Westminster Hall

Monday 22 June 2026

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 2024-26, Israel Palestine conflict, HC 488, and the Government response, HC 1374; and oral evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 16 June, 13 May, 22 April and 11 March 2025, on The Israeli Palestinian conflict, Session 2024-26, HC 488.]

I remind hon. Members that “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” notes: “The privilege of freedom of speech in debate…allows us to conduct our debates without fear of outside interference. But it is a freedom which should be exercised responsibly, in the public interest and taking into account the interests of others outside this House.”

Additionally, paragraph 21.21 of “Erskine May” states: “Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”

The rules of behaviour further note: “There is no hard and fast list of unparliamentary words. Whether something said is a breach of order depends on the context…Any abusive or insulting language used in debate will be required to be withdrawn immediately.”

I remind members of the public that they are here to observe proceedings, not to participate or comment. Demonstrations of approval or disapproval are not permitted and any interruption of proceedings will result in removal from the Public Gallery.

The debate is very oversubscribed and there will be limited time. If a Member’s name is not on my list to speak, they will not be called. I still expect anyone who is on my list to bob, and any interventions will be minimal, in response and in asking. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.

I beg to move, That this House has considered e petition 752646 relating to pro Israel influence on UK politics and democracy.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.

On a point of order, Mrs Harris. This is no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who introduces the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but am I alone in feeling distinctly uneasy about this debate? Why is Israel singled out in this way? Why not Gulf countries, Iran, eastern Europe or the USA? The petition is being discussed at a time when the Jewish community are clearly under threat and are suffering numerous hideous attacks. I am not sure I trust the motivation of the petition organisers. I fear the whole thing smacks of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Thank you for your point of order and for notifying me of it in advance, but decisions relating to the publication of e petitions and the scheduling of e petition debates properly sit with the Petitions Committee. If you have not already done so, I encourage you to make direct contact with the Chair of that Committee regarding your concerns. I reiterate that, as Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers regularly remind Members in the main Chamber, there is a need for “good temper and moderation” in parliamentary language, as set out in “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21. The same rules and courtesies apply in Westminster Hall, and you can be assured that I will exercise all my authority to make sure they are complied with.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his point of order. As he will discover during the course of my contribution, I have a great degree of sympathy with his remarks. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While I will take interventions later in my speech, I would be grateful if I could develop some of my key points before doing so.

The petition was created by Andy Kalil and signed by over 118,000 people. I begin by making it explicit that I do not support the petition; indeed, I believe that it raises profound concerns, not because it seeks scrutiny of politics or lobbying but because of the way in which it frames those concerns and the sinister narratives upon which it draws. The debate raises important questions not simply about foreign influence or political advocacy but about the boundaries between legitimate political criticism and conspiracy theories that have historically fuelled antisemitism.

Let me also say at the outset that I recognise that many of the people who signed the petition, including the 194 in my constituency, may have done so in good faith. Many will have believed that they were supporting transparency in public life or expressing concern about the events in the middle east. I do not question their motives; however, Parliament has a responsibility not only to consider what is being said but to understand the historical and political context in which it is being said. We have a duty to recognise when language and ideas echo prejudices that have caused immense harm throughout history.

The petition calls for a public inquiry into what it describes as “pro Israel influence on politics and democracy”.

That wording matters. The petition does not call for a review of lobbying regulations generally. It does not seek greater transparency about foreign influence from all states; indeed, it cynically overlooks the fact that there are campaigns and lobbies operating in the UK in support of almost all countries in the world. It does not ask for a broad examination of how political advocacy works in the United Kingdom. Instead, it singles out one country and, more importantly, invokes a long standing allegation that people who support that country exercise hidden or improper influence over our democratic institutions.

That false accusation has a very long and very troubling history. For centuries, at the heart of antisemitism has been the claim that Jews exercise secret control over Governments, political systems, financial institutions, the media or public life. Those ideas have appeared in countless forms throughout history. They have been repackaged and modernised for different generations, but the core allegation remains remarkably consistent: that Jews acting collectively and covertly manipulate political events from behind the scenes.

The most notorious example was the fraudulent document known as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which purported to reveal a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Although repeatedly exposed as a forgery, its pernicious influence was immense. It fuelled antisemitic movements across Europe and beyond, and helped to create an environment in which discrimination, persecution and violence flourished.

Today, such ideas are often expressed through different language, but the ill intent of its practitioners and its harmful consequences for Jews and wider society are all too familiar. Rather than speaking explicitly about Jews, some speak about Zionists, the lobby, hidden influence networks or pro Israel control. The packaging has changed, but it is no less insidious in its implication.

Like many of my colleagues, I have been accosted while walking outside Parliament by so called peace activists handing out mock banknotes with “Bank of Zionism” written on them—an insinuation of Jewish control of our politics and economy. It is unmistakably racist, but that is exactly the sort of harmful activity and rhetoric that has become commonplace—the sort of message that today’s petition stems from.

That is why concerns have been raised by so many across the political spectrum about the framing of the petition. This is not an attempt to prevent criticism of Israel or shield any Government from scrutiny. The Government of Israel, like every Government in the world, can and should be subject to criticism. Their policies can be challenged. Their decisions can be debated. Their actions can be scrutinised robustly and vigorously. Indeed, that is entirely consistent with democratic debate.

It should be noted that extensive parliamentary time has been spent debating Israel. In the year following Hamas’s horrific terror rampage of 7 October 2023, MPs made an astonishing 4,369 contributions in the Chamber relating to Israel. Consider for a second that that is more than double the number of mentions of the national health service, at 1,895. In the same period, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was mentioned 1,449 times, while the appalling suffering unleashed by the war in Sudan warranted only a paltry 225 mentions. The same disproportionate focus on Israel within this place continues to this day.

Presented with those facts, it is undeniable that anyone who claims the existence of a lobby seeking to silence dissent is nothing less than delusional. A reasonable case can be made that the very opposite is true: Israel has been uniquely singled out. Holding Israel to standards that are not applied to any other country is an unmistakable breach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, as the former UK special envoy for post Holocaust issues, Lord Pickles, has warned.

The IHRA definition also as potentially antisemitic identifies allegations concerning Jewish control of Governments, institutions and public life, as well as accusations of dual loyalty directed towards Jewish citizens. The grossly disproportionate focus on Israel, and the hardline language that that has all too often entailed, means, I regret to say, that this mother of all Parliaments has played a dangerous role in the explosion of antisemitism in this country. It is a painful truth, but Lord Austin was right to say so last week in the other place.

As part of my preparation for the debate, I spoke to academics from the Royal United Services Institute who have considered the extent of foreign influence in the United Kingdom. The clearest and most substantiated concerns identified by successive Governments, parliamentary Committees and security services relate to hostile state activities from countries such as Russia and China. That makes it all the more striking that the petition singles out Israel, and frames its concern in language that echoes long standing conspiracy theories about hidden influence.

There is a clear difference between criticising a Government and advancing allegations that supporters of that Government exercise covert influence over democratic institutions. The concern is about not simply what the petition says but what it implies. When political outcomes are routinely attributed to hidden influence rather than democratic choice, trust in democratic institutions is eroded. Conspiracy theories weaken our democracy, encourage suspicion and promote division. That is true regardless of who the alleged conspirators are, but when those allegations reinforce one of the oldest prejudices in human history, the consequences are particularly serious.

We should also remember that conspiracy theories do not exist in a vacuum. History teaches us that conspiracy theories portraying Jews as powerful, manipulative and disloyal have often preceded discrimination, exclusion and violence. That is not a theoretical concern. At a time when antisemitism is rising across many parts of society, we must be especially careful not to lend legitimacy to narratives that reinforce such ideas.

The context matters. The Jewish community in Britain has experienced a sustained increase in antisemitic incidents in recent years. Many British Jews report feeling less secure than they have for decades, and synagogues, schools and community institutions continue to require significant security measures.

I briefly declare an interest: the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and I co chair the all party parliamentary group on British Jews. I applaud my hon. Friend for the robust way in which he is introducing the debate. Does he agree that, given global events, our Jewish constituents are justified in feeling uneasy, and that we must absolutely ensure that we do not import those conflicts on to the streets of our country?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Against a backdrop of the Jewish community asking for extra protections, it is entirely understandable that a petition built around allegations of hidden pro Israel influence has generated such deep anxiety. Many British Jews hear in that language echoes of accusations that have been directed at their community for generations. We should listen carefully to those concerns.

That does not mean that public life should be beyond scrutiny—quite the opposite. Transparency is essential, foreign influence should be taken seriously, lobbying should be transparent, political donations should be properly regulated and Parliament should remain vigilant against inappropriate influence from any source, but those principles must be applied consistently. If concerns about lobbying exist, they should be addressed through the established mechanisms that already exist.

The challenge for all Members today is to ensure that the debate does not inadvertently amplify the very narratives that have caused such concern. We must expose those narratives, not to amplify but to challenge conspiracy theories. Parliament is at its strongest when it combines robust democratic debate with moral clarity. As legislators, we have a responsibility to understand that hatred evolves and adopts new language to advance old prejudices. We must now respond appropriately.

