Toby Perkins MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Palliative Care: North Derbyshire · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome tremendously what the Minister said. It is important to get on record the 55% increase since 2022 because many people contact me to say, “Why have you made cuts?”. Actually, though Ashgate has a £250,000 a month shortfall in what it is spending, there have not been any cuts—it is important that people understand that. I welcome the Minister’s intention to broker a discussion; I am keen to take him up on that offer. Neither staff nor fundraisers are sure of what they know on this issue. They would welcome someone independent coming in to provide that space between the ICB and the hospice. I welcome what the Minister said about the neighbourhood funding model and his recognition that the sector is in crisis, but right now we need, on a local basis, to address the matters that he has raised. I thank him for his commitment to do so.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Palliative Care: North Derbyshire · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to say that a half-hour debate is primarily an opportunity for a single Member to raise something with the Minister, and to get a ministerial response, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made clear, it is an issue that is felt incredibly passionately right across the north Derbyshire community. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) would also have been here if she was not on Ministry of Defence duty in Gibraltar. It is an issue that many of us feel passionately about. It is important to get across that, in those meetings, we wanted to establish what exactly the ICB’s current funding was paying for and how that benchmarked against the overall level of funding that hospices were receiving in other areas, and to get an agreement on an interim level of funding to enable the hospice to continue providing the current level of care while a more detailed investigation into the current cost of care was commissioned.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Palliative Care: North Derbyshire · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. One of the frustrations that many of us in Derbyshire have felt is that there is no clarity on what a reasonable level of funding is and what the expectation is. There are rumours flying left, right and centre. In the middle of all this, the staff, the patients and the fundraisers are left wondering who to believe and what the situation is. I hope that, when we hear from the Minister, we will learn more about that. In the summer, the ICB produced a comparison with NHS-funded care in the south of the county in an effort to show MPs that Ashgate hospice was too expensive, but has now disowned that comparison. After several months of pretty unsatisfactory discussions at which the two sides never reached a settled position even on what was currently being spent, the move from Derbyshire to a three-county ICB model saw a sudden withdrawal by the ICB of any suggestion of interim funding, forcing the hospice to go ahead with plans to make redundancies. Our hospices receive an average of just a third of their funding from Government via the NHS and are reliant on fundraising for the rest. The Government contribution fell dramatically under the 14 years of the previous Government, leaving the gap for charitable hospices to make up even larger. Year on year, hospices such as Ashgate have expended any fat in reserve and are now faced with intolerable financial pressures. In today’s debate, I am seeking to make the case for a more equitable funding settlement for all hospices to gain greater clarity about the particular situation in Derbyshire and see whether anything can be done to stave off these terrible service closures and nurse redundancies in an institution that provides outstanding palliative care. Let me touch on the national context. Hospice UK published research last month showing that 57% of hospices ended the last financial year in deficit, with 20% recording a deficit of over £1 million. That is actually a slight improvement on the staggering 62% of hospices that recorded a deficit a year before, thanks to the emergency £100 million of additional funding provided by this Government. A health system that relies on a sector so chronically underfunded that 57% of hospices are in deficit to provide care is simply not functioning. The Government are right to make it a priority to assist hospices such as Ashgate to get back on their feet. Although it is true that this crisis evolved under the previous Government and sat there on the ballooning list of things to do when this Government came to power, many hospices like Ashgate had spent year after year dipping into their reserves and had no fat left to cut when the Government’s welcome increase in funding was accompanied by the rising employer’s national insurance, the minimum wage increases and the NHS pay increase, which is obviously relevant to the wider health community. Many hospices are on the brink. I join the call of many other MPs from across the country for a more generous funding settlement that recognises the crucial role that hospices play in our health system. Turning to the local situation, it is immensely frustrating to all the Derbyshire MPs, to staff, to unions and to local fundraisers that even at this stage there seems to be a lack of clarity about the current cost of care and how that benchmarks against hospices nationally. A letter I received yesterday from the ICB repeats the suggestion that it has offered to commission an independent review and provide some financial mitigation linked to specific and agreed service mitigations, funded up to £100,000. Indeed, the ICB repeats its view that those financial investigations will be necessary if sustainable solutions are to be found to funding palliative care. Ashgate’s view is that there is no lack of clarity about what money is being spent on, and that it demonstrated that to the ICB’s director of finance at a recent visit. The situation seems largely unchanged since late October, but many staff face the threat of redundancy, and in the run-up to Christmas some have reluctantly and heartbreakingly chosen to leave the hospice. For any member of staff in any profession, a job being under threat before Christmas would be deeply worrying, but it is important to stress that nurses in the in-patient wards at Ashgate hospice are not just any members of staff. As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Derbyshire Dales, they provide support for patients and families at their very darkest hour, when all else is lost and all that remains is the comfort provided by the knowledge that a dying loved one is comfortable and cared for in a beautiful, high-quality and caring environment. The emotional strain on those nurses is huge, and the public empathy and affection for them is widely felt. Their professionalism and compassion is renowned, and the effect of the threatened job cuts on them has been devastating. Although in-patient wards deal with far fewer patients than out-patient and at-home services, many see them as the front door of Ashgate hospice, but they face the biggest cuts: there is a plan to reduce palliative care beds from 15 to six. In response, there has been an outpouring of support for Ashgate hospice from the community. Nearly £250,000 was raised in just two weeks, including an incredible £50,000 from the owner of a Chesterfield-based business, Peter Kelsey. Those funds will allow the hospice to keep open two additional beds for another six months, and care for perhaps another 25 patients near the end of their lives. Hundreds of my constituents have contacted me and my colleagues to voice their concerns about the situation at Ashgate hospice, and many have also written directly to the ICB to make the case. Despite the claims and counter-claims, there is now widespread distrust that urgently needs clearing up. The ICB continues to imply that Ashgate services are too expensive, although there has been no formal update following the director of finance’s visit to the hospice on 1 December. Staff and unions have been left confused and concerned about the implication that the finances are not straightforward, and remain frustrated about the process. They have questions about whether every step has been taken to reduce costs. Staff at Ashgate have been alarmed at communications coming out of the ICB, which they believe undermine their reputation for professionalism and financial prudence. If trust in Ashgate’s ability to run its operations is diminished, it will have grave consequences for future fundraising. What is not in question is that the care that Ashgate provides is outstanding and that, as of this new year, dozens of north Derbyshire’s most gravely ill patients, who would previously have been able to obtain a bed at Ashgate, will die either at home in less comfort, with family members put in intolerable situations, or in an acute bed in the local hospital sector, possibly at greater cost and in less comfort than was the case last year. I want all my constituents to receive the best end-of-life care possible, so it is hugely disappointing that palliative care patients in north Derbyshire will lose access to those beds, and that nurses at the hospices will be worrying about whether they still have a job. I want to shed light on the distressing and unacceptable situation of service cuts and redundancies at Ashgate hospice, and I seek further clarity and transparency about the funding situation for palliative care in Derbyshire to see whether anything can be done to hold at bay cuts to services at Ashgate. Although charitable income will always play a vital role in hospice care, allowing hospices to deliver holistic care that goes way beyond NHS provision, hospices need fair and consistent Government funding, which needs to be transparent and clearly linked to contracts. Crucially, it must reflect local need. Whether a person lives in Chesterfield, across wider north Derbyshire or elsewhere in the country, they and their family should have access to quality palliative care when they need it most. I would therefore appreciate hearing the Minister’s response on several points. First, will he join me in lamenting the devastating cuts at Ashgate hospice? Does he agree that this situation, whereby in-patient palliative care services in north Derbyshire are being reduced, is unacceptable? Will he or his office intervene to ensure that Ashgate hospice and the local ICB reach a transparent and agreed position on the current funding situation, and examine how that position compares with national expectations about funding of palliative care? More broadly, will the Minister set out the Government’s plans to ensure sufficient and sustainable funding for hospices in the future? Can he confirm whether he has any concerns about the cost of care at Ashgate hospice? If he cannot, will he get this matter on the public record, so that people across north Derbyshire can be confident that the money they have raised through fundraising—hard-earned money—is being prudently spent? Does the Minister agree that, six months after the beginning of discussions locally, it is completely unacceptable that there is still a lack of agreement about exactly how much is being spent on care by the ICB and how much commissioned care the ICB is funding? Can he do anything to provide clarity about this situation? Since 1988, Ashgate hospice has provided exemplary care to thousands of dying patients in north Derbyshire. It must go on. Its nurses deserve better than to lose their jobs and to worry about whether something else could have been done. I implore the Minister to ensure that the hospice sector is given the support it needs to play its crucial role, and that locally in north Derbyshire every avenue is explored to save jobs and beds at this wonderful institution.