PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 5 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

The business for the week commencing 9 February will include:

Monday 9 February—General debate on the UK-India free trade agreement, followed by debate on a motion on increasing survival rates of brain tumours. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 10 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026.

Wednesday 11 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 12 February—General debate on LGBT+ History Month, followed by debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

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

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 February includes:

Monday 23 February—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill.

Tuesday 24 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.

For the convenience of the House, the debates on estimates are expected to take place in the week commencing 2 March.

I do not think that this is a moment for normal business. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and all Members, will join me in taking this moment to remember the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: the young women and girls who were systematically trafficked and abused by him and his associates over many years—both those who have come forward and those who have not felt able to do so.

Today, I will talk about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House and colleagues across this Chamber feel the same way that I do. He and they will understand that this is a matter that far transcends party politics. Peter Mandelson, when Business Secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J. P. Morgan, should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor at the time—his colleague, Alistair Darling—over the planned tax on bankers’ bonuses, as Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of J. P. Morgan, duly did.

Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive information to Epstein that related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets, describing the internal Downing Street memo—internal, I stress—as an

“Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”

Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the EU’s 2010 €500 billion bail-out the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from No. 10 Downing Street —a further highly market-sensitive piece of information.

In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in Florida under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts: solicitation of prostitution from a minor and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday whether he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said:

“when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security”.—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]

Unfortunately, that is plainly untrue—it must be inadvertent. When the Labour party presented its Humble Address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on 1 November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was that of the Prime Minister. I hope the Leader of the House will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record when he next appears at the Dispatch Box.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday:

“we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]

Let us think about that for a moment. The Prime Minister is saying that if only he had known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It was not enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. He knew it—indeed, the fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s mansion had been reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, but the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting that was done after the appointment but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment, and he ignored that too.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday:

“can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 262.]

Those victims are the many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson’s protégé, and McSweeney was paying back his long-time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works with his appointment.

This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics. Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear: every Member of this House and our entire political system have been harmed by it and will continue to be until effective measures are taken to clean it up.

I ask two questions. Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted? In order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case—both the public due diligence and the developed vetting process—and set out in writing why those failed so badly in this case and how they will be improved?

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for the way he has addressed these matters this morning. He is fully entitled to do so. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is right to do so, because I agree that there is palpable anger, outrage and a degree of sadness about the way these events have unfolded.

I would normally, on such occasions, start by running through the series of events, but today I am going to reverse that order and first deal directly with the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, because they are so important. Then, with your forgiveness and leave, Mr Speaker, I will make some remarks about other matters.

The shadow Leader of the House raises some very important points. He talked about yesterday’s Humble Address and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I think there is an assumption with Humble Addresses—I have drafted a few in my time—that national security matters will be exempted from them, but as I think we found out yesterday, there is a degree of confusion about that. I am grateful that as the debate continued yesterday, we did listen to the mood of the House and ensured that what was put before the House at the end of the day reflected what the House was seeking. So if it was imperfect at the beginning—I gently suggest that the right hon. Gentleman’s motion was also, to some extent, imperfect —we got to the right place. In terrible circumstances, that was a good moment for the House, ensuring that that is what was put before the House.

The shadow Leader of the House asks about the actions of the Prime Minister, and that will, of course, be part of the outcome of investigations and inquiries. We must ensure not simply that a robust inquiry is in place, but that we trust people to get on with it. He mentioned the documents that go to the ISC. I expect the ISC to get whatever it asks for, and in the form in which it asks for it. It may have been missed yesterday, but the National Security Act 2023 states that the ISC can ask for documents. I hope we do not get to this situation, but if the ISC does not get those documents, it ends up in court with a judge deciding on such matters. I would not recommend anybody trying to over-redact or leave out documents, because I think we are in a situation where everything, however painful, needs to be out.

It is important to put on record the actions that have been taken since these further matters came to light. Let me say—I should also have said this at the beginning—that I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House not just on how awful this is, but that the victims of Epstein should always be at the forefront in our deliberations. They are brave, and we must ensure that we rise to the challenge of ensuring that they get some kind of justice at the end of it all.

The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords, and although Mandelson has himself retired, we will be bringing forward legislation to strip him of his title—as ever with these matters, it is slightly more difficult to achieve that than it is for me to say it from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has agreed with the King that the former Lord Mandelson should be removed from the Privy Council. The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan police. They have requested that they be allowed to get on with the job, and I absolutely endorse that.

Over this week we have had a statement from the Dispatch Box on these matters, then Prime Minister’s questions, which was rightly dominated by them, and yesterday we had the not extraordinary but still unusual circumstances of six hours of debate on them, giving Members the opportunity to have their say. We have listened, and we are listening to the House, and indeed to the country more widely, to ensure that we get to the right place in what is an absolute tragedy, not just for the victims but also for the political process itself. I hope that I have made that position clear.

Let me return briefly to some other points. I pay tribute to Lord Triesman, a former general secretary of the Labour party. As the former chairman of the Football Association, he campaigned against racism in sport and was a vocal supporter of women’s football. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his friends and family.

I pay tribute to Lord Wallace, who also died this week. He was ever-present in Scottish politics for almost four decades, a leading architect of devolution and a tireless advocate for his constituency of Orkney and Shetland for over 30 years. We remember him with fondness and send condolences to his friends and family.

I also pay tribute to the campaigner Nathaniel Dye, who has died after a long battle with cancer. I met Nathaniel Dye. He was a brave and courageous campaigner whose life ended too soon. His family and friends should be proud, even in their grief, that his campaign made a real difference to the future wellbeing of others. Yesterday was National Cancer Day and we published our national cancer plan. It owes much to healthcare professionals, but it also owes much to ordinary people—extraordinary people, actually—like Nathaniel Dye who told their stories, and the stories of their friends and families. The plan outlines how thousands of people will receive more timely treatment, and the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will make a statement shortly.