If there is one positive outcome of today’s debate, I hope it will be that there is a greater public understanding of how antisemitism can manifest in modern political discourse, particularly through conspiracy theories concerning power, influence and loyalty. We should use this opportunity not to legitimise those narratives but to expose them.

This should not be a partisan issue. Members from every party should be able to agree that legitimate political disagreement must never rely upon, excuse or reinforce antisemitic narratives. We should be collectively clear that allegations of covert Jewish or pro Israel control of politics are not legitimate political criticism; they are rooted in a tradition of antisemitic conspiracy theory that has caused immense harm throughout history. Parliament should reject those narratives.

The Prime Minister and the Government have rightly committed to a whole of society approach to tackling antisemitism. This debate is therefore about more than a petition; it is an early test of their resolve to confront antisemitism wherever it appears. I hope the Minister will use his contribution to make it clear that conspiracy theories concerning Jewish or pro Israel control of politics have no place in democratic discourse.

I hope that Members from all parties will stand together in defence of democratic debate, free from prejudice and conspiracy. Allegations of hidden pro Israel or Zionist control of British democracy draw upon a tradition of conspiracy thinking that has poisoned public life for generations. Parliament should reject those ideas, and send a clear message that antisemitic narratives, whether old or newly repackaged, will find no home in this Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Order. The clock displays are broken, but we are working on fixing them. I will notify Members by coughing just before their three minutes are up.

I refer Members and the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: scrutinising foreign influence is not, in itself, a problem. Any healthy democracy should look hard at lobbying, donations, pressure groups and influence campaigns wherever they come from. That is not and should not be in question, but it is exactly my concern about how this debate is framed. They should be scrutinised wherever they come from.

If this is about foreign influence in general, let us have that conversation properly; if it is about transparency in lobbying, let us have that conversation, too; but if the concerns keep landing on Israel specifically, more than they do on other countries, as has been mentioned, it is worth pausing and asking why that might be. There is something deeply uncomfortable about the idea that, out of nearly 200 countries, it is the world’s only Jewish state that needs a special parliamentary inquiry into hidden influence. I gently note that this type of framing has a very long history, and it is not always an easy one.

Jewish people have, at different points over the centuries, faced accusations of secretly controlling Governments, finance or politicians from behind the scenes. I have heard versions of those accusations, sometimes about me personally. I am not suggesting that everyone who supports this debate has that intention, but it is worth being honest about the fact that the framing echoes something older, more sinister and more troubling.

Given that more than 100,000 people have signed this petition, I hope that the Minister considers including something educational in his response, just so that people have the full context. I also push back on the idea that Israel somehow escapes scrutiny in this House. As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, it is one of the countries we debate the most regularly.

Whether it is on military action, settlements, Gaza, sanctions, trade, arms exports or the recognition of Palestine, I have criticised Israeli Government policy myself. That is exactly how it should be. We should feel free to criticise any Government’s actions—British, American or otherwise. Criticism is healthy. Where there is genuine evidence of wrongdoing, it should of course be looked into, as it would be for any country. I just ask that we hold to the same standard on Israel as we would for anywhere else, rather than treating it as a special case.

Most of us are in this job because we believe in something—our values, our constituents, our party—or simply honest disagreements with one another. I know that I cannot be bought and I never will be, so I ask that we try to avoid both naivety and overreaction here. Let us support the principle of transparency being consistently applied to every country in the same way, and let us be mindful, so we do not end up unintentionally leaning on older, uncomfortable and wrong narratives.

I hope, Mrs Harris, that anything I say here today will not cause you to cough or choke, but I want to be very clear that the motion we are discussing is not about lobbying and it is not about the influence of Israel on politics. This is yet another angle of the antisemitism that we are experiencing in this country, especially driven by the left.

As other speakers have already pointed out today, it is a very dangerous idea that somehow or other Jews control politics in our country. We have seen examples throughout history, from when Jews were accused of co ordinating a program of poisoning wells that caused the black death, to the Holocaust, when Hitler accused Jewish influence of causing Germany’s defeat in the first world war, and therefore claimed that it had to be dealt with. We have seen the impact of antisemitism in this country. We only have to look at what happened in Golders Green, in Manchester and in other attempted bombings of synagogues to see the threat that Jews feel in this country, and to know that the poison of antisemitism has an impact on people’s lives.

I agree with other speakers that if there is a secret Jewish lobby seeking to influence Government in the United Kingdom, it is not being very successful, because Israel has been the most scrutinised country and their Government the most scrutinised Government here in Parliament. In the House and in Westminster Hall, almost every week we have questions, urgent questions, written questions, statements, debates and so on about Israel. Some of our own domestic affairs, such as unemployment, inflation and the health service, receive less scrutiny, so to say that somehow or other the Jewish lobby has influenced the direction of our politics just does not withstand examination.

Israel is the one of the few democracies in the middle east. We should debate the positive contribution it makes to our country, in terms of help with security, research and development in health, and in other ways. We benefit from that collaboration and that research, and that is what we should emphasise today.

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on his opening speech.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies Jones) said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in deep scrutiny of the things that may or may not influence our politics, but it should not just be focused on Israel. China, Iran, Russia and Belarus are all bad faith actors that seek to change the way we do things in this country, yet there often seems to be very little attention given to them.

That worries me, for two reasons. For those who do not know, my wife is Jewish. I am not “declaring” that, because it is not something that I need to declare, but it is relevant for the purpose of this conversation. She is a British Jew, a British citizen. She had the audacity in a previous life to stand for election and get elected, and she was a much better MP than I ever will be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] [Laughter.] To fund that election campaign, my wife took a donation from a British citizen who happened to be Jewish. What happened? Her name appeared on a list propagated by the Green party’s deputy leader, Mothin Ali—it continues to be propagated to this day, by the way—which talks about politicians being “bought and sold for Israel.”

My wife was not alone on that list. There are also members of the current Cabinet, members of the shadow Cabinet and Members of the House of Lords—individuals whose only contribution has been to try to make a difference in society. They are British citizens being funded by British citizens. The only difference is that the British citizens offering those donations are Jewish.

Unfortunately, that is where debates such as this one lead to in society. When someone expresses a pro Israel position, one starts to ask, “Why do you think that? Are you Jewish? What is your opinion on Israel?” before a conversation with them about anything else can start. It drives debate to a place where we are sceptical of people who are Jewish, because they might have some tenuous link to a country far away. What does that do? That stops Jewish people wanting to participate in any form of public life. I know that to be true, because other Jewish people tell me that, and I have seen it in conversations around my dinner table.

I was in a synagogue in Manchester on the day that the Heaton Park synagogue was attacked. I saw British citizens who were scared—scared because of the pervasive narrative that has been allowed in this country that because Israel is a Jewish state, Jewish people are rightful targets for attack and scrutiny disproportionate to the impact that they have on society. Although I welcome any debates that allow us genuinely to scrutinise the impact that foreign Governments have on this country, the fact that we are yet again spending all our time talking about just one—the only Jewish state—says more about the petitioner than about the people here to debate it.

May I start with a preamble? It is important to say that this is not about the Jewish community; it is about the state of Israel. We must be careful in our words and ensure that we do not conflate the two.

It is always said that the strength of a nation’s alliance is measured by how much it can endure. For two years, this Government have supported the state of Israel through the unimaginable: genocide in Gaza, illegal settlement building in the occupied west bank, and even war in Iran. It is also said that the power of a lobby group is measured by how far a Government can be pushed beyond the limits of policy making. I think it is fair to say that for millions up and down this country, the Government’s approach to Israel has defied the most basic logic, justice and humanity. Continued arms sales amid mass extermination, the weaponisation of terrorism law to silence dissent, the welcoming of wanted war criminals on the steps of 10 Downing Street—with every decision this Government have made, it is not only reasonable to ask questions about political influence in Britain, but necessary.

This is not about Jewish communities or Jewish identity, and it is not about denying anyone the right to advocate for Israel, Palestine or any other state. Lobbying is part of our democracy, but when such practices are shrouded in secrecy while shifting huge sums of money, we must ask, “Are this Government truly committed to cleansing our politics of foreign influence, or are they just concerned with blocking the foreign donations they do not get?”

This is about more than simply election funds. It is about access and influence. Anyone who claims that these donors receive nothing in return is being naïve. The transactional nature of donations applies no less to those in the highest echelons of our democracy. Just this year, Labour Friends of Israel, which funded many Cabinet members, was reported to the Electoral Commission over concerns about opaque funding arrangements. Ministers in this Government publicly identify themselves as members of that organisation, yet it is not registered as a Members’ association, and therefore avoids the further disclosure requirements that accompany that status. That cannot be right.

More troubling still is the question of direct support from the Israeli state. Electoral records show that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided financial support to UK parliamentarians. That must be transparent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mrs Harris, but I take no pleasure whatsoever in speaking in the debate on this petition. Its manipulative title fits the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, as Lord Pickles has clearly stated.

