Kit Malthouse MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sir Roger, can I ask about mainstream delivery?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Could you talk us through eligibility with regard to neurodegenerative diseases, and whether you have in place any variations and considerations for things such as Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease? Is the main delivery mechanism for VAD in Australia the mainstream health service, or is it delivered through a separate wing, arm or organisation?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I just want to clarify the referral issue. As I understand it—I may have it wrong—your 2013 guidance on medical practice and personal beliefs says that doctors should refer, in cases such as those of abortion, to a colleague or service provider rather than a general information source. Mark Swindells: I do not believe that we use the word “refer”, but I will double-check. The word “referral”—this is part of the BMA’s position—has a particular meaning in the world of medicine. We talk about the importance, from a patient perspective, of not being left with nowhere to go, so there is some professional responsibility on the doctor to guide.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have been searching for parallels in current practice, and one that seemed close to me was if I wanted to donate an organ—say, a kidney—to a relative. As I understand it, a doctor can raise that possibility, even if I have not thought of it at the front end of that family decision, and coercion and capacity are then assessed later via a trained individual. Do you think it would be possible to translate both of those into this situation? As I understand it, the General Medical Council already has guidance on dealing with assisted dying if it is raised by a patient, and how doctors should handle that. How easy would it be to translate that guidance—the process struck me as something that does not hinder but also does not enable—into something more informative? Mark Swindells: It is important to note that our guidance on assisted dying is framed in the current law, so it guides doctors to explain that it is not lawful for them to assist their patient to die. It talks about the importance of explaining other available treatment options, including palliative care; making sure that the patient’s needs are met; and dealing with any other safeguarding matters. Oure guidance does follow the law, so if the law were to change, we would obviously attend to that. It is not framed quite as you are suggesting, so I do not think that would lift and shift into what the guidance would need to be for doctors if this were to pass. Dr Green: I do not have any experience with what you are describing, but it would certainly make sense to look at best practice in other areas.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You are clear, though, that doctors should be free to have an open discussion with their patients about the whole variety of possibilities or paths that may be available to them as they face a terminal disease? Dr Green: As a general principle, I do not believe that unnecessary barriers should be put in the way of communication. This is such an important area for patients that it is vital that they form a good, trusting relationship with their key medical adviser, who would usually be a doctor. I also have to say that at the end of life, we depend a lot on our specialist nurses— Macmillan or Marie Curie nurses—and it might well be that they are the person whom the patient trusts most. Please do not put barriers in the way of understanding.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Right, so professional judgment again—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Professor, I want to test a little further the notion of a separate organisation that you mentioned. I can understand a separate discipline emerging, acquired by training, which is what happens in palliative care at the moment. We heard from previous witnesses that simplicity in safeguards is key, and in particular from the CMO that we have to avoid the last 6 months of someone’s life being a bureaucratic nightmare. At the moment, within palliative care and palliative nursing generally, you are already dealing with patients who are electing to refuse treatment, food and water, or are supporting patients following an advance directive. If you are supporting people in those circumstances as they move towards their death, do you think that it could be absorbed within the current functions, rather than having a separate organisation? Professor Ranger: It is difficult. If I am honest, we have probably not explored that enough within our thinking as a college. We know what we would not want to see, which is a situation where there is an expectation that it becomes part of a pathway. It has got to be something you actively seek and opt into. I think how that is administered probably requires more thought, if I am honest, but I would not want to see it becoming an expectation of a pathway, because then the pressure on the individual may change. That is something we need to safeguard against. I am worried that we should not make it so bureaucratic for the individual that it becomes impossible to have their autonomy respected, but how that happens is something that needs further exploration. We would fully support making it as clear and unbureaucratic for the person as humanly possible. But we would not want to see it as a sort of pathway within our current setting, because there could then be a sense that this is something that is externally influenced rather than being something that someone actively seeks for their autonomy.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In the run-up to Second Reading, we heard from some of the overseas experience that where there was effectively a gag clause on doctors, it was proving to be extremely difficult, and the medical profession felt that that was a big barrier to discharging its duties. Would you recognise that? Dr Green: Indeed. I believe that in New Zealand—and I think in the state of Victoria, but I would need to check that—there have been official reviews that have identified those concerns, and they are looking to review the legislation.