We have announced the roll-out of 500 new free breakfast clubs in schools across the country, which will mean a free breakfast club now operates in 1,250 schools and is available for 300,000 children.

Today is Time to Talk Day, which is an opportunity to break through the stigma that often comes with having conversations about mental health experiences. That comes ahead of Children’s Mental Health Week, which is next week. Children’s mental health is crucial for fostering positive life outcomes, and I know that there will be lots of activity in constituencies across the country to raise awareness.

Finally, hon. Members will note with interest that Parliament’s restoration and renewal costed proposals report will be published by the House this afternoon. The Palace of Westminster is part of a UNESCO world heritage site, and it is also a symbol of our democracy. It is in much need of significant work to maintain the upkeep of the building, and to make it safe for people who work in and visit the building. I hope that hon. Members will take time to read the detailed report and, in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision, not just by this House but by the other place too.

I have been working closely with driving instructors who provide tuition to learner drivers in North West Leicestershire. One of them reached out to me earlier this week to share that they had got up at 5.45 am to book a test for a student in Loughborough, but no tests were available. What work is being done to increase capacity in key test centres that serve my constituency, such as Loughborough? May we have a debate in Government time on how we hold test centres to account for some of the supply issues?

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. It is not the first time that we have heard about these concerns. I look forward to answering business questions when the issue is not raised, because that will mean that serious action has been taken and the situation has improved. I completely sympathise with those impacted by a long wait for a driving test. The Government are taking action to deliver around 10,000 additional driving tests a month, and we will ensure that only learner drivers can book tests to stop the exploitation by online bots. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are heard by the relevant Minister, who I am sure will want to correspond with her.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship to Peter Mandelson. I do not intend to repeat those words, but as the political discussion intensifies in the coming days, we must not forget the victims, who are at the centre of all this, and their bravery, not only in retelling their trauma but in risking taking on powerful men—possibly some of the most powerful and connected men on the planet—and all those who serve to protect and legitimise them in those behaviours.

I feel a duty to raise some under-discussed issues, including Storm Chandra and its devasting impact on communities, particularly in south-west England, where flooding has damaged homes and a road has collapsed into the sea. It is difficult to know when these storms will hit, but we know that they are going to happen more frequently. That has put more intense scrutiny on the role of the Environment Agency, and I fear that it has been found to be lacking. Last year, the EA gave up on main rivers maintenance, saying that it could no longer afford to do it. That is just part of a pattern of the EA not being equipped any more to do its job.

In my constituency, I can think of at least two major failures in the last couple of years. This time last year, there was a major diesel spill in my local river, the River Wandle. Some 4,000 litres were spilt, which were suspected to be from a nearby bus garage. The EA was sent to investigate, but one year on, we still do not have its report and nobody has been held to account.

We also host an incinerator in my constituency. If regulated properly, an incinerator is better than landfill, but over the last 18 months there have been hundreds of emissions breaches, and the EA has failed to punish the operators sufficiently. In fact, the EA says that it is minded to approve an expansion in the capacity of the incinerator, despite strong opposition from me, the local authority and apparently the Government, who have stated publicly that they think we have reached capacity for incineration in England, yet still nothing can be done. When I challenged the EA on this matter, it said it feels that it does not have the legal grounds to object to the expansion. I ask the Government: what is going on? Can the Leader of the House organise a debate to ensure that we can hold the EA properly to account?

Despite the hon. Gentleman’s understandable concerns, the Environment Agency does vital work, managing our rivers and protecting our environment. We need to recognise the work of people at the Environment Agency, who are out doing their very best as we speak, but I understand the concern expressed not just by him, but by other hon. Members. As he says, severe weather, including this winter, makes the challenges even harder.

Under this Government, we have increased the Environment Agency budget by £188 million, and our flood budget of £10.5 billion is a record investment—the most that has ever been spent on flooding. I accept that this is a matter of great importance, particularly to rural areas, and it interests and concerns Members across the House. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and his request that these matters be the subject of debate in this House.

Saturday marks the two-year anniversary of the publication of the Hughes report, which set out how the Government should offer financial compensation to those irreversibly and avoidably harmed by the mesh and valproate scandals. To not have an official Government response after two years is frankly insulting to the thousands of women and children whose lives have been changed forever through no fault of their own. These women have been systematically gaslit and have endured so much, all for trusting healthcare professionals, as we all have done and would do. Does the Leader of the House agree that the time for thinking is now over, and that the Government must provide an urgent response to this House?

I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this important matter. These are complex issues, and the Government’s response needs to be fair, balanced and sensitive to everyone affected, but I appreciate Members’ frustration about the timescale, and the need for clarity for everyone affected. There is a Westminster Hall debate on the Hughes report next week, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to speak in it. I will raise her concerns directly with Ministers, because she asks reasonable questions.

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, on Monday the Procedure Committee is due to give a statement on its report on call lists. As that is not a day for Backbench Business debates, a motion from the Leader of the House will apparently be required to allow the statement to take place, and I hope that he will enable that to happen. On Thursday 12 February, there will be a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on its recent report. On Thursday 26 February, if we are given the day, there will be a debate on St David’s day and Welsh affairs.

In addition, the business in Westminster Hall next week will include, on Tuesday, a report on the Independent Water Commission’s final report and, on Thursday 12 February, a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, followed by a debate on Government support for healthy relationships—just in advance of Valentine’s day—and a debate on onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry. On Tuesday 24 February, when we return from recess, there will be a debate on Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza, and on Thursday 26 February, there will be a debate on Eating Disorders Awareness Week, followed by a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools.

Eagle-eyed individuals who follow the Order Paper will know that there will be no second debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon, and I should explain why. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) was granted that debate three weeks ago, and the Government were given notice that it was being held. On Tuesday, however, the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), apparently informed the hon. Member that she would not be available to answer the debate.