I must register my interests. I am, of course, a Jewish MP—perhaps the only Jewish MP in the Chamber this afternoon. I am a member of Labour Friends of Israel and of the all party parliamentary group on British Jews, and a representative on the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Shame on those who have orchestrated this regurgitation of antisemitic tropes. It is ancient just as it is predictable. In 1190, 57 Jews were slaughtered in Bury St Edmunds, then Norwich, Lincoln and York. Our country has a terrible record of anti Jewish hatred, and all the Jews of England were expelled in 1290. Few people know that. Antisemitism is not new in this country.

Just think a little about the title of the petition: “pro Israel influence on UK politics and democracy”.

It is familiar; we have seen it before. In the ’20s and ’30s, German antisemites and Nazis argued that the Weimar Republic had become verjudet—“Jewified”. In 1941, Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as secretly manipulating London, Washington and Moscow. The idea that Jews exercise hidden influence over politics, democracy and society is not new; it is an ancient conspiracy theory repeatedly used to isolate Jews, undermine social cohesion and stoke hatred.

Let me tell the Chamber what really threatens democracy: the funding of political parties by billionaire expats; Elon Musk’s claims that civil war in Britain is inevitable; the vice president of the United States blaming the terrible murder of Henry Nowak on mass migration; Russian interference in democracies across Europe; and alleged Iranian links to a number of recent attacks on Jewish institutions, synagogues and communities—yet here we are, forced to debate Israel’s role in our politics and democracy. Antisemitism is an ancient hatred repeatedly repackaged to distract people from their real grievances. Once again, it is rearing its head in Britain, reaching appalling levels on our streets, in our workplaces and online.

This debate is making those divisions worse, and the terrible conflict in the middle east is no justification for it. Citizens of conscience march with a genuine and heartfelt sense of outrage at the war, and I respect that, but there are those who seek to intimidate. Hon. Members should try being a law abiding Jew in a British town centre on a Saturday afternoon—for too many Jewish citizens, public spaces are not safe.

Let us come to our senses. We must reject antisemitism in all its forms, reject conspiracy theory dressed up as political analysis, and defend a politics based on evidence, decency and truth.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This motion is antisemitic in its very motivation and at its core. As such, we should utterly reject it. Hon. Members have spoken brilliantly and passionately about that, but we can turn that terrible negative into a positive.

The motion asks us to talk about the influence of Israel on democracy. Democracy thrives when citizens are healthy, so maybe we should celebrate the incredible brilliance and influence of Israeli scientists, entrepreneurs and those specialising in medical research and artificial intelligence applications. Their work and innovations, whether they live in the state of Israel or somewhere else such as London, have an incredibly positive influence on the success and health of us all.

We should say that we want more of that success and brilliance—more of that innovation and more partnerships with brilliant Israeli scientists who can share their knowledge and understanding. I want more entrepreneurs from Israel listing their companies on joint listings, preferably on the UK stock exchange rather than somewhere else. I want more AI experts from Israel sharing that best practice and knowledge for the benefit of all of us.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that we need more of the AI weapons that Israel has used to shoot at children’s genitalia in Gaza?

The use of AI across society, and its applications in all industries, are changing rapidly, but I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the best way to guarantee peace is to prepare for war so that our opponents respect us.

To conclude, Israel has so much to offer as the only democracy in the middle east and we should work closely with it. As other hon. Members have said, there is a massive difference between criticising politicians who may be elected in a democracy—whether in Israel or elsewhere—which is completely legitimate, and criticising a state. I want to celebrate the influence of incredible entrepreneurs, scientists, technicians and cyber security specialists in Israel, from the Jewish community, and in our great nation—and I want to have more of that, not less.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. This debate touches on a principle fundamental to our democracy: British democracy is by the British people, for the British people and accountable to the British people. No foreign Government, no matter who they are, should abuse our system for privileges at the cost of British interests.

Historically, many foreign actors have tried to meddle in our politics in their own interests. Over the past decade, the Israeli Government have been guilty of exactly that: meddling in our politics in the interests of what is ultimately a foreign nation. This is not a debate about international relations, foreign policy or the Palestine Israel conflict, nor is it a debate about the right of British citizens to advocate for their views.

To make matters more apparent, in 2017, an Israeli official employed at the London embassy was recorded by an undercover journalist expressing his desire to “take down” pro Palestine British politicians. The Israeli official, Shai Masot, expressed his goal to “take down” ex Minister Alan Duncan because of his criticism of Israel’s illegal settlement expansion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have not gone far enough to challenge the expansion of illegal settlements? Does he agree that too many red lines have been crossed, and that the Government have sat on their hands and done very little to change that?

Although I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments, this debate is about lobby groups, and especially the Israeli Government.

Pro Israeli lobby groups have paid hundreds of thousands in political donations in the UK. The amount of evidence, which I will refrain from sharing due to limited time, is countless. If we believe in democracy, we must demand scrutiny; if we value our sovereignty, we must demand accountability; and if we believe in British independence, we must ensure that no foreign state, whether Israel, China, Russia, Iran, India or any other country, is permitted undue influence over our institutions. I urge the Government to strengthen the lobbying regulations, improve the disclosure requirements and review the relationships between foreign Governments and parliamentary bodies. British policy must be determined by British interests, British law and British democratic accountability.

In January 2025, Lord Austin was reappointed as the UK trade envoy to Israel. Last October, it was revealed that Government officials had urged Ministers to allow him to pursue a visit in May 2025, yet that came after the Foreign Secretary’s announcement in the same month that the UK would suspend free trade agreement talks with Israel in response to its blockade of Gaza and its attacks on hospitals. Despite the Government saying that the trade envoy would not meet any representatives of—

Order. I call Iqbal Mohamed.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I join my friend, the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), in condemning antisemitism in all forms, anywhere. My remarks referring to Israel refer to the Israeli Government’s actions and organisations’ interactions with parliamentarians in this place.

In June 2024, Declassified UK revealed that 13 of the then 25 members of the Labour Cabinet received hundreds of thousands in donations from pro Israel donors, and that some 180 of Britain’s 650 MPs had accepted such funding during their political careers. That is one in four elected Members.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will continue. The 255 of my constituents who signed this petition, and the 118,000 people who signed from across the country, would like to hold our Government and our system to account for these donations. What are they for?

The hon. Gentleman made a big claim about “pro Israel donors”; could he clarify what he actually meant by that? Does he have a particular definition about what that actually means—who those donors were and the purpose for which he believes that money was given?

My definition would be donors who turn a blind eye to blatant violations of Israeli law, British law or international law.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will continue because of time.

Britain claims to defend its democracy from foreign interference. We rightly sanction Russia for undermining democratic institutions, and warn about the threats from China and Iran to our political system, yet when substantial evidence of foreign influence concerns Israel, our principles of transparency, scrutiny and accountability appear to vanish.

Given the lack of time, I will give just one example. Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, operates 16 sites across the UK and supplies around 85% of Israel’s drones and military ground equipment—systems that have been widely used during Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Declassified UK reported that in December 2024, representatives of Elbit Systems met Home Office officials in a private meeting, with details withheld under FOI exemptions. Elbit Systems benefits from substantial British defence contracts. The defence industry cannot become a shield for privileged and secret political access without accountability.

No amount of democracy should exempt a state from scrutiny, no lobbying should be beyond accountability, and no Government should let political convenience override the principles of democratic integrity.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I agree wholeheartedly that conflating a people’s religion with a Government’s actions is totally unacceptable. Criticising the state of Israel and its actions, especially with its present Government, is not antisemitic, otherwise the bombing of Iraq or Afghanistan would be Islamophobic.

I want to concentrate my speech particularly on Elbit, which supplies around 85% of Israeli military drones and land based military equipment. As the International Court of Justice considers allegations of genocide, and while the ICC has issued arrest warrants against the Israeli Prime Minister and former Minister of Defence, Elbit continues to profit from the genocide in Gaza. United Nations investigators have documented the repeated use of armed quadcopter drones against Palestinian civilians. One of those systems, the Lanius drone, is manufactured by Elbit.

Elbit has a significant presence in my city of Leicester through its manufacturing and technology operations. The company generates billions of dollars in annual revenue while supplying the military equipment used in a conflict that is subject to allegations of genocide before the International Court of Justice. That is why parliamentary scrutiny of its access to Ministers is essential.

It is deeply alarming that freedom of information disclosures reveal repeated meetings between Elbit executives and the Home Office. Briefing papers show that Ministers were preparing to reassure the company in response to Palestine Action protests. They also reveal that Home Office officials had been in contact with the police regarding those protests, while another meeting was scheduled to include a representative from the Attorney General’s Office.

It is disturbing that, while Ministers meet privately with executives from a company whose weapons are alleged to have been used in acts now under scrutiny before the international courts, those who want to challenge those activities through protest increasingly face being associated with terrorism. While the suppliers of war and genocide are granted meetings with Ministers, those opposing the machinery of war risk being treated as a threat. Most troubling of all, the section of the ministerial briefing entitled “Past lobbying” was redacted. If there is nothing to conceal, why are the details of previous lobbying being withheld from Parliament and the public?

My question for the Minister is straightforward: why was an arms manufacturer being reassured by Government Departments while international legal proceedings over genocide in Gaza continued? What safeguards exist to ensure that commercial relationships with any foreign defence contractors do not influence policing, prosecutorial independence or British foreign policy? Transparency is not optional; if Ministers are confident that those relationships are appropriate, they should have no objection to placing them fully in the public domain.

