouth station. Despite its large size, my constituency does not have a single mainline train station, but our closest station, Bodmin Parkway, also has severe accessibility challenges. It has been put on the list for accessibility upgrades, but that could happen as late as 2032. Will he join me in calling on the Minister to make those upgrades as quickly as possible, so that our constituents do not miss out? \p Martin Wrigley: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

When we had the railway station defences rebuilt at Dawlish, we did get the benefit of a lift. Teignmouth still does not have that. Before the lift was put in, disabled passengers were put on what is called a barrow crossing—they were literally put on a trolley and wheeled across the railway lines. That is just not acceptable.

I say this clearly: the south-west deserves its fair share. We need fairer transport spending, proper disabled access at every station and a full commitment to complete the resilience work that will protect our region’s lifeline rail route. I will keep pressing the House and this Government until the south-west gets the fair share it deserves. \p Lauren Sullivan: I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for bringing forward this important debate. She spoke with passion about the subject.

The south-east can be described as leafy and rich, with Kent being the garden of England, but parts of that garden have been left unnurtured, untended and left behind. Transport inequality can be framed as a north-south divide. In my constituency, there is a north-south divide where people living in the north of the constituency have a lower life expectancy of over a decade. But both the urban and rural communities have been left behind.

When I spoke with young people during the campaign and more recently, they told me that transport is their No. 1 issue. It is about connectivity and getting across Gravesham, because there are no buses on a Sunday that can take them to town to meet their friends, and there are no buses that can take them after school if they want to stay and do extracurricular activities. A mum recently contacted me about her 16-year-old who was excited to start at Northfleet technology college, which specialises in engineering. They chose that college because of the bus route, the 305, but that has now been scrapped. We see this up and down our country: bus routes are there one day and scrapped the next. The new bus route means nearly an hour’s journey with a 20-minute walk. On top of that, a pass costs £640 for that privilege. The Kent freedom pass, which is run by Kent county council—previously Tory but now Reform-led—used to cost £50. Now it is over £550 a year and rising.

Families are being priced out, and although I helped to secure options to pay in monthly instalments, the cost remains out of reach for many. In urban areas of my constituency, reliability is a major concern. The cliff collapse at Galley Hill in the neighbouring constituency is having a major impact on the reliability of buses.

Under the Tories’ Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, millions of pounds have gone to shiny, fast-track routes. However, they serve the new developments while existing communities have lost their services altogether. The people of Northfleet lost their bus route. They were promised a physical connection between Northfleet station and Ebbsfleet International—a place that has some of the highest levels of deprivation—but that has been placed on hold indefinitely, meaning that new housing developments see that investment while those who really could do with that opportunity have been left behind. That is a two-tier public transport system, and it is not fair.

In Gravesham we see bus companies competing in a relatively small area for similar routes, undercutting each other and making timetable choices based on profit, not where people actually want to go. I am incredibly confident that the new bus services Bill will enable local people to make the routes better for themselves.

I must mention the ferry—bring back the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry—because it is not only about getting across the borough but getting to Essex, supporting our businesses as a place for growth. \p Joe Robertson: The hon. Member mentions ferries. Perhaps she will show a little sympathy to me and my constituents, because we are entirely reliant on ferries that are unregulated and privatised, so neither the local authority nor the Government have any say over those services, whereas her local authority does have a say over her ferries. She might want to reflect on the role of Government in all modes of transport across the UK. \p Lauren Sullivan: The hon. Member and I share a passion for ferries. My ferry no longer runs, so despite having a local government agency that could intervene and supply a ferry, it let go of that contract. I will continue to bang that drum, because ferries are an incredibly important mode of transport for so many people, especially his constituents on the Isle of Wight.

The Government want to see transport as a gateway to opportunity, which I fully support, not the barrier that it is today and has been for many years. We must unleash community power and agency to bring voice to the people of Gravesham, especially the young people, who deserve the right to opportunity via buses and boats. \p Brian Mathew: I thank the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for introducing this really important debate. In my maiden speech over a year ago, in a railways debate, I spoke about the state of the railways in my constituency and the need to open a station—Devizes Gateway—to bring back a service to the town lost since the days of Beeching. Despite efforts in the name of levelling up, any progress made to tackle regional inequality in transport has been modest and inconsistent. I represent many small towns and villages that rarely benefit from national policy initiatives and all too often have to rely on private cars to travel longer distances to services, schools and jobs.

A more equal distribution of transport funds could drastically improve the lives of people in my constituency, and thousands of others up and down the country. One academic study found that a fifth of workers had turned down a job because of poor bus services. Another found that 40% of those looking for a job said that the lack of personal transport or inadequate public transport were key barriers to their getting a job.

Wiltshire is in a challenging position when it comes to rail travel. We have railways, but many do not benefit from the services, which all too often carry people and freight across the county but do not stop at the few stations in the county. Local services range from unreliable to non-existent. Nowhere is that mismatch felt more strongly than in Devizes, a town at the geographical and cultural heart of Wiltshire, with its historic centre,  independent businesses and nearby world heritage sites. The town’s marketplace stands just two and a half miles from a major railway line, but in order to access the network passengers must travel by road 12 miles to Chippenham or 23 miles to Swindon. Melksham, a fast-growing industrial town, fares little better. With only one train every two hours during most of the day, locals cannot rely on it for work and school and many are not even aware of it.

Major improvements to Wiltshire’s rail services can be made with only minor infrastructure upgrades. Network Rail’s 2024 Wiltshire rail strategy sets out the compelling case for building the Devizes Gateway station, reconnecting 30,000 people living in and around the town to the railway and bringing more visitors to that special part of Wiltshire.

I am also delighted to be supporting the Bath and Wiltshire metro proposal, which would deliver many of the improvements we need locally, including for Melksham. A group of industry experts is meeting in Bath as I speak, to discuss how we can leverage existing infrastructure to regenerate our communities. Where good transport leads, high-quality housing, jobs and economic opportunity will follow.

The Secretary of State offered kind and encouraging words in Transport questions this morning. However, following the meeting in Bath today, it would be enormously useful if the Rail Minister would agree to a meeting with me and the participants. \p Ben Goldsborough: For rural areas such as South Norfolk, transport links are a lifeline. So I am delighted that this Government are doing what previous Governments failed to do: investing in South Norfolk’s infrastructure. Already I have secured a £200 million investment to upgrade the Thickthorn junction, shaving valuable, lifesaving minutes off journeys for ambulances to access the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which will also benefit the constituency of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) directly. I have also secured £2.6 million for key cycle and footpath access across Norfolk, including the Hethersett to Norwich research park cycle route. But there is more to do.

Today I want to touch on three points: first, rural road safety; secondly, bus services in South Norfolk; and thirdly—the Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention this again—Wymondham train station.

On my first point, I am currently running a constituency-wide survey on rural road safety in South Norfolk. Once the survey has concluded, I will share my findings with Norfolk county council, the police and crime commissioner for Norfolk and the Roads Minister. What is already clear, however, is that Norfolk roads are simply not fit for purpose. They are unsafe and covered with potholes, despite our Labour Government increasing Norfolk county council’s budget for pothole repairs to £56 million.

On bus services, the situation is just as frustrating. For disabled and less mobile residents of estates like the Hampdens in Costessey, bus services are in effect non-existent. The whole of the Hampdens estate is without bus services—they deserve better than this enforced isolation.

I now turn to Wymondham train station. As the Department already knows from my many, many lobbying attempts, platform 2 southbound from Wymondham has no step-free access—it is a Victorian train station that is celebrating its 180th birthday—so anyone with a mobility issue wanting to travel south from Wymondham must first travel all the way north to Norwich, then turn around and travel all the way back down. That is completely inefficient, isolating and unjust.

Once again, the primary victims of poor transport provision are elderly and disabled people. Accessibility upgrades to Wymondham station are being considered by the Access for All scheme. I realise that the Minister will not be able to comment in any detail about Wymondham station, but I can think of no better way to prove the Government’s dedication to tackle regional transport inequality than to make it accessible for all.

Viewers of the BBC’s “Politics East” would expect all politicians from East Anglia to want to talk about another aspect of rail use: the Ely and Haughley junction upgrade. I will continue to lobby on this cross-party issue across the whole of East Anglia. The upgrade would shave off valuable minutes and increase freight haulage to Felixstowe, which would be a huge economic boost for our region, and I would get more services to Wymondham and Spooner Row, which would be a win for everyone. Again, I put that on the Minister’s to-do list.

To sum up: we need to hold Norfolk county council to account for failing to fix our roads, we need to continue making progress to improve access to bus services, and Wymondham station must finally be made accessible to all. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail, I must start by noting that we are celebrating Railway 200 on 27 September.

The railways brought wealth, new ideas and vitality to communities across the UK. They were and are the vehicle of growth. Our many heritage railways, including 10 in my constituency, continue to marry technologies old and new, and to bring so much happiness to so many people, but the great little trains of Wales are now charitable or private railways. Wales’s public rail network has been the last stop on the line for investment: a legacy that continues to impact the lives of people and communities across our nation. The Network Rail Wales route, which accounts for 11% of the UK’s rail network, received—wait for it—1% of the enhancement budget between 2011 and 2016.

The Welsh Government previously estimated that Wales could be missing out on up to £8 billion in rail investment between 2001 and 2029; hon. Members will note that that spans a number of Governments here in Westminster. The funding deficit leads to inadequate public transport infrastructure, which has far-reaching consequences, particularly for those who have no access to cars and those who live in post-industrial and rural areas. It limits people’s ability to connect with friends and family and creates barriers to accessing education and employment opportunities.

In Wales, we want to improve our productivity, and we want the means to do it. The spring statement in June offered only a token gesture towards addressing the deep-rooted funding disparities that Wales faces.  For example, the Government’s suggestion that the £445 million of rail investment—over 10 years—will compensate for the historical underfunding of the Welsh network or the multibillion-pound injustice of Wales’s exclusion from HS2 funding is simply not credible. Where are the reinforcements against climate change? Where is the electrification of our lines?

Let us not forget that the current Secretary of State for Wales acknowledged in opposition that Wales’s fair share from HS2 should be at least £4.6 billion—so we have received a tenth of what our own Welsh Secretary of State once felt was fair. The spring statement also included the Government’s review of the Green Book, aimed at improving investment outside London and the south-east of England. Yet on examining its contents, I was disappointed but not surprised to find no commitment to reforming the way in which Welsh rail is funded. This inequality remains unaddressed.

The Government’s decision to classify the Oxford to Cambridge railway as a project that benefits Wales is a stark example of the kind of accounting manipulation—massaging—that deprives Wales of rightful Barnett consequential funding, just as we saw with HS2 under the Conservatives. Indeed, earlier this year, the Secretary of State for Wales acknowledged in writing that Welsh rail has suffered significant under-investment. Yet there has been no pledge to bring spending in Wales in line with per capita investment levels in England.

I urge the Government to move beyond rhetoric and take decisive action. Let us begin by devolving powers over heavy rail to Wales, ending the ability for the outdated Barnett funding formula to be manipulated to Wales’s detriment while also granting Wales meaningful control over rail transport investment, just as Scotland and Northern Ireland already have. \p Mary Foy: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in a really important debate on regional transport inequality. For too long, communities in the north-east have suffered the effects of chronic underinvestment in transport and the flawed legacy of privatisation. What should be a public service has instead become a patchwork system that too often fails local people.

On the railways, the proposed LNER timetable risks cutting vital stops at Durham. For many that would mean unnecessary changes at York or Newcastle. For older people, disabled passengers and those travelling with children, that creates real barriers and makes our railways less accessible at a time when they should be opening up.

Buses tell a similar story. In Brandon, Ushaw Moor, Waterhouses and Newton Hall, people depend on services from Arriva and Go North East, yet complaints reach my inbox every week. The X20 from Langley Park to Sunderland and the 43 from Esh Winning to Durham are both unreliable, and in some villages buses simply do not run at all on Sundays or bank holidays. Too often, our area is left with the oldest buses, prone to breaking down, while the newest vehicles serve the routes in Newcastle and Sunderland. Although funding for new bus stops is welcome, my constituents ask what good they are when the services to go with them are not reliable.

There are workforce challenges too. A shortage of engineers causes delays, when our further education colleges could be supported to provide apprenticeships and skills. Locating a depot in Consett, where bad weather frequently disrupts operations, has only added to problems. Another issue is that our drivers in the region are paid less than colleagues in the north-west by the exact same companies—hardly a recipe for recruitment or retention.

All that reflects the wider picture of years of underinvestment and inequality. Had the north received the same per person transport spending as London since 2009, we would have had £140 billion more—enough to transform the system. Instead, nearly a fifth of rural bus routes have vanished in just five years, deepening isolation for many. \p Samantha Niblett: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing more isolating than not being able to get somewhere? My constituent Elishia Ingham tried to get her mobility scooter on to a bus service but was rejected entry on to the bus because there was not enough space. Does my hon. Friend agree that even though bus companies do not have to allow that by law, they might increasingly consider the needs of disabled travellers? \p Mary Foy: I could not agree more. Although we may improve our bus services and the types of modern buses we have, they are not accessible in all areas, and that is a huge inequality.

The Government’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is a chance to put this right. With franchising, fair pay and investment in modern vehicles, we can build a system that works for passengers, supports jobs and meets our climate goals. Reliable and affordable public transport should not be a luxury; it is the foundation of a fair economy and connected communities. My constituents in the City of Durham deserve no less. They deserve a transport service that serves local people, not profit, and Ministers must act to deliver it. \p Richard Foord: I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday evening, and I was hearing about transport problems in London. Let’s face it: when we hear about transport problems in London, we know exactly what they mean, but pity also the poor people in the provinces who rarely come to London but have to hear all about London’s daily problems. In Devon, the struggle with our rail infrastructure is not just an occasional disruption; it is an everyday reality. Every year, there are around 50 million rail journeys to, from or within the south-west of England, yet according to the Office of Rail and Road, between January and March this year, only 67% of South Western Railway services ran on time, meaning that one in three trains arrived late.

Those figures were collected even before the disruption on South Western Railway over the summer, when speeds were reduced because of the hot, dry weather caused by the “soil moisture deficit”. A journey from Honiton to London, which should take a little over three hours, was dragged out to nearly four. Services from Axminster, Whimple and Feniton to Exeter were reduced to just one every two hours. That is not a  service that people can rely on for work, for getting to college or for family life, and with hotter summers set to become more frequent, we need a lasting solution.

Even in normal times, the line is fragile. It depends on a long single-track section, which means that if one train is late, other trains are delayed, too. Trains back up at passing points, delays ripple down the line, and at busy times South Western Railway has to cut—or it has been cutting, at least—carriage numbers in half, leaving people crammed in.

One solution would involve increasing rail capacity along the line between Axminster and Exeter. At its heart, there would be a new 3-mile section of dual track near Whimple and Cranbrook. That single improvement would make a huge difference. With the double track in place, South Western Railway could run an additional hourly shuttle service between Axminster and Exeter, which would give Honiton and Axminster two trains every hour to Exeter and would mean that Whimple and Feniton would get a reliable hourly service. People would have better onward connections from Exeter St Davids to Plymouth, Barnstaple, Bristol, Birmingham and beyond. \p Tom Gordon: My hon. Friend makes a really interesting point about dualling of line. I have been campaigning in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough to dual the line between Knaresborough and York for the exact same reasons and benefits that my hon. Friend is describing. Does he agree that, if this Government want to get on with the job of growth, going further and faster on investing in dualling lines like ours would be a way to do it? \p Richard Foord: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He points to how it is much more affordable simply to dual a piece of track than it is to invest in new railway lines, as we talked about a lot in the last Parliament.

For students studying at Exeter college, for workers heading into Exeter and for businesses trading across the south-west, such a solution would be transformative. It would make the railway more resilient. When there are delays, whether they are because of flooding, autumn leaves or dry clay embankments, trains could pass more easily. With the Government planning around 20,000 new homes along the line between Axminster and Exeter, demand on this stretch of railway will only increase.

Finally, we cannot ignore the rolling stock—the trains themselves. The diesel fleet is nearly 40 years old. Reliability is failing and spare parts are running out. We need Government decisions on new trains—battery, electric or hybrid—so that by the early 2030s we might have a modern, clean, reliable fleet. Rural and coastal communities such as Honiton and Sidmouth must not be left behind. South Western Railway is doing what it can. Since I asked the Rail Minister a question this morning at Transport questions, South Western Railway has announced replacement buses from Axminster to Exeter, and between Feniton, Whimple and Exeter. But that is a sticking plaster. What we really need is investment that would allow it to run reliable trains, not just replacement bus services. People in the south-west pay many of the same taxes as those in London, but face long delays, overcrowding and fewer trains. It is time for the Government to demonstrate that attention to transport in the south-west is just as necessary as that in London. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. With an immediate three-minute limit, I call Andrew Cooper. \p Andrew Cooper: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my best to indulge you on the fly.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. Transport is not just about going from one place to another; it is about enabling progress. It opens doors to education, employment and enterprise, while also keeping us connected to the people and communities that matter most. But for many communities, particularly across the north, transport has not been a catalyst for opportunity, but a source of disadvantage.

