Fleur Anderson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Supreme Court Dillon Judgment: Policy Implications · Hansard source

  More

  2. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his Department’s policies of the Supreme Court judgment in the Dillon case [2026] UKSC 15.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Supreme Court Dillon Judgment: Policy Implications · Hansard source

  More

  The Supreme Court found wholly in the Government’s favour. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government now have a responsibility to put in place legislation that delivers justice for victims and survivors of the troubles, who are both civilians and veterans, and that upholds the special duty of care to veterans?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend talked about the inquiry during her speech, and I thought exactly that: should there not be one so that, with all this money being spent, we can look at the victims and the necessary justice? In my constituency, I am working the victims of the PIP breast implant scandal. Some 47,000 women are affected, and they have never had any amount of parliamentary money spent on any inquiry. They would look at what we are doing here and want us to look at the proportionality. I always like to raise their case, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope you will allow me to do so. We have to have those comparisons in our mind all the time, and as constituency MPs, we do. Moving on from my three points about the Humble Address, which I hope the Procedure Committee will take up, I will briefly address the idea of publishing the full internal vetting document. I understand why Opposition Members want it published, and I share their frustration about the way in which the appointment was handled, but I must emphasise that I cannot support the publication of the raw vetting documents, because it would do lasting damage to our vetting process.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has made the point very well. There are minority groups. There are people who do not know whether what they are worried about in respect of their past will be an issue, and they will not share that. They will not even go for the developed vetting, which means that they cannot rise within the Foreign Office. They may not even go for the job for fear of it. We cannot allow that to be the unintended consequence of this process today. We cannot hear about it in 10 years’ time. There have been other issues that may have compromised our national security because they have not been shared, or have robbed us of serious talent and opportunity from across the country because people have not joined the ranks of our civil servants because of the things that we are sharing or not sharing within this process. It is not about more transparency; it is about less. It could potentially leave Ministers with less honest advice. It could potentially weaken accountability, and put unfair pressure on civil servants who serve Governments of all colours with impartiality. What the public need is the outcome of the vetting.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises another good point. The rules around redactions were mentioned earlier, and we should ensure that they are consistent between inquiries. We can learn many things from this, and we should build in those things for the future. I will make three points—only three. First, we need scope and limits. Motions should set out the subject, the time period and the type of documents sought much more rigorously than this Humble Address did. Secondly, we need a proportionality check. When we voted on this Humble Address, we were not given financial information. Before the House votes, we should have an estimate from the Government of the likely cost, staff time involved and how long compliance will take. That should be part of our measured judgment. We can weigh that against the public interest and use that information when voting. Thirdly, we should use the right tool for the job. There are Select Committees, as we well know—the Foreign Affairs Committee has been rigorously looking at this issue—as well as written questions, freedom of information requests, police investigations, as there are in this case, and evidence under oath. There are other routes to transparency, too. I am not saying we should have used those things in this case—this is the right one for this matter—but we should be prepared to check with future Humble Addresses whether those other routes should not be used.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Foreign affairs money is being spent on this, when it could have been spent on humanitarian aid or ensuring that our systems and processes are supporting those worldwide to make sure that we are all safer. The Intelligence and Security Committee has been looking at this issue a lot, but we face many other intelligence and security issues in the world. Huge amounts of senior civil servant time has been spent on the Humble Address, too, and those people have been reflecting on the process. I am sharing some of the frustrations that they are feeling, because they have had to look through an enormous amount of papers that are well outside the focused questions we are asking, such as, “Why was Peter Mandelson ever employed in the first place?” We should be looking at that with a laser-like intensity, but we have wide-ranging other bits of paper. I accept that we can never know what we do not know until we have looked at it all, but the civil servants—the ones in the middle of the process—have seen that there could be a far better process.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to that point later in my argument. I hope that my speech today will be something we can learn from, to learn the lessons from this Humble Address and try to make future ones better.