As the Leader of the House will know, it is not acceptable for the Government to determine that only one Minister can answer a debate. Another Minister, or even a health Whip, could have answered. We must give the Government 48 hours’ notice of debates, and we offered the slot to five individuals, but unfortunately they could not change their plans for this afternoon. I am sure that Members will want to defend the right of Back Benchers to hold the Government to account.

Fly-tipping in Harrow has been a scourge for most local residents. I am pleased that the council has taken many steps to combat it, including fly-tips being reported within 24 hours, free bulky waste collection, enabling multiple trips to the waste recycling centre and CCTV at fly-tipping hotspots. Recently, though, an illegal waste dump was set up on private land. Harrow council officers have been through that waste, and they have been able to identify it as the waste of 40 individuals, who have been issued with fixed penalty notices for giving their waste to illegal waste collectors. This is a warning that people should not do that. However, there is now a problem across the country with illegal waste collectors using private land to carry out these criminal actions. Can a relevant Minister make a statement on what action the Government will take to support local authorities in opposing these waste collectors, and warn individuals that they should not use them?

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and for his update. His first question was about the statement on the Procedure Committee report requiring a motion. The answer is yes—I will bring such a motion forward, even though the circumstances are slightly unusual.

The hon. Gentleman’s second question was about the cancellation of a debate. Sometimes it is difficult to ensure that a Minister is available. There are lots of draws on Ministers’ time, not least statements or whatever, but my strong view is that such debates are a priority for Ministers, and they should be present for them. I am very sorry to hear of the circumstances, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman and others that what has happened is not acceptable. I cannot do anything about these situations if I am not fully aware of them. If any Member finds that there is any doubt about whether a Minister will be present for their debate, they should come and see me, so that I can ensure that an appropriate Minister is available—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in some circumstances it could be a Whip; they are also Ministers—and debates can go ahead. I apologise for that, and we will do everything we can to make things better in future.

As the hon. Gentleman said, fly-tipping is completely unacceptable and a blight on our communities. We are giving councils new powers—for example, to crush the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers—and we are bringing in prison sentences of up to five years for those transporting waste illegally. I am a firm believer that a law should act as a warning, and if it is ignored, action should be taken, so I am pleased if that has happened. As for a possible statement in future, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the attention of Ministers, or he may wish to apply for a debate on these matters—he is uniquely placed to ensure that he gets one.

Order. I did not know about the issue that has just been raised; I am very concerned about it. I thank the Leader of the House for his answer, but I want to know why I was not told, so I will take this up.

Leo Barber from Beckenham tragically took his own life in November 2023, aged just 16, after suffering months of poor mental health. The recent inquest into Leo’s death found that he had been failed by multiple agencies, but that his mental health issues were also linked to screen use and exposure to harmful content online. Leo’s parents, Jo and Chris, have spoken devastatingly about the difficulties families face in protecting vulnerable young people in an online environment that is insufficiently regulated and characterised by addictive features, such as infinite scrolling and forums promoting suicide. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the Government’s recent action to ban smartphones in classrooms, and their consultation on young people’s use of social media, including a possible ban for under-16s—important steps to keep young people safe, and to hopefully prevent tragedies like Leo’s in the future?

First, I extend my deepest sympathies to Jo and Chris and all their family in what is an unimaginable situation. Every life lost to suicide is a profound tragedy, and we are committed to delivering the five-year suicide prevention strategy. As my hon. Friend says, we are also determined to keep young people safe online, and I obviously join him in welcoming our consultation on children’s use of technology. Once that consultation has concluded, we will update the House.

Pride in Place funding is about £5 billion directed at our most deprived areas. I think it is worked out on a constituency basis, and that constituencies have to hit a point on two indices of deprivation to qualify, and must therefore be what the Government call “double deprived”. I have significant pockets of deprivation in my constituency, particularly in parts of Stanwell, yet they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding because it is calculated on a constituency basis, which seems pretty unfair to me. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for us to debate the Pride in Place funding formula, so that we can understand it, and bring such anomalies to the attention of the Government?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in his analysis of how funding is allocated. Certainly in my local case, the allocation is not actually to the poorest neighbourhoods; it is to neighbourhoods that are poor, and are left behind on certain indices. It is a different way of calculating than might previously have been used.

The hon. Gentleman is right, though, to point out that the Government are putting more investment in through Pride in Place. We will continue to do so, but this is not only about the investment that goes in; it is about putting local people in charge, because it is not just that some communities look like they have been left behind, but that people feel that they have been left behind. The Government obviously wish to see this scheme rolled out further, so I hope that he is more successful in future. I will do everything I can to ensure that we get an opportunity to debate these matters, because we have a good record and a good story to tell, and he will be able to make his concerns known then.

The yearly Linlithgow marches organised by the Deacons Court is a 16th-century tradition marking the boundaries of the ancient and royal burgh. The marches celebrate civic pride. There are floats, parades, and much merriment from early in the morning. Last year, the court celebrated its 50th anniversary with a special service in December, which was attended by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Deacons Court, and perhaps join me for a glass and some merriment at this year’s marches?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the Linlithgow marches. Such events play an important part in bringing people together and promoting pride in local communities. I wish this year’s march well, and thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to attend. I would love to join, if my schedule allows.

I thank the Leader of the House for his comments about the Westminster Hall debate. Yesterday, the Government finally launched a national cancer plan, which contained many ambitious targets. However, that plan requires us to have firm checks in place, so that we can ensure that promises on paper are delivered in practice. The plan states that

“A reformed National Cancer Board”

will

“provide regular updates to ministers.”

However, Parliament and MPs also need regular updates, so will the Leader of the House commit to ensuring that there will be regular opportunities for MPs in all parts of the House to scrutinise the delivery of the national cancer plan, perhaps starting with an update before the summer recess?