Deep-rooted inequalities in regional infrastructure have left countless towns and cities disconnected, limiting access to jobs, education and essential services. The consequences of this divide are tangible, affecting lives, livelihoods and the ability of entire regions to thrive. That is because transport investment in the UK has been starkly unequal for decades. While London and the south-east have benefited from sustained strategic funding, many towns and cities across the north have been left behind, with ageing infrastructure, underfunded networks and, crucially, missed opportunities for growth. The numbers speak for themselves. Historically, per capita transport spending in London has dwarfed that of the north. Indeed, analysis shows that had the north received the same level of transport infrastructure investment per person as London between 2010 and 2020, it would have gained an additional £66 billion, funding it has ultimately missed out on due to regional disparities in infrastructure investment.

In my local area, inadequate transport infrastructure remains one of the most significant barriers to unlocking the full potential of Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich. It is a major obstacle to attracting new businesses, creating jobs and driving investment. But I hope that change is coming thanks to this Labour Government. The recent reforms to the Treasury’s Green Book represent a turning point. The updated Green Book places greater emphasis on regional equity, and on the long-term social and economic benefits of investment. It recognises that value is not just measured in pounds and pence, but measured in lives improved, communities connected and futures transformed. It is a chance to rebalance our economy, invest in the infrastructure that powers productivity, and ensure that no matter where someone lives—whether it be Middlewich or Manchester, Winsford or Warrington—they have access to the same opportunities as someone living in London or the south-east.

The Government have begun this policy with action: with real, visible investment in northern transport, from rail upgrades and new bus routes to road building schemes, such as the Middlewich eastern bypass in my constituency. I am proud to say it was this Labour Government who delivered the investment for this vital project—although I suspect the former Minister approved it just to stop me camping outside her office and badgering her in the Tea Room. I am grateful for her support, but her successor should know that this now means my lobbying powers are free to be directed to other noble causes, such as improvements to the Winnington bridge and step-free access at Northwich station \p Jo Platt: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for bringing this really important debate to the House.

Growth goes where growth is, but when transport is inefficient, access to opportunity is limited. Leigh and Atherton, once thriving industrial hubs, now sit between Manchester and Liverpool, alongside towns such as St Helens, Warrington, Wigan and Salford, yet we remain locked in outdated transport systems. Roads built around our mills and factories are now clogged with ever-increasing traffic. This is not just a local issue. The gridlock we face is a shared burden and a shared injustice. Leigh ranks in the top 1% nationally for transport related social exclusion. In my constituency, over 40,000 people—37% of residents—face a high risk of exclusion due to poor transport; that is twice the north-west average, and nearly five times that of Greater Manchester. Poor connectivity and an over- reliance on cars are isolating our most vulnerable older people, disabled residents and low-income families. People are being trapped in cycles of poverty and missed opportunity.

I have spoken to residents who set off three hours early to make a hospital appointment. Others turn down college places or job offers simply because they cannot afford a car, and opportunity is out of reach without one. That should not be the case, and it does not have to be. We must invest in accessible, sustainable transport—walking, cycling, buses and trains—across every region, not just where the growth is.

Greater Manchester is a shining example of the first stages of the transformative impact that transport devolution can deliver. Over £30 million is being invested in safer, cleaner transport through the Bee Network. Services such as the V1 and V2 buses in Leigh and Atherton are vital, and the planned new railway station in Golborne is a huge step forward. But we must go further. Without reliable and inclusive transport, access to jobs, education and healthcare remains a postcode lottery. I welcome the discussions to expand Metrolink to areas such as Salford Crescent, Wigan and Leigh. Those investments must continue.

There is also the proposal to connect our two great regions, spearheaded by Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, and Liverpool City Region Mayor, Steve Rotheram. With the Greater Manchester economy growing faster than the UK’s as a whole, after their recent comments I say to the leadership of Reform, who are not in their seats, that we have proven what ambition backed with investment can achieve for our region. It is transport infrastructure that is driving that success. We on this side of the House will not let short-sighted politics stall the north’s momentum. \p Baggy Shanker: I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for securing this vital debate. In Derby, like many other parts of the country, transport is the glue that holds our community together, but Derby is also a city of makers. We have a unique transport manufacturing heritage to be proud of, and a future to be excited about.

If we are talking about investment in our public transport, however, it is a totally different story. While Derby powers our supply chain, the east midlands has been left lagging behind when it comes to funding our transport infrastructure. Under successive Governments, our region has sat consistently at the back of the queue for investment. In 2023-24, that meant that transport spending in the east midlands was just 54% of the UK average—shockingly, the lowest of any UK region or nation, as we heard earlier. That is not just a number. It is delays, lost opportunities and frustration for people just trying to go about their day to day.

Ask anyone in our community and they will say that they have been stuck on the same congested roads for years, and they have watched vital bus services disappear, as our region has faced the consequences of the deepest bus cuts in the country since 2008. Understandably, people are absolutely fed up. That is why I am proud that this Labour Government, along with our fantastic East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, are wasting no time turning the page. With a record £2 billion secured earlier this year to tackle congestion and improve connectivity across the east midlands, we are finally starting to put things right.

That is not all. Whether it is moving forward on upgrades to the A38 to end Derby’s traffic gridlock, or the introduction of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, protecting thousands of miles of lifeline routes across our region, progress is being made. There is still lots more to do to put decades of under-investment behind us. Securing projects such as the electrification of the midlands main line would supercharge our region, creating 5,000 jobs, reducing journey times and improving reliability, as well as unlocking over £400 million worth of economic benefit for the region.

To transform our transport infrastructure, we need sustained, long-term funding in our region that, at the very minimum, matches the UK average. I look forward to seeing that delivered through action and investment from a Government who back Derby and the east midlands. \p Polly Billington: I would like to talk about the importance of the impact of both austerity and covid on entrenching the regional transport inequalities we have heard so much about today. I will also talk about the importance of our making the most of our existing infrastructure, which has ended up crumbling and neglected after the previous 14 years, and emphasise the importance of improving services and restoring those battered by austerity and covid.

This issue is particularly important in coastal communities. I am proud to sit next to my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coastal communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Despite the geographical differences between our two constituencies, we share a concern about the connectivity challenges in our coastal communities, and we know that many other places are experiencing the same problems because, as much as coastal communities have many assets, they are fundamentally at the end of the line. They are therefore—I say this advisedly to those currently in the Chamber—most exposed and vulnerable to the populism and dark forces we have seen around us recently.

When we think about all that, we understand the need to connect people to opportunities for growth and to break down the barriers to opportunity—two of our key missions as a country. On that great strategic point, I urge anyone from Stagecoach and Kent county council who is listening to restore the No. 9 bus between Ramsgate and Canterbury for precisely that reason. One of our hospitals is there, as are two of our universities and the further education colleges. I know children, young people and adults whose opportunities have been limited and cut back because that No. 9 bus service no longer exists.

Let me talk about the impact of covid, particularly in respect of the crumbling and neglected infrastructure we have as a consequence. Ashford International train station has been international in name only since the covid pandemic, and Eurostar’s expansion plans do not include the restoration of international rail services to Kent. Cutting the length of train journeys from Kent to Paris and Brussels by two hours would greatly improve the opportunities for us as a community and, indeed, for growth. The Good Growth Foundation has pointed out that this would improve growth by £2.4 billion across five years. Unlike other so-called affluent parts of the south- east, places like mine really need that economic growth.

On existing infrastructure, I have one last message for the Minister about Ramsgate port: it is important to restore passenger ferries, at least, to a place that is desperately in need of that kind of connectivity. \p Dave Robertson: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who talked about the impact of covid on transport. Many of my constituents across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages rely on the cross-city line to get to Birmingham for work, for social activities—to visit the theatre or go for a night out—and for many other reasons. Unfortunately, during the pandemic the service on the line was cut from four trains an hour to just two. That was understandable at the time, given the circumstances, but years have passed and those trains are still not back.

The cross-city line is the busiest commuter train line in the country outside of London. In the year before covid, a million journeys started at Lichfield City, going towards Birmingham New Street. Lichfield is a city of 35,000 people and a million journeys began at that train station. It is a busy line—it is important infrastructure. This debate is about regional transport inequality; the idea that on a line that busy that served anywhere in the south-east or London the service would be halved and nothing done about it for years is absolutely laughable. But because it is in the west midlands, the services have not come back.

The villain in this piece is just how busy New Street is. It is over capacity; we cannot get any more trains in or out. That is why I am so glad to have campaigned to get the midland rail hub project funded and to have co-ordinated dozens of Back-Bench MPs to support the campaign. That will improve the capacity at New Street, meaning that we can get our trains back on the city line. It also means that 50 stations across a number of regions will get to see improvements in their services. That is a fantastic example of this Government investing in the projects that we need to close some of the transport inequality gaps, and I thank the Minister for that.

As I have a minute left, and given that those improvements are coming, let me say this. I have a line from Lichfield to Burton that passes by the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. It would make a brilliant place for a passenger service, so that everybody from around the country can get to the National Memorial Arboretum to enjoy the fantastic facility that it is and take part in remembrance all year round, not just in November. \p Alex Mayer: I strongly believe that a regional geography is the right scale to make substantial public transport improvements. That is why I back this Government’s devolution agenda as the right approach to improving transport. The real inequality of the future will not be north versus south or urban versus rural, but between those areas that have well-respected, ambitious mayors and those that do not. For the sake of passengers, I hope that the Government move swiftly to fill in the gaps on the devo map, even if there is not complete consensus.

Inequality in transport is already linked to some extent to governance. In the past, larger areas had passenger transport executives, and that gives them a head start, as more power heads to strategic authorities. I still believe that the Government could go further to encourage the creation of more executive bodies to co-ordinate transport regionally.

I also remain concerned about the highways-transport split. I very much welcome clause 25 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which will allow mayoral combined authorities to take on civil enforcement of traffic contraventions, but we could go further. Fundamentally, the same organisation needs to be responsible for the bus, the bus lane and the bus stop.

We also need to think differently about geography. From the Victorian radial rail network through to modern motorways, there has for too long been an assumption that all roads and rails should lead to London, but we cannot just think north to south; it must be east to west too. That is why I warmly welcome the £2.5 billion commitment to East West Rail to rebalance decades of under-investment in cross-country links. I will continue to call for the expansion of the Luton-Dunstable busway to Leighton Buzzard and on to Bletchley, linking it into East West Rail.

The Minister will be delighted to know that my final question is a train question, rather than a bus question. I am keen to hear from him about plans for Great British Railways within regions. Does he believe that the current Network Rail regions are the right ones to build on as we move to GBR, or does he believe there are other opportunities and shapes other than triangles?

We must always see transport as a driver of growth. In order to build thriving networks, we need a relentless focus on growing passenger numbers, which we can all do, as we know that September is Catch the Bus Month. \p Tom Hayes: We know that when it comes to transport inequality, as we have just heard, the people who are left behind most are younger people, disabled people, people on low incomes and older people. Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that  when you were the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, you called for an older people’s commissioner. In this respect, that could provide real value.

In the time available to me, I will major in as many transport forms as possible. Yesterday I spoke about buses. In Bournemouth, we are crying out for a better No. 33 bus, the reinstatement of the bus route in and to Throop, and a bus to the airport that is better and goes more frequently. We need a stronger provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure; it is typically concentrated in more affluent areas, and where it is concentrated in public areas it does not work. When it comes to trains, I am campaigning for an accessible Pokesdown station and faster trains to London.

I want to talk particularly about the problems that people experience locally with accessing driving tests. The Labour Government have committed to 10,000 additional driving tests, and we have four additional instructors in Poole, but people in Bournemouth East have to travel to Poole to take their test, because their centre was closed in 2019. Operators are using bots to sweep up months-worth of test dates and sell them to parents and learners at a high profit. That is not fair, and it is an example of inequality. I have written to the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency, but it is nowhere to be seen on this issue. I want this Government to be on the side of learners and to tackle the driving test backlog.

I welcome the fact that we have £1.1 million in funding coming to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council for the improvement of transport infrastructure, and that we have an extra £2 million to invest on potholes. I particularly want to make the case, for the first time in this Chamber, for the resurrection of a tram network in Bournemouth, which I think is really important. [Interruption.] I can hear murmurs of assent from my hon. Friends. Everyone loves a tram. Trams foster economic, social and cultural growth around them. In Bournemouth, which has joined two other towns to create a super-city region, we are falling behind in economic growth opportunities because we do not have the interconnectedness we need.

I was going to say more, but I will just briefly say that if we can have faster trains to London, accessible stations, the potholes in our roads filled, better bus services, more driving tests and a tram network which, because of its permanence, attracts businesses, organisations and people to move into our areas—those areas are already thriving, but could thrive so much more—Bournemouth would no longer be left behind; Bournemouth would thrive. It is a fantastic, beautiful town, which I am so proud to represent, and with the elimination of our transport inequalities, there would be no limit to the success we could achieve. \p Sojan Joseph: The perception many people have of Kent is one of prosperity because of our close proximity to London, but the reality is more complicated. In my constituency, we have widespread inequalities, and communities feel overlooked and disconnected, as is all too evident in the way our transport network operates.

Nowhere has that been more evident than in the decision taken by Eurostar in 2020 to stop the international rail service calling at Ashford International. My hon.  Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) highlighted the importance of international connectivity to the south-east for its economic benefits. The decision has left the international section of the station, which cost about £80 million of taxpayers’ money, sitting idle, for over five years so far. This autumn, the Office of Rail and Road is due to make a decision about whether new providers of international rail will have access to the international depot at Temple Mills in east London. As the ORR comes to its decision, I ask the Minister whether the Government will give a clear indication that they will favour operators who commit to return such services to Ashford.

The London focus of our transport network means that, while there are good services between Ashford and London, there is not the same provision of services for my constituents looking to travel across Kent or make local journeys that do not involve the capital. This disproportionately affects those who do not have access to a car such as young people, elderly residents, the disabled and lower-income households. It limits their access to work opportunities, healthcare appointments and local amenities. In particular, I have been contacted by many constituents since I was elected who have complained about the poor condition of local bus services. That especially affects the residents of Hawkinge and the smaller villages, such as the constituent whose son is disabled and is unable to find a job because the bus from his village starts too late in the morning, or the older constituents who are unable to visit theatres in Canterbury because the last bus runs before the end of the performance.

Those are just a couple of the many examples I could cite showing why my constituency, and Kent as a whole, is crying out for properly supported bus routes. Having these routes is vital to breaking down barriers to opportunity and unlocking economic growth in our communities. I welcome the fact that, when Labour’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is passed into law, it will play a major role in reforming our broken bus system. I hope that the administration at Kent county council will take full advantage of the powers the Bill will give it to deliver the improvement in bus services that my constituents deserve. \p Adam Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. She knows my constituency well, and will be familiar with many of the issues that I will raise.

Erewash is at the geographic and, dare I say, emotional heart of the east midlands— the halfway point between Derby and Nottingham. Long Eaton, which I represent, was scarcely on the map before the railways, and Ilkeston, like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), used to have its own tram. Those places are defined by industry and are inherently linked to public transportation, but by the middle of the 20th century, that legacy had been whittled away as all focus moved towards the car.

For 50 years, Ilkeston did not have a train station at all, but after years of cross-party campaigning, its new station opened in 2017. However, lots of people in Ilkeston tell me that the station has been a missed opportunity. Services are once per hour, meaning that it is not as attractive to commuters as it could be. Ilkeston is in Derbyshire, but passengers cannot even get a train to Derby from the station.

I am pleased, though, to hear discussion about the Maid Marian line again. That line would restore the link from Nottinghamshire to the Erewash valley line, perhaps enabling those new services connecting Mansfield and Derby to call at Ilkeston. At present, although the Erewash valley line bears my constituency’s name, it does not carry any local passenger services. If it were brought into more frequent use, maybe we could one day reopen the Stapleford and Sandiacre station. If we are dreaming, perhaps one day we could even bring back Draycott and Breaston station, too.

In many ways, Long Eaton was fortunate to keep its train station after the 1960s. The station has frequent services to many destinations, but there are still things that it notably lacks. The ramps up to the platform are very steep, and the lifts work only when the station is staffed, which presents real difficulties for my disabled constituents. The platform is too short, which can cause havoc for longer trains as only some doors can open.