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I start, as I must, with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for raising the testimony of Lisa Phillips and naming one of Epstein’s victims. Those victims have names, they may be listening to the debate and they will find this whole process retraumatising and painful again and again. Everything that has happened seems to have been because of an ultimate boys’ club situation: a boys’ club that surrounded Epstein, a boys’ club that surrounded Mandelson and a boys’ club that was in No. 10. Even today we have been drawn into its vortex. I do not like the fact that we are still having to be part of it and still saying his name when he did such dreadful things to so many people. I also pay tribute to the women and girls who were abused and exploited by him and his associates. They deserve truth and accountability, and to know that public institutions have learned lessons. Their bravery in speaking out is why this House keeps returning to questions of standards, judgment and transparency. I ask the House to stand back a bit and look at the Humble Address process. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been following the process very closely. I join the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in saying that I am not an enthusiast for the Humble Address process. I think that it should be used but I have questions about it. I have been very critical of the appointment of Peter Mandelson from the moment that appointing him was even thought about—it should never have gone further than that—through the due diligence process, the vetting process and the final decision. My constituents expect Ministers to be held to the highest standards and when those standards fall short, they expect answers. Some areas about which I have particular concerns have already been raised by Members during the debate. There need to be changes to the appointment system. This process tested that system to the limit. It was an extreme circumstance, with a new Government, a high-profile position, an appointment made very quickly and a rare political appointment to an ambassador role, but a system needs to be tested to the utmost for such a situation. In future, I hope the Foreign Affairs Committee will be given the opportunity to meet candidates who are being considered for political appointment. There may never be any more political appointments after this one, but if there are, they need to be made differently and we need to hear that that will happen. I have questions about the due diligence process. I have asked officials whether it is a pass or fail process. Due diligence is just a part of the process and it cannot be failed, and I think that should be looked at. If there are enough red flags in the due diligence process, why would we go ahead with vetting? In this case, there were a couple of red flags: Epstein, and Russia and China. To me, those are pretty big red flags, so that part of the process should be looked at. The Humble Address process is an important tool for the Opposition to gain transparency. It is an appeal to the King over the Heads of Government, once used for ceremonial messages but now more commonly used as a tool to gain information. In February, the Humble Address process was used for the publication of papers relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. When in opposition, the Labour party unsuccessfully requested Humble Addresses on the cost of the Rwanda plan and the asylum system and on the safety of school buildings, for example, and successfully asked for Humble Addresses on Brexit in 2018 and on Lebedev in 2022. It is a useful tool, but seeking answers is not the same as backing any process regardless of cost or consequence, and so far in this debate, there has been no mention of the cost—the financial cost, and the time cost to civil servants. I would argue that this Humble Address has not been a good process—it has been disproportionate. The Humble Address was drafted so widely that it has become a catch-all, not a focused request for information, which is why many of us are finding the process very frustrating.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his comment about the ISC. I will continue to take advice from that vetting process: it needs to be even more hermetically sealed. We need to take real care over this. Any over-sharing will have an effect on everyone who is asked to sit down and give the frankest and most private information, and we need to make sure that they are doing that so that their potential risk to our security as a country is very well known. We cannot allow self-censoring because of this process. We do not need those far-reaching unintended consequences.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  This Humble Address has been worked on by Ministers and civil servants very diligently, independently and scrupulously, but that has led to some huge costs, which I am going to outline. Maybe that is a lesson that should be learned for future Humble Addresses. As the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said earlier in the week, £1 million has been spent by the Cabinet Office alone. A further £1 million has been spent by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and there have been further costs, including the cost of the independent King’s Counsel; the 16 to 20 civil servants entirely dedicated to this role; the time that the Intelligence and Security Committee has spent on this matter; and the many other civil servants from all the Departments involved in this. Those are huge costs. My constituents in Putney want Government money to be spent on making their lives better, so we should always question whether this inquiry is making their lives better. When we use parliamentary powers, we have a duty to use public money responsibly and proportionately. I want full transparency, but full transparency must be smart, targeted and proportionate. A Humble Address should be a power of last resort, not a blunt instrument. Because this one was drafted on the hoof and without limits, it is taking up huge resource and time, and in doing so risks making future scrutiny harder, not easier. Most Humble Addresses ask for papers relating to a specific decision; this one asked for “all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment…including but not confined to” nine wide-ranging categories spanning from pre-appointment to post-departure, plus all electronic comms and minutes. The breadth of that request is why the Government said: “Given the breadth of the motion, this process will clearly take some time” —[ Official Report , 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 41.] It will obviously take even more time because of the police investigation. Meanwhile, the cost is now £2 million and rising. I reiterate the need to be able to use Humble Addresses as an Opposition tool. Maybe one day, Labour will be in opposition, and we will want to be able to use it. I absolutely agree with that, but I think that some guardrails should be put in place. I ask the Procedure Committee, alongside the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, to review how Humble Addresses are used.