I will begin, as many have, by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). In the interests of time, I will skip over the many things on which I agreed with him and talk about some of our role as leaders.

What I am about to say is not meant as a partisan attack. I am just as angry about incidents of antisemitism in my own party as I am when I see it in others. On that note, and on this day in particular, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who rooted out the poisonous antisemitism that had taken hold of our party. However, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) talked about choosing our words carefully before going straight into the conflation of the actions of the Israeli Government with the Jewish people. There was an attack on Labour Friends of Israel, which receives no money whatsoever from the Israeli Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent Central (Gareth Snell) referred to a list. I have also been on that infamous list. I am proud that one of those donors is a big supporter of refugee rights around the world. He just happens to be Jewish. How many conversations have I had with him about Israel and the actions of the Israeli Government? Zero. The idea that any of us is somehow having their strings pulled by anyone is an absolute disgrace.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not, unless the hon. Member wants to apologise for some of his remarks.

Where do we even begin with some of the things that we have heard in the Chamber in recent years? In relation to the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, one Member referred to a stunt by an MP representing the Zionist lobby. Another MP referred to Israel’s “thirst” for the “blood of innocent civilians” in a clear antisemitic trope. Another referred to the “blood soaked tentacles” of the Israel Defence Forces—another clear antisemitic trope.

That is before we get to political parties outside the Chamber, which are not yet represented in this House in any decent numbers. I am referring to the Green party, and specifically to its deputy leader, who talked about supporting the right of indigenous people to fight back on 7 October, the day the attacks happened. He has never apologised properly for those remarks, if at all, and it has since been revealed that he actively supports members of his party who have rightly been suspended for antisemitism.

We leaders have a responsibility to be careful with our words and not stir up hatred in the community, among which is a very fragile Jewish community reeling from ever more antisemitic attacks. In the case of the Golders Green attacks, there was serious injury and death, too.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for setting the scene incredibly well and for giving us a chance to participate.

I rise to speak on a matter that touches the very core of our democratic values, foreign policy and historical obligations as a nation. The Minister and hon. Members know that I have never been one to hide my views on this issue. I stand here proud to say that I am a friend of Israel, whether in this Chamber, walking the streets of Newtownards in my constituency or speaking to believers across our great United Kingdom. I declare my interest as a friend of Israel. Of course, saying that does not mean that I blindly support or defend every action of that nation—no nation is infallible. I am not infallible, Mrs Harris, and neither are you, with great respect—none of us in this room is. I do not agree with all the things that Israel has done.

We hear a lot of noise in the media. We hear sinister undertones and talk about undue influence and lobbying in UK politics by the pro Israel community, but I can highlight exactly what that influence is: shared democratic values. Israel is a lone beacon of democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law in a deeply unstable region of the world. When British citizens and British parliamentarians stand up to defend Israel, they are defending the very principle upon which this mother of Parliaments was built. The idea of democracy is not as clear anywhere else in the middle east as it is in Israel, which puts that principle to use.

The Democratic Unionist party, of which I am very proud to be a Member, has always stood four square with the Jewish community in Northern Ireland. We know only too well what it is like to see a democratic state subjected to the scourge of terrorism. We know what it is like to see a legitimate Government forced to defend their citizens from those who wish to wipe them off the map—that is Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. We know all too well the experience of living through terrorist war and seeing acts of thuggery whitewashed, while being held to impossible standards. As I said, Israel is not perfect, but at least it is held to account by all of us and by itself.

When my constituents ask me why the UK must maintain robust, iron clad diplomatic and security ties with Israel, I tell them that it is because our safety is intertwined. Our intelligence sharing saves lives right here on the streets of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Israel and across the world. Let us be completely honest: the real threat to our democracy comes not from those advocating for an ally, but from the terrifying antisemitism on our university campuses and streets that masks itself as political debate. It comes from foreign adversaries who want to fracture our alliances and see western democracies fall.

I urge the Minister to send a clear message from our Government, reaffirming that the relationship of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with Israel is not a matter of political expediency or bowing to pressure but a fundamental commitment to a fellow democracy and a friend to this nation. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has shown that we stand for what is right, and Israel’s ability to exist, which is ultimately at stake, is right and proper. I will continue to stand for that while not being unduly influenced by anything other than belief.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. It is critical that we do not let fair concerns about weaknesses and loopholes in our political system spill over or give any credence to ancient, dangerous and poisonous antisemitic conspiracy theories. Of course, it is possible to fairly and rightly criticise the actions of the Government of Israel, but let us be very clear: the dangerous antisemitic trope that British Jewish people are somehow puppets for a foreign state, or that there is a secret conspiracy to exercise undue control over the Government, must be actively called out. I robustly and unequivocally reject any such antisemitic conspiracy theories. No one should use concerns about foreign interference to stir hate or to smear and stigmatise the Jewish community.

Our democracy is under pressure from a structural failure that has been building for years. We have allowed money, opacity and foreign influence to creep into British politics, and successive Governments have been far too slow to act. The most recent Conservative Government bear a particular responsibility. They were relaxed about Russian money flooding into the UK, they weakened the independence of the Electoral Commission and they presided over a culture of cronyism and sleaze that corroded public trust. That is not ancient history; it is the recent record, and it matters when we ask why too many people feel that British politics is no longer conducted in their interests. More than 118,000 people signed this petition, including 154 people in my Hazel Grove constituency.

The Liberal Democrats have long believed that protecting our democracy must be treated as a national security priority. The first and best way to safeguard that democracy is by ensuring transparency. We have long campaigned for reform of political finance and for protecting our democracy from any undue or opaque foreign influence. We have called for real change, including a cap on political donations—no matter where they are from—and a publicly searchable database of all online political advertising. Tweaking around the edges will not do. We also need a strengthened Electoral Commission with genuine enforcement powers, including higher fines for breaches of political finance law.

While we welcome much of what is in the Representation of the People Bill and feel that it is a step in the right direction, it is but a step forwards—we need a leap. The Bill is an opportunity to make genuine, transformational change to the strength and transparency of our democracy. It is an opportunity to close the loopholes that allow foreign billionaires and oligarchs to buy political access in this country. We Liberal Democrats will push hard for those changes as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

Our democracy should not be for sale to hostile states, foreign oligarchs or any outside interest that places its own agenda above the interests of the people who we in this place are elected to serve. Our solution must be not to play geopolitical whack a-mole but to fortify structurally our democracy. Seven Prime Ministers in a decade might suggest that it is more than just the wrong people getting the keys to No. 10. Our problems are just a little more structural than that.

British people deserve fairness, transparency and a democracy that they can believe in. Politics affects us all, and the Government should do all they can to protect democracy for all our communities. That includes pushing back robustly against antisemitism wherever it is, including in the House.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. We are here to debate e petition 752646, which calls for a public inquiry into what the petitioners term “pro Israel influence” on UK politics, party policies and public debate. I thank the petitioners for raising concerns about foreign influence, transparency and public confidence in democratic institutions, but I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) about the apparent motivations of some the petition’s supporters.

Although Parliament must always take seriously any issue that touches on the integrity of UK democracy, the evidence that has been put forward does not support the allegations. There is clearly deep public concern about the conflict in Gaza and the west bank, and that strength of feeling runs across communities and all parts of the country. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies Jones) made clear, there is nothing wrong with criticising the political decisions of any Government, including that of Israel—I have certainly done so myself in relation to illegal settlements—but it is concerning when Israel is singled out for scrutiny in a way that no other country is.

When donors who happen to be well—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman did not have the courtesy to give way to me, but I will give way to him.

I apologise for not giving way earlier. On the point about Israel being singled out, the Rycroft review focused specifically on Russia and China, and did not mention Israel once. It was correctly carried out and nobody had any objections. What is the difference?

The difference is that every day of every week of every year there are concerted attacks from Russia and China on our democratic system, on communities around the country and across online media, to try to set one part of our community against another, and they do not care who wins.

When the hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about donors—mostly about donors to the Labour party, but I know there are donors to other parties—he described them as pro Israel because they happened to be Jewish and had not questioned the actions of the Israeli Government. It is hard to find a clearer breach of the international definition of antisemitism than to hold Jewish people in the UK accountable for the actions of the Israeli Government, which is what the he appeared to do.

Anti Israel hatred creates a scourge of antisemitism against our Jewish community. They suffer for doing nothing other than being British Jews who happen to live in this country, and are caught in the middle of the conflict for no other reason than their ethnic and religious background. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply unfair and racist?

I could not agree more strongly. Let me be entirely unambiguous from the outset: His Majesty’s Opposition firmly reject the premise of the petition and any suggestion that Israel—or any British organisations expressing solidarity with it—represent a malign or covert influence on British politics and democracy.

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking exceptionally well, for his very strong words. Does he agree that the Government were right to take action against Palestine Action? The Government went to the Court of Appeal and won that case. Palestine Action has stepped over the line of what is acceptable when it comes to protesting, so it should be condemned for being an illegal organisation.

The hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the issue, as he so often does. Protest stops being peaceful protest when it involves using weapons to harm and intimidate those who hold a different view. To suggest that open and transparent advocacy by British citizens and established communal organisations constitutes an improper or malign conspiracy is not only factually incorrect but treads into deeply troubling territory. As I have said, the petition is not supported by credible evidence. Instead, it invites vague suspicion of covert—

Will the hon. Member give way?

I have given way a number of times; I need to make a little progress.

The petition invites vague suspicion of covert, improper activity by unnamed organisations and we must call it out for what it is. The use of terms such as “the Israel lobby” to describe British Jewish communal bodies combines unfounded claims of disproportionate backroom influence with the ancient insidious trope that Jewish citizens are inherently disloyal or untrustworthy.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I give way briefly.

The hon. Member is clearly very emotional in delivering his points. Would he agree that, whichever nation is concerned, our responsibility to the millions of British citizens is to be transparent? Would he support transparency when it comes to donations of any kind?

Of course. One of the reasons why those donations have been highlighted and publicised as thoroughly as they have is that they are recorded and published. I myself have not taken any donations to which that applies, but there is nothing inherently wrong with them.

The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly warned that we are witnessing a deeply concerning normalisation of rhetoric towards British Jews that would once have been unthinkable. Far too often, individuals use their political views on Israel as a convenient cover to display blatant antisemitism. We cannot allow a moral and political vacuum to be filled by a hatred of Jews. We must be vigilant that parliamentary procedures, including the e petition system, are not inadvertently weaponised to legitimise those harmful tropes.

Our political system is built on open, transparent advocacy. Members of this House regularly engage with a wide variety of groups to understand complex international issues, and we recognise and value the long standing, transparent activities of groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel, which work openly to foster strong bilateral ties, trade and security co operation between the United Kingdom and a democratic ally.

At the same time, our parliamentary democracy benefits from a diverse range of perspectives. Organisations such as the Conservative Middle East Council and other advocacy groups play an invaluable role in ensuring that Members of Parliament receive a comprehensive understanding of the region. They work diligently to ensure that parliamentarians receive detailed information and insights from a range of viewpoints, including pro Palestinian and pro Arab perspectives. That is how healthy, transparent democracy should operate: through open debate, visible briefings and competing arguments presented clearly in the light of day. There is no secrecy here, no hidden hand and certainly no malign infiltration.

While this petition asks us to chase shadows and investigate legitimate domestic advocacy, it distracts from the very real, pressing and deeply dangerous threats of foreign interference that our security services warn us about every single day. The greatest threat to British politics and democracy comes not from democratic allies or British community groups, but from hostile foreign state actors, most notably China and Russia. That is why they were at the heart of the Rycroft review.

Our intelligence agencies have been explicit. In October 2025, MI5 issued urgent guidance to Parliament warning that Russian hackers had actively stolen data from Members of Parliament, leaked sensitive UK US trade documents ahead of the 2019 general election, and even impersonated foreign embassies to contact Ministers directly. We have seen the tangible consequences of that subversion in our legal system, such as the sentencing in November 2025 of Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK Wales, to more than 10 years in prison after he was found guilty of accepting bribes from a pro Russian Ukrainian politician to peddle Kremlin narratives.

Equally alarming is the sustained, calculated campaign of espionage and democratic infiltration orchestrated by Beijing. MI5 security alerts have warned of covert attempts to recruit individuals with access to sensitive information within the Palace of Westminster. We have seen a string of high profile cases, including espionage involving the UK Border Force and Hong Kong trade officials, and deeply concerning allegations involving political advisers and researchers. China is actively seeking to pass information on parliamentarians and undermine our sovereign affairs. It continues to spy on our colleagues and to target Hong Kong activists, many of whom remain British citizens and who have sought refuge on our shores, and actively works to weaken our democratic resilience.

The Opposition believe that we must go much further to protect the integrity of British politics and our wider democratic framework, which is why the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has called for China to be formally placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That would require strict monitoring of any political activity taking place in the UK at the instruction of the Chinese state. The Government must publicly accept that China is already acting in a matter opposed and hostile to the core interests of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member rightly mentioned Russia and China. Does he agree that Iran also poses a massive threat, is interfering in our democracy and is behind some antisemitic attacks and the spreading of some antisemitic conspiracy theories?

We have seen that Iran, seeing itself as not only a regional but an increasingly global power, is becoming increasingly willing to make physical attacks and also take sub threshold action against our democracy.

In conclusion, we do not support a public inquiry into the imaginary threat of pro Israel lobbying. To grant one would be to validate a petition that lacks credible evidence and fuels antisemitic conspiracies. Instead, the Cabinet Office and Government must focus their finite resources on the genuine systemic dangers that face our democracy. Let us strengthen our defences against the hostile state apparatus in Beijing and Moscow, protect our parliamentarians from actual espionage, and maintain a political culture where open, transparent discussion from all sides of the middle east debate can thrive without fear of malicious vilification.

On a point of order, Mrs Harris. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) referred to my remarks in answering a question. Maybe I was not very clear, but he mischaracterised my remarks as referring to all Jews or Jewish donors. My remarks clearly referred to pro Israeli donors, whoever they are. To clarify, it is those who support the illegal actions of Israel or—

Order. I think that your clarification has been made. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I bring the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion. He does so on behalf of the signatories of the petition, which asks for “a public inquiry into pro Israel influence on politics and democracy”.

I also thank hon. Members from across the House who have participated today. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in paying tribute to the Prime Minister, who has shown his finest form in his six years leading our party in rooting out antisemitism. I pay tribute to how he has handled himself and took the fight to issues in the party.

On the specific request of the petition, the Government do not support a public inquiry solely on pro Israeli influence—in fact, I would like to turn to and address what I believe to be the underlying premise of the petition and this debate. Before I do, I should say that we could have had another kind of debate today: a debate about legitimate concerns about foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy, more wide ranging than from any one country, and what the Government are doing about that. Instead, the premise of this debate is narrowly and deliberately targeted on Israel. To speak to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies Jones) about the need for education in this debate, the premise is that Israel—the world’s only Jewish state—is an influence on British politics that stands alone and must be held to a standard different from that for any other democratic nation.

It is unfortunate that the petition behind this debate plays into the same old antisemitic tropes of hidden forces and malign control. I remind hon. Members that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism lists the “double standards” applied to Israel as one of the hallmarks of contemporary antisemitism in public life. The definition also refers to the mendacious allegations of Jews having power as a collective, controlling the Government and other institutions. This e petition invokes those very same stereotypes when it talks of pro Israel organisations shaping Government decisions. With that in mind, I want to be clear that we reject the premise from which this debate originates. The framing used risks reinforcing the narratives historically associated with antisemitism.

The UK and Israel have a deep and enduring relationship. Seventy six years ago, we were rightly proud to recognise the state of Israel. Our commitment to the security of it and its people remains unwavering. My political party has long been an advocate for the Jewish state. More than 100 years ago, Labour’s 1917 war aims declaration committed us to support for a Jewish homeland. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel found itself yet again under attack from its neighbours, it found one of its most passionate advocates in the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson.

Criticism of Governments is democratic and proper. Within Israel itself, citizens regularly protest against and challenge the actions of their elected Government. As a Government, we have challenged and will continue to challenge the Israeli Government when we disagree, such as on recognising the state of Palestine and the expansion of illegal settlements, and to impose sanctions on their leaders.

There are those in the UK who wish to criticise the influence of a particular Israeli Administration or their policies, but we should acknowledge that there are individuals and organisations that support the Government of Israel: they engage in our democratic process and advocate for causes they believe in, just as countless other groups do. They are normal features of a democratic society, not evidence of malign control or undue influence.

Furthermore, donors who support Israel are singled out like no others, expected to defend their position on Israel: “Jewish donors’ support for Israel equals malign influence” is the implicit and too often explicit rhetoric we see and hear. The premise of this debate gravitates towards a familiar inconsistency that even influence rooted simply in supporting Israel, or its legitimacy and right to exist, is somehow an improper or hidden force in British politics.

Earlier, the Minister said that the premise of the petitioners and this petition falls foul of the IHRA guidance. He knows that this petition and its wording will have gone through the Petitions Committee. Does he agree that it does not fall foul, otherwise we would not be debating it?

I agree that there is cause for concern that the premise of the petition is antisemitic. I have explained my reasons why. I commented earlier on the Prime Minister’s leadership in rooting out antisemitism in the Labour party. For too long, the Labour party gave too much benefit of the doubt to explicit antisemitic tropes and antisemitism. I encourage all Members not to trip over tropes knowingly or unknowingly when considering this matter, as holding British Jews collectively responsible for the Government of Israel’s behaviour is its itself antisemitic.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make some progress.

The premise of the debate veers into the unhealthy territory of antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories: the double standard towards the only Jewish state, questioning the legitimacy of a democratic state’s existence that is not applied to other countries, including those with authoritarian regimes.

The Government are clear that antisemitism is unacceptable in all its forms and that British Jews must never be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government.