Finally, let me address buses. The 21 bus used to link Ilkeston, Cotmanhay and Kirk Hallam directly with the Queen’s medical centre in Nottingham, one of our local major hospitals. Before the covid pandemic, the service was slashed to just once per hour, and afterwards it was slashed altogether. Now there are no direct buses from Ilkeston to the QMC, and for anyone trying to reach the hospital from Kirk Hallam by bus, it is a two-hour trip with at least two changes. It means getting a bus all the way into Derby before taking another bus, in the opposite direction, to Nottingham. It is madness. \p Samantha Niblett: I am very familiar with my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I know that he was campaigning for good transport links way before he became an MP. On access to bus services, smaller villages such as Egginton in my South Derbyshire constituency are not served by a bus service at all. Does he agree that that truly ensures regional inequality across our country? \p Adam Thompson: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, for years the east midlands has languished, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said in her opening remarks, on the bottom few rungs of the table for regional transport funding. I am glad that times are changing, however. The Treasury’s £2 billion commitment to transport in the east midlands earlier this year was bigger than I and colleagues in the region could ever have dreamed. I am so excited to see what transformation that investment will bring, and I will fight every day to ensure that Erewash sees the benefits of it.

If we are to have long-term change, the east midlands  cannot rely on one-off awards, however. We need consistent investment, comprehensive planning reform, overhauled and empowered local government, and, in particular, changes to the Treasury rules to end the flat refusal to spend outside London and the greater south-east. Those are all positive prospects brought forward by this Government, and I look forward to seeing them become law. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. It might be helpful if I indicate that I will come to the Front Benchers at five minutes past 3. On a three-minute time limit, there is very little time for interventions. \p Jayne Kirkham: Since I was elected last July, I have become closely acquainted with the long-distance London Paddington to Penzance line, which a number of my colleagues have mentioned. There was a big storm in 2014, and we were properly cut off for eight weeks; we could not get in or out of Cornwall by rail, because there is only one way to do so. Since then, an awful lot has been done to improve the resilience of the line, but phase 5 will be vital to strengthening the vulnerable coastal section and maintaining connectivity for Cornwall.

Cornwall sees a huge population increase in the summer, with about 4 million visitors, but we lack reliable year-round connections, which constrains our economy and restricts growth, as well as creating social isolation. Many of our students must travel for over an hour on public transport to further education providers, and travelling between their apprenticeships and colleges is often impossible, restricting their prospects.

As a result of our 2015 devolution deal, Cornwall council obtained greater transport powers, such as franchising and partnership agreements with local bus providers, which has helped and led to an increase in bus patronage. Cornwall was the first rural area in England to introduce smart ticketing, but that came at a cost: the council subsidises 50% of the public transport network, and it costs us an awful lot of money.

Under the previous Tory Government, the south-west had some of the lowest identifiable expenditure on public transport, at just £429 per head—the second lowest after the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I welcome the Government’s focus on long-term investment in transport infrastructure, including the fourfold increase in local transport grants. The funding for potholes will be hugely important in Cornwall, which has more than 4,600 miles of small roads.

The investment will be crucial for Cornwall’s economic growth. Cornwall’s chamber of commerce has said that transport connectivity is the top priority for the businesses it represents, because our transport links really hold us back. We used to receive EU funding of up to £1 billion, much of which was ploughed into transport because we did not have the funding from elsewhere. We have branch lines that would not exist had it not been for that money, but the funding has dried up now that the shared prosperity fund has finished, so we need the investment to continue.

Electrifying the main line would really help. Currently, there is a branch line passenger service that runs from Truro to Falmouth. There was a freight rail line at the end of it, so just 150 yards would open up so much for new industries such as critical minerals and would enable aggregates to be moved around. We have an airport that desperately needs a new public service obligation. Investment in transport infrastructure in Cornwall is essential for our economic growth and success in the future. \p Josh Newbury: I am glad to be speaking in this debate, because far too many of my constituents are being held back by our transport system. On rail, Rugeley Trent Valley, just over the border in the   constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—he is no longer in his place—is a striking example of what we are here to discuss. Two of the station’s three platforms can be reached only by a steep footbridge, meaning that wheelchair users, parents with prams and people with limited mobility are effectively barred from getting to Birmingham and Stafford. One constituent told me that his friend, who has mobility issues, literally had to crawl up and down the stairs to reach their connecting train.

West Midlands Railway fully supports installing lifts, but such major upgrades fall under Network Rail’s Access for All programme, for which demand is huge and funding is heavily oversubscribed. With more than 2,500 stations competing, Network Rail prioritises based on passenger numbers and the proximity of the next available accessible station. That means Rugeley loses out to larger hubs nearby, such as Stafford. Although Rugeley has been shortlisted in the past, other stations have scored higher under the system. The reality is that the next allocation of Access for All funding is still a distant prospect. In the meantime, passengers are offered so-called mitigations, such as going forward to the next accessible station and being sent back again, or being provided with road transport at the operator’s discretion. For many, that is simply not a viable or dignified option. \p Andrew Cooper: Will my hon. Friend give way for a very short intervention? \p Josh Newbury: Given your warning, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not give way.

Accessibility upgrades such as lifts, ramps and reliable step-free routes must not be treated as optional extras in towns such as mine. They are essential to dignity, inclusion and fairness.

On buses, Cannock Chase shows why change is long overdue. We are one of the most car-dependent parts of the country, yet many still rely on buses. Over the years we have lost routes into Birmingham and the Black Country, and services after 7 pm and at weekends are rare. In my part of the world, we see stark evidence of a public service run for private profit and paid for in growing inequality. Elderly residents tell me that they cannot reach appointments, parents struggle to get children to school, and workers have to turn down shifts.

Nationally, bus services in the most deprived areas of England have been cut 10 times more than in the least deprived. Some communities have been cut off altogether, such as Slitting Mill, just outside Rugeley, which has no service at all, despite once having a direct bus all the way to Wolverhampton.

The Government’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill—I was immensely proud to serve on the Bill Committee and to support it last night—will arrest and begin to reverse the long-term decline that we have seen for far too long. Whether it is the last bus that never comes or the platform that cannot be reached, my constituents know what regional transport inequality looks like. I welcome the Labour Government’s determination to put fairness and accessibility at the heart of transport policy. I will keep pressing to ensure that my constituents get the share of investment they deserve. \p Alison Hume: To grow our economy, we need good connectivity. In coastal communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, we are struck in the slow lane. Scarborough, with its heritage, culture and captivating coastline, is a popular tourist destination, attracting 3.9 million visitors last year. The train from Scarborough to York is an essential transport link for visitors as well as commuters, but with only one service an hour, opportunity and growth are being choked off.

We need a twice-hourly service. This proposal is backed by York and North Yorkshire Mayor David Skaith, local businesses, my constituents and Lord Blunkett, who listed the service increase as one of his rail priorities in his report, “Yorkshire’s Plan for Rail”, published this year. Scarborough’s wonderful Stephen Joseph theatre has supported calls for a twice-hourly service, stating that audience members leave performances early to catch their train. Rather like its latest production, “Noises Off”, this is a farce.

We have businesses in Scarborough and nearby Seamer that are looking to attract more employees, but with such an irregular service, these opportunities are simply out of reach for many people. We have enough platforms and enough demand for a more regular rail service. The operator, TransPennine Express, says that one of the barriers to providing a twice-hourly service is a shortage of drivers. It insists that it must train its own drivers on its own routes. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the issue of train drivers in his closing remarks, and say whether he is exploring new ways to ensure that the local need for drivers is met.

I welcome the news that York and North Yorkshire combined authority will receive £94 million in local transport grant capital funding over the next four years. However, the combined authority, which covers a huge geographical area, is not part of the transport for city regions, so its settlement is not nearly as large as that of most combined authorities. \p Tom Gordon: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point? \p Alison Hume: No, I am afraid I have to carry on.

Unless we equip our first Labour rural metro mayor in York and North Yorkshire with the economic firepower to deliver better buses and trains, we not only limit the opportunity for towns like Scarborough to contribute to economic growth, but risk failing to break down barriers to opportunity in coastal communities. \p James Naish: When we talk about regional transport inequality, the east midlands, where I was born and have lived most of my life, comes to mind as one of the clearest examples of such inequality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) has said. Over the past five years, per-head transport spend in the east midlands has fallen to just 54% of the UK average—the lowest of any region or nation. As has already been said, had we simply received the English average, we would have had £7 billion more for our buses, roads and railways.

Rail funding in the east midlands is particularly unequal, at £175 per head in 2023-2024—barely 40% of the English average, and a third of what the west  midlands received. These are not just abstract figures; they affect daily life. They mean high car dependency, low levels of bus usage, and a sparse and unreliable rail network. Three quarters of our stations are served by only one train per hour or fewer. This is what chronic under-investment looks like on the ground for my constituents.

As has been mentioned, there have recently been positive commitments, which I welcome, including the £2 billion allocated to our East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward. But we have to be honest: with huge sums being spent elsewhere on HS2, the trans-Pennine upgrade, East West Rail and the lower Thames crossing—to name but a few fantastic projects—the money committed to the east midlands will not address the long-standing imbalances. Without purposeful intervention, I fear that the east midlands’ relative position will simply worsen.

So what needs to change? First, we need funding parity. I would like to see a transparent path towards bringing transport spend in the east midlands up to the English average, including on rail, where the gap is deepest. Secondly, we need certainty. We need a long-term, multi-year pipeline for road, rail, bus, station and active travel investments, rather than piecemeal one-off projects, so that local authorities and industry can plan properly. Thirdly, I would like to see housing growth matched by transport capacity. My constituency is delivering the housing that this Government want to see, and it is important that the transport is there as well.

Finally, I must mention midland main line electrification. The economic case is overwhelming: it would unlock £400 million-worth of benefits and 5,000 jobs. In contrast, keeping the scheme under review risks £40 million to £70 million in additional costs. My ask today is therefore straightforward: please, Minister, look at that scheme again. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on securing this important debate to highlight the disparity in the effectiveness and adequacy of transport between different regions.

I would like to speak about my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle and to consider how specific issues affect travel in remote coastal areas such as Cornwall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) has mentioned, particularly in relation to home-to-school transport. Because of Cornwall’s geography, being at the end of a long peninsula, it is characterised by remote communities, limited transport infrastructure and a high proportion of small settlements, which means that delivering services is inherently more expensive.

The recently closed fair funding review consulted on updating the system of distribution, including assessing local authorities’ experiences of delivering multiple services, such as home-to-school transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth again highlighted, the south-west ranks in the bottom half of regional transport expenditure rankings in 2023-24, yet Cornwall faces distinct geographical challenges. It covers a very large area with a dispersed population, which results in longer school journeys, as many pupils live far from their nearest school. There are also limited public transport options in rural areas, necessitating dedicated school  transport. These place-based characteristics are compounded by pressures on the special educational needs and disabilities system, with a rising number of pupils requiring specialist transport. Yet the funding formula does not fully reflect the complexity and cost of providing the service.

Roads in remote coastal and rural areas are more vulnerable to weather-related disruption, meaning transport services require extra contingency planning and resilience funding. Seasonal pressures exacerbate these challenges too, with visitors and seasonal workers increasing congestion and wear on infrastructure, adding to maintenance costs and planning complexity.

When he gets to his feet, I hope the Minister will be able to address some of the particular issues affecting remote coastal areas such as Cornwall, and I would appreciate a further discussion with him on this matter, particularly given Cornwall’s distinct devolution complications. \p Sarah Russell: I was quite tempted to stand up this afternoon and just say the word “pothole” over and over again for three solid minutes, as the peculiarity of such an approach might really bring home to the Minister, who I know has been doing his best on these matters, quite how strongly my constituents feel about the state of their roads.

The Government did give Cheshire East several million pounds more in this year’s Budget to deal with road maintenance backlogs than in recent years, which was very much appreciated by my constituents. However, the reality is that 14 years of chronic underfunding has left my roads in a catastrophic state. I cannot emphasise enough how dark, dangerous and worrying rural roads are—the number of young people who die on the roads in my constituency is absolutely horrific. Similarly, I cannot emphasise enough that we need separate funding for significant safety upgrades, as well as a dramatic increase to the road maintenance pot as soon as the Government are able to do so.

There is another matter concerning roads in my constituent that I want to draw attention to. Gritting might sound like a trivial thing to those living in an urban area, but gritting in rural areas is absolutely critical. Our roads get a lower level of use, and the result is that they freeze and stay frozen for longer periods of time.

One impact of my local authority having had so many financial challenges over the past 14 years has been reductions in gritting. There are schools in my rural areas that have no pavements outside them, and the roads in front of them are completely and utterly ungritted. When those children are dropped off at school, they are put into a road—alongside cars—which has not been gritted at all. Headteachers do their best to mitigate the associated risks by not demanding that parents bring their children in on time, so the lack of safety features not only puts children at risk, but undermines their education.

Let me contrast that with London, where automatic number plate recognition cameras help to shut roads off completely at specific times of day. I find it staggering that we have such a complete contrast in treatment. Of course, I want children in London to be safe; this is not about taking things away from London schools, but it is very much about children in my constituency, as well as older people and others, having the same access and safety as everyone else.

Briefly, given that I have only 30 seconds left, I want to touch on Northern Rail and the complete lack of Sunday services in my constituency. The strikes have been going on for a year, and we desperately need the issue to be resolved. Sandbach station rail accessibility, including the lack of an accessible lift at the station, is a huge issue. I echo points made by colleagues about the importance of funding such things properly. Lastly, there has been a 67% reduction in buses in my local area over the past 15 years. We must improve on that desperate situation. \p Laurence Turner: I will do my best to speak at high speed, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood): she was an outstanding Minister and the Department’s loss is the Whips Office’s gain. She will be much missed on the Transport Front Bench.

I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. She and I represent constituencies in the squeezed midlands—regions home to 10 million people that have historically been denied a fair share of funding and political attention. As has been noted already, the east midlands receives the lowest transport funding per head of any region, although the west midlands held that unhappy status until recently. The rail line between Birmingham and Nottingham is slower, mile for mile, than that between Manchester and Leeds. The west midlands has the lowest share of public transport journeys of any English region, followed by the east midlands. That fuels congestion, road safety problems and potholes.

Birmingham’s roads are a special case. We have one of the last private finance initiative contracts in the country. When originally issued, local government austerity and the high inflation of the early 2020s were not foreseen. The previous Government tried to withdraw support for the PFI contract without a clear plan, which was ruled unlawful. I know that the new Minister will be looking at that closely, and I look forward to working with him to get a fair deal for Birmingham.

Most public transport journeys are by bus and half the industry’s income now comes from public funding, yet public accountability lags behind. This summer, National Express announced major changes to the X20 and 61 routes. People in Allens Cross and parts of the New Frankley estate lost their direct connection to Birmingham, and some older residents no longer have direct bus access to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I am grateful to the hundreds of people who signed petitions, including one that I organised. I have met National Express and Transport for West Midlands, and I hope that we can find a way forward.

Significant investment has been announced for commuter rail. I have spoken frequently in this House about rebuilding Kings Norton station as part of a midlands rail hub. In the interest of time, I will only say how grateful I am that Ministers listened; I hope that we can make progress on restoring that service’s frequency.

Finally, we must be ambitious. Birmingham Corporation Tramways once ran services to my constituency. The original 1984 vision for a revitalised metro included a loop serving Northfield, Longbridge, Frankley and Rubery.  That vision was right, and I hope that we can find funding for a feasibility study for a south Birmingham extension.

Regional transport inequality hinders economic growth and denies opportunities to my constituents. I am glad that the House has had the chance to debate this issue. I think this is my stop, so I will. \p Caroline Nokes: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his timekeeping and the speed with which he included all that. That brings us to the Front Benchers, remembering that we would like to leave some time for the Member who introduced the debate to wind up. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: I was all too conscious at Transport questions this morning not only to ensure that I did not, after last night’s scolding, repeat the heresy of “you” or “yours”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to keep my questions brief. Consequently, I did not have time to put on the record—for the third time in less than a year—a formal welcome on behalf of my party to the new shadow Transport Secretary. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is no longer in the Chamber, I formally congratulate him on his elevation.

As former Transport Minister, the right hon. Gentleman knows all about the transformative effect of transport, having only recently hopped aboard the overnight shuttle from Durham to Basildon. On that tortuous journey from the north of England to the south-east, he would have glimpsed the huge inequalities in transport provision across our country. Be it trains or buses, roads or air travel, where people live or their business is situated has a massive effect on their mobility. Mobility—the ability to move from A to Z and all points in between—is key to a modern economy and a cohesive society.