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I understand the BMA’s concern, but my concern is about saying, “Here’s a leaflet—you’re on your own,” or “You can get information from this place.” For somebody who is in extremis at that point in their life, that might prove a significant barrier. Would doctors reflect that in their sense of responsibility towards the patient? Should we leave that open rather than having what is currently in the Bill? Dr Green: We would expect that to be done with sensitivity.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and in particular the addition of Jane Monckton-Smith. I have read her book; it is definitely worth a read and is pretty alarming. I will address why I do not think the Committee should support the amendment to the amendment tabled to add other witnesses. Jane Monckton-Smith has done a huge amount of research in the area, and as well as being an academic who specialises in coercion and femicide—and the impact that coercion has on femicide—she is a former police officer, so has significant frontline experience. As part of her research she will have spoken with and interacted with many of the groups that the hon. Member for Bradford West is proposing to include—although maybe not specifically. I would prefer it if we stuck with the list that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has put forward, and not add the additional witnesses proposed.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Understood. My other question is for all of you, but particularly Dr Clarke. You have mentioned autonomy a number of times. The Bill is trying to pass autonomy to the individual at a particular moment at the end of their life. It feels to me that the picture painted currently is a largely unregulated one. Dr Clarke, I think you said that there are no regulations or guidelines about what is going on. As my colleague Sarah Green said, there is no monitoring or measuring of what is going on. In general terms, given that patient autonomy is at the centre of this, would you welcome a set of rules that is understandable by patients and doctors, rather than what we have at the moment, which is—casual is not the right word—an ad-hoc negotiation at the time, depending on what the patient wants to do? Dr Clarke: I think that is not quite right, and certainly not what I intended to convey. There are rules. There are very clear legal and professional rules and guidance and protocols around how to have these conversations. However, in practice, the quality of the conversations is contingent on the confidence, expertise, training and background of the individual clinicians having the conversations. There can be a great deal of inter-doctor variability in how conversations are conducted. In terms of addressing that, I would suggest that in an assisted dying scenario the crucial thing is to make the guidance and training as robust as it possibly can be to reduce the inter-practitioner variability.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to pursue that point a little with you, Dr Cox. My understanding is that your profession is already taking these decisions, or supporting patients to take these decisions—for example, the withdrawal of ventilation for an MND patient towards the end, or if I decide to decline treatment or food and water to end my life as quickly as I can. Presumably, you already have guidelines or training about assessing coercion and capacity in those circumstances. I think in some—for example, advance directives—you are legally obliged to comply with a patient’s wishes. Are those guidelines and safeguards broadly translatable across into what, from my point of view, is another choice that a patient may make to end their life? Dr Cox: There are two differences that I would identify. The examples you give are of somebody who may be naturally dying and is being kept alive, so the difference is that you are withdrawing a treatment; you are not intentionally killing them. This is the first difference with assisted dying. The second difference, I would say, is that you are absolutely right that we do make those decisions with patients—with their families, if they wish—but in a multi-professional team. I would almost never make those decisions as an individual doctor without the support of my colleagues, for several reasons. First, as I have said already, that makes for much better decisions—they are safer and more robust. Secondly, the moral distress associated with these decisions is much less if you share them. That is also a worry for me—what happens to the moral distress of the co-ordinating doctor and the other assessing doctor? They are carrying a lot of moral distress. My understanding is that a very small percentage of doctors will want to engage with this—maybe 1% or 2% of all doctors will want to be in those assessing positions. They are carrying a lot of that distress because they will be doing a lot of assessing.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sorry to interrupt you, but I am conscious of the time. We heard this morning how vital training is; I think that is broadly accepted from a number of voices. I want to question you about the issue of the choice people face. I understand the point you are making about the variable state of palliative care versus the choices people face, but that is quite macro. Day by day, patients are facing a choice about what is ahead of them in the next few months. I would not want to put words in your mouth, but I presume you are not saying that, for the good of the whole, they should go through an awful death that they do not want to go through while we wait for palliative care to catch up. Dr Clarke: No, of course not.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was no intent in my remarks to undermine the integrity of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I may have misunderstood his remarks, but he implied that the Committee was adopting some kind of veil of secrecy over our affairs and I was pointing out to him that, in my view, that was a misunderstanding of what we were attempting to do yesterday. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was offended, as he knows I hold him in great affection and I had no intention to do so.