I commend the Minister on his honest, truthful and forthright stand. He deserves credit for that, and he is right to underline the issue. The Prime Minister deserves credit for all he has done to change attitudes in the Labour party. He is about to depart, but we should put our thanks to him on the record for what he did to change attitudes and make sure that antisemitism was frowned upon.

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. The record will show his support, and I concur with it.

We have all seen the harm caused by the abhorrent rise in antisemitism, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Antisemitism in the UK has been on the rise, and it has no place in our society. Since the appalling 7 October terror attacks, there has been an increase in antisemitic attacks in the UK, including in Heaton Park, near my constituency. That is just one example of the shocking fear, prejudice and anger directed towards the Jewish community.

The attacks cannot be divorced from the nature of the debate. We should condemn the readiness, ease and tendency to hold 300,000 British Jews collectively accountable for the actions of the Israeli Government. That standard is never applied to other communities in relation to foreign Governments.

Can I ask the Minister why so many in this House, including himself, conflate the Jewish faith and Jewish people with the actions of the state of Israel? The petition does not do that, and that is not what has been said in this House. No matter how uncomfortable it may be for some in this Chamber, the state of Israel stands accused of committing genocide in Gaza. Does he agree?

I do not agree with that.

On 30 April, the Government announced £25 million of additional funding for 2026-27 to strengthen policing, protect Jewish communities and provide reassurance in response to the terrorist attacks in Golders Green and the recent spate of antisemitic attacks.

Instead of accepting the premise of this debate without question, I urge Members across the House to reject it, to remember the context and to question the notion of focusing any debate on Israel alone. Had this debate addressed the issue of foreign influence or interference as a whole, we could have focused on the range of actions that the Government are taking to address improper influence outside of the rules.

The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review of lobbying, disclosure and access to Government. The Government are working with Parliament to consider their own rules on lobbying. We are tackling foreign financial influence by improving transparency, closing loopholes and reinforcing legislation.

I agree with the Minister that lobbying and donations across Parliament from any source must be investigated and that the rules must be reinforced. But on the specific point around Israel, Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel and other friends of Israel groups—

Order. I call the Minister.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to an earlier answer I gave about misassociation, whether unintentional, explicit, deliberate or wilful. It is possible to be in Labour Friends of Israel without being a Labour friend of the Israeli Government’s actions on a particular day, and it is the duty of allies and friends to point out where we disagree. If we were debating certain behaviours of the Israeli Government, I am sure that a mix of views would be expressed in the House, including on a strong common theme. But that is not this debate, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to pull back from wilfully or unintentionally using tropes.

Will the Minister answer the question?

Minister.

Thank you, Mrs Harris.

The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying. We have commissioned and are now responding to the Rycroft review of political finance rules, with immediate steps taken to cap total political donations from British citizens abroad and to put a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. These measures are a first step, and the Government will have more to say.

The Government will always take legitimate concerns over foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy very seriously, but I do not believe that the premise of this debate is to focus on those concerns. Criticism of Governments and policies is democratic, but the use of double standards in relation to Israel and conspiracy theories and tropes about the influence of Jews and the Jewish state take us into ugly, inciteful and deeply unhealthy territory. I urge Members to join me in rejecting this framing and rejecting the petition.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. As I said at the start, my job was to introduce the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but it is not a petition that I have any sympathy with—I fundamentally disagree with it. When I was allocated this debate to introduce, I worried that I would be the only voice calling the petition out for what it is, but I am reassured that across the House and across parties—with a few notable exceptions, I have to say—there has been a unity of voice.

Parliament has demonstrated that we see this petition for what it is: we are not comfortable with it, and we do not like it. It is astonishing that a minority of hon. Members said things that, frankly, amounted to the expression of antisemitic views. I found that deeply uncomfortable, and we, as legislators, must call it out. That is the only way we will stamp out antisemitism.

I congratulate the Minister, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their strong words.

Now that we have debated this appalling motion, is there a minimum timeframe before we have to debate it again?

Any further petition would have to attract more than 100,000 signatures, but the Petitions Committee has discretion, even when it reaches that number, on whether to grant another debate. When reflecting on how this debate has gone, and more widely on how the Jewish community in particular has reacted to the petition, I would certainly argue that it should not come back for another debate, even if it reached that threshold. We have had an opportunity to air our views, and we have collectively called it out for what it is. I am grateful to you, Mrs Harris, for chairing the debate, and to all hon. Members who have taken part.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e petition 752646 relating to pro Israel influence on UK politics and democracy.

Sitting suspended.

[David Mundell in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered e petition 755980 relating to spinal muscular atrophy and the newborn screening test.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and a privilege to open the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I want to begin with two little girls. In May last year, twin daughters were born prematurely to the petitioner, Jesy Nelson, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Several months later, they were diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy type 1, which is the most severe form. Their mother was told that they would, in her words, “probably never walk”.

In January of this year, Jesy chose to share that diagnosis publicly, saying that it would be “selfish to keep this to myself and not potentially save a child’s life.”

This petition is the result, and I pay tribute to her for the way that she has courageously told her story, using her own unique reach. As a result, the petition was signed by 149,692 people, including 225 of my constituents in Sunderland Central. I was grateful to meet Jesy earlier in Westminster Hall, and I thank her and every family who has turned the hardest experience imaginable into a campaign for other people’s children.

In preparing for this debate, I also met Giles Lomax of SMA UK, Muscular Dystrophy UK, and Professor Francesco Muntoni of the Neuromuscular Centre at Great Ormond Street. I thank all of them for their time, and I also thank the Petitions Committee staff for their help as I prepared for this debate.

SMA is a rare genetic condition that attacks the motor neurones, causing progressive muscle weakness. Around 1,500 people in the UK live with it and about 48 babies are born with it each year—roughly one a week. With type 1 SMA, symptoms appear within the first six months and the effects are profound. Children cannot hold up their heads or sit unsupported; they may be tube fed and need help to breathe. Until recently, up to 90% of untreated babies either died before the age of two or required permanent ventilation.

I used the past tense there deliberately and happily, because the important fact in this debate is that SMA is no longer untreatable. There are now three disease modifying therapies in this country, including a one time gene therapy that did not exist a decade ago. They are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and funded by the NHS. A condition that was too often a death sentence for babies is now one that we can treat.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for, as he often does, leading this debate on a petition that has generated a lot of interest. I understand that the one of the life altering gene therapies for SMA, Zolgensma—I hope that I have pronounced it correctly—is available on the NHS, but such gene therapies only work if they are administered before irreversible nerve damage and muscle wasting occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has been at the forefront on this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps what we really need is a UK wide purchasing power for these heel prick testing kits to be fully extended to all local health trusts without delay? That would make sure that those who have SMA are caught in time.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I will come on to talk about screening in just a minute.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. My hon. Friend is talking about lifesaving treatments. One of my constituents has a niece who was born with SMA type 1 and previously would have been at risk of dying. My constituent was told that her niece was unlikely to live past the age of two, but because of the advances in treatment that my hon. Friend has just spoken about, she has just celebrated her ninth birthday. However, she did have to be fed through a stomach pump. Does my hon. Friend agree that for £3.1 million we can get full coverage across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and ensure that all babies are tested, so that those with SMA can be treated as early as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend, though I think the issue is not mainly financial; I will come on to that in a minute.

As other Members have said, the key point is that treatments are dramatically more effective the earlier they are given: before symptoms appear and before irreversible damage is done. Once motor neurones are lost they do not come back.

I congratulate the hon. Member on his speech. I join him in paying tribute to Jesy Nelson and her campaigning. I also pay tribute to the parents of little Charlie in my constituency. In the words of his mother, he was “very lucky to celebrate his first birthday last August.”

He was treated with gene therapy after being diagnosed and following symptoms. He is now living his life, but in a wheelchair. Had he been screened at birth he might have had treatment sooner and he might be walking right now.

The hon. Lady is entirely right and I have heard a number of those heart wrenching stories; she does well to speak so movingly on behalf of her constituent. That is a testament to the key intervention of getting a diagnosis as soon after birth as possible. Today, a baby with type 1 SMA is typically not diagnosed until around six months of age. By then, for many the window when treatment would have had the most impact has closed.

There is an alternative; screening at birth through the existing NHS heel prick test, which is routinely done on day five of a baby’s life. That already screens for 10 different serious conditions.

Thank you, Mr Mundell, for your chairmanship. I, too, pay tribute to the determination of Jesy Nelson and all the parents and young people who have been campaigning for this. I was alarmed to discover from parents this weekend that Portsmouth will not be included in the roll out of the SMA screening this October. That means that babies born in my city will miss that early diagnosis and will face potentially devastating conditions that early treatment might well have saved them from. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and I have written to our integrated care board to find out why Portsmouth is not included and whether it will change its mind.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about the potential postcode lottery. I do not believe it is a decision for individual ICBs to make, but a national decision that includes the UK National Screening Committee, which I will come on to.

The screening that I have described is already in place in dozens of countries. Across Europe, 75% of children are screened at birth and since 2024, every newborn in the United States and Canada has been screened. Ukraine managed to begin newborn screening for SMA in the midst of a full scale Russian invasion. Given that, the petitioners simply ask, “Why is this screening not in place universally here too?”