The statistics paint a stark picture of, to coin a phrase, a two-tier system. Last year, for example, transport spending in London was over £1,300 per head, compared with under £400 per head in the east midlands. New research from Transport for the North reveals that over 11 million people in England face a high risk of social exclusion specifically because of inadequate transport systems. That represents a 14% increase—an extra 2 million people—since 2019. In the north-east, well over 30% of residents face a high risk of transport-related social exclusion, compared with below 3% in London. And who are the excluded? It will come as no surprise that, as Transport for the North has highlighted, it is disproportionately low-income households, unpaid carers, the old and the disabled. The very people our transport system should be helping the most are the ones facing its greatest barriers.

It is not just the north of England suffering from these inequalities. Minehead in Somerset, for example, is virtually cut off. The railway station closed in 1971, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) tells me that the No. 28 bus appears to run on a whim. In Stratford-upon-Avon, Stagecoach has stopped running buses in the evening and at weekends, and there is no direct train service between the home of Shakespeare and London, undermining the town’s tourist and cultural economy. Transport is, of course, key to our tourist industry. That is why in Cornwall, the new Lib Dem council has  cancelled the previous Tory administration’s plans to sell off Newquay airport, but it now needs more help than is currently being offered by the Government to make the critical investment the airport so badly needs.

Investment in transport is key. Even in London, where Transport for London is the envy of the rest of the country, more investment is needed. Repeated disruption on the District line is caused by some of the infrastructure being up to 130 years old, according to TfL. It sounds grim, but as my constituents are getting tired of hearing me say, we in Wimbledon and the rest of London do not know how lucky we are. Just imagine living in a region where services are sparse or non-existent, bus routes are cut, stations have been closed and the few trains running are routinely delayed.

I am addressing my remarks to the Minister, for whom I have high regard and no little sympathy, because the problems with regional transport inequalities are clearly not of his making, nor his Government’s, but of the past Tory Administration’s. Take buses, for example, where deregulation allowed private operators to cream off the profitable routes and abandon the rest. Between 2015 and 2023, over 1 billion passenger journeys were lost. In the north-west alone, bus routes were reduced from nearly 3,500 in 2015 to half that number in 2024.

Sadly, however, the problem still continues. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) in the south-east of England tells me that three bus services have been cancelled since last summer. In the south-west and north-east, 56% of small towns are now identified as transport deserts or at risk of becoming so.

I do not doubt the Government’s good intentions, evidenced by the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, but in some respects, things are getting worse. The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3, for example, will only accelerate the decline in bus usage, hitting those who are already struggling the most. The Minister will rightly point to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and its many excellent provisions but, as with the soon-to-be-published rail Bill, no amount of legislation will solve the issue of regional transport inequality without the necessary investment. As we saw with High Speed 2 and, more recently, the spending review, those moneys are not forthcoming.

The electrification of the midland main line from London to Sheffield has now been cancelled, while at Dawlish, the critical work to protect the vital Paddington to Penzance main line from the sea has been put on hold despite the very real risks to regional connectivity. The same is true of our road network, where, for example, the promised widening of the A12, which would have supported the creation of 55,000 new homes in the Chelmsford area, has been cancelled.

As the Minister is fond of telling me, there is no magic money tree, which is why the only way to address regional transport inequality is to grow the economy—a growth that is impeded by the very inequality that growth would help to address. That is why the pump must be primed with more investment in our transport system and a far more ambitious approach to growth, which can be achieved not by wishing on a star or by the PM tying himself in knots with his red lines over Europe but by boldly re-engaging with the EU and thereby completing the virtuous circle of an integrated transport system driven by and driving a dynamic and growing economy.

I end by thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this important debate and all Members for their excellent contributions. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Jerome Mayhew: I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing the debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the chasm between the Government’s grand promises and the grim reality for passengers, businesses and communities, as has been ably demonstrated by many of the contributions from Back Benchers. I do not have time to do justice to all those who have made contributions: I will leave that task to the Minister. I will move quickly on to roads and the Government’s record on roads, which has come in for some criticism today.

The infrastructure spending review that the Conservatives were responsible for in the run-up to the last election was the road investment strategy 2, which ran from 2020 to 2025. That was some £24 billion of investment, delivering major upgrades, unlocking infrastructure to enable 186,000 new homes for our constituents, improving freeport and airport links, and improving safety with 151 refuge areas built on smart motorways. We now move to 2025-30, with RIS3, which is Labour’s opportunity to outshine us. Has it done so? Absolutely not. RIS3 is marked by the killing of key enhancements, which I will come to, and instead of action we have targets here and consultations there, but it is very light on delivery.

We have a Government of review and policy papers, and that speaks to a wider truth about the Government. It is led by a lawyer Prime Minister who values process over political judgment—just think about his approach to sacking our ambassador to Washington. The Prime Minister’s original defence was that the process was followed: there was no political judgment. We can see that in the transport policy too.

What we need is not process. We do not need further targets here and consultations there: we need action. We need action on the A12 improvements—a £1.2 billion project. The scheme had been signed off, the housing had been cleared and businesses had been relocated, but it was scrapped without warning by this Government. The A12 is a core artery for Essex and South Suffolk. What about the regional inequality of that region? \p Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend said the magic word: “Essex”. Does he support the Transport for London (Extension of Concessions) Bill that I have tabled? TfL runs to Shenfield, Reading, Epping, Watford, Cheshunt and Amersham, way beyond the boundaries of Greater London. The Bill would require TfL to enable any local authority that is served by a TfL route or by a route to which a TfL concessionary scheme applies to opt in to the concessionary fare scheme, including the freedom pass for our old age pensioners. \p Jerome Mayhew: I am aware that my hon. Friend’s Bill does not make a call on the public purse, at least on the Treasury, and it is for local authorities to opt into the scheme should they wish to. It sounds like a very exciting project and one that should be developed further.

I mentioned the A12 in East Anglia, but there is also the A47 near Great Yarmouth. The Conservatives’ RIS2 included dualling to North Tuddenham, which is going on at the moment—I declare an interest as it is in my constituency—as is the dualling of the Brundall to Blofield stretch of the A47. Labour came into power and cancelled all further improvements. \p Ben Goldsborough: The shadow Minister talks about the A47, which runs through my constituency. Would he agree that the £200 million being spent on the improvement of the Thickthorn junction in our area will make a huge difference, compared to the £50 million wasted by Norfolk county council, run by his party, on a road that has not had an inch of tarmac laid? \p Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention gives me the opportunity to raise the proverbial eyebrow at his claiming credit for securing £200 million for the Thickthorn roundabout when that has been in process for many years before he was elected. As for the £50 million he mentions, I think he means the western link road, which would be a huge improvement. At the moment we have the equivalent of the M25 for Norwich, but it is missing one section of 3.9 miles. The Conservatives are squarely behind finishing it: I am surprised to hear that Labour does not support the residents of Norwich in a similar way.

I will move on to what Labour has done. It has cancelled the further improvements on the A47, particularly at the other end towards Peterborough. That is just another example of where East Anglia has been ignored by Labour. Buses are the most popular form of public transport and the most important one in areas of high deprivation. They are particularly important for poorer members of society, the young, elderly and disabled. The Conservatives recognise that—we recognise that price matters—so the last Government introduced the £2 bus fare cap, and our manifesto commitment at the last election was to maintain it throughout the course of this Parliament because we recognised how popular and useful it was in increasing bus ridership. When Labour came to power, it had a choice: it could back passengers or it could back the unions. One of its first—shameful—acts in government was to give a 15% pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, who are already the best paid in Europe, paid for by a 50% increase in bus fares for passengers around the country. That speaks to a wider truth: when it comes to it, Labour is the party of the unions and not of the people. \p Laurence Turner: rose— \p Jerome Mayhew: On that point, I will give way. \p Laurence Turner: Does the shadow Minister agree with his predecessor—the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman—who said this:

“Whilst it’s legitimate to debate the terms of the deal, the demonisation of train drivers and those onboard and at stations, who carry out a difficult and skilled job for the safety of passengers, is completely unfair. These people work hard and should be shown more respect.”? \p Jerome Mayhew: I have no problem with the unions making demands—after all, they are representing the interests of their members. What I complain about is the Government giving way to them at the expense of the general public.

On trains, we have got the cancelled projects as well. The midland main line electrification has been cancelled, which has led to lay-offs and the loss of expertise. It is also causing problems for the procurement of new bi-mode trains, because we no longer have any certainty as to whether the line will be electrified. At Dawlish, the Conservative Government completed phases 1 to 4 of the improvements and reinforcement of the line. Phase 5 is all that remains. What have the Government done? They have kicked it into the long grass, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for which I give him credit.

Back in East Anglia, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted the need for the Ely junction and Haughley junction projects in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk to be advanced, yet they have been ignored by the Government. \p Ben Goldsborough: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Jerome Mayhew: I will not, because I am running out of time. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

What is the big plan? It is one of nationalisation for railways. We must look at the Government’s motive—what do they think it is going to do? It is not about unifying track and train, because that was already in the Williams-Shapps review; that was going to happen without nationalisation. Is it about reducing fares? If so, it is backfiring, because nationalised train companies’ fares are rising above inflation. Is it about increasing efficiency? One would hope so, but through the Government’s nationalisation process they are decapitating the management teams that drive efficiency in the individual rail companies.

Is it about increasing passenger numbers? The inconvenient truth for Labour is that under privatisation passenger ridership on the railway doubled, because the companies were incentivised to chase ridership. That was driven by increased open access routes, yet the Government have opposed every single application for open access since the election. Is it to save money? If so, they are not doing a very good job. On South Western Railway—one of the first to be nationalised since the election—they wasted £250 million on infrastructure overspend with the rolling stock leasing companies due to Government negotiating incompetence.

The truth is that the Government are doing it because it is an article of Labour faith—faith in the big state—and also a key demand of the unions. How has it gone for them? As we have heard, ASLEF has already got a 15% pay rise, and the RMT is striking now. Next time, when GBR is finished, that strike will be national.

The Government are one year in. We have heard in the debate of cancelled scheme after cancelled scheme. We have also heard that prices have increased and that money has been diverted from passengers to union pay. That has done nothing for regional inequality, save for the industrial action that is spreading from London and engulfing the rest of the country. It is why passengers are so disappointed in Labour. They deserve better. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Minister. \p Simon Lightwood: I welcome today’s debate on regional transport inequality, and I thank my hon. Friend the  Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this time. I have 10 minutes to address the many excellent contributions made this afternoon, so Members must forgive my reluctance to entertain many interventions.

For decades, this country has faced a growing deficit of opportunity fuelled by the poor connectivity that has come to define too many communities. I have experienced at first hand the frustration felt by millions of people every day. Growing up in the north-east, I could wait hours for a bus that would never arrive, so I understand that missed shifts, missed lessons and missed appointments all lead to missed opportunities for hard-working families. Poor transport has deepened divides, isolated communities and eroded quality of life, all while stifling growth, hindering productivity and deterring investment. In my own region, Leeds is one of the largest European cities without a mass transit system. We are shamefully behind the curve, with people and businesses suffering as a result—but it does not have to be that way.

This Government are turning the page on decades of decline, ending short-sighted Whitehall-centric decision making and unlocking talent, ambition and potential right across the country. We are seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way that things are done and building a stronger transport network that works for everyone, whoever they are and wherever they come from.

Later this year, we will set out that vision in our integrated national transport strategy. We will champion transport that is designed, built and run with people in mind, recognising that different places face different challenges and need different ways to solve them. The strategy will aim to make transport safer, more reliable and more accessible, helping everyone to feel more confident and able to use the network. We will encourage housing, healthcare and other services to work with transport, trying to tackle regional inequality in all its forms.

We know, however, that politicians in Westminster cannot fully grasp the reality of life in Warrington, Wolverhampton or Woking. That is why our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill puts power in the hands of local leaders, with the freedom to choose the approach that best serves their community. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all formula just will not work, so we are funding franchising pilots to better understand all the options on the table. The Bill also calls time on the plague of violence against women and girls and antisocial behaviour with training and enforcement measures to help make journeys safer for everyone.

We are backing those steps with landmark levels of investment. This year alone, £1 billion will help improve bus services and keep fares affordable. We will extend the £3 bus fare, which will put more money in passengers’ pockets, making bus travel a viable option for more communities, while improving access to jobs, education and healthcare where it is needed most.

We are also giving city mayors £15.6 billion to support wider local transport projects, including mass transit in Leeds, a metro extension in the north-east and so much more. To ensure that our towns, villages and rural areas, particularly outside London, are no longer left behind, we are not only committing £2 billion to help them tackle their unique challenges, but just last week we confirmed an extra £104 million in resource funding for local authorities, showing that they can better design, decide and deliver ambitious local transport projects. \p Martin Wrigley: I am delighted with all the investment in cities with mayors; that is fantastic. However, in Dawlish, in Devon, we are once again left behind. Is that purely because we do not have a city mayor? \p Simon Lightwood: As I just mentioned, we have committed £2 billion to helping those outside city areas and last week committed £104 million for resource funding across the country outside city areas.

Although we are eager for local leaders to take the reins, there is still an important part for central Government to play in tackling transport inequality, particularly on our roads and railways. We are investing billions to fix historical gaps in the network, reconnecting long-forgotten areas and tackling regional disparities head on. From major projects such as the TransPennine route upgrade, East West Rail and HS2 to improving motorways in Cumbria, Greater Manchester and the midlands, or funding to maintain and improve the road network, our mission to address inequality sits at the heart of everything we do. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Will the Minister give way? \p Simon Lightwood: I am going to make progress.

We are also delivering new train stations in the south-west and in Yorkshire, creating brand new rail links across the midlands, and backing road schemes to better connect and grow communities. Not only will those measures improve people’s everyday journeys, they will also create jobs, power growth and unlock new homes for families.

Last week, we announced that we are simplifying fares and expanding digital ticketing trials to make rail more accessible and affordable, with new digital trials now live in the east midlands and launching later this month in Yorkshire. Passengers can sign up to take part and benefit from automatic best-value fares, making rail travel simpler, smarter and more flexible.

Our commitment to investing is clear, but we are also working behind the scenes to ensure that every penny is well spent. We are reviewing the Green Book to give a fair hearing to all parts of the country. We have plans to recruit 300 new planners into the public sector by 2026, supporting local authorities and implementing new planning policies to enhance housing supply, leveraging private investment to bolster public funding and forging a faster and more efficient planning system.

I am pleased to see a strong contingent of Members from the east midlands in this debate, and I am glad that they recognise, like me, the importance of improving transport links to drive growth across the country and tackle regional inequalities. We recognise that transport spending has historically not been evenly distributed across the country. We are taking action to drive up prosperity and living standards across the UK, including addressing any imbalances where appropriate. That is not just the case for the east midlands. We are investing across the whole country, from enabling mass transit in West Yorkshire to reopening the Bristol and Portishead line in the south-west.

We are providing the East Midlands combined county authority with over £2 billion through the transport for city regions fund, with the east midlands receiving over £450 million from the local transport grant and the integrated transport block. I am very pleased to see that Mayor Claire Ward intends to use some of that £2 billion of funding to progress the case for a permanent bridge  at Darley Abbey. That means that the east midlands will receive significantly more local transport spending per head than the England average in the coming years— £561 per person against an average of £398. We are investing in the region, including delivering improvements to the east coast main line and progressing the A38 Derby junctions scheme, which will improve safety, reduce delays and support house building. We are also committed to delivering the A46 Newark bypass, subject to planning consent.

I recognise the frustration that hon. Members and their constituents feel about the electrification of the midland main line, but we have had to prioritise our funding on schemes that will make the greatest difference for passengers and economic growth as soon as possible. Further electrification of the midland main line has been paused but will be kept under review as part of our pipeline for future funding. The new trains, however, will increase seat capacity and will mark a step change in passenger experience.

Members have advocated passionately for other schemes in their local areas. While I cannot address every scheme that was raised in this debate, we will always need to prioritise the funding that we have available. My officials will continue to work with their counterparts in local government and with other stakeholders to better understand local needs and potential pipelines.

I will now turn to specific contributions made in the debate. \p Richard Foord: Will the Minister give way? \p Simon Lightwood: No—I have a lot to get through.

I welcome the many contributions from across the House on issues with bus services in Members’ constituencies. The Government know how important good, reliable and frequent bus services are to local communities, and that is why we are investing £1 billion this year to support and improve services and giving local leaders more powers to improve services through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.

While I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), he not only seems to have forgotten the 14 years in which his party had the opportunity to improve bus services in regional constituencies but he also forgot to mention that his Government gave £26 million to the Conservative-controlled county councils that cover that constituency.

However, in rural areas and places with poor public transport, driving is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency continues to work hard to combat the unscrupulous practice of reselling tests across the country. In July, we announced over 50 new road and rail schemes, many of which will benefit the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate. That includes the midlands rail hub, which we are backing with £123 million and which will   create links to more than 50 locations. It also includes the Middlewich Road scheme, the A38 Derby junctions work, transformed rail services across Manchester and new stations in the south-west. We are addressing under-investment in Welsh rail infrastructure with a 10-year funding package of £445 million to meet its long-term connectivity needs and to help kickstart Welsh economic growth.