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support the money resolution, broadly for two reasons. The first is the significant risk to the reputation of the House. One of the greatest criticisms of this place is that we play games and do not take these issues seriously. We all accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, a money resolution is normally a technicality for private Members’ Bills. If the Bill fell at this moment, we would not only deny debate to those Members who expressed either soft opposition or soft support for it on Second Reading, but strike a hammer blow to millions of people in the United Kingdom who are looking to us for a sense of leadership and clarity on this issue. I hope that there will not be a Division today, but if there is, I urge Members to vote in favour of the resolution. Those Members thinking of voting against should bear in mind that the message that would go out from this place would be that a matter of life and death—a matter fundamental to many people, and on which there are profound feelings on both sides of the debate, as we have seen—can be dismissed on the basis of a casual, technical vote on a quiet Wednesday afternoon. That would be a bit of a travesty. I hope that Members realise what is reputationally at risk. Secondly, there is broad misunderstanding of what the Bill is designed to do. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) said, in effect, that the money resolution offers a blank cheque. Well, the rest of the NHS is already a blank cheque. Over the years, things have evolved in such a way that Parliament gives Government Ministers permission, through estimates, to make judgments about how they prioritise spending on the services for which they are responsible; and the Chancellor makes judgments about spending for Departments. If this House starts micromanaging spending—saying what the Government should spend on particular drugs, treatments, crimes or interventions—we will end up in an unholy mess. I have yet to hear anyone in this House object, for example, to the creation of a new criminal offence on the grounds that it would be more costly for the police. I have yet to hear anyone in this House object to the NHS prescribing a new drug because it will be costly for the health service. We must remember that the people we are talking about—the dying individuals who may want to make this choice at the end of their life—are already receiving treatment in the national health service. They are already reliant on expensive care services, drugs and so on, as well as social support mechanisms that cost the taxpayer. It is, of course, important that we see the overall impact assessment, but we should not pretend that the status quo is cost-free, because it is costly—not only in monetary terms, but in terms of humanity. We should not forget that we are attempting to put a price on quality of life, and on mercy at the end of life. I urge Members to reflect on that and support this motion. Finally, let me address the misunderstanding by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). There was no attempt yesterday to create any air of secrecy about consideration of the Bill in Committee. There was a brief period in which we had hoped to have an informal discussion about witnesses, before the public sitting resumed, which is normal for Bill Committees in these circumstances. Unfortunately, that has been misconstrued, but I guarantee that the rest of proceedings will be open for the public to view.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have no desire to detain the House for long, but I have some questions that I hope the Economic Secretary can address, continuing our conversation in the Delegated Legislation Committee earlier this week. The Economic Secretary and I are both alumni of TheCityUK, so she will know that what financial services want most of all is certainty of regulation and decision making. They need to know that the playing field is level and predictable. While we are all patting ourselves on the back about Silicon Valley Bank, the consensus that everyone did a good job makes me slightly suspicious. The Bank of England effectively made three decisions during the unravelling of Silicon Valley Bank that I want to put on the Economic Secretary’s desk for her to consider. Is more certainty required from the Bank of England on the triggering of those decisions? First, the Bank of England denied Silicon Valley Bank short-term funding. SVB UK was solvent, as it would have to be as a UK subsidiary regulated by the Bank of England. It applied for £1.8 billion of short-term funding when it became clear that its parent company was in trouble. That funding was denied by the Bank of England, and I do not think there has ever been any significant examination of why the Bank took that decision. Obviously, there was a run on Silicon Valley Bank, with depositors seeking to pull out their money, and the bank was unable to honour those withdrawals, which is why it applied for short-term funding. A possible alternative route could have been a temporary freeze on withdrawals and/or the provision of short-term funding, which could have allowed the bank to remain solvent in the UK. Understanding what triggered that decision, and how other banks in similar circumstances might be handled by the Bank of England in future, is key. Secondly, as the shadow Minister said, the Bank of England initially decided to put Silicon Valley Bank UK into insolvency and rely on the £85,000 depositor guarantee and the £170,000 joint depositor guarantee. We do not know why the Bank changed its mind.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  That is useful information about the Bank’s decision making. However, the Bank still decided to go for insolvency prior to a resolution mechanism. I find it hard to see that, within that 36-hour period, it had not canvassed whether there was a market for the bank. My point remains: if I were an investor or an overseas bank trying to establish and invest significant funds in a UK branch, I would like to understand why the Bank of England makes these decisions, and the criteria and parameters by which it is likely to make a decision either way. Then, of course, the final decision was taken to sell or transfer the bank to HSBC—for a minimal consideration, I think. I really want to understand what value was placed on that bank going to HSBC, as opposed to any of the other banks that might have been bidding for it. At the heart of this is my worry about competition. When a bank is put in this resolution position, obviously it needs to move to another bank that has significant assets and can fulfil the rightful demands of its depositors to withdraw their funds. That will naturally be a bigger bank, and there is a possibility—although hopefully this