On 23 March, Scotland rightly introduced routine screening. In October, babies born in England will benefit from the in service evaluation framework. Yet families in Northern Ireland do not qualify whatsoever. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must commit to working across jurisdictions with the Northern Ireland Department of Health to ensure that the evaluation framework is immediately extended to Northern Ireland so that a child’s chances of walking, breathing and surviving are not dictated by the part of the United Kingdom that they are from?

I thank the hon. Member for making one of his excellent interventions. Clearly health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Wales, where screening is also not available, but the hon. Member is absolutely right. It would be difficult to explain to parents anywhere in the UK why this screening is increasingly standard practice internationally but is not available in every nation of the United Kingdom.

The petitioners are clear that all the conditions necessary to begin screening have been met. The test exists, the treatments exist and the evidence tells us that screening would save both lives and money. In the UK, screening is overseen by the independent UK National Screening Committee, which gives recommendations to Ministers. I was unable to meet with the committee in preparation for the debate, but I am sure that the Minister has had the benefit of its advice.

I recognise, as we all must, that the committee’s independence matters. However, its decision making and the way in which it balances risk, evidence and benefit must be subject to ministerial oversight. In this case in particular, there are questions about how those three elements have been balanced, and specifically about how far the committee seemingly required NHS specific evidence when significant international evidence already exists.

When the National Screening Committee reviewed SMA for potential inclusion in the screening programme in 2018, the committee did not recommend screening, but campaigners like SMA UK did not walk away; they kept on doing the work. New cost effectiveness modelling commissioned by the screening committee and published last year finds that screening for SMA is likely to be lifesaving and cost effective.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this debate and welcome your chairmanship of it, Mr Mundell. My hon. Friend referred earlier to 90% of children who are untreated potentially dying before their second birthday. That is a sobering statistic, but it is not a statistic; it is the reality of the lives of children, families and parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to go faster sooner to roll out a comprehensive programme, as so many other countries have managed to do?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a matter of pace and of asking, “When?” not “If?” or “How?” because both those questions have already been answered.

I turn to the Government’s response. The previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, the petitioner, in January. The Government accepted the case for an in service evaluation and brought the date for that live NHS trial forward from January 2027 to October this year, when screening will begin to be rolled out. I, the petitioners and others welcome that, though there is a sadness that it has taken so long to get to that point.

We must, however, be honest about where that decision leaves us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) alludes to, the real argument now is about pace and fairness. The evaluation is funded. It will run at seven of England’s 13 screening laboratories, covering around 72% of births. The remaining six sites, which include the site that covers the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and which account for the remaining 28% of babies born in the UK every year, are not at present in the plan. That does not seem to be an accident but the design.

Put in human terms, of the 48 babies born with SMA in England each year around 35 would be diagnosed by the introduction of SMA screening in this evaluation but 13 would not: there would be 13 babies a year born with the same condition but on the wrong side of an arbitrary line that they did not choose who will go undiagnosed until damage is done. A baby born in one postcode will be screened, treated early and may walk, but a baby born in another postcode in the same week will not, and by the time anyone knows it may be too late. That is the postcode lottery that Jesy told me about, and which deeply concerns her, in its starkest form.

It is not about a difference in waiting times but about whether a child walks, breathes unaided or feeds normally for life. That is why Professor Muntoni’s assessment needs to be heard. He asked me specifically to put this on the record: he described a trial that deliberately leaves some babies unscreened to serve as a comparison group as—his word—“unethical”. We are withholding from some children a diagnosis that we are fully capable of making and that we know will help to shape their lives in order to gather data on something that Professor Muntoni considers already internationally proven. That is the view of not just one eminent clinician, I am told, but the wider SMA clinical community.

rose—

rose—

I will make a little progress and finish my point; I can see the time getting away and I want to make sure that other Members can speak.

The question is why, when so much of the world has acted, the United Kingdom is moving so slowly. That caution sits oddly with the Government’s welcome ambition elsewhere. The generation study is sequencing the whole genome of 100,000 newborns for more than 200 rare conditions, and the Government have committed to offering whole genome sequencing to every newborn within a decade, which is a welcome part of their 10-year health plan. That is a world leading vision, and I welcome it, but there is some irony in promising to read every baby’s entire genome within 10 years while not rolling out today across the whole of England one well established, internationally proven test for a single treatable condition.

Screening decisions must, of course, be taken with care. A national programme that affects 650,000 babies a year must be safe, accurate and deliverable across many laboratories. I recognise that the therapies are relatively new and therefore their lifespan impacts require ongoing evaluation. There are legitimate grounds for further research, but the evidence that we have now on its impact should sharpen our urgency, not dull it. I am told that the research the screening committee commissioned estimates that each year, screening could prevent around two babies needing permanent ventilation, prevent around three early deaths and allow around 37 babies to live relatively normal lives.

The economics are striking, too: the typical direct costs of caring for a child severely disabled by SMA—not the drugs costs, but the care costs—are around £450,000 per year. Most of that would be avoidable through diagnosis and treatment at birth. Here, the compassionate course and the fiscally responsible course point the same way.

I gently raise the point—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already made it—that there is a geographical discrepancy across the United Kingdom on this matter. Let us welcome the fact that, in Scotland, screening is now being rolled out for every newborn, though that is not the case, and there are no plans that I am aware of, in Northern Ireland or Wales.

I began my speech with two little girls—Jesy’s girls—and I return to them now. The delays to their diagnosis were not inevitable. Had the UK adopted screening on a timetable comparable to that of other countries, Jesy’s twins might have been diagnosed before symptoms appeared. We cannot change that, but we can stop it being true for the next family.

SMA is only the first of many rare genetic conditions where an early, treatable diagnosis will likely become possible in the coming years. If we cannot move at a reasonable pace on screening for SMA, which is proven, costed and adopted across the world, what does that say for the children with other rare genetic diseases, the screening tests for which will be developed in the coming years?

I put the following questions to the Minister, and I hope—and I know the petitioner hopes—for answers that are as specific as she is able to give. First, will the Minister push for conclusions to be drawn more quickly from the in service evaluation than the 18 months that are currently planned? Every month of delay in roll out to the 28% of the population not covered by the evaluation will likely delay the diagnosis of one baby, with serious consequences.

Secondly, what does the Minister say to the families of the 13 babies a year who, on the current plans, will be born outside the evaluation’s reach? Are there any interim safeguards against a delayed or missed diagnosis? Thirdly, will the Minister respond directly to the concern shared across the SMA clinical community that knowingly leaving some babies unscreened when the test and treatments already exist raises serious ethical concerns?

Finally, will the Government commit to ensuring that every baby in England is screened for SMA as quickly as possible? Will they continue to roll that out to all remaining screening centres, even if that is on a provisional basis while we wait for the in service evaluation? By what date can that be achieved?

I conclude with a reflection that, as it stands, the science on this disease has changed faster than our health system has. The condition was, within living memory, untreatable, but now a test at birth can make the difference between a wheelchair and a childhood spent running around. The petitioners are not asking us to abandon evidence or caution; they are asking us to act with the urgency that international evidence now permits, and to make sure that no baby is left behind simply because of where they are born. I look forward to contributions from other Members and to the Minister’s response.

Order. I do not intend to apply a time limit to contributions. Members will note that the clocks in Westminster Hall are not functioning. If someone speaks for longer than might be reasonable, I will call them to order. I call Ed Argar, who I am sure will not do that.

Thank you very much, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will seek to speak relatively briefly.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) set out the case behind this petition eloquently, reasonably and with passion. Every year in the UK, 48 babies are born with SMA, with 60% of those having the most severe form: SMA type 1. I was moved to speak in this debate not only as a former Health Minister, but particularly after hearing from my constituent Charlotte. She told me about her son Harvey, who sadly passed away at just shy of seven months old. She very movingly set out her experience to me, and has kindly allowed me to share it with the Chamber today.

I pay tribute to Charlotte and her family for their courage and willingness to share something so personal not just with me as their Member of Parliament, but with hon. Members and more widely. I hope hon. Members will bear with me; I want to quote Charlotte fully, because what she relates is extremely important: “On 15th March 2017 I gave birth to my first child. A beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed boy—Harvey. He was perfect. He was also unbeknown to us born with SMA Type 1.

As first time parents, having navigated the difficult journey of IVF, we were like rabbits in the headlights and had no idea anything was wrong—but in hindsight the signs were there quite early on. It was only through the concern of a Health Visitor when Harvey was 10 weeks old did the journey to his diagnosis begin. She had sadly come across another baby with SMA 1 earlier in her 30-year career and recognised the signs.

What Harvey went through to be diagnosed via multiple tests and what we went through as his parents was traumatic. Three weeks later we were then told by a room full of medical professionals that he had SMA Type 1 and at the very best he would live to two years old.

I will never forget that meeting, or the box of tissues that were slipped through the door just in case we needed one. I will never forget the walk out of Leicester Royal Infirmary that day, the day our ‘happy bubble’ burst & our lives changed forever. Nor will I ever forget the subsequent times when we had to go back to LRI when Harvey had stopped breathing and I resuscitated him, or to be trained in how to feed him via a nasal feeding tube.