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Palliative Care: North Derbyshire · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Ashgate Hospice and palliative care in north Derbyshire. In late June of this year, my fiancé Amanda and I found ourselves, along with 3,000 others, dressed in bright-pink t-shirts, wearing flashy-pink bunny ears, setting out from Chesterfield football stadium on the annual Sparkle Night Walk, a fundraiser for Ashgate hospice in north Derbyshire. Fundraisers raised over £385,000 that night—another reminder of the precious place that Ashgate hospice has in the hearts of the people of north Derbyshire. It is often said that everyone in north Derbyshire knows someone who has been helped by the hospice. It is impossible to overstate the affection for it, or the commitment that local people demonstrate to raising funds for it. Ashgate is a charitable hospice providing specialist palliative and end-of-life care for about 2,600 people each year across north Derbyshire. In October came the devastating announcement that Ashgate was consulting on making as many as 52 posts redundant, and planning to close 60% of its in-patient beds.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Palliative Care: North Derbyshire · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a reason why Ashgate holds a dear place in people’s hearts. It is because at the lowest ebb, Ashgate has been there to provide love, care and support when all else is lost. This is a story that we hear so many times. While the announcement caused shockwaves across the community, it did not entirely come as a surprise to Derbyshire MPs, who had for many weeks been attempting to get clarity between the then Derbyshire integrated care board and the hospice on a number of issues.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  No Minister could be doing more than my hon. Friend to try to drive forward the house building that we need, and that will be greatly welcomed by many of those who are struggling to get hold of a property. I am also pleased about what he said in response to the question from the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). However, many of us are concerned about developers who sit for years on planning applications without bringing them forward. Planning permission was given to the former North East Derbyshire district council site in my constituency more than four and a half years ago, but nothing has been built, and the building is running to rack and ruin. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the powers enabling councils and central Government to work together, so we can ensure that the errant developers who will not get on and build are brought to book and that they pull their weight as well?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Digital ID Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  4. What recent progress his Department has made on implementing a digital ID scheme.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Digital ID Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Britain has a proud track record of providing refuge for people fleeing persecution and war, but when tens of thousands of people are travelling across many safe countries to get here, it is clear that the criminal gangs’ sales pitch—that Britain is an easy place to find illegal work—is working. Can my hon. Friend tell me how digital ID will help us smash those criminal gangs and tackle the scourge of illegal work?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments. The UK has shown global leadership on international climate finance over many years, both in the £11.6 billion we are providing over the five years to 2026 and in encouraging other major nations to recognise their responsibility to those nations most in the firing line from climate change. Following last week’s Budget, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that Britain remains committed to that and will include inflation increases?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  Meeting international colleagues at COP30, the extent to which the UK’s track record and the policy of this Government are hugely respected was absolutely clear. In fact, while many of the steps this Government have taken received huge support, there was also great respect for the steps that the previous Government had taken. I share my right hon. Friend’s despair that the current version of the Conservative party not only opposes his policies, but trashes its own history, which—in this area at least—should be a proud one. While I absolutely believe that we would not have got the statement that we did get without his work and the work of his colleagues over there, does the Secretary of State agree that it is disappointing that the road map towards the eradication of fossil fuels was not agreed? On that basis, what more will he be doing to try to bring that coalition together to get greater agreement when we get to Turkey next year, or even before that?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has not actually answered my question. He is talking about the policies of the last 15 months, but the problem he is alluding to of developers sitting there with planning permission and not building has been going on for 15 years or more. Can he be realistic about what his solution is to get developers to build the developments they have planning permission for?