Ben Coleman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that disabled people are able to try work without automatically triggering a benefits reassessment.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that positive answer. Could he reassure my disabled constituents under the age of 22, many of whom are in education and low-paid work, that they will not lose their universal credit health payments? This financial support is vital to helping young disabled people, because they face the greatest barriers to work. Does he share my concern that removing it could push them further away from employment and deeper into poverty? Has an assessment been made of the impact on poverty of removing that support?

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend will know, my constituency neighbours his. In my constituency, the North End Road area of Fulham is a designated gambling vulnerability zone and has been identified as such by the council. It borders the Clem Attlee and West Kensington estates, which are both in the bottom deciles nationally for deprivation and income. That is no coincidence. The council is doing what it can in the current legal framework, but does he agree that councils remain constrained by the law and that this Bill will help?

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for being so responsive to the concerns about strategic licensing that I and colleagues in London have shared with her. May I confirm that it is not the Government’s intention for an application to be treated as being of potential strategic importance solely by reason of its location within a London plan designation or a London mayoral policy area, and that instead, in deciding whether a licensing application is of potential strategic importance, the Government intend for regard to be given to the residential character of the immediately affected area and to the evidence of the local licensing authority?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for calling this important debate. I am also very grateful to my constituent Louise Thompson for having the guts and the decency to parlay what was an absolutely horrible experience into a determination to make life better for women across this country and improve maternity services for everybody. I am very grateful for what she is doing—she is in Public Gallery today and I very much welcome her. As my hon. and learned Friend may be aware, I am a Member of the Health and Social Care Committee. Recently, we produced a report on black maternal health and many of the issues that he has described today also emerged in that report. There is a huge amount to be done. When it comes to making these changes and making them stick, I echo my hon. and learned Friend’s support for a national maternity commissioner to drive them through. However, if the Government are not minded to appoint a maternity commissioner, how else does he think we might get the drive and the determination to make the changes stick right across Government permanently?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the success of sickle cell bypass units in north-west London and across the country in reducing pressure on emergency departments, while improving care for sickle cell patients, who have historically been overlooked? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the future of these units is threatened, and will he meet me to discuss the need for ongoing central funding, so that these vital and efficient services are not lost?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There has been talk about a beefed-up school complaints process. I do not think that will be sufficient, and I ask the Minister to consider extending the remit of the local government and social care ombudsman to provide a binding route—a statutory backstop—to resolution when schools and other settings fall short. My second question is about health and social care co-ordination. This is where the White Paper is perhaps most silent, and where the current system is most visibly broken. As has been mentioned, the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member, recently examined how the health aspects of EHCPs are being delivered, and the result was depressing. One of the biggest problems is that integrated care boards and local authorities simply do not jointly commission children’s therapy services. Back in 2014, a truly joined-up education, health and care plan was exactly the ambition that was being strived towards, but Health never fully showed up and the then Government allowed it to get away with that for years. We now have to tackle that, and witnesses to our Committee urged that the Government mandate local authorities to have representation on ICB decision-making boards. Is the Minister prepared to give that serious consideration? Finally, children with SEND spend most of their lives outside the classroom, cared for by parents, who receive remarkably little support. Will the Minister commit to a clear, published expectation that health and social care will provide families with the information, guidance and practical support that they need? The White Paper shows that the Government understand that the system is broken and are prepared to invest. Success is going to depend on many things, including whether Health finally shows up, whether ISPs are properly enforced and whether families get the support that they need. I have every confidence that this Government are going to carry on doing the right thing, and I look forward to improving the lives of disabled children and young people, and their families.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am glad his local area has received that investment. Indeed, the two boroughs in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham will get a 10% increase in SEND funding for next year to support new, dedicated SEND spaces in every secondary school. That sort of thing is happening across the country, and it is absolutely right that it should. These are real commitments, seriously made: nearly £4 billion for school improvements, new therapists and specialists, and better teacher training; the new individual support plans for every child with SEND; and the EHCP and tribunal rights being retained for those with the most complex needs. All are seriously made commitments, and I welcome them, but I have to say that questions none the less remain—some of them have been raised today. I have just three questions for the Minister, and the first relates to enforceability. If a school fails to deliver what is written in a child’s individual support plan, I do think parents need a clear legal route to resolution.