will not happen, as we will not use resolution very often—that small, higher-risk challenger banks will find themselves unable to obtain short-term funding from the Bank of England because of their size, and will therefore be gobbled up by the leviathans of the banking system. Over time, there might be a natural move back towards where we were prior to all these challenger banks appearing—to having four or five massive banks that dominate the system in an uncompetitive way. I am asking the Minister not necessarily to change the legislation, but to consider setting out in a code of conduct what consideration the Bank of England has to give to the competitive landscape when it is resolving a bank. When it transfers one small bank to another small bank as part of a resolution, for example, that wheel might be oiled with a bit of short-term funding, in the interests of maintaining that competitive landscape. The cost of that should not fall on the taxpayer; effectively, it should be a loan for repayment. One of the benefits, if you like, of the 2007-08 crash—one of the silver linings of that cloud—is that we have a much more diverse banking landscape than before. There was recognition that having these huge organisations that crash the entire global economy if they fail was dangerous for the western economy, and that a much more diverse landscape was therefore desirable. The problem with that, obviously, is that there is more inherent risk in those smaller banks. If there is more inherent risk, we are likely to see more resolution, and in time we may end up back where we were. I support the Bill. I think that resolution is exactly the right way to go, and we should obviate the risk to the taxpayer. There are also negatives to the system, though, so I hope that the Minister, who I am sure will do the job with aplomb, will think carefully about the impact on the world of the Bank of England’s decision making and predictability; about what the Bank can do to provide transparency, whether through a code of conduct or indicators of practice; and about the impact of resolution on competition.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment (b) and to the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford West. As we discussed in private, I am concerned that the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, has been through an extensive period of trying to collate everybody’s recommendations for the Bill and reach a list that is both manageable within the timeframe and a compromise for all of us on what we would like to see. The odd adjustment here and there is fine, but we ought to bear in mind that in any one session we need to have sufficient time for people to speak. We have to be careful not to double up because we may or may not think that a particular witness might propose a view with which we are sympathetic, when we already have people who are covering the same subject. On amendment (b), for example, all psychiatrists are regulated by the General Medical Council, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bradford West knows, so effectively the royal college is a doubling up of expertise, which is not necessarily in the interests of time. Similarly, in amendment (c), the hon. Lady is proposing a physician from Canada—

• 21 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  But we will be coming back to public—

• 21 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will just finish, if I may. Our Bill is built on a very different legal framework from Canada’s. Drawing legislative parallels between the two seems like a cul-de-sac, not least because, as the hon. Lady will know, the legal framework in Canada is dictated by the charter of rights and freedoms, effectively a constitution, which has been used there to widen the scope of the law. Canada started from a very different place as well, so I am not totally convinced. What the hon. Member for Spen Valley has tried to do with the list is to find overseas territories that are analogous to our own and have adopted a model similar to ours. We are therefore trying to learn lessons from the process of debate and legislative procedure that they went through—either to learn from them or to learn from their mistakes. For example, knocking out the Member of Parliament from Australia would be a mistake, not least because Australia has been through a number of iterations with its law. Most of Australia has a bar on doctor initiation of the conversation. The medical profession think that that is a big negative in Australia, as I understand it, so I would like to understand why, politically and in legislation, it was felt that that was needed or helpful, and why it was imposed. On the other amendments, the hon. Member for Bradford West is making a value judgment about comparative expertise between Amanda Ward and whoever she wants to propose instead—Philip Murray. I do not know why she is making that value judgment, but as far as I can see, the names were properly submitted in the process. The hon. Lady obviously had the chance to submit names during the process. For better or worse, as she may see fit, the hon. Member for Spen Valley has come up with a list that is a compromise. That is not to say that the hon. Member for Bradford West cannot arrange briefings with any of these experts outside the formal process, for Members to attend should they so wish, or that she cannot seek advice from them during the process of the Bill. My primary concern about the amendments is that we are opening up a whole area of debate where we could all have gone with our suggestions. I would rather stick with the list that we have, because I fear that the hon. Member for Bradford West is doubling up and making value judgments about expertise that are not necessarily warranted.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to make exactly the same point. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire has fundamentally misunderstood what is happening. He referred to there being a discussion through the usual channels. What the hon. Member for Spen Valley has proposed is that we have that discussion now—she said informally—because we have not had the chance to do so before, and that we then return. Then my hon. Friend is free to say whatever he likes about whatever witnesses and table his own amendments as he wishes. There is no intention to conceal anything. If I might be so bold, I think he has misunderstood the process.