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. The Lords amendment is sensible and well-intentioned. Even if it is rejected, as the Government are minded to do, he makes an important point: we need to get clarity that, in the majority of cases, the approach would be of this narrower type. The Minister has given us some assurance that, in the event we start seeing certain EDPs misused, we will be able to scrutinise that process, so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say in response to my right hon. Friend’s point. I welcome the Government’s package of amendments during the Lords stages, including one that specifies that robust scientific evidence must be used by Natural England to develop an EDP. These improvements largely address the original concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. However, I urge the Minister to consider proactively providing a list of environmental issues that might be considered suitable for EDPs. That would provide reassurance that this new and powerful tool will be directed only towards diffuse pollution issues such as those set out in amendment 40, where EDPs will have environmental benefits and provide the most value for development. Amendment 39 would embed a brownfield-first approach in the new SDS. Building on brownfield land can help to revitalise towns and cities, as well as avoiding developing greenfield land. However, it can be more expensive: there are often clean-up jobs to be done on site. In large urban centres, brownfield development is often still profitable, but, in smaller towns such as Chesterfield, the additional factors in developing brownfield land can make development unprofitable, so sites sit undeveloped, as the Robinsons site in my constituency has for more than 20 years now. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what more the Government can do to promote development on brownfield land. Both nature and safe, secure housing are enormously important to people, and our constituents deserve both: they deserve to breathe clean air, to live in safe and healthy homes, and for their children to be able to play in a local river, free from pollution, but they also deserve to have affordable housing in the communities in which they live. That is the balance that the Government must strike. Although the EDPs introduced by the Bill are an important tool, they are only part of the answer to solving the housing crisis and to improving our natural environment. This is an important Bill and is much improved. We need to ensure not only that we get it passed as soon as possible but that the work of protecting nature does not begin or end with this Bill and carries on long after it.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that there are examples of where species should not be able to be moved, but Lords amendment 40 does not relate to some cases but to all cases, and it sets out in statute that species should never be moved. Does he agree that the Government’s approach, which will prevent species from being moved in many cases, is better than setting in statute something that could block so many opportunities?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Many people are concerned about this issue, which the shadow Minister’s party also faced when in government. Why does he think that developments do not get built despite their planning applications getting approval?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that Government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry to explore that exact question last November, and we will shortly be able to share our conclusions and recommendations to Government. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a central plank of the Government’s plan to unlock the planning system in order to deliver the housing and infrastructure that Britain needs. I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who rightly identified the issue of developers sitting on land. I have to say, as someone who has been in local and parliamentary politics for 23 years, that that has always been the case, so it was unconvincing that, having identified the issue, he did not seem to have any solutions. He listed a number of things that the Government might consider, without enlightening us as to whether he supported any of them, so it is clear that the Government will have to crack on alone if they wish to address this important issue. The Bill has been significantly improved during its passage, and my original concerns about part 3—which were shared by many others—have been allayed. I have been through enough debates on legislation in this Chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening to give credit to my hon. Friend the Housing Minister for having listened to criticisms and skilfully clarified how the Government will respond. I thank him for that. Unfortunately, the Minister’s work has been made more difficult by briefings that characterise nature as a blocker to development. In fact, research from the Wildlife Trusts found that bats and great crested newts were a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. I think these anti-nature narratives are at best lazy, and often unhelpful; they distract from some of the more significant challenges in the planning system, such as the lack of resources and skills in local authorities to support good planning applications. Tackling those genuine planning barriers, alongside this Bill, will be essential to building the homes that we need. Lords amendment 40 would limit environmental delivery plans to only certain environmental impacts, including water pollution, water availability