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I speak as one who, like many of my colleagues, has received many emails and other messages, and engaged in many conversations with parents of disabled children. I know that throughout the country parents are fighting battles to secure for their children the basic support that the law says they should already have. This is a profoundly damaged system that the Government are determined to change, and I welcome that hugely. In my view, the schools White Paper represents the most important attempt to improve life for disabled children and young people, and for their families, since the introduction of EHCPs in 2014 and, before that, the last Labour Government’s Aiming High for Disabled Children programme in 2007. I should perhaps declare an interest here: I campaigned with Contact a Family, Mencap and the Council for Disabled Children to build the political case for disabled children in the mid-2000s that led to Aiming High and secured nearly a billion pounds in new funding, plus new rights for disabled children and young people, and for their families.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I have very much enjoyed this debate. Hon. Members have given wonderful examples of what is going on in their constituencies and their engagement with voluntary activities. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that 46% of people in Northern Ireland volunteer. That is a hell of a number—it is very impressive, and I appreciate hearing that. It was very interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) illustrate the problems that we are talking about. He spoke of the importance of engaging properly with the local community. The local council failed to maintain the Parkside community centre in Barnehurst for so many years, and then their immediate solution was to shut it down, despite the fact that so many residents wanted it to stay open. That appears to be a dereliction of duty, and I appreciated hearing the details of that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) about the value of listening to residents in deciding what the community needs. That is absolutely crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said that community groups were an essential partner in prevention. He reminds me that I must listen to his radio show—and maybe eat a bacon butty— [ Interruption. ] It was a shameless plug.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I am sure that my hon. Friend has fought hard for the Swanscombe pavilion, and it is a great shame that it has closed. I am going to explore the reasons why these things happen in just a minute, but sometimes one thinks that local authorities could be a bit sharper in how they do things and understand the challenges facing us. Some of them are less competent than others—I have no idea whether that is the case in my hon. Friend’s part of the world, but I am sure he is fighting for his local centre. In a sense, my hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my next point about the situation not just in his constituency, but right across England. The financial position of community centres across England is stark: net spending on community centres and public halls has fallen by 38% in real terms since 2009, which is a profound erosion of the infrastructure that sustains the life of our communities. I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing me with that figure. The Ethical Property Foundation recently ran a survey, talking to community centres and local areas across the country about what was going on, and it has identified five interconnected challenges facing community centres. I think it is worth sharing them, because in the challenges lies the solution. The first is the insecurity that exists around leasing—the single greatest threat to the sector that the Ethical Property Foundation has identified. Over half of community organisations expect to face lease-related difficulties in the future, because too many are operating on short leases. They have break clauses, unpredictable rent increases, and full repair obligations passed on to them without adequate support. That combination is not simply difficult for them to deal with; it is highly destabilising. Without security of tenure, organisations cannot plan, fundraise effectively or invest in the buildings their communities depend on. We have to realise that many of these organisations are not trying to grow—they are simply trying to stay in the buildings that they already occupy. That leads me to the second challenge identified, which is access to capital funding. Community centres report that securing capital investment is incredibly difficult—success rates can be as low as one in 20 applications, and the administrative burden is considerable. The most significant barrier is often the lease itself, because many funders require between 15 and 25 years of tenure security before they will invest, and if that does not exist, the organisation does not get the investment. Without that, organisations are effectively locked out of the funding they need to repair, upgrade, or simply make safe their buildings. The third challenge is the condition of the buildings themselves. Many community centres operate out of ageing, poorly maintained premises. The research by the Ethical Property Foundation shows that 58% of organisations expect difficulties manging their buildings in the coming year. That is driven by rising maintenance costs and a lack of specialist expertise. I have seen at first hand in my constituency that trustees and volunteers are being asked to act as de facto property managers, but they often do not have the skills or support required. That is not sustainable or fair, and it carries a real risk to the communities that these buildings serve. The fourth challenge is landlord practices and local authority procedures—too often, local authorities compound these difficulties. They include short-term tenancies, delayed decisions, regeneration schemes that leave organisations in limbo and, in some cases, sudden evictions or unaffordable cost increases. The ability to evict a community organisation with minimal notice is an extraordinary power, and it should be exercised carefully, and not without clear criteria, proper justification and meaningful protections for the communities affected. In the Chelsea part of my constituency, we have a charity called St Mary Abbots Rehabilitation and Training, or SMART for short. Since 1985, it has operated a warm and welcoming centre, supporting people affected by mental illness on their recovery journey. It offers a range of activities and training opportunities, and a popular café. Last summer, the council locked the SMART centre out of its premises without warning and put a dirty great padlock on the gate. There was no alternative provision, nor did the council offer any proper support. It talked about safety grounds, but serious questions remain about the evidence, the timelines and the mitigation offered. Addressing all that was an uphill struggle for SMART, and it felt as though it was in danger of going under. Although a temporary solution was eventually found and reimbursement was agreed in principle, that