Turning to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will admit that the previous Government did allocate £27 billion for the road investment strategy 2, but that was revised down to £23 billion. From my calculations, RIS3 represents a £3 billion increase compared with the funding for RIS2. \p Jerome Mayhew: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p Simon Lightwood: I will bring my remarks to a close because Madam Deputy Speaker is growing impatient.

I am here today not just as the Minister for Local Transport, but as someone who knows what it is like to live in an underserved community, who has stood in the rain waiting for buses that never arrived, and who has seen at first hand the impact of poor connections, so I could not be more intent on delivering real change where it is needed most. Our plan for English devolution will shift even more power away from Whitehall. Our industrial strategy will drive investment and growth in all regions, and our infrastructure strategy will boost living standards across the UK.

This issue transcends departmental silos. Since last July, we have worked tirelessly to restore confidence and certainty. We are looking after the pennies and the pounds to improve lives and livelihoods across Britain, and I will continue to tackle the shameful deficit of opportunity that plagues this country. We will continue delivering our plan for change until we get the job done. \p Catherine Atkinson: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I thank my many colleagues who spoke passionately and persuasively for better transport options for their regions, but also raised fantastic examples of new investment. The number of contributions shows how important transport equality is, and it is hugely heartening to hear the progress being made by this Government, backed by actual funding. I thank the Minister for his response. When it comes to regional transport equality, some of us may sit behind the Minister and echo my children’s oft-used refrain, “Are we nearly there yet?” but now we have a Government who have us driving in the right direction, on track to unlock the economic potential across the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered regional transport inequality. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Lee Pitcher, who will speak for around 15 minutes. \p Lee Pitcher: I beg to move,

That this House has considered suicide prevention.

Before I begin, I want to share for the benefit of anyone watching or anyone in this Chamber who may ever need it that help is available: 24/7 crisis mental health support can be accessed by calling NHS 111 and selecting option 2, or by calling the Samaritans, whose badge I proudly wear today, on 116 123. I cannot thank the Backbench Business Committee enough for granting this debate in the main Chamber. The Committee’s recognition of just how important it is for this issue to be heard here is in itself hugely symbolic.

Let me start with the worker who was on stand-by, who in the early hours of the morning was called to deal with the death of a man from suicide, who was found in the trees, alone on some open land. That worker, having dealt with the immediate response, then reflected and thought about the true impact of managing that situation. He failed to sleep for the rest of the week, and never once slept well again when on his stand-by duties.

To the family of John, he was a massive West Ham fan who loved Motörhead and the genius of Pink Floyd. His mum, who found him that day, experienced that thing no parents should ever have to endure: their baby, who they once cradled, leaving this world before them.

That worker on stand-by, that cousin of John, that is me. We got that call about John as we prepared to go to another family member’s funeral—that chilling call that no one ever wants to receive. John had decided he could no longer go on living with his demons, and felt that the only way to gain peace was to end his life. Right now, as we speak today, there are many other Johns out there making a similar choice. Like our John, they will be someone’s son, dad, brother, uncle, cousin, friend or colleague.

From that day on, we vowed as a family that the best thing we could do in John’s memory was to ensure that we helped show people a different path, so that that dreaded call could never happen to anyone else. Whether it is by raising funds through marathons, maximising our use of social media to highlight support or, for me, securing this debate, we are all doing everything we can for John. While none of this can bring John back to his gorgeous sister Jacqui, who is watching this in Australia, or to my auntie and uncle, there will be some comfort that his personal fight may prevent others’ pain in the future.

Today, using the privilege of being elected to this place, I will use my voice to try to make a difference. I have shared my story, because I want everyone to remember how common, unfortunately, these situations are; so many of us will tragically get that heartbreaking call about a family member, friend or colleague at some stage in our lives. I am also sharing this because, just by raising the subject in this place, we give suicide prevention a national platform, from which we can strive to share best practice and find new ways to take action to make a difference and save lives.

Compared with other leading causes of death, suicide remains poorly understood. The stigma that still clings to it stops people reaching out and isolates the families left behind. Breaking that stigma requires us to talk openly and honestly in places such as this Chamber. As I am sure you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are not many subjects on which simply having a debate has the potential to save lives, but today we have that opportunity, and my hope is that hon. Members will use it as a chance to shift perceptions and push back stigma, and perhaps it will be heard by someone who needs it.

On 10 September every year we mark World Suicide Prevention Day. It is a chance to remember those we have lost, to stand with those who are struggling and to commit to doing all we can to reduce the number of lives lost. This year’s theme, set by the Samaritans, is interrupting suicidal thoughts, and that is what we must do in this Chamber—interrupt the silence, interrupt the stigma and push for change.

The statistics are stark. In 2023, 7,055 people across the UK lost their lives to suicide. It remains the leading cause of death for men under 50 and for men and women aged 20 to 34, and suicide among teenage girls and young women has nearly doubled in recent years. In Doncaster, where I live, suicide rates are above the national average; 121 lives were lost between 2021 and 2023. In the same period in North Lincolnshire, in which the Isle of Axholme lies, 41 lives were lost. Every life lost is a tragedy, but what those numbers do not show is the ripple effect. Every statistic represents a family and network of friends, colleagues and acquaintances who are all affected. Suicide may often happen alone, but it never happens in isolation.

However, suicide is not inevitable; it is preventable. Before I speak about the asks I have of the Minister and the Government, let me touch on the importance of mental health and building resilience in early life. Mental health problems often start to develop in our teenage years, and even if they do not reach crisis point until much later in life, we need to do something, which is why we cannot leave these conversations until it is too late. We need to start talking to children about mental health from an early age. This has to be done carefully and in an age-appropriate way, but just as we teach our children about eating well and staying active to look after their physical health, we should be helping them to build resilience and wellbeing for their mental health, whether that is through mindfulness, by learning how to manage stress or by knowing where to turn if they need help.

Just as importantly, we need to teach young people—again, at an appropriate time—that seeking help with suicidal thoughts is not a weakness and is not something they need to face alone. It is a medical issue and it needs medical intervention and support. There should be no more shame in reaching out for mental health support than there is in getting a prescription for insulin or picking up an inhaler.

If we can make those lessons part of growing up, we can give the next generation a far stronger chance of living a healthy, hopeful life. That is why it is so important that this Government are committed to putting a mental health professional in every school, helping to build that early resilience and understanding. That help is already in place for nearly 1 million pupils, and it will be  there for every child during this Parliament. At this stage, I want to give a shout out for With Me in Mind for the amazing work it does in my area.

I will concentrate on three key areas where I would like the Government to take action. The first area is mandatory suicide prevention training for first responders and better mental health awareness across frontline services. Our police, fire and ambulance services are amazing, and their crews are often the first to respond when someone is in a suicidal crisis. In the year up to March 2025, fire and rescue services were called to more than 3,100 suicide attempts. East Midlands ambulance service alone responded to more than 20,000 incidents in 2024, and the North East ambulance service responded to more than 21,000 incidents—three times the number from just four years before.

The fact is that training on this matter is just not consistent, and we have an opportunity to do more. We know that training works. Evaluation shows that with suicide prevention knowledge, confidence and attitudes improve significantly after training. GPs who complete training are 20% more likely to identify people at risk. Equipping first responders with the skills to spot the signs, start a compassionate conversation and make an intervention will save lives.

The second area is better research into demographic gaps in suicide deaths. We know that the risks are not evenly shared; men are three times more likely to die by suicide than women, and men in deprived areas are five times more likely to do so. Too often, men are told to man up or tough it out, and they are less likely to seek help, confide or access services until it is too late. However, this is about not just how men are taught to act, but how people react to men seeking help. Research shows that nine in 10 men who died by suicide had been in touch with a statutory service in the year before their death, whether it was at A&E, through primary care or even through the criminal justice system, yet too many opportunities to help are missed. If we are serious about tackling the biggest killers, as the Government have promised, we need a clear, evidence-based programme of research into how suicide risk presents in men and how services can respond more effectively. Without that, the mental health strategy risks failing the very group it needs to help the most.

This is not just about a gender gap. People in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to die by suicide. Autistic people face three times the risk of their peers. Gay and bisexual adults face twice the risk. For trans people, the risk of a suicide attempt is four and a half times higher, and for trans youth the risk is nearly six times higher. There are huge differences in death by suicide across ethnic groups, across regions and between different kinds of employment and educational background. These differences need to be studied and understood, just as we would for any disease that affected different demographics in different areas. By studying the different demographics affected, we can learn about the causes, risk factors, preventive or protective factors and paths to recovery.

The third area is a rapid and ambitious roll-out of mental health hubs after next year’s pilots. These hubs could be transformative—local, community-based and accessible without referral or appointment. That is exactly  the kind of frictionless support we need to offer. When someone is suicidal, every barrier is a potential barrier too far. No wrong doors, no delays—if someone asks for help, the system must help them. Alongside that, we must support the voluntary and community organisations that are already saving lives every single day, such as Samaritans, Mind, Andy’s Man Club, James’ Place, Men’s Sheds and local groups such as the Jackson Hope Foundation and the Shed on the Isle in my constituency. They provide the human connection that prevents suicide, but they are too often left to rely on their own fundraising. If we are serious about prevention, Government must partner with them, not leave them struggling for survival.

The Government have committed in their manifesto to tackling the biggest killers, including suicide, and to delivering the suicide prevention strategy. I urge Ministers to go faster and further; for some people listening today, time is already running short. Prevention is not just better than cure; for suicide, it is the only chance that some people will ever get. As I said, the theme for World Suicide Prevention Day is interrupting suicidal thoughts. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to interrupt with training, with research, with services that open doors in every community. Suicide is not inevitable; it is preventable. With the right action, we can and we will save lives.

On Monday, I will be carrying the baton of hope, taking part in a relay across my constituency alongside many others to raise funds and awareness for suicide prevention. That baton is a symbol—a physical icon of mental health. It is a reminder that hope can be carried, shared and passed on to the next person. Our task in this House is to ensure that hope is met with action, so that fewer families face the grief of losing a loved one and more people find the support they need to live. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: As colleagues can see, over 10 Members are hoping to speak. We need to begin winding up by 4.30 pm, to let the Front Benchers contribute, so unfortunately I will have to set a time limit of four minutes to ensure that everyone can get in. I call Liz Twist, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. \p Liz Twist: I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this important debate just one day after World Suicide Prevention Day, and for speaking so movingly about his personal experience.

It does not take much scratching below the surface to find out that many of us here in Parliament and across our constituencies have been affected by suicide. An estimated 7,055 suicides were registered in the UK in 2023. Suicide remains the leading cause of death in people under 35, and of men under 50, and each suicide ripples out, affecting family, friends, work colleagues and social groups, leading to an increased risk of suicide in them. It is now some 25 years since my husband Charlie took his own life, and I still see those ripples affecting so many people who knew and loved him.   We cannot say it too often: every one of those lives lost to suicide was not a number but a real person, and every life lost to suicide is a tragedy.

As a result of my work over a number of years with the APPG for suicide and self-harm prevention, I have got to know many wonderful organisations, very many of them inspired and run by those with their own experiences of loss, working hard to prevent suicide and to help those families and friends who have lost people to suicide. That includes organisations such as If U Care Share, Body & Soul, Gambling with Lives, Silence of Suicide, SoBs, 3 Dads Walking, Jami, Baton of Hope, James’ Place, The Martin Gallier Project, and the Speak Their Name quilts project, with quilts from the UK on display in Parliament when we return in October, and with the Baton of Hope ending its trip in Westminster the previous Friday. There are so many people who I could name, and I apologise for not naming them, but I see and hear them. I thank them for their work.

I am pleased to have worked with the British Standards Institution over the past 18 months, which will shortly publish suicide prevention guidelines for employers and launch them in this place. There is no single community in this country that is not affected by suicide. But it is also true that some are more affected than others. Deaths of this nature are both a cause and a consequence of health and economic inequalities. In the north-east, our suicide rates have consistently remained higher than the national average, and they have risen steadily over the past decade.

There was so much more that I was going to say, but I will move on to my asks of the Government. I am proud of the work that the Government have carried out so far, from expanding mental health support teams in schools to implementing online harms legislation. But going forward we need to have mechanisms in place to assess public mental health need at a local and national level, tackle emerging issues and support well-evidenced public health interventions to prevent suicides.

I would also like to talk about the online harms that people face. The Government have started to take action, but it is developing all the time. I hope that we can continue to take strong action in that region, and continue to improve the national suicide prevention strategy. \p Frank McNally: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this debate and for his incredibly powerful remarks a few moments ago.

Suicide is one of the most pressing public health challenges we face. Behind every statistic is a devastated family, a community shaken and lives changed forever. There are between 650 and 850 deaths to suicide in Scotland every year. My local authority area of North Lanarkshire experiences between 40 and 62 annually. While Parliament rightly debates this national issue and seeks a national response, I want to highlight the work being done in my own community.

Several years ago, the spotlight fell on my area where, despite there being a drop in deaths by suicide in Scotland, communities in Coatbridge and Bellshill and across north Lanarkshire were experiencing near record highs. North Lanarkshire council, working alongside partners in health education, sport and the voluntary  sector, have put suicide prevention at the heart of their wellbeing agenda. The suicide prevention strategy is a model of how public services, anchor organisations and grassroots groups can come together, promote early intervention, raise awareness and ensure that support is available at the right time and in the right place. We know that men between the ages of 34 and 54 are the group with the highest risk of completing suicide.

I am proud of the way my community has specifically used sport as a force for change. For many years there was a great partnership with local public services and all of Lanarkshire’s professional football teams. I was involved in that prior to my election to this place. I was told a story in the weeks after that partnership launched that has always remained with me. One of our clubs got a phone call to their main office on a Monday morning from a man who had walked through the turnstiles two days prior for the 3 pm kick-off on the Saturday afternoon. He was clear that it would be his last game, as he was planning to complete suicide that very night. As the game progressed, he noticed the new signage erected around the stadium on suicide prevention. He took a note of the number on the billboard and, in an act of immense bravery, he made a call. His subsequent call on the Monday to the club was to say that going to the game on the Saturday had saved his life.

Just yesterday, the annual North Lanarkshire suicide prevention football tournament took place. It is not only a competition; it is a statement. It is a statement that through sport, camaraderie and community, we can break down stigma, start conversations and let people know that help is there. I am also proud to be wearing the bespoke tartan of Samaritans Scotland, a new tartan to recognise Suicide Prevention Day. I pay tribute to them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme did, and to all those who work so diligently to support my constituents at such a challenging time in their lives.

But suicide prevention still requires national leadership. There are too many still dying, too many stories being cut short, too many chapters not written, too many experiences lost and too many families enduring life sentences of heartbreak. We must ensure that mental health services are properly resourced, that schools and employers are equipped to support those at risk, and that public authorities are given the funding and flexibility to expand the work they are already doing so well. Above all, we must send a clear message from this House that suicide is preventable, that no one should suffer in silence and that help is always at hand. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on securing this debate and speaking so powerfully.

Last Friday, we had the honour of welcoming the Baton of Hope to Bathgate, Blackburn, Armadale and Linlithgow as it made its way across West Lothian. The county was Scotland’s only stop as the baton travelled the United Kingdom, carrying a message of hope and purpose. The Baton of Hope is, as we have heard, a powerful symbol in the national conversation about suicide prevention. I must give my personal, heartfelt thanks to Donna from Neil’s Hugs Foundation for working so hard to bring the baton to our home. For  Donna, the Baton of Hope and Neil’s Hugs Foundation are a beacon of light in the darkest times. Living with the loss of her son, Donna has dedicated her time and love to give others the compassion they need. She does it with an open heart and open arms, wrapping everyone she meets in the biggest hug.

The Baton of Hope’s presence in our community was more than ceremonial; it was a rallying cry and a reminder that hope is not abstract. It is built, carried and passed on by people and a great many community organisations that I have been fortunate to meet. Last week we had the opening of the Bathgate Men’s Shed, led by Alan, which is a lifeline for men facing isolation during retirement or mental health challenges. The entire shed movement is a brilliant example of how workshops are places of camaraderie, purpose and healing.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the inspiring work of everyone involved in Andy’s Man Club across the country, with a special mention of Sandy, who told me about its work in Bathgate. Such organisations—there are too many to mention—often have the reach that health services and local government simply do not. They also do vital prevention work in local communities to keep people mentally well. They are not only transforming lives, but very often saving lives. For example, organisations such as SMILE, led by the inspirational Declan, support children and young people affected by poor mental health. Their counselling, advocacy, outreach and community-building efforts are nothing short of heroic, especially when we consider that they receive no specific funding for the soaring number of referrals from medical services. Another local organisation, EnvironMentalHealth CIC—with June Dickson at the helm—provides lifesaving mental health first aid training in local communities. It meets people where they are with empathy, dignity and understanding. Although we are thankful for the hard work of many organisations, such as those I have mentioned today, we cannot continue to rely on the good will of volunteers and charities to plug the gaps in our mental health system, which is stretched beyond breaking point in Scotland.