and air pollution. Addressing environmental impacts at a strategic level, as enabled by the EDPs introduced by the Bill, has the potential in some circumstances to deliver more benefits for the environment and faster planning outcomes. In some circumstances, this strategic approach would absolutely not be appropriate—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) alluded to, harm to a site-loyal species would often be impossible to redress in a different location. I do believe, though, that it is reasonable to steer clear of stipulating on the face of the Bill which environmental issues EDPs could be developed for in future, as Lords amendment 40 would do. If guided by current robust scientific evidence, or evidence that might come to light in future, it is possible to imagine that a strategic approach for addressing environmental impacts could be found to be appropriate for issues beyond only water and air pollution.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the housing issues that we all see in our constituencies, so it is interesting that there are so few advocates for building. Whenever there is a new housing application in Chesterfield, we get people who live nearby saying, “I’m a bit concerned about this.” We get lots of people saying that there are not enough houses around, but they never come to us and say, “Please can you support one of these new applications?” Maybe we should give some thought to how we do more to build for the huge number of people who are inadequately housed. We need more housing developments in order to actually create some movement in favour of these developments.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the water Minister for meeting me recently to talk about the issues on Tapton Terrace and on the River Hipper in my constituency. We are grateful for the money she has found for the plans to look into this, but can she tell us how we can speed this up? There is great impatience about getting people on Tapton Terrace protected.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman wonders why this might not have happened. It might be something to do with the 14 billion quid that he has not worked out how the Government will find. If it was so easy, why, in all those days before covid, did his party never do it in 14 years?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Environmental Audit Committee has just completed its very detailed work on aviation expansion, which we will announce soon. One thing that came across was that the Climate Change Committee was advising demand management as one of the ways that it should be delivered, consistent with our environmental commitments. I am glad that the Secretary of State has reaffirmed that the expansion will have to be consistent with those commitments, but can she tell us whether demand management will be part of that? What assessment has she made of the aspects that will require Government policy rather than being within Heathrow’s gift, such as the expansion of sustainable aviation fuel? Finally, I am glad to hear that she recognises that this is a 21st-century plan with 20th-century road links and 19th-century rail links, so can she tell us more about how she will reduce the overall carbon emissions contribution that Heathrow makes?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Higher-level Learning Target · Hansard source

  More

  The construction skills hub in Staveley in my constituency is a great example of the value of apprenticeships, and this year 68 young people came straight out of school and started a new construction apprenticeship. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way we will be able to achieve the Government’s ambitious construction plans is by getting more people to take on a construction career? In welcoming the announcements that she is making, can she say what more she will do to ensure we get more young people into our construction industry?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Higher-level Learning Target · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that it meets its target of two thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is absolutely right to say that there is support across the House for this really important Bill. She is right also to pay tribute to the previous Government for some of the work they have done, but it is true to say that, despite the fact that in the last Parliament there were many times when this Parliament did not have a great deal to debate, we never actually got this on the statute book. Just over one year into this Government, when there is a tremendous amount of legislation, we have managed to find the time to get this through. I pay tribute to the Minister. I think it is worth taking that bit of credit because we are doing something that has not previously been done.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to rise to support the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. The introduction of this legislation marks the beginning of a process for the UK to ratify and implement the global ocean treaty. This vital agreement enables the protection of international marine life. No protection currently exists for wildlife such as fish, turtles and dolphins that inhabit the high seas, over which no one country has jurisdiction. The ocean, which covers more than 70% of the surface of our planet, is a vital shared resource. It provides us with sustenance, oxygen and genetic resources for food, medicines and research. It is also our greatest ally in the fight against climate change, as the largest carbon sink on the planet. However, it is an ecosystem under perilous threat. Increased ocean temperatures are symptomatic of the warming climate, and endanger us on land through