came only after a prolonged and damaging process during which services were disrupted and vulnerable people were left without support. That should not have happened—it did not need to happen. Of course, for every bad example, there are many examples across the country of excellent partnership working between community centres and local authorities. That said, the baseline must be raised. Risk should not be transferred to community organisations without the security that they need to manage it. That brings me to the fifth and final challenge identified by the Ethical Property Foundation—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do, and I am sure the food bank and community groups in the hon. Member’s community welcome his support. That is absolutely in line with what I am saying—these are essential parts of our community. We have two food banks in my own constituency. It is a crying shame that food banks have now become part of the British way of life; if we look back to more than 14 years ago, there were hardly any in this country. It is an absolute indictment that that should be the case, but the fact that the hon. Member’s food bank is doing so well and supporting people has to be welcomed. The Government have taken hugely welcome steps, but I suppose one could say that they are still first steps, great steps though they are. We need to do so much more to repair the damage caused by years of funding cuts, set against a sharp rise in demand—they go together, sadly.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is indeed, and I am grateful for the opportunity to recognise Farnley Community Centre, which is being innovative in encouraging people not only to get their egg, but to take part in a community discussion about how to spend the money that this Government have made available across the country to boost communities—that is an excellent idea. Besides the Pride in Place programme, which Farnley Community Centre is so cleverly making use of and involving its community in, the replacement of the old right to bid with the strengthened community right to buy is very welcome. It will give local groups a genuine first right of refusal over assets of community value and help communities to hold on to the spaces that matter most to them. The Government also launched the civil society covenant in October 2025, which signals a renewed commitment to partnership and collaboration with the sector. High street rental auctions are helping to bring vacant properties back into use, turning empty units into attractive spaces for community life.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  And meet his mother. I would like to bring the listenership up to two; a 100% increase after this debate would not be a bad outcome. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) talk about how local government in Scotland has been constrained by the actions of the Scottish Government. That is having a serious impact on the voluntary sector. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) reminded me—this is a little secret, which has now been shared—that we are fellow bassoon players, although I have not played since school. That reminds me of the damage that Margaret Thatcher did when she abolished the Inner London Education Authority and decimated musical education across the city. It has still not fully recovered, despite our efforts to improve things. The speech of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) was very interesting, particularly given that he completely avoided the issue that I raised of the damage that austerity under the Conservative Government did. We had years of funding cuts, and of course a very sharp rise in demand for voluntary services. We are grappling with that as we try to repair the immense damage to this country after so many years. It was good to hear the Minister set out in such detail the many things that the Government are trying to do to repair the damage. We cannot pretend that it does not exist. The examples that everybody has given show the huge challenge to the community and voluntary sector and community centres. I very much appreciate the Minister’s determination to ensure that the Government do more. I will very happily take her up on the offer—if it turns into one—of a meeting with Ministers at MHCLG. That would be excellent and I thank her for that. After hearing everyone’s examples and experiences in their communities, I want to close by thanking our community centres and the volunteers in them for their immense work. Our communities are richer in many ways—even if not financially—and definitely happier and better supported thanks to them. I hope the changes that I have called for can be made to give them a boost and the stability that they need.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for voluntary groups and community centres. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate, because voluntary organisations and community centres are central to our public life. I should declare that I am a trustee of the Sands End Arts and Community Centre in Fulham in my constituency. Community centres are the places people turn to when they need help, connection or simply somewhere to belong. Today, I would like to make the case that they deserve far greater recognition, protection and investment than they currently receive. I know that many colleagues are here today to celebrate the remarkable work that community centres are doing right across the country and how they go above and beyond for so many people, providing vital services that might simply otherwise not exist and that can be transformative for people’s lives. Community centres can be described as the backbone of our local social infrastructure; by supporting vulnerable residents and preventing crises before they escalate, they relieve pressures on overstretched statutory services. They are the places where people go for affordable advice, for skills, for culture and simply for companionship, yet many are operating under intense and growing financial pressure that threatens their very existence. The gap between what is needed and what is provided is simply far too wide. It is important to recognise that the Government have taken meaningful steps to improve the situation, for which I am grateful. Through the Pride in Place programme, for example, real investment is now flowing into local regeneration, putting power in the hands of residents and communities to shape the future of their areas.