There will be a statement later on the national cancer plan, where the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise his concerns directly with the Minister. It is an ambitious plan, and it is absolutely necessary, and the Government are committed to making sure that Parliament is kept abreast of these matters as we go on. I would certainly bear that in mind.

Before Christmas, I raised the poor standard of service by the Royal Mail in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney. Despite our excellent posties, constituents still report delayed deliveries leading to missed appointments and worse. Ofcom should hold Royal Mail to account on the universal service obligation, yet I have received no response from Ofcom for almost two months. Can we please have a ministerial statement on the performance of Ofcom? All our constituents should receive the level of service that they have been promised.

My hon. Friend again raises these matters, which have been raised consistently in the past few weeks by Members across the House. I hope that the Royal Mail, which listens to these matters, has heard what he has said. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has discussed Royal Mail’s performance with the chief executive, and the fact that it needs to do more to meet service delivery targets. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail three times on its service levels, and it is investigating Royal Mail’s compliance with its service quality obligations. My hon. Friend is right that it does not matter where someone lives; they deserve a good postal delivery system. Ofcom needs to continue to hold Royal Mail to account.

Much has been said, rightly, in support of the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Epstein. Another group who must not be forgotten are the dozens of young women who were raped and sexually assaulted by Mohamed Fayed. Fayed is dead and has been judged in a higher place, but those who aided and abetted him are still under investigation by the Metropolitan police, and they must be brought to justice. That investigation is taking too long. Will the Leader of the House please invite the Home Secretary to make a statement about the progress of that inquiry and to indicate when some action may be brought in support of these ladies?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this terrible case. Simply because the perpetrator is no longer here does not mean that the suffering gets any better for the people who have been affected. I am sure the Metropolitan police will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments this morning, but I will raise the matter with the Home Secretary to see whether further progress can be made.

Churches are at the heart of our communities, and I have heard from residents who go to St Peter and St Paul’s in Wingrave, St Michael’s in Aston Clinton and St Mary’s in Aylesbury, among others, about the importance of the listed places of worship grant scheme in helping to preserve historic church buildings. Can the Leader of the House therefore confirm whether that funding will be continued? What steps will be taken to protect smaller congregations if so, and can he ensure that this House debates the importance of churches in our communities?

I have said from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions just how important churches are to local communities, and historic churches, whether in rural or urban areas, have a particular role to play in communities and in our proud history. I will get an update for my hon. Friend from the relevant Department about the future of that programme, because I know it is of importance to many churches and Church organisations across the country.

Order. I am going to run business questions until midday or thereabouts, so please help each other. A good example will come from James Wild.

The Leader of the House referred earlier to mental health and Time to Talk Day; I will be running the London marathon in April for the 8:56 Foundation in North West Norfolk, which does important work on men’s mental health. Will he join me in paying tribute to charities across the country that are doing so much to improve people’s wellbeing?

I wish the hon. Gentleman well in running the London marathon, and indeed everyone who is involved in that and in raising money for such an important cause. I praise mental health charities, wherever they are—in his constituency and others; they are so important to our local communities.

I held a meeting for my constituents in Silkstone and Silkstone Common last week, and they raised with me the lack of NHS dentistry spaces locally. Some are having to travel 20 miles, taking up to an hour and a half, to get to an NHS dentist appointment. This issue affects people right across my constituency, with many being forced to go private, pay additional transport costs or go without an appointment until they need urgent hospital treatment—all pushing up their cost of living. Will the Leader of the House advise me how I can work with Health Ministers to ensure that my constituents can access NHS dentist appointments in their communities, particularly in rural areas?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these matters; she is a doughty campaigner for her constituents. We are very aware of the challenges facing dentistry, particularly—but not exclusively—in rural areas, which is why we are rolling out 700,000 more urgent dental appointments from April. I encourage my hon. Friend to attend the Adjournment debate on NHS dentistry later; perhaps those concerns can be addressed there. If she wishes, I will get her a meeting with the relevant Minister to see what further can be done for her constituency.

Ever since Australia banned social media for under-16s, my office has been inundated by appeals from parents for action here in the UK. They see the very real risks of a social media wild west; they fear for their children and want to say no, and are simply asking for the Government to have their backs. As a parent of an eight-year-old, I share their fear. I am pleased that the Government have launched a consultation and I look forward to hosting listening sessions across Rossendale and Darwen. This is a complex issue; there is much to be considered. We have to get this right. Would the Leader of the House agree to an early debate in Government time to allow Members to fully explore how we best meet this generational challenge?

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Government’s consultation into children’s use of technology, potentially including a social media ban. This subject is really important to parents; I think all our inboxes will have been filled with such concerns over the last few weeks. It is a complex matter, which is why the consultation is the right way forward. Although, for understandable reasons, yesterday’s second Opposition day motion on social media was not debated, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on young people’s screen time next week, which he may wish to attend.

A young woman, Savannah Victora-May, is in a critical condition due to very severe ME, compounded by inadequate treatment in hospital, where she has been for 11 months, since March last year. One of the few and welcome commitments from the Government’s final delivery plan for ME was to explore whether a specialised service for very severe ME should be prescribed by the Secretary of State. The ministerial foreword acknowledged that avoidable deaths of people with ME should “become never events”, but in the continued absence of specialist provision, it is difficult to see how situations like Savannah’s can be prevented from recurring. Will the Leader of the House request an urgent update on any progress made in respect of this commitment and on when a recommendation will be made?

It is distressing to learn of Savannah’s situation. I am sure the House wishes her well. I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes Government action on these matters, but if she wishes to explore what more can be done, I can arrange for her a meeting with the relevant Minister.