a decreased capacity to absorb carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, rising sea levels and the loss of vital marine life and resources. The introduction of this legislation reaffirms this Government’s dedication to protecting global marine life as well as mitigating climate change and improving our natural environment. In the current moment, when the environmental consensus is at risk and there are those who would retreat from the world, pretend that we can draw up a metaphorical drawbridge and keep safe behind the safety of political castle walls, this Bill is a significant marker of this Government’s commitment to multilateral processes, which are in fact the only way to address some of the great challenges of our time. This debate is one of many on the environment and nature that I have attended in recent weeks and months to which not a single Conservative Backbench MP has bothered to turn up. I do not say that to thumb my nose at them; I say it because it is profoundly depressing. I oppose the Tory party with every fibre of my being, but it is one of the great political parties of western Europe over the last 100, 200 and more years, and it has just given up. His Majesty’s official Opposition is just not interested. That is not just today; it is in debate after debate that I attend. Some hard-working Opposition Front Bencher turns up, but not a single person sits behind them. I say to them, in the most earnest sincerity, that election defeats are disappointing, but the Tory party has to man up. It must turn up and start taking this seriously, because these are matters of the most supreme importance, and we cannot have the official Opposition just refusing to engage. I have to say that the comments from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) were pretty lukewarm. I understand that the previous Government looked at this issue for quite some time, but they never got as far as legislating. In listening to what he said, I was left uncertain of how supportive the Opposition actually are of the proposed measures; we will find out more in Committee. I hope that, having committed to this issue in government but never actually legislating on it, they will get behind this important legislation. As we have heard, this Bill fulfils the commitment made by the Labour Government at the UN ocean conference and in opposition. The oceans need UK leadership and action. The evidence that the EAC received during our recent inquiry, “Governing the marine environment”, painted a worrying picture of the state of the marine environment. It is under threat globally from global warming, pollution and overexploitation, leading to a 49% decline in populations of marine mammals, birds, reptiles and fish species according to the Living Planet Index. UK seas are also in poor condition, failing on most of the indicators of good environmental status in the most recent assessment by the Government. However, there is some good news: marine conservation efforts are effective. When we do them, they work. While only 9% of the ocean is currently protected in a marine protected area, remarkably half of all catalogued marine species have been reported in those areas. Some 72% of species facing extinction have found refuge in marine protected areas. The Government are taking important action to better protect the 38% of UK seas already designated as marine protected areas. I repeat what has been said by other colleagues: we want to see the Government going further. Damaging activities can still take place in those areas, but the consultation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) is vital. Nearly two thirds of the ocean is considered high seas or international waters, which poses a governance and logistical challenge: how is it possible to protect areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of any one nation? That is why the global oceans treaty of 2023 was so significant—a landmark moment in providing the legal foundation for establishing MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The creation of protected areas in the high seas is essential to making 30 by 30 a reality. This Bill, which establishes the legal framework necessary for the UK to meet its obligations, is vital. Its Royal Assent will lay the groundwork for the UK to ratify that agreement. As we have heard, 60 countries have already ratified the treaty, so it will come into force next January, and the first UN ocean conference will be held within the year. As such, it is vital that the UK gets on with ratifying that treaty so that it can be party to discussions and can shape agreements. Setting out a timeline for the UK’s ratification of the global oceans treaty was one of the key recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee, so we welcome the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice having kept their word on that. This is a narrow Bill that allows the UK to fulfil our global commitment. I caution well-meaning allies against extending the process or undermining the commitment that the Government have made by attempting to attach to the Bill other commitments that are not relevant to it and create division—in this incredibly important area, what we need is unity. However, the ratification of this treaty is just the start. We have much more to do to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030 and establish marine sanctuaries where marine life can thrive. To conclude, I strongly support the Bill. I look forward to its passage through Parliament, and I thank the Government for prioritising this issue despite a heavy legislative workload. It is a welcome development that provides the powers and regulations needed for the UK to ratify the treaty, working with other nations.