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  Well, it is important to set these things out clearly. Underpinning all these things is the absence of a national framework. There is currently no consistent guidance for local authorities on how to support community centres that are managing publicly owned buildings. There are no clear standards on tenancy practices. There is nothing to help the charities do the job that the community needs them to do. Community centres need longer, more secure leases and fair tenancy practices as the baseline, not as an exception. They need accessible capital funding with processes proportionate to the size and capacity of the organisations applying. They need expert legal, technical and professional support to manage buildings effectively, and a national framework that treats community centres as essential public infrastructure, not as commercial tenants to be managed at arm’s length. I have three requests for the Minister, each of which is, I hope, practical, achievable and capable of making a real difference to community centres across the country—and may I say how much I appreciate the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) to hear them? First, will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue clear guidance to local authorities on the support that should be provided to voluntary organisations managing council buildings, covering both tenancy agreements and day-to-day property management? Too many groups are navigating those responsibilities without any consistent framework to fall back on. That must change. Secondly, will the Department provide guidance on the circumstances in which a local authority acting as a landlord may issue insecure tenancies or tenancies at will? Thirdly and finally, will the Department publish guidance on the rationale and circumstances under which local authorities may remove community buildings? Communities deserve transparency when spaces that have served them for years are suddenly at risk of closure or disposal. Without clear criteria and a duty to justify such decisions, too many closures happen without scrutiny—as has taken place in my community—and too many communities are left without resource. These targeted, proportionate requests for guidance and transparency would provide a foundation for a much more consistent, fairer approach to community infrastructure across England. Community centres across our country are a local gem—there is nothing else like them in our areas—and people’s lives are all the richer for them. The Government have the opportunity to give them the boost they need, and I hope they will seize it with both hands.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  Again, that is an excellent point from my hon. Friend. There is everything to be gained from local authorities looking at the plethora of support available to them, and equally from those providing support—whether it is Sport England, Arts Council or Heritage Lottery funding—being as simple as possible in enabling local authorities and organisations to make applications. I do not think anyone would have any objection to the red tape being reduced in any of these areas.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for calling this vital debate. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) did, I will talk about children, and I would like to start with Amy. Amy had Cockayne syndrome, which is a severe, fatal, multi-organ genetic disease. She lived with it for 28 years, and for much of that time her family felt utterly lost. They were navigating a health system that simply did not know how to help them. What changed everything for her was a specialist NHS clinical service, where she got a co-ordinated team who understood her condition. They knew her, and they became a genuine lifeline. I met Amy’s wonderful mother, Jayne, and sister Louise on Monday at a rare disease day at St Thomas’ hospital, just across the river. I must thank Dr Shehla Mohammed and the Rare Disease UK team, including Dr Bob Sarkany, for a truly inspiring visit. Jayne told me when I met her that, if this specialist service had existed for Amy when she was diagnosed at the age of 14, so much would have been different and so much would have been easier. Amy’s condition was rare, but her experience was not. Right now, there are 99,000 children in this country—babies, toddlers, teenagers—who are living with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions. Their families are navigating the same fear, the same confusion and the same desperate need for someone to show up and know what to do, but too often what they need just is not there. We have recently been talking in this House about the Government’s very welcome new special educational needs and disabilities strategy, which promises to end the battles that disabled children and their parents face to get the support they need. That is exactly right, but it must apply equally to palliative care. What does that support look like? This was mentioned by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. Children’s palliative care is not just about death or bereavement; it runs from diagnosis to the end of life. Sometimes, it runs from birth to early adulthood and beyond, and, yes, to bereavement. However, it is not about giving up. It is about making sure that, however long a child has, and it may be many years, they can live their life and their families can live their lives as well as possible. The rare diseases centre at St Thomas’ hospital showed me what is possible when we get this right. It calls its multidisciplinary clinic a carousel, which is a nice word. It means that patients see every specialist they need in one appointment, rather than having to travel across the country trailing from hospital to hospital over months. That is great when it exists, but the problem is that, as has been said, children’s palliative care is planned, funded and provided inconsistently across the country. That was confirmed by a report of the independent expert panel’s “Evaluation of Palliative care in England”, published last November. It was commissioned by the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton). The report cites Together for Short Lives, which is the leading charity supporting seriously ill children and their families. It told the panel that more than a quarter of families today feel poorly supported, and that nearly one in 10 families feel altogether unsupported. In addition, only a third of existing paediatric palliative care teams are properly staffed, despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on staffing. The Government response to the report is encouraging. It commits to the modern service framework for palliative care and acknowledges that they must improve services for children. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I and the Select Committee will be holding the Government to that, as we will integrated care boards across the country. Within services for children who need palliative care, children’s hospices stand out as a beacon of what can be achieved. They are absolutely irreplaceable. They provide specialist nursing, symptom management, short breaks for exhausted families, and emotional and bereavement support. I hugely welcome the £80 million that the Government have given to children’s hospices over the next three years, so that they can plan ahead more easily, but hospices are scattered geographically. Most families access palliative care through the NHS, which is not providing this care consistently. What needs to improve? I suggest that five things need to improve so that people get what they need, where they need it. First, we need 24/7 care. At the moment, families are alone at 2 in the morning and they do not know who to call. There have been pilots where hospices and NHS services work together to provide round-the-clock care at home, so it can be done. The NHS needs to adopt that model. Secondly, we have workforce issues. There are shortages of specialist nurses in paediatric palliative care and of properly trained generalists. That is a systemic problem, so I look forward to the NHS workforce plan, which I hope will specifically address children’s palliative care. Thirdly, we need to consider neonatal palliative care. Neonatal deaths account for 41% of all childhood deaths. Just before Christmas, I had the unforgettable experience of visiting the neonatal unit at Chelsea and Westminster hospital in my constituency. Since 2015, it has run a most extraordinary national neonatal palliative care programme. It is on track to have trained every neonatal network in the UK from Chelsea and Westminster hospital by 2029. There has been a remarkable partnership at the unit between the NHS, the True Colours Trust and CW+, which is the hospital’s charity. I want the NHS to keep going with that. Fourthly, we have patient groups. Their work, together with the NHS, can be life-saving. They need to be recognised and funded. Finally, as NHS England is abolished, we need to protect the roughly 80 highly specialised services on which the rarest and most complex cases depend. When NHS England goes, we need a national commissioner with the authority to fund these services nationally and to step in when local pressures threaten them. I have set out a number of good examples, and there is real proof of what can work when the system wraps around families. Amy did not get that from the start. Jayne told me how different things could have been if she had. In future, I hope that we can make sure that every Amy—every one of those 99,000 children—gets the palliative care that they need.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister confirm that the MSF will include targeted support for children who require palliative care?

• 2 Mar 2026 · School SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  This plan is to be welcomed. It rightly recognises that families of children with SEND are absolutely exhausted from having to fight and battle for the support they need. I therefore strongly welcome the commitment to end that and to give over 1 million children, for the first time, legally enforceable rights through the individual support plans. But concerns have been expressed to me that, without clear enforcement, ISPs risk repeating the same problem, so can the Secretary of State tell me what happens if a school does not follow a child’s plan? Will parents have a legal right to enforce what an ISP says? In short, how will the Government ensure that these are genuine entitlements and not just more promises that families have to battle to see honoured?

• 2 Mar 2026 · School SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  18. What steps she is taking to improve SEND provision in schools.

• 25 Feb 2026 · UK-German Relations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I have been passionate about strengthening ties between the UK and Germany for most of my adult life, ever since I spent two years living in West Berlin in the mid-1980s—vor der Wende—before the wall came down. I lived in Kreuzberg, a neighbourhood that at that time was surrounded on three sides by the wall. It was an exhilarating, sometimes surreal, experience. It was a vibrant city, but also a cold war frontline, never far from the wall or the watchtowers beyond. I remember having dinner at a neighbour’s flat on the evening of a 1 May street party that turned into a riot of car burning and looting sparked by a boycott of the national census. When we saw the sky suddenly light up, we thought at first that the riots had set a local supermarket ablaze. Then we realised it was East Berlin, and they were celebrating May day with fireworks, completely oblivious to what was happening just a couple of kilometres away. They were very different times. Another memory I have from that time, which may seem a little bit odd—although perhaps not for an English politics geek, whose country lacks a written constitution—is discovering Germany’s proud basic law, the Grundgesetz, and learning about the role that Britain had played in bringing that into being. Germany is deep in my heart, as it is in the hearts of so many of my fellow citizens. I have the pleasure of representing the constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, and Fulham is under the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which has long been twinned with the Berlin borough of Neukölln. I was very impressed, when we visited Neukölln, to see that it actually had the Hammersmith and Fulham crest in concrete at the front of their town hall, which shows a level of respect and seriousness towards local government that we can perhaps learn from. Despite our strong relationship with Germany, we allowed something so precious to be damaged. After Brexit, the UK dropped from being Germany’s third most important trading partner to ninth, and German school exchanges to the UK fell by more than 80%. Our relationship did not break, but it was badly strained. We have to be honest about that, and be honest about the pain that we caused, not just to ourselves, but to the German side of our friendship. That is why I am so moved by the enormous strides we are now making to restore and deepen our partnership with practical steps, as my colleagues have set out, that will benefit all our citizens. We are living in disturbing times. All of us recognise that—today perhaps more than any other day, after four years of the Ukraine war. The United States is retreating from Europe, Russia is a growing threat and the hard right is gaining ground, driving division across our continent, so I am glad that Britain and Germany have chosen to respond by moving closer together, not just in words but in deeds. We have, as has been mentioned, the Trinity House agreements signed in October 2024, laying the foundation of establishing defence co-operation as a central pillar of our relationship. Under it, we have extraordinary things, such as British and German forces now operating together from Scotland to counter Russian submarines, flying jointly in maritime patrol aircraft, joint plans, including for purchase of advanced torpedoes, and growing real-time intelligence sharing. Very importantly, we are also ramping up cyber-security efforts to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare.