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention—it is helpful to understand what happens inside the process. It has to be between the person and the vetting officer, and they must not think that it will be shared further. That is absolutely at the heart of it.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I give way for the last time.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. and learned Member. I have honestly enjoyed these interventions and I appreciate the spirit of dialogue in the House today. We are tackling a very difficult issue and we want to get it right. I agree that the public need the outcome of the vetting: who was consulted, what risks were identified, what decisions were taken, whether a proper process was followed, and what on earth the mitigations were. The Cabinet Secretary or relevant permanent secretary can be called to a Select Committee to answer those questions directly, as the Foreign Affairs Committee has done. That is scrutiny, but publishing the raw documents is counterproductive. To conclude, I remain appalled by, and very critical of, the Mandelson appointment. My constituents deserve full answers, and I await the documents being released by the Metropolitan police after its investigation, but we need to review this process that has cost so much, financially and in the opportunity cost. We also need to put some guardrails around the use of the Humble Address for any future requests, so that they stay focused on the issues that are meant to be investigated. We must make sure that when we demand accountability, we do it in a way that is effective, responsible and sustainable.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for that pushback, but, having spoken to those who carry out the vetting process, I know that understanding that anything you say may be disclosed to a parliamentary Committee is itself a hugely chilling factor. Vetting only works if civil servants can give the frankest, most professional advice without fearing that anything they say will be published or shared with Committees.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this important debate, with so many MPs and such a short amount of time for such a big topic. As the former shadow Paymaster General, I spent two years working on national resilience policy, and I am pleased to see many of those policies emerging in Bills in our programme of government today. I am proud to have secured the 2024 manifesto commitment to strengthen preparedness across central Government, local authorities, emergency services and local resilience forums. I speak today as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the environment. Our APPG is currently conducting an inquiry into national resilience and adaptation. We welcome written responses from any organisations or individuals listening to this debate, including any Members here today. Across two critical evidence sessions, we have covered housing, infrastructure, nature and food systems. We have learned from vital stakeholders including the National Farmers Union, Zurich Insurance, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the UK Green Building Council, the Woodland Trust and Kew Gardens.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  No, I only have two minutes; I am afraid I will not be able to give way. The message from stakeholders has been unequivocal. The UK is fundamentally unprepared for the scale of the climate risks that we face. These risks cascade across systems. Extreme heat killed nearly 3,000 people in 2022, but by 2050, deaths could reach 10,000 people annually. Flooding costs us £2.4 billion every year. Crucially, 60% of England’s most productive farming land is at high flood risk. As the Climate Change Committee’s recent report, “A Well-Adapted UK”, warned, nature must be treated as vital infrastructure. To match the urgency, we must adopt some critical interventions. I first want to ask the Minister whether the lessons from the covid inquiry will be learned and shared. It was an enormous achievement to get that inquiry—there was an enormous amount of evidence—but it really showed that Ministers must not take their eye off the ball, as the previous Government did with Brexit and their lack of preparation for covid. We must learn the lessons, and they must be shared with us now. We need stronger flood mitigation planning, and enforcement by local councils. We must embed strict resilience standards, including, among many other things, planting trees, which is a key action. We must act now before the risks become unmanageable crises.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly will withdraw that. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The cost is being borne by families who cannot magic away the detrimental economic consequences of Brexit with a £5 million gift. The damage that the hon. Member for Clacton has inflicted has compounded, year after year. The Brexit effect has built up and up through uncertainty, higher trade barriers, and businesses being forced to divert time and resources away from growth, innovation and job creation. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I recommend that all Members read our report on the EU reset. The most important lesson the Committee drew is that a reset cannot simply be a collection of lots of initiatives; it must be guided by a clear strategic vision. We need a whole-of-government strategy that defines what we want the relationship with the EU to look like in five, 10 and 15 years’ time, and aligns our economic, security and diplomatic priorities accordingly. I therefore welcome the announcement of the European partnership Bill in the Gracious Address. I welcome the priority that is being given to a better working relationship with the EU. This will benefit the whole country through better security, increased economic growth and more investment for businesses. This is how we tackle the cost of living crisis. On economic co-operation, we must reduce the real-world frictions holding back British businesses. A veterinary sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will cut border checks and bring down costs. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications will unlock services and trade, and where alignment supports jobs and growth, we should pursue it. On security and defence, in a more dangerous world, the UK’s security and that of Europe are indivisible. We should seek to return to frameworks such as Security Action for Europe, which increased military readiness and defence scale-up. We should strengthen co-operation on defence capability, industrial resilience and strategic planning. The choice is not between sovereignty and co-operation; it is between influence and absence. On people-to-people links, the return to Erasmus+ must be built upon with a youth mobility scheme. We should reverse the cutback in school visits, and ensure better access for touring musicians, creatives and researchers. This parliamentary Session will include action on social media and its impact on under-16s. Across Putney, parents raise with me again and again the harmful impact of social media. I recently had consultations in schools in my constituency—in Hotham primary school, Putney high school and Ashcroft technology academy—in which I talked to young people about the impact. I talked about the addictive design, harmful content and sheer amount of time young people are spending online—wasted time that they feel disappointed about. I am really pleased that the Government are already taking action; there are consultations, pilots and proposals for restrictions right now. I agree that we must now go further, and with greater clarity. Other countries are already acting on this issue. The debate here has progressed very fast in the last year, and action now, it is agreed by everyone, is essential. The time has come to set a clear principle that childhood should not be shaped by predatory algorithms designed to maximise engagement at any cost. I support raising the age of social media use to 16, alongside robust and enforceable age verification. This is not about being anti-technology; it is about being pro-childhood. The campaign on this issue in Australia is called 36 Months. It said it so well: raising the age for social media use by 36 months, from the age of 12 to 16, gives young people 36 months to get to know themselves before the world gets to know them. Internationally, I welcome our stance on Ukraine and Iran, and urge the Government to go further in opposing the illegal settlements on the west bank, which undermine peace in the region, and to take more action to boycott illegal settlement goods. In Sudan, 25 million people need assistance, yet the funding gap means that food, medicine and water, sanitation and hygiene services are being rationed. Next week’s development conference at the beginning of this new parliamentary term is a test of whether the changes are more than rhetoric and will be backed up by action. If we reverse the cuts, put money behind frontline health and water systems, and back local leadership, instead of bypassing it with top-down contracts, we can effect real change. There is a false dichotomy between spending on aid and development, and on defence and security. Spending on aid is frontline defence and security spending, just delivered differently. Funding global health, WASH and conflict prevention cuts off the instability that terrorists and armed groups thrive on. Aid preserves a political space for diplomacy and stops conflict, the need to evacuate citizens, and the need to deploy troops. This is a King’s Speech for talent. Britain’s got talent and Putney’s got talent. This King’s Speech shows that this Government back the talent of Putney’s young people. My constituents in Putney voted for Labour at the general election for action—action to change their lives for the better; action from a Government in touch with the issues that really matter to them; and action that takes a long-term view of the changes that are needed. This King’s Speech is a programme that delivers on that, and I look forward to working with the Government on continuing to achieve the ambitious programme for change that we promised.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely respect the work that the hon. Member does in his constituency and across Northern Ireland to bring about reconciliation, but I would say that the Bill does put victims at its heart. The victims have been spoken to constantly to create the Bill and rework it, since the Tories’ Bill did not work, and to put the justice they want at its heart. Across the Chamber, we should make sure that the Bill does deliver what he advocates, because it should deliver justice and the answers for which families have been waiting for so long. I must say that I am disappointed there was no mention of the renovation of Hammersmith bridge in the King’s Speech. I live in hope that one day the King will sit on the Throne and talk about the renovation of Hammersmith bridge. We are one step further, because there is a timetable for applying to the structures fund, and I am very hopeful that funding will be announced soon—this year—for that renovation, so that the bridge can reopen for the six bus routes and all the vehicles now prevented from going across it, which impacts us so much in Putney. However, I was most keen to see the focus on closer alignment with the European Union, and I will focus my speech on that, as well as on protecting children online and international security. Brexit has imposed a deep and enduring cost on our economy and living standards. It is the elephant in the room when we talk about the economy, and the context for the very difficult financial position we are in as a country. Because of Brexit, GDP per person is 6% to 8% lower, business investment is about 18% lower, and employment and productivity are down 3% to 4%. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) will talk about everything he did, except the consequences of the single policy that he has delivered. He sold the country false promises, and we are seeing the consequences today, but he is not the only one that bears the cost.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address in reply to the King’s Speech. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their proposing speeches and congratulate them. It is an honour to be the MP for Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people who have stopped me—on the street, at events or when I go to schools—to thank me for the work I do for our community. That is not often the image of MPs, which is usually about being constantly harassed and abused, but, honestly, the people of Putney are wonderful and I am so grateful for their support for my work. We do not always agree on everything, but they are very supportive of my work as an MP, and I thank them for that. In a short time, His Majesty’s Government have delivered real change that matters to people in Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, who tell me what the Government are doing to make a difference to their lives. We have raised the minimum wage and strengthened workers’ rights, including day one sick pay, protecting renters’ rights and stopping the unfair section 21 evictions. In the last few months leading up to section 21 evictions being stopped, it has been horrific to see that, while the good landlords remain good, the rogue landlords have taken the opportunity to evict people. That just shows why we needed to make that change, and how good it is to rebalance the equation in favour of renters. We have also brought the railways back into public ownership, starting with our own South Western Railway, and I am so proud that we have lifted 450,000 children out of poverty by abolishing the two-child benefit cap. I welcome the ambitious package of legislation announced today. The 37 Bills include those on health, education and security. There is a clean water Bill to tackle pollution and hold water companies to account. There is a Bill to speed up remediation for those living with unsafe cladding, which is still affecting so many people on developments in Putney. There is long-term investment in social housing, and support for victims of domestic abuse to stay in their own home. There is reform of the leasehold system by accelerating the transition to commonhold, including stronger transparency measures alongside tighter regulation of managing agents. This issue plagues so many people in Putney, who have been looking forward to the commonhold and leasehold transformation coming down the line. It will make such a difference to people who do not get enough information on their bills, do not know what they are being asked to pay for and see their bills go up time and again. We are giving them the security of tenure that they have not had up to now. There is also the scaling up of clean energy through the energy independence Bill. The Northern Ireland legacy Bill will build a fairer Northern Ireland, with justice for the families who have waited for too long.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. I am obviously disappointed that he did not suddenly announce when the taskforce will be, when the funding will be given, when the funding will be reconsidered and when the restoration will happen. I live in hope. I am disappointed not to have an update on the viability of the different options discussed by the taskforce and to have no timetable ahead, but I have hope. I am really glad to hear about the spending review settlement with the Treasury. I congratulate him for achieving that. I understand that it is no mean feat to get that money out of the Treasury and to have that money in the structures fund, for which Hammersmith bridge is a good candidate. I am glad that there are not too many other hon. Members in this Chamber vying for the same pot of money. We are good to go with who we have in the room—that will be fine. I am also heartened to hear that the structures fund opened last week. That is the starting pistol and I hope to follow up from this debate with a meeting with the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, the Department for Transport and Transport for London to learn when they will apply to that fund. I am also heartened to hear that the third-third-third funding structure is being reconsidered. It is not necessarily the structure on the table, but I hope that the one that will get this over the line is the one on the table in the end. I will keep coming back. I am sure that the Minister understands that I will continue to lobby on behalf of my constituents not only about the opening of Hammersmith bridge, but about the District line, about the roads, for more active travel and for the ability of cyclists and pedestrians in Putney to enjoy our roads and get where they need to go on time. I look forward to continue to work with the Minister and other hon. Members. I thank hon. Members who contributed to this debate. We work together very much on this issue for the good of our constituents. I look forward to more answers in the future. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his acknowledgment of the many years that I have been campaigning on this issue and that he has seen me raising it in the Chamber. I agree that there is no time to wait, because the longer we wait, the more the bill goes up, as well as the hardship continuing for us. Built in 1887, Hammersmith bridge is one of the world’s oldest suspension bridges. It is a grade II listed structure made of wood and wrought iron; its suspension system rests on cast-iron pedestals. It is not just a piece of infrastructure, but part of Britain’s engineering heritage and a national landmark. However, this is not just about history; it is about people. Hammersmith bridge has always been a lifeline, a critical connection across the Thames used by thousands of cars, people and cyclists—and six bus routes. For seven years, that connection has been broken. The bridge was closed in 2019 on public safety grounds after microfractures were identified in the now 138-year-old structure. It later reopened to pedestrians and cyclists, and in April 2025 the carriageway reopened to pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and e-scooter users, but not to any vehicles or those buses. That ongoing closure continues to have profound and far-reaching consequences for my constituents, especially in Roehampton, which is directly south of the bridge, and in Putney, which has the alternative bridge if people are going east. The impact on daily life has been severe, sustained and deeply felt. Residents in Putney, Barnes, Richmond and Hammersmith have endured years of longer journeys, unreliable transport and constant congestion. I conducted a survey of residents and found that 90% of respondents described the closure as “extremely disruptive”. That comes as no surprise to anyone living locally. This is the issue that comes up all the time, at every event that I go to and almost every door I knock on. Before the closure, around 22,000 vehicles crossed the bridge each day. Those journeys have not disappeared; they have simply been forced on to other routes, creating daily gridlock across neighbouring areas such as Putney. The latest snapshot data from the Department for Transport shows that, between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney bridge increased by 16%. Bus services were among the first and hardest hit. Six major routes, including the 209, were withdrawn, and have still not been reinstated. Others, such as the 533, have been diverted, leaving services overcrowded, delayed and unreliable. Congestion in Putney has now become so severe that in January last year I called together the bus services, Transport for London, the council and the utility services to say, “Look, there’s a real problem here in Putney.” Transport for London officials replied, “Yes, there is. We look across the whole of London, and Putney is especially congested.” In their opinion, part of the reason for that is the closure of Hammersmith bridge.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that question; I will ask the Minister the same thing. Where is that funding? Has agreement been reached between the three bodies, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Department for Transport? That was the agreement, but where is the agreement now? I am not sure where it is or what funding is on the table, so I am hoping to hear from the Minister later. The bus taskforce that I mentioned has had to meet monthly since then and is still meeting. It is really good and we are getting a lot done—we are making changes to try to get the traffic moving—but we still have the constant background of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, which in effect makes transport, particularly on the roads in my constituency and those surrounding, less resilient. When one thing happens, there is a knock-on effect that significantly clogs up the roads. Seven years on, residents, commuters and businesses in Putney are still paying the price. For many residents in Putney and Roehampton, it is not a minor inconvenience or something we could have just got over in the last seven years; it is a fundamental barrier to daily life. The majority of households in the London borough of Wandsworth do not have a car. They rely on buses to get to work, school and medical appointments, as well as to see family. The loss of these connections has made everyday life significantly harder. Behind the statistics are real people, real stories and real consequences. Ana is a constituent from west Putney who came along to my recent action event at the bridge. She has a 12-year-old son, Santiago, who has Down’s syndrome and complex needs. He attends a specialist school in Hammersmith on the other side of the bridge, which is the nearest school equipped to support him. Before the closure, their journey was straightforward and manageable. Since then, it has become an exhausting and unpredictable ordeal, often taking well over an hour each way. On one occasion, Ana allowed two full hours to take Santiago from school in Hammersmith back to a medical appointment at St George’s hospital. The journey took nearly three hours and they missed the appointment entirely. Even when the hospital kindly rescheduled, the same journey the following week still took two and a half hours. It should take nowhere near that and certainly would not if the bridge were reopened to vehicles. That is not just an inconvenience; it is missed healthcare. Furthermore, the closure has cut Santiago off from important social opportunities. He used to attend weekly football sessions for children with Down’s syndrome in Shepherd’s Bush, which supported his physical health, confidence and social development, but the journey became so long and exhausting that he would fall asleep in the car. Eventually, he had to stop attending altogether, missing out on three years of those vital physical activities. I have spoken about Ana’s experience at length because it highlights something we must not overlook: although the closure affects everyone, disabled children and their families are hardest hit. Public transport is not always a viable option, and the long diversions that currently exist place enormous strain on already complex routines. I have heard countless more stories from constituents before and since I told them about this debate. Caroline, another resident, drives to visit her 92-year-old mother for dinner on Fridays. What used to be a 40-minute journey before the bridge closure now takes up to two hours. Paula told me that her heart sinks every time she gets into her car to visit her daughter and family in Hammersmith. With only one viable route left via Fulham Palace Road, what was once a straightforward journey now often takes twice as long with no certainty about the delays she will face. These are the quiet, cumulative losses—a loss of time with loved ones, missed moments and added stress—that rarely make the headlines, but define people’s daily lives. I have also heard from residents whose cancer treatments have been