The Baton of Hope passed through my constituency, but we cannot let it pass us by in this Chamber today or tomorrow. We must carry it forward with action and political will to ensure that no one in Scotland or the rest of the UK waits until it is too late for the help that they desperately need. \p Samantha Niblett: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing today’s vital debate. This issue is particularly personal for me, and I have been open about it in the House before. I was 11 when my mum first tried to take her own life, and I am so grateful to the Samaritans, whose badge I wear with pride, because it was they who saved her that first time. She was eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder and finally got the support and medication she needed, and I am so thankful that she is around today to be the brilliant mum that she is—I know she is watching this right now.

In my 30s, I went through a tough time. Had it not been for my wonderful daughter, I would have liked to switch my “on” button off. I am not alone, because one  in four people will have suicidal thoughts, and one in 13 will attempt to take their own life over the course of their life. Forty-five is the age at which a woman is most likely to take her own life, often influenced by hormonal changes ahead of menopause. I am a 45-year-old menopausal woman, so that sobering fact hits hard, and I am grateful for hormone replacement therapy. We need to ensure that more women are able to access the right support when they are going through these changes.

But as Members have said today, suicide does not just affect women. Veterans of all genders living with PTSD have a heightened risk of suicide after serving their country. There was a disturbing increase in suicides by farmers between 2022 and 2023, with more feared because of changes to inheritance tax rules. Suicide is the biggest killer of people under 35 and the biggest killer of men under 50, and we know that there is a significant crisis in men’s mental health. Nationally, there are a lot of organisations that aim to support men with their mental health, such as Andy’s Man Club and men’s sheds. Luckily, in my constituency of South Derbyshire, ManClub was set up last year after a local chef, Craig Riley, tragically died by suicide. Joe Ward, one of the founders and a friend of Craig’s, lives in Melbourne and now helps to run weekly meetings on Monday evenings at Melbourne Assembly Rooms, where men can talk openly without fear of judgment.

This Saturday, the Baton of Hope, a suicide prevention charity, will be touring through Derbyshire. It was started by two fathers whose sons tragically died by suicide. One of those fathers, Mike McCarthy, along with others affected or bereaved by suicide, will be stopping by Elvaston Castle in South Derbyshire on their tour, and I wish them all the best. I cannot wait to meet them in Parliament in December with my fellow Derbyshire MPs.

I want to live in a society in which no one ever feels like suicide is their only option. People deserve holistic and accessible mental health support through access to medication and/or affordable therapies. That is why I am so glad that the Government are fixing our precious NHS. But this is about so much more than healthcare and treating people with mental health issues; it is about preventing them from feeling suicidal in the first place—and so much of that comes from a greater sense of security, and hopefulness instead of hopelessness. Hope is so much easier to have when people have a secure home, good, well-paid jobs, a sense of purpose and a united feeling of community. I know that this Government desperately want to ensure that everyone has that, and that they are striving really hard to deliver it. \p Jacob Collier: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), on her powerful speech.

I welcome the conversation that we, as a country, are having about mental health, because every community has a story where lives have been lost, and my constituency is no different. Helena Markey went to my school, de Ferrers, and was in the year below me. I still remember her smile, which would light up any room. On 10 September 2015, she passed away after jumping into the path of a vehicle. She was just 17. It shocked our school community.  It shocked our local community. A young life with so much potential and so much to give to the world was taken away from us. Weeks before Helena died, she received her exam feedback and was considering her options for year 13. She became very distressed about the results and would later go on to take her own life. Helena’s parents were completely unaware of just how upset she had become.

I have been working with Helena’s incredible parents, Glen and Sharron Markey, since my election, and have been supporting them on their Smile4Helena campaign, which aims to change the Department for Education’s guidance to schools to ensure that they notify parents if a pupil becomes distressed during their results feedback. Glen and Sharron believe that just a simple phone call to them about Helena’s distress would have meant that they could have gone and picked her up from school, and that would have saved her life; they could have talked her through that situation and got through it together. We are seeking a meeting with the new Schools Minister to ensure that what happened to Helena does not happen to any other young person. I would be grateful if the Minister could use his good offices to assist with that.

The key to mental health support is talking and being open with each other about the challenges that we all face. It is about not just the investment that we need in mental health crisis services, but front-loading that into preventive support. That is why I believe that the Government’s plan for mental health hubs, and the increase in the number of mental health counsellors, are so important.

Locally, there are so many people who support others to open up about their mental health, including the Sexual Abuse Rape Advice Centre or Sarac, Burton YMCA, Burton and District Mind, BAC O’Connor and those, like Andy’s Man Club, that are looking to set up in Burton and Uttoxeter. I pay tribute to all those organisations; they save lives every single day, even if they do not know it.

We owe it to Helena, her family and every young person in this country to do better—to create a culture where no one suffers in silence, where families are kept informed and where the right support is there at the right time. I ask the Minister to reaffirm our shared commitment to building a system that catches young people before they fall, because behind every statistic is a life, a family and a future. If by making changes we can prevent just one more family from experiencing the heartbreak that happened to the Markeys, then it will be worth it. \p Sojan Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing the debate, and I congratulate him on his very touching speech. The clear message coming from the House today is that suicides are preventable. Defeating stigma is essential, and the more that we can raise this issue in Parliament, the more we can do to help remove that stigma.

This Government inherited a mental health crisis. More than a million people who are in need of mental health support are not getting the care that they so desperately require. The suicide rate is now higher than it has been at any time in the 21st century. The pledge by Ministers to ensure that mental health gets the same  attention and focus as physical health is an important one. It was talked about for 14 years when the Conservative party was in power, but there was little progress. I genuinely hope that under this Government things will finally change. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend the Minister update the House on the progress being made to tackle mental health waiting lists? Research from Rethink Mental Illness has shown that 12 times as many people have to wait 18 months or more for mental health treatment compared with the wait for treatment for physical health.

It is necessary to discuss mental health provision in this debate; after all, the link between suicide and mental illness is well established. \p Ben Coleman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also look at the impact on people’s mental health of online gambling, which is responsible for between 117 and 496 suicides a year—figures repeated in our Health and Social Care Committee report? My constituent Jack lost his son Arthur to gambling-related suicide aged only 19, after only six months. It is a tragic situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that gambling should be seen as a public health issue, that in future it should be regulated not by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but by the Department of Health and Social Care, and that the DHSC should launch a public health strategy to tackle gambling as a cause of suicide? \p Sojan Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend that not all suicides are linked solely to mental health. I was about to say that various social issues need to be tackled as well. It is it is important that we do not see suicide prevention solely through the prism of mental health. Indeed, many of those who die by suicide have either had no contact with mental health services or shown no signs of mental ill health. It is also important to point out that not everyone who dies by suicide has a diagnosed mental illness. For those at risk of suicide, a complex range of individual, relationship, community or societal factors can be at play.

As the suicide prevention strategy makes clear, common risk factors that are linked to suicide include physical illness, financial difficulty and economic adversity, gambling, alcohol and drug misuse, social isolation and loneliness, and domestic abuse. Although addressing suicide prevention can include mental health, the strategy emphasises that it also goes well beyond these issues. If we see suicide prevention just as a mental health issue, those people in our communities who may not meet the criteria for a mental health diagnosis but are still in acute distress can end up being forgotten. Perceiving suicide just as a mental health issue also puts the responsibility mainly on mental health services, when in reality local authorities, employers, schools, the criminal justice system and wider society all have roles to play. When we talk about suicide prevention, we should therefore also talk about early intervention in schools, universities, places of work and community groups.

It is worth mentioning the great work done by charities—many names have already been mentioned. I congratulate the recently opened Ashford Safe Haven, which is based at William Harvey hospital. It offers a walk-in service every evening for people who are in crisis or feel they are heading towards crisis. A few  months ago, I visited the safe haven and met some of the staff to hear about the support they provide and how they help to create staying well and crisis plans, as well as supporting people to access other services and organisations that may be useful to them. It is a great resource for people in our community and I hope that the East Kent hospitals trust is successful in its bid for funding for a round-the-clock walk-in service. Working with suicide prevention charities can complement the services offered by the NHS and bridge gaps in provision. We should also ensure that the health system becomes more effective in signposting the services that are offered by suicide prevention charities.

While I will always lobby for meaningful change in the mental health system, I also know that talking about suicide prevention just as another issue for our mental health services risks narrowing the conversation and excluding others who might need help. I hope that today’s debate has helped to make it easier for those watching who might need help now or in the future to get the right help at the right time. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on securing this debate. I will focus my contribution on the suicide risks during the perinatal period, which is the period from pregnancy through to the year after a child’s birth.

I have spoken in the House before about the tragic death of my wonderful friend Sophie, who took her own life four years ago, leaving behind her husband and her three little girls aged six, three and just 10 weeks old. I have been feeling the sadness of her death again this week, looking at the photos of her youngest now setting off to primary school for the first time, beaming with pride, and I know Sophie would have been so proud too.

I still vividly recall the shock of the moment I learned that she had died when the message came through from her husband. It was only after we lost her that I learned just what a risk there is of suicide in this period of life. One in four people experience some form of post-natal depression or anxiety, which is still poorly recognised as an issue generally, and it is something I campaign on. The vast majority go on to recover, but for some people it is very serious, and for some it is so unbearable that they end their lives. The leading cause of death for women in that period from six weeks to a year after the birth of their child is suicide.

The Maternal Mental Health Alliance has delved into the data and found some more alarming details—in particular, the persistent social, economic and racial inequalities in who dies and who survives. Women in the most deprived areas have much higher rates of death. Black women are more than twice as likely to die as white women, and women of Asian and mixed ethnic backgrounds also face elevated risks.

With these risks and Sophie’s death in mind, I want to offer three reflections. The first is that we are all vulnerable—each and every one of us. Of the women who die by suicide, nearly half have known mental health problems, but the rest do not. It is a time when the social pressures are really great. People expect you to be revelling in the joy of the new baby, but the reality  for many is that there are challenges in caring for the baby: not enough sleep, not enough company, feelings of loneliness, failure and guilt, and the loss of the sense of self—the old you that you knew before having children, which you fear is gone forever. This can make it a very difficult period for many women, including people who have not struggled with their mental health before. It is so important that we are all cognisant of this in ourselves and others around us.

My second reflection is that we all carry a responsibility to each other. I still look back on Sophie’s death and blame myself; I ask whether I could have done more. As Paul Doble, a fascinating therapist working in my constituency of Aylesbury, recently put it to me, the reality is that we cannot prevent every suicide, but we must never be afraid to try. The real question is how we support people better when they are suicidal, knowing that our compassion, care and presence may not remove every risk but can make life more bearable, and our question may be the one that interrupts their suicidal thoughts and leads them to different choices. Again, that is something we must all be cognisant of.

My third point is that the Government have to keep taking suicide risk and suicide prevention really seriously, as I know they do. I hope we will hear more on the suicide prevention strategy from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who I welcome to his place. We know that the care a suicidal person receives can make a big difference. We have some fantastic specialist perinatal mental health services, but I have heard from so many women who cannot access them. Suicide risk needs to be assessed in all the routine maternity care a woman receives, and support given if necessary. The same is true of so many other parts of the NHS and other public services, where action can make the difference between life and death. The role of public health interventions in this—for example, social and emotional learning programmes in schools—is crucial, too.

Conscious of time, I will end it there, but I hope that this World Suicide Prevention Day is a turning point in saving lives and tackling this immense challenge in our society. \p Julie Minns: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this very important debate.

May 1997 is etched on my memory for two very different reasons: first, the elation of 1 May and the election of the first Labour Government in 18 years, and then, just a few weeks later, the death by suicide of a good friend.

This debate is not just personal to me but is of great importance for far too many of my constituents. According to Department of Health and Social Care statistics, Cumberland has the second highest suicide rate in England. Over one in five adults in Carlisle have been diagnosed with depression, placing us sixth highest in England and Wales. My constituency is home to a large rural and farming population, and we know that rural isolation is a major contributor to poor mental health and suicide risk. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Organisation, which  provides tailored mental health support to our farming communities. I also highlight the work of field nurses across the rural north—specialist nurses who visit auction marts to support farmers, their staff andtheir families with their physical and mental health.

Support groups are also making a huge difference. Andy’s Man Club, which has been mentioned, opened in Carlisle earlier this year, and has already welcomed more than 2,000 men who are seeking support and find the meetings a safe place to talk and share their experiences. I recognise the work of Mal Craghill in Brampton, to the north-east of the city of Carlisle. Until merging his Brampton Mentalk group with Andy’s Man Club last month, Mal ran the club for over two years. His leadership and honesty have helped so many men to feel less alone. I thank him for his work.

Carlisle Happy Mums offers peer support for women experiencing post-natal depression, anxiety and other mental health challenges. Its work is compassionate, community driven and essential. Those are just a few of the excellent organisations that help our communities and the people in them to access the support that they need. We owe them all our sincere thanks.

Suicide prevention must be a whole-of-society effort. That message was carried by the Baton of Hope when it came to my constituency last Sunday. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to overhaul the Mental Health Act through the Mental Health Bill, and to invest in mental health in schools, with nearly 1 million young people gaining access to support this year. Those are important reforms, and I hope that they will be matched by continued investment in the community-based services that I have touched on.

On occasions like this, I feel that our House and this Chamber are at their best. It is incumbent on us all to unite to ensure that, no matter where someone lives—be it in a community that is prospering or one facing hardship, or in a city, in a village or on a farm—they are able to access the support that they need, when they need it. \p Peter Swallow: It is an honour to take part in the debate, which was so powerfully opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). I am grateful to colleagues for ensuring that suicide prevention remains at the top of our agenda.

As others have mentioned, yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day, so this debate is timely. Suicide is one of the biggest killers in this country. As other Members have touched on so well, behind every statistic is a friend, a mum, a cousin, a husband—each one loved by friends and family. Over the summer recess, I visited Bracknell Samaritans, where I saw for myself the extraordinary work that it does as part of a successful and growing national network. Its volunteers are there for people at their darkest moments, and we should never underestimate the number of lives that they save. I thank them for everything that they do in Bracknell and beyond.

Last year, I had the privilege of chairing a roundtable on autism and suicide prevention, organised by Autism Action. It shone a light on the disproportionate effect that suicide has on those with autism. According to the National Autistic Society, 66% of autistic adults have experienced suicidal thoughts—nine times higher than  for the general population. The society also reports that as much as 11% of people who die by suicide have either an autism diagnosis or autism traits. Those figures are shocking and demand action. The insights and voices of autistic people and their families, which I heard at the roundtable and in further conversations, have been invaluable in shaping my understanding of the scale of the challenge and the need for action.

Recent research from Autism Action, the University of Cambridge and Bournemouth University—the largest study of autism and suicide to date—provides further insight. Almost 1,400 autistic people took part. The study identified loneliness, hopelessness and feelings of failure as key drivers of suicidal thoughts; many reported difficulties in getting the support they needed, long waiting times for diagnosis and a lack of post-diagnostic help. Our national strategies do recognise autistic people as a priority group, but there is more to do to ensure that recognition translates into practical action. An updated suicide prevention strategy should specifically address the needs of autistic people, and the next autism strategy should explicitly consider suicidality, with the two approaches working hand in hand, rather than separately.

While there is more to be done nationally to address mental health issues, I am proud that local organisations in Bracknell are already leading the way: Walks for Wellbeing and Sandhurst Health Walks; Youthline and Create Hope; Stepping Stones Recovery College; Sandhurst counselling service, which, I am very happy to say, is back up and running after a difficult year; Andy’s Man Club and the Crowthorne and Wokingham Without men’s shed; and, of course, Bracknell Samaritans. These groups are lifelines, and they deserve recognition and support for the critical services they provide. I am pleased to say I have met each of them and can personally vouch for the hard work they do in our community.

I want to end with a message to anyone watching or listening today who may be struggling: help is available. Whether by calling the Samaritans on 116 123, through local services in Bracknell Forest or through friends, family and community, there are people ready to listen and to help. Please reach out. \p Jim Dickson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this debate on what I think we can all agree is a critical national public health issue. It is a timely debate given yesterday’s World Suicide Prevention Day, promoted by the wonderful Samaritans, who do so much good work, and whose badge I am proud to be wearing today.