Several of my constituents in Salisbury have recently retired from the civil service. When they have contacted Capita, they have not been able to obtain their lump sums, so are getting into debt and have lost out on interest. Others have been cut off and ignored. Could we have a statement or a debate on this matter? It is only right, if people have worked so hard for so many years, that they should be able to access their pension as they anticipated.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the delays are unacceptable. It is not the service that people deserve, and resolving these matters is a matter of urgency. I understand that there was a debate on these matters yesterday, but I am sure there will be applications and questions as we go forward. The Cabinet Office is working hard to resolve the situation, and has put in place an expert recovery team to work with Capita and make sure things are in place to address such concerns. This issue is of concern not just to his constituents, but to other Members’ constituents too.

Many of my constituents face lengthy delays in securing their Transport for London private hire licences, with some complaining about delays of up to 18 months and unclear communication. Many of their concerns are simply being ignored. As the Leader of the House will be aware, our private hire drivers rely on those licences for their household livelihoods, helping to put food on the table and to pay their bills. Will he raise this matter with Ministers and ask them to engage with TfL, so that resources are made available and the unacceptable delays are finally addressed?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. I agree that these are important matters for drivers themselves and for their families’ wellbeing, and taxi drivers also provide a very important service to our constituents, so these matters need to be resolved. I will draw this issue to the attention of the relevant Minister and get my hon. Friend an update on what can be done to resolve the situation.

Hundreds of my constituents work at the Scunthorpe steelworks, which, as the Leader of the House will know, is under Chinese ownership. When the Prime Minister reported back earlier this week, I asked him whether he had engaged in related negotiations during his visit to China. It is disappointing to note that he did not respond to that question. Clearly, the long-term future of the plant is important to thousands of people. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to update us on how things are progressing?

This is not just a matter of concern locally for the hon. Gentleman; the Prime Minister is very committed to the future of the steel industry, and to the workers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the surrounding constituencies. I am not sure why he did not get a direct answer to his question, but I will make sure that he gets a readout from the Prime Minister’s visit, so that he can see what took place and what assurances the Prime Minister was able to get. The Prime Minister is absolutely committed to the workforce.

I would like to place on the record my disappointment that today the Government have chosen to make two oral statements, both of which are of huge significance—on Sudan and on the national cancer plan—when so many Members will be absent from the Chamber. As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, may I put on the record that this shows disrespect to Members seeking to participate in today’s Backbench Business debates, particularly the one on the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

Over many months, the Government have failed to respond to the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the UN commission of inquiry, and they have now squeezed the time available for Members to discuss that with the Minister. This is a gross discourtesy to this House, and to the millions of Palestinians impacted by Israel’s actions. Can the Leader of the House prevail upon Government Front Benchers to provide us with adequate time to debate this key issue in this place as soon as possible?

There is a perennial problem with timely statements and the effect they have on the business of the House. The national cancer plan is of huge significance and is timely, and Sudan is an extraordinarily important matter. It is important that the House gets an update on these matters. There will be some pressure on time today, but I hope that Members, including my hon. Friend, are able to get their points across. If that is not the case, I will certainly consider what further time could be made available.

On 11 September last year, I stood in this House to request time for a debate on the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. In the light of the serious concern arising from the release of the Epstein files, the links to the retired Lord Mandelson and the current Government’s knowledge of those links, I am once again here to ask the Leader of the House to grant time for such a debate. This is necessary not only to restore public trust, but to make clear the standards of conduct that every Member should adhere to.

Order. I advise Members that questions need to be short because time is short.

The issue the hon. Lady raises and has raised before is precisely why there is an investigation and an inquiry. There are various facets to that, but when the investigation is complete, I am sure the House will be given adequate time to discuss the outcome. It is precisely at that point that the principles she refers to will be central to the discussion.

Will the Leader of the House please advise me on the best way to get the concerns of Grimsby businesses on Cleethorpe Road considered in detail and perhaps reflected in the Government’s planned high streets strategy? They are facing a severe economic impact from the council’s plans to remove parking for a bus lane that will save only 15 seconds on a journey. Is there an opportunity for a debate on council responsibilities to local businesses?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the actions the Government are taking to support small businesses and high streets, because they are a very important part of local communities. Local authorities have a crucial role in shaping the trading environment for small businesses, and I hope her local authority has heard her concerns about the parking issues and everything else. We want local authorities to work in partnership with businesses, not in tension with them. I am grateful to her for raising this example, which I hope her local authority has heard, and I will raise these matters with the relevant Minister.

The father of one of my constituents died unexpectedly, which was itself shocking and distressing for his family, but that distress has been compounded by the difficulties they have faced in getting access to vital information held on his mobile phone, computer and via online services. Indeed, the only way they can open his phone is by returning it to the manufacturer’s settings, which would lose everything stored on it. Does the Leader of the House agree that our use of technology has moved on but the rules and regulations on access to online material when somebody dies have not developed at the same pace? Will he bring forward a debate on this important matter so that these issues can be fully explored?

I appreciate that this complex issue engages a range of policy areas across Government, because as the right hon. Gentleman says, technology moves on. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 clarifies that certain digital assets can be included as personal property, and some digital services have added a function to allow contacts to be nominated and have selected data sent to them. I will, however, ensure that his constituents’ case is heard by the appropriate Ministers, that they consider the issues carefully and that, should it be appropriate, they bring forward a statement or we find time for a debate on these matters.

Our country, and Harrow certainly, benefits from the hard-working Romanian community. Many Romanian families would welcome the chance for their children to supplement their normal school exams with a GCSE in Romanian. Given that no exam board currently offers a GCSE in Romanian, may we have a debate on how we can put that right?