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  Given how Government finance works, the Secretary of State knows that he has, in effect, cancelled the replacement of Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital. That is despite, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, the now Prime Minister going there during the election campaign and making a specific, unequivocal and unconditional promise that the hospital would be replaced by 2030. Sadly, it looks like that will now not be the case. I am sure the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), who is in the Chamber, will be considering his position, given the promises he made. Are we able to rescue something from this wreckage by purchasing the site? As the Secretary of State will know, we are now likely to lose the land. It is a critical site, so can we please buy it before it slips from our grasp?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  That is not what I am implying at all. In this instance, I think that resolution was the right thing to do. What I am saying is that the Bank of England’s first decision, on the Friday, was to go for an insolvency and only pay out 14% of the deposits. It was only after pressure was brought to bear on a supposedly independent bank over the weekend that the strategy was changed to a resolution and the bank was transferred to HSBC. In fact, the Bank of England issued a press release to the effect that it was putting the bank into the insolvency procedure, and then over the weekend changed its mind. I am asking about the integrity and quality of the Bank of England’s decision-making procedure, given that it initially proposed to do exactly what the Minister says should not have happened.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I have no wish to detain the Committee, but I do have some questions about the particular process we are discussing, not least because, as I understand it, it was the first time that the Bank of England had used its resolution powers as they currently stand. What happened has wider implications that we need to think about for the health of financial services in the City of London. My first question is this: could the Minister confirm that there is no litigation outstanding either in the UK, or contemplated in the UK or in the United States, that this measure seeks to obviate? If that is the case, will she elaborate a little more about the decision making of the Bank of England during the process? Although she outlined what happened at a very high level, she did not fill in all the detail. For example, as I understand it, Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd, the subsidiary, was a perfectly solvent banking entity within the UK. It applied for £1.8 billion of liquidity funding to the Bank of England when its parent was getting into trouble. A decision was made by the Bank of England at that point to deny funding to that bank. Has there been any review of that decision? Is the Treasury aware of why the funding was not made available? What assessment was made by the Bank? In future, if other banks apply for similar liquidity funding when overseas parents are in distress, what criteria will be applied so that everybody knows exactly what they are doing? The Bank then initially made a decision to put SVB UK into an insolvency procedure—it did not immediately go for resolution—and in that insolvency procedure, obviously depositors were due to get their £85,000 as guaranteed, or £170,000 for joint accounts. But something changed over the weekend, because by the Monday, the Bank had changed its tune and was going for what has now resulted, which is the sale to HSBC for nothing. Do we know why it made that initial decision? My guess is that it changed its mind because the depositors went nuts. Lots of tech start-ups had large deposits with that SVB UK, and much of it had been money raised from shareholders. There was obviously quite a lot of political intervention, but what were the influences on the Bank’s decision making? If it changed its mind because the Treasury, the PRA or the FCA said that it should change its mind, why was its initial decision therefore deficient? What does that say about the Bank of England’s decision making? Finally, given that that was the first time that those powers were used, I wonder whether there has been a review by the Treasury—as one might expect in such a petri dish experiment situation with such a valuable industry—as to whether what happened was overall beneficial both to the UK economy and to financial services. The Minister will understand that financial services are extremely valuable to this country and that anything that creates a sense of instability will detract from the attraction of the UK for financial services. The structure of Silicon Valley Bank, specifically—that it had a subsidiary in the UK, rather than a branch—was meant to promote the sense of stability and independence of regulation that would, in theory, have allowed it to trade independently. All those questions need to be asked. If there has not been a review, I would be grateful if the Minister, given that she is new to the job, might acquaint herself with the issues in a little more detail and satisfy herself that this measure is not a negative for overseas banks establishing branches here, because since this situation, I cannot see —I have had a look, although I may have missed it—that any overseas bank has done so. If they have not, is this why?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, my constituency is the source of a number of globally significant chalk streams, not least and most famously the River Test. A number of Members were pressing the previous Government to bring forward a chalk stream recovery pack, to help get those rivers back to their best state of health, so you can imagine our disappointment when we learnt in the media before Christmas that this pack was being abandoned, as was subsequently confirmed in a ministerial statement. Could we have a statement urgently from the Secretary of State about what he will do to replace that pack and bring these rivers back to the state of health they should be in?