Figures from the House of Commons Library highlight the previous long-term decline in suicides up to the year 2000 has seen some reversal in recent years, with 2023 seeing the highest number since 1999. It is right, therefore, that when the Government committed in our manifesto last year to a renewed drive to tackle the biggest killers, suicide was included. The recently published 10-year health plan sets out how the Government intend to put into practice the aim of transforming our mental health system so that support is available when people need it. I very much welcome the commitment to a cross-Government approach to suicide prevention, which mirrors the successful strategies that I have seen in my time in local government.

I have been pleased, since my election last year, to have been able to work with an excellent charity that has been mentioned by others, Gambling with Lives, to highlight the troubling link between gambling and suicide, with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities estimating that there are up to 500 gambling-related suicides each year. I agree with both Gambling for Lives and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) that the responsibility for gambling should be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Care, and that there should be investigation of all gambling- related suicides and lessons learned from every case so that we can prevent future deaths. At present, coroners do not always correctly identify the link between gambling and suicide, and that needs to change. I hope that Ministers will give full consideration to both those calls.

Local suicide prevention strategies have a crucial role to play. In my previous life, I was cabinet member for health on Lambeth council. We launched our own local suicide prevention strategy with the aim of bringing down the numbers of suicides, which saw the council target support at the groups identified by evidence as the most at risk: older men, the LGBTQ+ community, and a range of others. We rolled out suicide prevention training to everyone, free of charge, so that all residents were able to access it, but aimed the support particularly, as others have said, at key organisations in touch with at-risk groups in the borough. The training was all about how to have effective, potentially lifesaving conversations with people in a safe way, and we saw great take-up. Crucially, the council also launched a borough-wide mental health campaign aimed at supporting people on their mental health journey and at providing advice and wellbeing information on how to access services at the right time. That period saw a decline in the number of suicides, which I hope will continue.

In my constituency, I pay tribute to the newly constituted Dartford Safe Haven—a little like the Ashford Safe Haven mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph)—which, working closely with GPs, provides a walk-in service, out of hours, with the crisis support that so many need. I also pay tribute to North Kent Mind, which supplements local mental health services, providing vital additional help for those with mental health support needs. Let us all commit to making suicide prevention a successful national mission. \p Amanda Hack: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing it and for making his opening remarks in such an amazing way. We heard the devastating numbers and the personal experience of the impact that suicide has had on our communities and on ourselves. These people were important to us and, I hope, by discussing this difficult subject not only can we offer comfort and support, but provide the hope that we can put in place improvements to prevent someone else from taking their own life.

I want to speak about two friends: my childhood friend who lost her dad to suicide when we were just in our teens; and one who made the decision to take his own life just a couple of months ago. It was not until my friend’s funeral in July that I reflected that while those  suicides were more than three decades apart, the similarities between the two men who made that decision were stark. They were both men in their early 50s, successful and running their own businesses. They were amazing family men who were well respected in their work and in their social circles. Yet they still both made that ultimate decision to take their own lives, leaving those left behind to unpack their grief and sorrow with the overriding question: “Why?”

In the face of such loss, we often search for answers—something to help us make sense of the silence and the unanswered questions. While no single explanation can ever truly account for an individual’s decision, patterns begin to emerge when we look more closely at the broader picture. We can look at age and gender, and the risk of suicide is highest among men aged between 45 and 54. It is three times more common among men than women—a gap that only continues to grow. We can look regionally too. Between 2021 and 2023, the east midlands had a suicide rate of 11.3 deaths per 100,000 people, placing us above the national average and making us the fifth highest of the English regions. We also need to look nationally, and we have to create some hope.

Local authorities develop strategies to prevent suicide, but the funding for voluntary services has, sadly, gone awry in recent years. We need the much more important national debate. We can look at the limits of existing mental health support and the reality that nearly a third of people who die by suicide are in contact with mental health services in the 12 months leading up to their death.

Those are of course important insights, but they are just insights, just statistics. We have to search for answers to this difficult question. Although we might never know why someone decides to take their own life, what matters is what we do with the information that we do know. We know that we have to build resilience for young people in schools, teaching our young people how to promote good mental health and wellbeing in themselves. We need to equip people with the language to talk about how they feel, the confidence to ask for help, and the tools to support themselves and each other through the inevitable challenges in their life. We can also look to our local organisations, such as the Leg Up Project in my constituency. Its core philosophy is about building resilience, and tackling loneliness and isolation.

The Government’s commitment to transform mental health service with 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres is a fantastic start, but it will mean nothing if we are not giving people the tools that they need to communicate to get themselves there in the first place. Prevention of deaths by suicide will come from continued conversations, a growing understanding of the mental health landscape and hearing the voices of those whom we have lost and those of us struggling now—those voices are the ones that truly matter. \p Nusrat Ghani: We now come to the Front Benchers, and I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Dr Danny Chambers. We have three doctors on the Front Benches. \p Danny Chambers: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always say that real doctors treat more than one species.

I thank the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing the debate and speaking so emotively, as so many hon. Members have today. I know from personal experience of talking about loss due to suicide in this Chamber that the pain never goes away, no matter how long ago it was. I particularly commend the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for speaking about such a recent bereavement, which is a very difficult thing to do.

Other hon. Members have mentioned that only one in four people who take their own lives are known to clinical mental health services. That is why the charities and community organisations are so important. I recently visited the Winchester branch of the Samaritans, and I met Wayne Fletcher, the director. It was so impressive and inspiring to see the number of volunteers involved in making sure that there is 24-hour access for someone who needs help in the darkest and loneliest times; in the middle of the night and early in the morning, someone can pick up the phone and a volunteer will be waiting to speak to someone. It is incredible.

Other hon. Members have mentioned the Men’s Shed. Two weeks ago, I visited the Men’s Shed in Alresford. Its lease is up, so we will work with the town council to find it a new location. The connection, the friendship, the sense of purpose and the mentorship are vital, and it becomes a lifesaving community.

I had a message from a fellow vet in Winchester, Alison Moores. She said that her 15-year-old son, Sam, took his own life earlier this year. She told me:

“At the weekend I went with three of his school friends and their mums to Sam’s grave. Seeing 16-year-olds crying at the grave of their best friend was heartbreaking. The loss of my son is so horrific I can’t even begin to describe it. We have raised over £30,000 for Papyrus but they still need more. I hope we’ve made a difference in saving another child’s life.”

We know that charity fundraising is harder than ever in the current economic climate, and that all three of the organisations I have mentioned, plus others, rely on the generosity of the public and the people who are working so hard to fundraise for them.

I would like to ask, in the most constructive way possible and with no party-political agenda—because I know all hon. Members care deeply about this issue and that the Minister has a genuine commitment to suicide prevention—about the Government’s decision to end the voluntary community and social enterprise suicide prevention grant. That funding supports organisations such as Samaritans, Papyrus and the Men’s Sheds, which all play a vital role in reaching people who may never come into contact with mental health services. Is there any scope, through cross-party pressure or engagement with Treasury colleagues, to look again at how we can sustain support for those lifesaving organisations at a time when suicides are at a 25-year high?

I finish by paying tribute to Archie Pond, a 19-year-old constituent of mine who took his own life last year. Last month, I met his father, Martyn, who has been relentlessly fundraising for Young Minds. I am always so impressed that someone can turn that sort of heartbreak into something so positive.

One of my core team is a retired clinical psychologist, Peter Wilcock, who helped so much before the general election and has done so especially since I was made the  mental health spokesperson. I put on record my thanks to him for his efforts and his invaluable expertise on this subject. \p Luke Evans: I thank the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). He honours John by securing the debate. All hon. Members who have spoken have honoured respectively the people they held so dear, in the most powerful way possible by turning personal grief into public purpose. I therefore thank them all for giving their time to speak.

There was a TikTok video that went viral. It opens with a young woman energetically and innocently asking:

“Be honest: who do you call whenever you’re at your lowest? Who’s that one person?”

The stitched video replies come in, with men answering. The replies are harrowing and insightful:

“Nobody. I’m a man. No one cares.”

“Not a single soul.”

“Nobody.”

“No one, cause I am all alone.”

“I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I don’t call anyone.”

“Nobody. I’m a guy—no one gives a s***”

“Speaking for the guys, literally no one.”

“You all call someone?”

“There’s no one. Nobody who cares.”

“No one. I’m a man. No one cares.”

“Not a single person. I wouldn’t turn to a single person on this earth as they will use it against me.”

“I wouldn’t call anyone.”

“What—we can call somebody?”

That small insight from a seemingly jokey platform hits on what we—the House and wider society—must look at to try to understand why men feel they are not valued. Why do they feel they cannot call someone? Why do they fear doing so will be used against them? Why do they fear asking for help? Many hide in plain sight, struggling and battling until it is too late. After all, we know from the Samaritans that about two thirds of suicide victims are not known to mental health services.

Hon. Members may wonder why I am choosing to focus my comments on men when the latest data from the Office for National Statistics shows that suicide rates are at their highest level since 1999. As we have heard, men account for three quarters of all suicides in the UK. The latest paper by the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys puts that in stark light. It showed that more men under 50 die in the UK due to suicide than for any other reason; 14 men every day die by suicide in the UK; 74% of all suicides are male; three times as many men die by suicide every year than die in a vehicle accident; and by 2023, over 90,000 men in England and Wales had died by suicide this century. That is enough to fill Wembley stadium.

There is so much to do in this area. I want to highlight the focus and progress of the previous Government. Through the NHS long-term plan, an additional £57 million was provided by the former Conservative Government between 2019-20 and 2023-24 to fund suicide prevention and bereavement services in every local authority. My former colleague Sajid Javid, who was touched tragically  by the experience of losing his own brother to suicide, was instrumental in starting the development of the suicide prevention strategy, which was published in 2023. Key initiatives included the development of a new nationwide, near real-time suspected suicide surveillance system that aimed to provide early detection and timely action to address changes in suicide rates. The strategy in its entirety set out over 100 actions to make progress across Government Departments, the NHS, the voluntary sector and national partners.

In 2021, the previous Government also announced £150 million of funding for crisis mental health facilities and patient safety in mental health units. In January 2023, it was announced that £7 million of funding would be allocated to new mental health ambulances, with £143 million going towards 150 new projects, including schemes providing alternatives to A&E. That is welcome, but the stats show that, even with all that focus, the trend is worsening.

Despite all that work and prioritisation of funding, we have yet to hear anything substantial from this Government about what they are doing on suicide prevention. As we know from one example, training can make a difference. Samaritans reports from its rail team that, for every one life lost, it is estimated that six lives are saved by interventions made thanks to the training given to National Rail and rail operating staff. That is proof that things can be done.

Just yesterday it was World Suicide Prevention Day and the Prime Minister was asked twice about the topic. In response he said, first:

“May I also thank those dealing with suicide prevention? Probably everybody in this House knows someone who has taken their life. It touches all of us and we must do everything we can, together, to prevent suicide.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 862.]

Secondly, he said:

“I think that suicide prevention matters to everybody in this House. I will reaffirm our commitment and I will work across the House with all Members to deal with suicide prevention.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 868.]

Those are positive, warm words from the Prime Minister, which we are all pleased to hear. However, I think that we, across this House and among the public, would be interested in hearing the tangible actions taken by this Government after one year in office. Will the Minister provide an update on what direct, practical steps this Government are taking on suicide prevention, including the implementation of the recommendations in the strategy? What points—for example, disparities in the difference across ethnicities and races in the UK—are being addressed?

I know that the Government have been consulting on a wide range of issues, particularly when it comes to men’s health and the men’s health strategy. I have been shining a light on those issues since I was elected in 2019, so I thank the Government for taking that important step forward. I understand that the Government are due to publish the mental health strategy and I commend them for that. Indeed, I note than in an Adjournment debate earlier this year, the Minister for Care stated:

“In November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care brought together leading campaigners, experts and the Premier League to gather ideas and inform our  strategy and our 10-year health plan. We take suicide prevention extremely seriously, because every suicide is a tragedy that has a devastating and enduring impact on families, friends and communities.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 757.]

His Majesty’s Opposition welcome that step forward, but in looking at the 10-year plan, I note that suicide is mentioned only three times. I think that everyone here hopes to see it feature heavily in the upcoming men’s health strategy. Will the Minister provide an update on timescales for the strategy and how it will consider suicide prevention?

Will the Government look at the prospect of a Minister for men and boys if the evidence points in that direction? We have a Minister for Women, as we believe that women have different problems across society. By that very logic, men and boys have different needs too. If we are to go down the route of segregating policies on sex, there appears to be a compelling argument to have a men’s Minister to work across Departments. That cannot be starker if we consider that for every woman who dies by suicide in the UK three men die.

Another achievement by the previous Government was the launch of the suicide prevention grant fund, as we have heard, providing £10 million to 79 organisations between August 2023 and March 2025. In my constituency, the charity First Step Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland received £76,845 and the grant was used to improve specialist counselling work in prisons and to build on pilot projects. It is therefore a regret that the suicide prevention grant came to an end in March 2025 and has yet to be renewed or replaced. In response to a written question in April, the Minister for Care stated:

“There are currently no plans to run another grant fund.”

Will the Minister explain the basis behind the decision earlier this year not to renew or replace the suicide prevention grant fund, and what alternative provision, if any, is being provided? \p Liz Twist: I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. There is no question but that we all want to work together to achieve the best outcome. May I remind him, however, that the £10 million voluntary services grant was a one-off grant and that the last Government failed to renew the funding—the £57.1 million that was mentioned—for local authorities’ prevention work? \p Luke Evans: I thank the hon. Lady for all the work she does with the APPG. I am looking holistically at the different parts of what we are trying to do in this space. I have already outlined all the funding that the previous Government put in, and I will come on to some of the other problems, such as the national insurance rise, because she will know that they will have a devastating impact.

At the time, the Minister also stated:

“We will be evaluating the impact of the fund, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. Learning from this evaluation will help to inform…the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”

Could the Minister provide further details about that evaluation, such as when it will be completed and whether the Government would reconsider their decision to end the grant funding if the results show that it has had a positive impact in supporting suicide prevention?

Charities were not exempted from the increase in employer national insurance contributions in the Budget. That has significantly hampered their financial situation. We just have to listen to what the Samaritans said in response to the spending review last year:

“The reality is that funding for suicide prevention has dwindled down to next to nothing. To deliver our life-saving work, charities are reliant on donations—on the generosity of the public. And this is even more precarious at a time when many people across the country are facing economic hardship.”

I point that out not to score political points, but to draw attention to the fact that the Labour Government need to set a direction and plan to deal with the leading killer of men and women under the age of 30.

In closing, I want to recognise that yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day. Every year, 720,000 people across the world take their own lives. The theme this year was, “Changing the Narrative on Suicide”. It calls on us all to challenge harmful myths, reduce stigma and foster open, compassionate conversations about suicide. That leads me to where I started: if men do not know their value, if they do not know they have someone to confide in and if they do not truly believe that we care, we will not break the cycle, we will not make a difference and, ultimately, we will not save lives. That is the challenge laid before society, this House and, ultimately, this Government. \p Nusrat Ghani: I believe we have a new Minister, Dr Zubir Ahmed—congratulations on the promotion and welcome to the Dispatch Box. Just in case you need to know, we have been touched by young male suicide in my constituency of Sussex Weald, so I will be listening closely to your response. \p Zubir Ahmed: It is an honour to respond on behalf of my hon. Friend the Mental Health Minister and the Government on this uniquely emotive topic that impacts every community. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for giving us the opportunity to have this debate the day after World Suicide Prevention Day. I know that the whole House will join me in thanking him for channelling a deep amount of personal pain and sorrow into such a constructive debate. His family and constituents should be rightly proud.

I also want to commend all hon. Friends and hon. Members for their contributions, many of which have also come from a position of personal pain and experience. Often in our society it is the doctors and nurses who are perceived to be the lifesaver, but I am confident that every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate is a lifesaver, and their constituents should be rightly proud of all of them.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) spoke about the mental health fund, and I would be delighted to set up a meeting with him and my colleague the Mental Health Minister to talk further about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) asked for a meeting with his constituent Helena’s parents, and I would also be delighted to arrange that. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his usual forensic manner, asked a number of questions that I hope I will address in my speech, but I am sure he will be forthcoming if there are any shortcomings in my answers.

The Government stood on a manifesto commitment to tackle the biggest killers, and suicide remains the leading cause of death for young people in this country. Every life lost to suicide is one too many. That is why our men’s health strategy, our plan for change and our 10-year health plan have given a renewed focus on prevention. Our aim is to get the NHS, Government Departments, academia and the private sector to intertwine like never before in a call to action.

Let me briefly set out the different strands of the work. First, we will target high-risk groups, including children and young people, middle-aged men and people known to have a history of self-harm. Secondly, we will expand the offer of our mental health emergency departments as part of our 10-year plan. Thirdly, we will imbibe a greater sense of responsibility and responsiveness in the digital and media sectors.