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House and for his work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Romania. As he says, languages are a vital part of our curriculum and can open doors for young people across the country and, indeed, abroad. Decisions about which languages are offered at GCSE in England are matters for exam boards rather than central Government, but I am sure the boards will have heard his question, and I hope they give this matter their consideration.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the Countryside Alliance’s annual “Rural Oscars” awards. I am delighted that eight of the finalists come from my constituency: Briggsy’s Butcher, the Allanton Inn, the Buccleuch Arms, the Blackadder in Greenlaw, the Gordon Arms, Fine Feathers, the Ancrum Pantry and the Oxton Community shop. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those businesses and in wishing them well in the public vote?

I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating all the finalists in his constituency; they are so important in making community work in his part of the world. The Government are committed to supporting small and rural businesses through our small business plan, saving them time and money, boosting their access to finance and opening new opportunities. There are some fantastic businesses across his constituency and they deserve to be recognised, so I wish them all well.

Following local closures, residents in the north of Dudley currently have no accessible household waste site, forcing them to make lengthy and costly journeys to the only remaining sites in Stourbridge, which is leading to fly-tipping across the borough. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Conservative council to reinstate Anchor Lane accessible waste disposal services in the north of the borough, and will he agree to a debate on this matter?

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. Local authorities are legally required to deliver waste collection services to households in their area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has issued guidance for local authorities on factors to consider when delivering those vital services and around waste sites. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituents. I am sure Dudley council will have heard her remarks; I hope it takes them into account and acts in the interest of its residents.

Nearly four years on from the outbreak of the war, our Ukrainian friends have formed ever closer bonds with our communities. Last week I was at the opening ceremony of Bath’s Ukrainian education hub, which is part of a global network of 84 such hubs. The hubs are places for classes and courses, but they also provide space for adults and young people across cultures to learn from and support each other. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Bath Ukrainian education hub and all those involved, and will he wish them all the best for the future?

I do indeed congratulate those involved in the education hub and thank them for all the work they do. I also thank the wider community across the hon. Lady’s fantastic constituency, who have been so welcoming to Ukrainian families, for all they do and wish them well in the future.

Last Tuesday I was delighted to see the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announce £8.14 million in funding for Scotland through the multi-sport grass- roots facilities programme. I have already heard from organisations in my community that are keen to apply, including East End football academy, which runs weekly football sessions, but it is concerned about the condition of its pitch. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of access to good-quality sports facilities, particularly in the country’s poorest areas?

Grassroots sport is vital to our communities and high-quality facilities are vital too—when they work well, they literally change people’s lives for the better. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the funding announced for Scotland; we are ambitious for sport right across our country, and I hope the SNP Government are equally ambitious in what they do. This would make an excellent topic for a Westminster Hall debate and I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for one.

Last week I visited Gina and Vincenzo, the owners of a fantastic local Italian restaurant in Hornchurch, whose much-loved business is struggling under the weight of extortionate business rates. They used to pay £2,200 a year, but are now having to pay around £6,800; however, according to the calculator on the Government website, they will have to pay an astonishing £19,000 in business rates in the future. The Leader of the House must know that pubs and restaurants across the UK are being ruined because of the Government’s anti-business policies, so will he at least make time for a debate on business rates reform? Can he really blame the owners of Umberto’s for banning Labour MPs from their premises?

Order. The message about short questions does not seem to have got through. Can Members please shorten their questions, because we do not have much time?

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that when he sat on the Conservative Benches rather than with Reform, 7,000 pubs were closed. This Government are committed to supporting pubs, which is why we have announced 15% off their new business rates bills. That does not underestimate the challenge that some still face. It is important that they get support from Government, and that is precisely what they are getting.

My constituency has been well served for 35 years by the West Midlands Air Ambulance Service, but there is now the Stoke Air Ambulance. Yesterday, the fundraising regulator published a damning report about the new boy in town, because, despite raising hundreds of thousands of pounds, it does not have a helicopter, a paramedic, pilots, Care Quality Commission registration, or a launch pad. The West Midlands Ambulance Service has publicly said that it will not task the Stoke service with jobs. The Charity Commission opened a statutory inquiry yesterday, but getting to that point was quite difficult. Will the Leader of the House bring forward two debates: one on the powers and resources of the Charity Commission, to make sure that it can tackle these charities; and another to celebrate the good work of the proper charities that look after our constituents across the country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should celebrate the work of our air ambulances when they do a fantastic job, but he is also right to raise the doubts that prevail about that service on behalf not just of his constituents but of his region. I will raise this matter with the relevant Department, but I hope that the Charity Commission has heard his comments.

Yesterday, I hosted the Farm Safety Foundation in Parliament to launch the ninth year of its Mind Your Head Week campaign. Although there has been progress in talking about mental health in farming, we lose too many people to suicide every year. That must change. Can we have a debate in Government time on suicide prevention and mental health and wellbeing in farming and rural communities?

As I have said previously, the Government are very committed to tackling this matter wherever it prevails, and the hon. Member may wish to raise it directly with Ministers at Health and Social Care questions. However, if she wishes to speak to Health Ministers, I will endeavour to get her a meeting.

Residents in Stoke, Holy Cross and Upper Stoke in South Norfolk have been terribly let down by Anglian Water. The company digs up the road every two seconds, which has meant that residents are cut off from the only bus service to Norwich. Can we have a debate in Government time about companies such as Anglian Water, which keep letting down our villages by doing bodge jobs rather than doing the job right the first time?

That important matter has been raised with me previously. The previous Government should never have allowed the water sector to get into this state, because my hon. Friend’s constituents and all of our constituents deserve better. The water White Paper sets out our major reform plan, which secured £104 billion of investment to rebuild crumbling pipes and sewage works nationwide. I will ensure that Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers hear my hon. Friend’s concerns.