• 25 Feb 2026 · UK-German Relations · Hansard source

  More

  Not for the first time, my hon. Friend puts it much better than I could. Cyber-security is an absolutely key pillar of the Trinity House agreement, and AI, quantum and semiconductor investment should be things that Germany and Britain work on together, side by side, to defend our joint security and also contribute to the security of our common European home. We had the Trinity House agreement, and then, last July, we had the good news of the Kensington treaty, signed by Chancellor Merz and the Prime Minister and, as we have heard, ratified in the Bundestag this week— a great moment. That landmark document is not just about defence but about foreign policy, the economy, innovation, energy, agriculture, education and science. It includes 17 concrete priority projects—not words, but deeds. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned the E3, the trilateral grouping of France, Britain and Germany, which the treaty also sets out to reinvigorate. Beyond defence, I am glad to note that we are committed to developing offshore energy connections. Anyone who enjoys travelling to Germany, as I do, will also be delighted by the news that we are trying to build a direct rail connection between London and Germany in the next 10 years, which is terrific. Of course, we also have the wider context, which has been referred to. The UK Government determined, from their first day, to reset the Brexit-damaged relationship with the European Union, and are making real progress in doing so. Germany has been absolutely central to that progress. But the warmth of our friendship goes deeper than any treaty, as President Steinmeier showed when he visited us last December, making, as has been noted, the first state visit to Britain by a German Head of State in nearly three decades. His visit to the ruins of Coventry cathedral was a gesture of reconciliation that I think moved many of us deeply. I had the privilege of telling him personally how much his supportive words meant to us. I cannot finish without noting that the spirit of partnership is embodied here in London by Ambassador Susanne Baumann and her team, who, I am delighted to say, are here with us today. She has thrown herself into her role with tremendous energy and commitment, building new relationships across our public life so speedily and with, I think we would all agree, warmth, intelligence and genuine dedication. I think our country is proud that we can count her as a friend. To conclude, look at what we have achieved together in just one year; imagine what more we could do together. The task ahead is clear: if I may say so, Vorsprung durch Freundschaft—to work as friends with ambition and pace to protect and strengthen our two great countries, our proud democracies and our common European home.

• 24 Feb 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I do. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on replacing Boris Johnson with a much nicer man, who definitely has much better hair. I absolutely agree. We have to recognise that the swiftest path to growth for this country lies in tackling the red tape that Brexit introduced. I think of a small butcher in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, who used to import most of his goods from Spain and Italy and now has shelves half bare because his small distributors just cannot cope with the paperwork. We do not have that £90 billion in tax revenue any more, and that is money that we need badly for our NHS, police and schools after years of Conservative austerity. I am not dismissing the concerns that drove the leave vote, least of all the feeling of not being heard, but the response that the referendum conveyed has made all those problems worse. If we left to take back control, the evidence is that we simply have much less of it. No wonder that two thirds of the British people, including six out of 10 of those who voted to leave, now say that they want a closer relationship with the European Union, which my Government are pursuing. The British people deserve better. This country, diminished though it is, but still undefeated, has never shrunk from doing what the moment requires. Let us seize this moment to repair the damage, welcome the reset, act with ambition, optimism and hope, and put Brexit right.