disrupted, from separated parents struggling to maintain contact with their children, and from students cut off from study opportunities. Some of the words my constituents have used to describe the reality of living with the bridge’s continued closure are: “nightmare”, “miserable”, “unsafe”, “disastrous”, “absurd” and “national scandal”. That is the human cost of inaction on the bridge. The consequences are not just limited to individuals; they extend across the local economy as well. More than 75% of local businesses report moderate or severe negative impacts as a result of the closure. Reduced footfall in shops, delayed deliveries and staff struggling to get to work have all taken their toll. Small businesses in Putney have been hit hard. Customers are deterred by the congestion. Journeys that should take minutes take far longer. Deliveries are delayed and more expensive. The closure has created a drag on economic activity across Putney, Barnes, Hammersmith and beyond. At a time when local high streets are already under pressure, it is an added burden they can ill afford. There is also a clear environmental cost. Thousands of additional vehicles are now being diverted through already congested roads, especially Putney High Street, because we can only go along to the next bridge—we do not have all the options that there would otherwise be in a different area. This has led to increased air pollution, higher noise levels and more dangerous conditions for road users. Cyclists are put off cycling through Putney because of the higher congestion and heavier traffic, making it feel more unsafe. I really am worried about potential cyclists—the people we want to get out of their cars and on to the roads using more active travel—because many in Putney are put off. Bus journeys, as I have said, are further delayed as well. The overall effect is a transport network that is less efficient, less safe and less sustainable, and that is not good for our environment. The situation has now become even more acute. On the other side of us, the closure of Albert bridge in February 2026, again due to structural issues, is expected to last up to a year, and we do not know how much longer. That has placed even greater strain on the remaining crossings and has intensified congestion across south-west London. Albert bridge carried 20,000 vehicles a day before the February closure. With two key bridges affected, residents are effectively being cut off from travelling north of the river in a reasonable and reliable way. Of course they can travel, but it is the extra time and the unreliability that people tell me about. For a global city like London, that is not sustainable. Connectivity is not a luxury. It is essential for economic growth, access to services, and the functioning of daily life. Since being elected in 2019, I have consistently campaigned for the full reopening of Hammersmith bridge to vehicles, including buses. I have raised the issue 26 times in Parliament. I have secured debates and led action days and public meetings in Putney. I have worked closely with residents and with Wandsworth borough council, which is also fully engaged and supportive of the restoring of the bridge. I have also worked with campaigners, including the Putney Action Group and Putney Society. I have raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and pressed for leadership and urgency, and I have raised it with the Mayor of London. Since April 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £54 million simply to make Hammersmith bridge safe. To put that into perspective, all London councils combined spent just £100 million between 2010 and 2021 on maintaining and repairing every road and river bridge across the capital, and even then much of that cost was ultimately picked up by Transport for London or central Government. The impact on Hammersmith and Fulham council’s budget is disproportionate. Thanks to the council’s action, Hammersmith bridge is no longer in danger of collapsing into the Thames, but it still costs the council around £2 million a year just to maintain its current restricted state. That money does not deliver a permanent solution; it merely postpones failure. Hammersmith and Fulham council cannot afford to fund further repair works. Continuing to spend millions of pounds on temporary fixes is financially unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. The current approach is not viable and cannot continue. It is wholly unreasonable to expect Hammersmith and Fulham council to shoulder sole responsibility for a nationally significant, grade II listed heritage bridge. The unfair cost share must be addressed. In contrast to the Albert bridge, where funding is shared 75% by Transport for London and 25% by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, responsibility for Hammersmith bridge falls disproportionately on Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is expected to fund around 33% of the enormous cost. Where are we now? Years of stalemate have produced an internationally embarrassing situation and daily frustration for residents, businesses and commuters. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am glad that the new Government and the Minister have taken a much more active role, as the previous Government were so dismissive. The Minister has brought together key stakeholders for the taskforce. A meeting was held at the Department for Transport in January 2025, which I attended along with the key bodies, including the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council, Richmond council, Wandsworth council, the deputy mayor for transport, Historic England and the Port of London Authority. The taskforce considered six options, which I know really well because I get asked about them all the time on the doorstep; people want to know what the options were, what is happening and what will happen next. Option zero, which is the one that is kind of on the table, is the Foster and Partners and COWI proposal to deliver a temporary double-deck crossing within the existing structure of Hammersmith bridge, allowing pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars to use the bridge while the full repair and restoration