Late last week, it was with great sadness that Brummies learned of the passing away of Councillor Waseem Zaffar MBE. He was only 44 years of age and served the people of Lozells and the wider Birmingham area for 15 years. During our time together—both within and beyond the council chamber—we had our political differences, but what was never in question was my admiration for his tireless efforts to champion our city and its residents. Given the immense contribution made by Councillor Waseem Zaffar to local democracy, will the Leader of the House agree to make time for a debate on local councillors and activists, so that we can find more ways of recognising their contribution?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the contribution not just of the councillor he refers to but of all councillors. They are absolutely crucial to our local communities. He has placed that matter on record and I am sure the local community will have heard what he said.

Later this month, Northumberland Park, a key interchange between rail and metro, will be the latest station opening on the Northumberland line. The completion of the line and station has been made possible thanks to a £17 million investment from this Labour Government and £10 million from the Mayor of the North East. Can we have a debate on how this Government are supporting regional transport, such as through the opening of Northumberland Park?

I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning efforts on regional transport, whether it is the metro, rail or, indeed, roundabouts in her constituency. I have to say, she has done better on Northumberland Park than the previous MP—that was me, in case anybody was wondering. [Laughter.] Connecting the country through public transport is vital to growth, and I welcome the investment that has been announced. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for what I am sure will be a popular Westminster Hall debate.

In yesterday’s debate about Lord Mandelson, we heard a lot about the despicable crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. We also heard about Mandelson’s lobbying through his Global Counsel organisation, through which he introduced the Prime Minister to the chair of the company Palantir. Yesterday the Cabinet Office denied me permission to even see the background papers on an hour-long meeting that took place between Palantir, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Dominic Cummings in 10 Downing Street. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee is concerned about the use of Palantir in the NHS, where we have a £330 million contract with Palantir. We also have a £250 million defence contract with the company and a potential contract for the new national police service. Will the Leader of the House please allow Government time for a debate on the suitability of Palantir as such a critical aspect of our national infrastructure?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns, but as I said, there is an inquiry into the whole influence of the former Lord Mandelson. I assume and hope that all these matters will be considered. The House will then get an opportunity to see the outcome of the inquiry, and I am sure at that point the House will want to debate the matter.

Rokeby school in Canning Town has just received national recognition from the Department for Education for its exceptional achievements among disadvantaged pupils. This is an incredible achievement for the school and the local community, where families and children face many disadvantages and challenges. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Rokeby on its success, and does he agree that when we are discussing education we need to find opportunities to shine a light on such successes?

I of course join my hon. Friend in congratulating all of Rokeby school’s staff and pupils on that huge achievement. I absolutely agree that we should take every opportunity to celebrate the great work of our schools.

Last October’s National Audit Office report into ECO4 wall insulation found extensive evidence of fraud and cowboy workmanship. Consumer Energy Solutions of Swansea went into receivership last month, and I have received scores of complaints regarding air source heat pumps and solar panels installed by that company and others, with some people having no heating or hot water. Could the Leader of the House advise me what parliamentary measures are available to me to ensure that there is an independent inquiry into fraud and misuse of taxpayers’ money with ECO4?

The right hon. Lady could ask for a debate in which she could raise the issue of whether or not an inquiry is appropriate and get a response from the relevant Minister. If she wishes to draw attention about this issue directly to the Minister, I will arrange for a meeting.

I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that Parliament is sovereign when it comes to the legislative framework of this country. With that in mind, I would appreciate his views on the actions of a small number of unelected Members of the Lords who are blocking the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill rather than seeking to improve it. Can we have a debate in Government time on how the reputation of our parliamentary democracy can be protected in the face of such actions?

I understand, and to a large extent share, the frustration of my hon. Friend and many Members across the House, because the position of this House on the Bill was made very clear. The Government’s position has not changed: it is not a Government Bill, and the Lords have every right to scrutinise. But I again ask them to do so responsibly, because this House made its position very clear.

I hope that progress can be made. Once that has happened, I will find time in this place, if necessary, to debate those amendments, because the will of the House was very clear. Perhaps after that has been decided and the Bill has been dealt with—whatever the outcome—we need to reflect on some of the procedures that get us into this situation.

The 2024 Labour general election manifesto promised

“Immediate reform of the House of Lords”,

noted that

“reform is long over-due and essential”,

and said,

“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”.

Given the Mandelson scandal and the unacceptable spectacle of a tiny number of unelected peers blocking the will of the majority of elected Members in this House, may we have an urgent debate in this Session and in Government time on how the Government will bring forward and realise their promises of fundamental Lords reform so that we can begin to rebuild trust in our country’s democracy?

The Government are committed to wider reform of the House of Lords and the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is the first step in that process. We remain committed to that. However, I gently say to the hon. Lady that, to some extent, this is more complex than many people think. There are many priorities for this Government, not least tackling the cost of living and the terrible situation that we found our public services in when we came into office. To spend a great deal of time, at this juncture, talking about House of Lords reform is timely, costly and an extraordinarily difficult thing to achieve—I know that from experience. That does not mean that the Government will not address what we promised in our manifesto and bring about House of Lords reform at some point in the future.

Last weekend, I joined a thanksgiving service at Huddersfield parish church that paid tribute to local volunteers and residents who organised donations to Jamaica and the Caribbean islands following the devastation of Hurricane Melissa. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to those residents in Huddersfield? Will he set out how the UK Government are supporting relief efforts in the region?

My hon. Friend is right to celebrate those local Huddersfield volunteers. I am sure that the whole House will join me in praising their efforts, which remind us of the deep relationship between the United Kingdom and the Caribbean. We have committed up to £2.5 million to support the humanitarian response to devastation caused by Hurricane Melissa. I encourage my hon. Friend to participate in Foreign Office oral questions at the beginning of next month to discuss how we can better support the volunteers going forward.