Too often people in crisis find themselves terrified and vulnerable in places that are least equipped to help them—for example, traditional A&E departments, facing long waits and often inadequate support. That is why we are committed to expanding mental health emergency departments. We are investing up to £120 million to bring the number of mental health emergency departments up to 85, while piloting an innovative model of mental health care for people with serious mental health needs. That will mean that people in their darkest moments can access immediate specialist care in safe and dignified spaces.

Given that only one third of people who die by suicide are in contact with mental health services, we are also working to make support easier to find and easier to navigate. Our shift from hospital to neighbourhood care in the 10-year plan is a big part of that, as is NHS England’s recently published “Staying Safe from Suicide” guidance, which is for all mental health practitioners to follow. It removes any uncertainty about the approach that they should take, moves them away from tick-box checklists and puts each patient and their individual circumstances at the centre of their care. Today, I can update the House that NHS England is launching an e-learning module as a practical resource to support the implementation of the guidance.

The whole country was horrified by the excellent portrayal of the issues currently affecting young men in the television show “Adolescence”. It is a work of fiction, but it shone a searing light on many of the struggles that young people face, including social isolation—ironically, in an age of social media and connectivity. That is why this Government are taking action by equipping a generation of young people with the tools to manage their mental health. By the end of this Parliament, every school in England will have access to a mental health support team.

But as we safeguard our children in schools, we cannot remain blind to the poisonous environment that children are exposed to online. As a father, I know that this is something that keeps every parent up at night. That is why we are promoting online safety and ensuring responsible media representations of issues relating to suicide and self-harm. Under the Government’s Online Safety Act, all in-scope services are now required to protect their users from illegal content, including illegal suicide and self-harm content. Beyond that, the strongest protections in the Act are for children who are now also protected from legal but harmful suicide and self-harm content.

We have seen too many tragic stories of children being bombarded with that content, often with fatal consequences. The onus is now on tech firms to recognise that that material has no place on their platforms or in our society. Ofcom is continuing to implement this regime, and it has recently published proposals regarding additional steps that should be taken to ensure that such content is not promoted in an algorithmic fashion, but we know that legislation is not enough.

I will now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme about first responder training. First responders play an important part in preventing suicides, as they are often the first port of call for someone in distress and experiencing suicidal ideation. We will work closely with first responders, including the police and ambulance staff, to support suicide prevention efforts. Sometimes the first response to someone experiencing distress is provided by Government frontline services. That is why the suicide prevention strategy includes the training of frontline staff in some Departments. The Ministry of Justice is rolling out mandatory suicide awareness training to prison staff, and Department for Work and Pensions frontline staff are receiving mandatory training. The NHS is committed to ensuring that all healthcare professionals receive the necessary mental health training to meet the need of patients.

I will now turn to the question of neighbourhood mental health services. The international evidence base is robust, and we are currently testing the extent of the benefits of the model here. There will be an external evaluation of these pilots to determine their impact, particularly in terms of patient experience, access, reductions in pressure on existing services, and economic impact. We will follow the evidence and make an assessment for future roll-out.

I will now turn to the research into gender differences in suicide. We agree that research is hugely beneficial for making good-quality policy. That is why the ambitions outlined in the suicide prevention strategy for England cover five years and includes research on national trends and suicide rates in specific groups. We will continue to look for ways to improve our national real-time suspected suicide surveillance system so that we can pick up on these trends and act on them faster. We will draw on experts from our advisory groups and listen to people with lived experience to help us understand why we see some of these patterns and what can be done to address them.

I want to end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme for bringing forward this debate. I also thank all other colleagues who have contributed to it, but I want particularly to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her tireless campaigning since she was elected to this place eight years ago. In her maiden speech, she stood on the Opposition Benches and spoke very movingly about her husband. She then gave this House a call to arms, saying:

“I do not ask for sympathy; I ask for your support”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 907.]

She may not remember, but the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), was sitting behind her on that day. He is delighted, as I am, that we are now in a position to be able to answer that call. \p Nusrat Ghani: That was incredibly powerful. \p Lee Pitcher: We have felt a very different kind of emotion in the Chamber this afternoon, compared with what we normally feel. The stories that have been shared have been stripped back, quite raw and very emotional. It really brings home to me the extent of the risk we are talking about here.

Let me thank all hon. Members for their contributions and for their honesty. I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. These kinds of debates are never easy, but what I have heard just shows the depth of commitment across the House to tackling suicide. What also gives me hope are the amazing organisations and volunteers who are out there every day trying to support our most vulnerable when they need it the most.

Suicide is a huge problem. We all know that there are no quick or easy solutions, and every one of us came here to challenge things like this and to make a difference. What we have heard today gives me renewed hope that change is possible. If we get it right, we can make a massive difference that will save lives. So, to use the phrase used earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), we do hear you, we do see you and we want to be here for you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered suicide prevention. \p Martin Wrigley: I wish to present a petition from my constituent Anna Todd concerning the provision of inclusive community spaces in Newton Abbot, which has gained hundreds of signatures. Changes to Access to Work, retail rates relief and employer national insurance contributions have seen the closure of Newton Abbot’s No Limits Café, and Dawlish Gardens Trust has had to stop helping people with learning disabilities into work. The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urge the Government to protect existing community support hubs and ensure long-term resource allocation and recognition of their role in mental health, wellbeing, and inclusion.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of the Newton Abbot constituency,

Declares that the No Limits Community Café and Hub in Newton Abbot, Devon was a vital, inclusive space for disabled and neurodivergent people, providing community, support, and social connection; further declares that the No Limits Community Café and Hub was a beacon of hope, employing 18 local people and creating a warm, inclusive environment for its participants, staff, and visitors; it was a place where people who often face barriers to employment gained confidence, learnt valuable skills, and become part of a supportive community; notes the petition  on Change.org on the same issue of closure of the No Limits Community Café and Hub in Newton Abbot, Devon that gathered 573 additional signatures.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to protect existing community support hubs and ensure long-term resource allocation and recognition of their role in mental health, wellbeing, and inclusion.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003110] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Hughes.) \p Irene Campbell: I declare an interest: earlier this week, I hosted the “Ban Hatch and Dispatch” event in Parliament with the Vegetarian Society, as well as hosting a drop-in event the previous week. It was important to hear presentations from industry experts about the innovative and effective in-ovo testing laboratories in Europe, which offer a vision of what we could have here in the UK. I will be hosting a further event on 4 November and I encourage colleagues to attend. I am keenly awaiting the publication of the animal welfare strategy this autumn, and I hope that this topic will be discussed in it. \p Maureen Burke: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this animal cruelty to the attention of the House. Considering the advances that have been made in determining the sex of chicks before they hatch, does she agree that there is absolutely no excuse for commercial egg producers to be routinely culling animals on such a massive scale? \p Irene Campbell: I could not agree more.

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

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Hughes.) \p Irene Campbell: I agree what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) said, and I will go on to say more about that.

Most people will not have heard of hatch and dispatch, which is a process of culling male chicks a few hours after they are born because they are not capable of laying eggs and do not grow fat enough to breed for meat. It is estimated that 6.5 billion newly hatched male chicks are culled globally every year, around 45 million of which are in the UK. Legally, live chicks can be killed using maceration, exposure to insert gas, or cervical dislocation, where no other method is available. In the 21st century, surely it is not acceptable that such a cruel practice takes place, when alternatives exist, as I will go on to describe.

In July 2023, the then Government’s Animal Welfare Committee released a report, “Opinion on chick culling alternatives”, which called to ban male chick culling and imports from systems that still use culling. The Committee advised that any future welfare labelling scheme should say whether the production system culled male chicks or used in-ovo technology, as well as calling for financial support for the introduction of new technologies and for wildlife rehabilitation projects, which are reliant on culled chicks for food.

In-ovo technology can determine the sex of a chick while it is in the egg, meaning that only female eggs will hatch and avoid the cruel cull. Research has shown that chick embryos can feel pain from around day 13 of egg incubation, so most in-ovo sexing systems operate between days eight and 12 of incubation. While some methods take small fluid samples, there are also non-invasive techniques, such as spectroscopy and hormone detection.

There is also significant progress in many other countries. Male chick culling is banned in Germany, France and Austria, while countries such as Italy have passed bans that will take effect in the future, and many other countries, including the United States and the Netherlands, among others, have adopted in-ovo technology voluntarily or through retail-led initiatives. I hope people here will agree that it is time that the UK catches up and introduces a ban on this cruel practice.

Almost 90% of eggs consumed in the UK are produced in the UK; that is a figure of about 12 billion eggs per year, out of the 13.6 billion that are consumed in total, so about 2 billion eggs a year are imported. \p Danny Chambers: I thank the hon. Member for giving way—she is passionate about animal welfare. She mentions in-ovo technology identifying the sex of chicks. Similar technology has worked well in the dairy industry, where semen can be sexed before a cow is artificially inseminated, to ensure we have female cows rather than a surplus of male cows that end up getting culled at a young age. That is a successful programme in the dairy industry that could be replicated in the poultry industry. \p Irene Campbell: I fully agree with what the hon. Member said and I think that is a good example to follow.

Two major hatcheries dominate the UK’s laying-hen sector. If we were able to introduce in-ovo sexing technology in just two hatcheries, we would be able to eradicate the vast majority of male chick culling in the UK’s commercial egg industry, so surely that is worth considering.

The public are vastly in favour of that as well. A poll by the Vegetarian Society in May found that 76% of respondents supported banning male chick culling even if it would result in a price increase of 1p per egg. In Westminster, over 30 MPs and peers from different parties signed a joint letter to the former Minister calling for a ban on male chick culling.

What would happen to eggs that are deemed to be male? The immediate answer would be to merge them with other hatchery biproducts used for energy generation, fertiliser or animal feeds. However, experts are also investigating the possibility that the eggs could be used to feed exotic animals in captivity. They could potentially be a high-value product as by day 12 the chick embryos have nails, beaks and bones, as well as not being sentient yet.

On a personal note, as a vegan for many years I find this whole discussion difficult, but it is important to highlight that currently culled chicks are being used as animal feed for captive raptors. However, animal by-products from slaughterhouses could be the best alternative, as this would be a circular and low-impact approach that would ultimately reduce the number of animals killed. Experts recommend that this should be a short-term solution, with long-term research focusing on cultivated meat, cultivated casting and even 3D-printed whole-prey alternatives.

The culling of live male chicks is a cruel and outdated practice. There is strong public support on this issue and wide international precedent. As with many others,  I keenly await the animal welfare strategy this autumn, and I hope that the banning of the culling of male chicks will be a key aim of the strategy. It is important that a road map with a timeline is introduced to phase out this cruel practice and that male chick culling and imports are a thing of the past. \p Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this debate. She raised this issue in a Westminster Hall debate on animal welfare standards in farming in June, and I am grateful to her for giving us the opportunity to focus on the subject in more detail today. I fully recognise that there is strong public feeling on the routine culling of male chicks, as highlighted by the breadth of support that the Vegetarian Society’s “Ban Hatch & Dispatch” campaign has attracted. My hon. Friend has spoken passionately on the subject this evening.

As a nation, we are rightly proud of the high animal welfare standards that underpin our high-quality British produce. This Government want to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection that they deserve. I completely understand that the culling of day-old chicks is a process that many, including someone not far away from this Dispatch Box, may find incomprehensible and wasteful.

I assure my hon. Friend that all farm animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health and welfare legislation, including when they are killed. Regulations set out strict requirements to protect the welfare of animals at the time of killing, which includes male chicks in the egg production sector. As she pointed out, the permitted killing methods for chicks, such as gas stunning, are based on scientific research and assessment to ensure that the birds are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering. All laying hen hatcheries in the UK use argon gas mixtures as their stunning method. That is a much more humane method than other gases, such as carbon dioxide, which is routinely used in several European countries and elsewhere in the world.

However, as has been commented by the Animal Welfare Committee—an expert committee advising the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments on animal welfare issues—the routine killing of chicks is principally an ethical issue, rather than a welfare problem, because it does not lead to direct welfare harms. Of course, that does not mean that we should not work to see if we can move away from it in the future as quickly as is practical and possible. Being able to do that relies on viable alternatives being developed; my hon. Friend talked about some of those in her remarks.

The Animal Welfare Committee reviewed the alternatives to culling newly hatched chicks and published its independent opinion on this issue last year. In its report, the committee recommended that chick culling should be banned as soon as reliable, accurate technologies were available. It also highlighted that several consequences would arise from such a ban, and as such it would be crucial to learn from those countries that have already committed to move away from the culling of male chicks.

My hon. Friend mentioned that Germany, France and other European states have banned the culling of male chicks, but some European states have encountered issues following a ban. In some cases, in countries where there is a ban in place—Germany, for example—male chicks are merely transported to other member states prior to being killed, which is not the welfare gain one would want to get from such a ban. Any ban on the culling of male chicks needs to allow for the rearing and processing of those male birds that hatch despite the use of in-ovo sexing technology.

Another issue flagged in the Animal Welfare Committee’s report is the fact that male chicks provide a whole food source for exotic animals and raptors. \p Josh Newbury: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on securing the debate and outlining so eloquently the case for this cause, which I support. Given that we use many male chick carcases for animal feed, pet food and places like bird of prey centres, and we import far more than we use, does the Minister agree that we need to find a solution to meet that need, if we are, as I hope, to eventually move to in-ovo sexing in hatcheries? \p Angela Eagle: I agree that when a supply chain, however difficult, is established and we try to move away from it, there can be unintended consequences. We have to look at the whole series of issues along that chain, so that we do not end up in a situation that has lower welfare outcomes than the one we started with. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is well aware of that, and we will not move in any way if we would end up in a worse welfare situation than the one we started with, but he makes a perfectly good point.

As I was about to say, another issue flagged in the Animal Welfare Committee’s report is the fact that male chicks provide a whole food source for exotic animals, and we would have to replace that.

In recent years, there has been phenomenal global progress in the development of technologies that could help to end routine culling of male chicks by identifying or determining embryo sex before hatching, and it appears that this is going on in the dairy industry as well. There is clearly a lot of scientific work going on to see what we can do to get away from the current situation in our livestock supply chains. Several new methods and systems have appeared, and many refinements in existing systems have continued, since the publication of the Animal Welfare Committee’s report on this subject.

We welcome the UK egg industry’s interest in the development of day-zero sexing technology, which enables eggs to be sexed prior to the start of their incubation. Such a commercial system offers many benefits, including economic and sustainability savings by directly freeing up hatchery space, in addition to providing an ethical solution to the culling of chicks.

In Germany, one alternative is the rearing of male layer chicks for meat production, also known as brother hens. Due to their slower growth rate, rearing brother hens requires a greater input of feed and a longer  rearing phase to produce a smaller bird with less desirable body composition, making it more challenging to rear them commercially at scale in the UK. There is a lack of published research on the welfare of brother hens, but animal welfare concerns have been linked to this practice. In particular, managing aggression and high mortality within all-male flocks can be problematic, often accentuated by housing inappropriate to the birds’ behavioural needs.

Aside from in-ovo sexing technology and rearing of brother hens, I was pleased to hear about an initiative to assess the viability of dual-purpose poultry breeds in the UK—that is, breeds that can be used for laying and meat. Clearly, they are not as specialist as the different breeds currently used for the laying of eggs and for meat, but since they are dual purpose, they do not result in the mass culling of males in the laying industry. The initiative was awarded funding earlier this year as part of DEFRA’s farming innovation programme.

Using birds that can serve both as egg layers and meat producers could offer an alternative to chick culling, but it is different meat—they grow and turn out differently than UK consumers are perhaps used to. It is also thought that dual breeds bring other animal welfare benefits, as hens of dual-purpose breeds have lower incidences of keel bone fractures, and some breeds show less injurious pecking behaviour than found in commercial laying hen breeds. The males of dual breeds have better walking ability, lower levels of pododermatitis and better feather cover than fast-growing meat chicken breeds.

In addition to the animal health and welfare benefits, the project is also looking at the sustainability benefits of dual breeds. Dual breeds have lower protein requirements, and a German trial found that locally grown beans were a suitable alternative to very high- protein soya. If this approach to chicken breeding can be made viable, become popular and be accepted by UK consumers—those three things all have to work—it may deliver sustainability benefits. Bringing value to male layer chicks is of key importance, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of this research and whether dual-purpose breeds might offer a more ethical and sustainable approach than our current one.

This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Our farm animal welfare policy is backed by a robust evidence base, and is supported and shaped by input from our many excellent stakeholder and expert advice groups. I look forward to speaking to hon. Members about this in more detail soon. Although, as I said earlier, this is principally an ethical rather than animal welfare issue, that does not mean that we should not be trying, very robustly, to address it. I look forward to seeing progress in this area over the next period. \p Nusrat Ghani: That was incredibly educational.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.