works are carried out around it using barges. Option one was bridge closure with no access allowed; the structure would remain a beautiful monument, but no more than that. Option two was bridge repair and restoration sufficient to allow for active travel by pedestrians, cyclists and two single-decker buses. That would restore the bridge to how it was before the closure. Option three was bridge repair and restoration sufficient for active travel only. Option four was a replacement bridge with a 44-tonne weight limit—to just get rid of the bridge and build a new one. I cannot tell Members how many Putney residents are in favour of that one. Option five was an offline replacement bridge—one somewhere else—with the existing structure remaining in place either around it or next to it. I really appreciate that the Minister took a back-to-basics approach at the meeting to assess all the options and to see where we are now. In the meeting, option zero—the Foster and Partners and COWI one—remained on the table, and options one, four and five were ruled out on cost grounds. At that meeting, the Minister was also clear that leaving the bridge as it is “is not an option”. Officials were tasked with properly costing the restoration, and Historic England agreed in the meeting to look at revisiting its requirements, which is an important step that could help reduce the previously estimated £240 million cost. I welcome the confirmation since then that funding may be available through the national structures fund and the Minister’s recent statement that Hammersmith bridge would be a strong candidate for investment from that fund. More broadly, the continuing impasse exposes a deeper structural problem. Now is the time to review the ownership and responsibility for all the bridges in London. These strategic assets should sit under a single authority with responsibility for maintenance, repairs and long-term investment. They should be taken out of the responsibility of local councils and put in the responsibility of one single body. In conclusion, Minister, what concrete actions have been taken since the last taskforce meeting in January 2025? Is the Foster and Partners and COWI option still being assessed and considered? What is the current estimated cost—the updated figure—of fully restoring Hammersmith bridge? Have there been meetings, with decisions made, between Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport, and has a viable agreed plan been reached between those three bodies? Has an application been made under the structures fund? If not, when will it be made? Either way, when will a decision about the structures fund funding be made? When will the taskforce next meet—I hope it will be soon—and will a firm timetable be shared with it? Finally, has any assessment been made in consultation with the Mayor of London on transferring responsibility for all bridges to one London body? Let me be clear: action must be taken now. Potential funding is not the same as secured funding, discussions are not the same as decisions and processes cannot become excuses for further delays. Residents have waited for seven long years—seven years of severed communities, gridlocked roads, lost bus routes and daily hardship. That is not acceptable for a major transport route in our capital city. It is not acceptable for families trying to get to school or hospital appointments. It is not acceptable for businesses trying to survive. It is not acceptable for the many residents who rely on public transport simply to live their daily lives. The social, economic and environmental costs are too high. The human impact is too great. What is needed now is clear and urgent: a fully funded plan, a clear and credible timetable, and decisive action to begin—and then end—restoration without further delay. The bridge has stood since 1887; it has served generations of Londoners. Now is the time to restore it and to reconnect the communities who depend on it.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here for this debate. I also thank everyone who attended my recent action event at Hammersmith bridge to campaign for its reopening, and all the constituents—so many constituents—who emailed me in advance of the debate. I know that many will be watching right now. This month marks seven years since Hammersmith bridge was closed—seven years of disruption, frustration and avoidable hardship for residents across west London. The anniversary on 10 April was not a milestone that anyone wanted to reach, but it is a stark reminder of how long communities have been waiting for decisive action and how urgently a fully funded plan is needed to restore this vital crossing. Seven years, 2,566 days, 366 weeks or 84 months—that is how long this situation has been allowed to continue, and those of us in Putney and Roehampton have felt every single one of those days. It is a national disgrace that this issue is not being rectified, but I am genuinely pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am grateful for the many opportunities that we have had to meet since the election and for his engagement on the issue, so I am genuinely looking forward to what he has to say at the end of the debate and to continuing to work together towards replacing the bridge and rectifying this infrastructure failure. I am also grateful to be able to set out clearly the human, social, economic and environmental impacts of the bridge’s closure to ensure that the Minister is under no doubt about the effect that the closure is having.

• 20 Apr 2026 · School Food Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the consultation on school food standards was launched last week. Many constituents have contacted me about the benefits of having more and better vegetarian school meals. Having fewer meals from processed meat is healthier, better for the planet and better value. Does the Minister support updating the guidelines so that the required number of protein-based meals can be met through delicious plant-based options and not just meat and fish?

• 20 Apr 2026 · School Food Standards · Hansard source

  More

  7. What plans she has to review school food standards requiring mandatory servings of meat, fish and dairy.