I wish to raise concerns about the treatment of the Shi’a Muslims in Saudia Arabia. There have been long-standing reports of systematic discrimination, including restrictions on religious practice, unequal access to employment and limits on political participation. Such reports raise serious concerns about freedom of religion or belief and equal treatment under the law. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what assessment the Government have made of those concerns and how they are being raised with the Saudi authorities?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. He will know that the Foreign Secretary has had considerable engagement with the Saudia Arabian Government. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response to the issue he raises.

My son has just started his second term at university. His cohort will be hearing the current debate and media coverage about student loan balances spiralling and many will be worried about what that means for their future. Further, sixth-form students at New College, John Leggott, North Lindsey and Doncaster College will all be worried about what that means for them. I never want any of my residents to feel that their ambition has been priced out of reach, so will the Leader of the House make time for a statement or debate on student loan interest rates and the impact of compounding interest on graduates, particularly those from more deprived backgrounds?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are making the tough but fair decisions needed to find a balance between value for money for taxpayers and for students and graduates. We are supporting graduates with the cost of living and protecting lower earners by lifting the threshold this year, but I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and his constituents, because they will be shared by many of our own constituents. I encourage him to apply for a debate to raise those concerns and hear from Ministers directly.

Last week, at a City of Wolverhampton council meeting in my constituency, when discussing the removal of face coverings under a public space protection order, a Reform councillor asked a hijab-wearing Labour cabinet member, Obaida Ahmed, whether the order extended to the removal of religious garments like burkas for the identification of criminals—comments that clearly shook Councillor Ahmed. Will the Leader of the House please join me in condemning such disgraceful and divisive questioning, and stand in solidarity with Councillor Ahmed and all those from whichever party who refuse to let prejudice and discrimination undermine efforts to make our communities safer?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and absolutely condemn the language that he describes. It is incumbent on all elected office holders to consider the language they use. I want to recognise the contribution of those who work tirelessly to ensure that prejudice and discrimination do not undermine efforts to make our communities more inclusive.

I join my hon. Friend in praising the work of Coopers bar. As I have said before, bars and live music venues are cornerstones of our local communities. Our creative industries sector plan includes a £30 million music growth package to support small venues. If he were able to secure an Adjournment debate on this topic, I am sure that it would be a popular one.

Workers in Suffolk Coastal have been let down badly after carrying out their jobs in good faith only to be denied wages that they earned. After multiple failures to be granted the money they earned, employees of the Orwell hotel in Felixstowe were forced to gain employment tribunal judgments confirming that the money is owed to them, yet many are still waiting to be paid. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to engage with me urgently on this case and on the wider failure to ensure that employment tribunal awards are properly enforced?

My hon. Friend raises an important matter, and I understand that it must be deeply frustrating for the workers affected. I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets her to discuss this case.

The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty and helped break down barriers to opportunity by introducing child trust funds, giving every single 18 year old savings regardless of their background. However, on turning 18, a disabled person will find that if they have a care package, their child trust fund will be counted in the financial assessment. Can the Leader of the House please make time for a debate on how we can ensure that the child trust funds benefit every single young person regardless of whether they are disabled?

Child trust funds have helped parents and carers invest in their children’s futures, and we are committed to ensuring that every disabled person has access to the care they need. I will arrange a meeting for my hon. Friend with the relevant Minister so they can hear her concerns at first hand.

Families in Kidsgrove are understandably annoyed that the playground at Clough Hall park has only recently reopened, having been cordoned off since last May. I raised the matter with the Conservative-led Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council, as did local councillors, yet it took eight months to bring it back into use. Does the Leader of the House agree that the borough council must start listening to residents because high-quality playgrounds must be available to all regardless of where they live?

Playgrounds are a vital part of our social infrastructure, and the Budget committed £18 million to revamp playgrounds across England. I am sure that the Conservative council in Newcastle-under-Lyme will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. It is time that it listens to residents, or will it turn out to be just like Reform: over-offering and under-delivering?

With the cancer plan, we have made great progress this week on how we plan to tackle terminal illnesses in this country. On Tuesday, I had the privilege of visiting my constituent Alfred Whalley, who is currently living with terminal pulmonary fibrosis. After serving 20 years as a paramedic, he wanted to share with me his disappointment at his experiences at the very dated Royal Preston hospital, where one night he was moved five times as they juggled beds—though he is keen to stress that all staff were doing an incredible job. Does the Leader of the House agree that while plans for future terminal patients are welcome, we cannot forget the experiences of patients now and must find ways to invest in hospitals like Royal Preston which will be waiting at least 12 years to be rebuilt? Will he join me in sending best wishes to Alf and his wife Wendy and join their call for one of the Health Ministers to visit Royal Preston hospital to see the conditions for themselves?

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the arrival of the national cancer plan, and in sending our best wishes to Alfred, Wendy and their family and friends. We have made progress in improving the lives of patients with terminal illnesses, with 230,000 more diagnoses arriving in time and £70 million invested in cutting-edge radiotherapy. However, as my hon. Friend points out, there is a lot more to do. There will be a statement on the national cancer plan later. Should she wish to meet Ministers to make a specific case, I will ensure that she gets a meeting.

For the final question, I call Linsey Farnsworth.

I am glad to end business questions on a joyful note. Just before Christmas, I launched Amber Valley’s business awards, and encouraged people to nominate their favourite local businesses and to shop locally. After hundreds of nominations, the winners are now in: Basilia and 47 Degrees Coffee in Langley Mill; By HeatherMay and Amber’s Beauty in Ripley; and Beth’s Groom Hut in Waingroves. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the winners, and will he update the House on the support given to small businesses and high streets?

My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for the businesses in her constituency. I will absolutely join her in congratulating those winners, whose awards are, I am sure, well deserved. We are committed to small businesses through our small business plan, which will help to save them time and money, and open up new opportunities. Out there in all our constituencies, businesses need our support. I am sure that they can go on to even better things.

That concludes business questions. We have made a note of those Members who were not called today.