In 2017, treatments were still at trial stage. We as Harvey’s parents decided not to treat Harvey with drugs that hadn’t been approved by NICE, nor did we want to put him through anymore trauma. An unimaginable decision to make, but we decided to focus on him and his needs as they changed whilst making memories together.

Harvey died on 14th October 2017, he was a day shy of being 7 months old.”

Charlotte told me that she and others in her situation were told that change was coming—that there would be an advancement in treatment, and that gene therapy and better diagnosis were on the way. As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, those treatments do exist. There are three effective treatments for SMA in the UK, but as with so many health conditions, and as I saw during my tenure as a Health Minister, all too often, speed of diagnosis is everything.

The disease needs to be caught early, hence the benefits of newborn screening. I pay tribute to the former Health Secretary for bringing forward the ISE to October of this year, and I am grateful to him for that, but as the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, only 72% of babies in England will be included, so a large proportion—160,000—will not be screened. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has now left, highlighted the divergence in access across different parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland Central.

Until and unless the National Screening Committee makes recommendations on routine screening, many of those babies will miss out. I have seen how systems within the NHS work, often for good reasons—safety and rigour—but sadly that suggests that routine screening will not happen until 2030 or 2031. That is an awfully long time to wait and an awful lot of newborns who will be left unscreened and therefore potentially vulnerable to SMA.

In conclusion, and in paying tribute to Charlotte and her family, I have a question for the Minister, whom I know and have stood opposite on many occasions, both in government and now in opposition. I know that she cares, takes her brief extremely seriously and is a very diligent and caring Minister. My question to her, in Charlotte and Harvey’s name, is very simple: what steps can the Government take to speed up the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel prick test for all newborns in this country?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for his impressive eloquence. Watching this debate today is my fantastic communications officer, who has spinal muscular atrophy and whose insight on this issue has been incredibly valuable. SMA is a life threatening genetic condition where timing is everything. Without early diagnosis and treatment, irreversible damage occurs within the first months of a baby’s life. Left untreated, around 90% of babies born with severe SMA will die before their second birthday or require permanent ventilation just to survive.

However, when SMA is caught through newborn screening before symptoms even appear, that trajectory can change completely. Early treatment can halt the disease in its tracks and provide children with opportunities they would not have otherwise had. That is why I welcome the news of the screening that will begin in parts of England this October.

Under the current plan, however, screening will reach only two thirds of England, which leaves some newborns in England excluded. Many of my constituents in North Somerset rely on Bristol hospitals, such as Southmead, where my two children were born, which are not among those rolling out screening. Babies born there will belong to the 28% or so missing out.

This really is a postcode lottery, plain and simple. A baby’s chance of early diagnosis should not depend on their parents’ address. As we heard, Scotland has now launched a full national programme, and I believe that the Republic of Ireland has done the same. We are falling behind our neighbours while our children’s futures are decided by geography.

I spent nearly 20 years working as a pharmacist. In that time, I developed a particular instinct: if a disease can be treated, you treat it, and if a harm can be prevented, you prevent it. That instinct does not leave you. I agree that the current trial raises serious ethical concerns. When I consider this issue, the question I keep returning to is straightforward: where is it possible to prevent irreversible disability, why would we not act for every child without delay? Every baby, wherever they are born in the UK, deserves the same chance at a healthy life.

It a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. I do not know what to say, other than that if I was one of those amazing parents and advocates in the Public Gallery, I would be absolutely seething with rage, not because of the beautiful, cherished, much loved and incredible children who have been born, but because we have determined that it will take a significant number of years to get in place something that already works, as evidence shows, and, more importantly, saves a child.

I want to talk about something a little wider than spinal muscular atrophy, because this could be any condition. I have written to the Minister about any number of childhood conditions, and the common factor—it is the same with SMA—is that we deem them not important enough. That is the message to the families behind me today—those incredible people who advocate so strongly, even when their hearts are breaking. We should not expect them to go through this. Whether it is SMA or childhood cancers, the theme is the same.

Back in January of this year, as a result of the incredible advocacy and work that Jesy did on behalf of her two beautiful children, Ocean and Story Monroe, I tabled an early day motion that carried the support of 34 Members from across the House, which was really significant. The one thing that people wanted to say whenever they reached out to me—not just in Lagan Valley or Northern Ireland, but across the UK—was, “Enough is enough. We need to be heard. Our voices matter and our stories matter.”

I want to share some remarks from an incredible young woman I know from Northern Ireland. She is not my constituent, but if I did not say this, there is no way that she would forgive me. The incredible Michaela Hollywood is from Northern Ireland. She is not that young—I will not say her age, because she will shout at me—but she is living an incredible life. She says: “Honestly, I won’t take a break until every family gets what they need. It’s a strange feeling this week: I’m glad we have the exposure we need to save babies but I also want the world to know life is just as rich and full if you can’t walk”.

Those powerful words from a long term disability advocate and campaigner are at the heart of this as well.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) spoke about the emotional and psychological cost to families, and also about the long term physical and other impacts. We work all the time on improving PEG feeding for families, and families feel that they have to bash down a door just to feed their children, but here we have an option sitting in front of us that is proven to work. It will save lives and, whether it will be 2030 or 2031, we do not need to waste extra time having a debate about whether it is worth doing. We agree that it is worth doing and that it saves lives; we just need to get on urgently and do it.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this vital debate on behalf of the nearly 150,000 people who signed the e petition. I am glad that, with the help and promotion of Jesy Nelson, who brought the petition forward, we are able to highlight the need for preventive action to protect children from the impact of SMA.

In my work with the all party parliamentary group on genetic, rare and undiagnosed conditions, I closely supported the campaign for newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy for many years. I praise the work of SMA UK and Muscular Dystrophy UK, which led the “Every Moment Matters” campaign along with Genetic Alliance UK to press for newborn screening for SMA. It is absolutely fabulous that Jesy Nelson has been able to put focus on the issue and to press the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to take real action, although it is very sad that she had to learn about the devastating impact of SMA from her own heartbreaking experience.

With SMA, time is muscle. The condition causes rapid and irreversible neurodegeneration. By six months of age, an untreated baby with SMA type 1 will lose 95% of their lower motor neurons. Transformational treatments are available on the NHS, but we are diagnosing babies too late for them to receive the maximum benefit. I have seen the life changing difference that early diagnosis made for a family in my constituency.

I want to talk about two brothers, Freddie and Louis. Freddie is a happy, social and determined young man who has hugely benefited from access to the lifelong treatment nusinersen. His family say that it saved his life and independence, but they still face challenges and costs in securing equipment to allow Freddie to have the freedom he needs and deserves, including by fundraising with the community for an all terrain wheelchair that allows him to take part in as many activities as possible with his peers. Because Freddie was diagnosed with SMA, his younger brother, Louis, was screened for SMA and diagnosed before birth. As a result, Louis became the youngest pre symptomatic baby in the UK with SMA type 2 to receive Zolgensma, a groundbreaking new gene therapy, at just 18 days old. Since getting that treatment, Louis has done well and is able to live his life free from the disease. That completely transformational treatment was available only to siblings, creating, as we have heard, an unacceptable health inequality where the wider population is denied the same chance of a healthy life.

I was recently contacted by a constituent whose daughter was diagnosed with SMA type 1 at five months old and, in her own words, five months too late. Her child is now two and needs a wheelchair. She cannot sit or stand unaided. She depends on specialist equipment and multiple weekly visits and appointments. That is no way for a toddler to live. Does the hon. Member agree that families like my constituents urgently need the Government to fast track the roll out of a testing programme to all children in all areas to ensure the best possible outcomes for children affected by the condition?

I certainly do agree. The test should be made available to everyone to prevent people from living with the effects of SMA that could have been diagnosed and treated.

As I was saying, it is important that we now have testing, but we must expand it to the whole of the UK very quickly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ask the Government why babies born in Portsmouth matter less than babies born in other parts of the country? If we are one of the six areas that will not have testing or screening, the babies born in my city have less chance and are therefore less valued.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central. All babies should have access to treatment. We know the clinical consensus is absolute.

In February 2025, leading clinicians published a letter in The Lancet contrasting the UK with countries that have screening programmes. In Belgium, babies born with SMA are ambulant. In the UK, babies with the exact same condition are still dying or remaining permanently reliant on ventilatory support and tube feeding. On the wider issue of newborn screening, a range of conditions could be the subject of testing, but we are behind the world on testing. Genetic Alliance UK and the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions are asking for a clear timeline for a systematic review of the NHS newborn screening programme from each of the four Governments across the UK to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to give more children a better and a healthier life.

Returning to the issue of SMA screening, the UK National Screening Committee’s updated model from August 2025 confirms that introducing screening would prevent three early deaths and stop two babies from requiring permanent ventilation every single year. Crucially, it would also prevent about 30 babies from being confined to sitting and enable 37 babies annually to live largely normal lives.

There is a rigorous financial case for acting now. Treating SMA pre symptomatically reduces the need for lifelong mechanical ventilation and round the clock care. Introducing newborn screening would result in lifetime savings to the public purse of over £62 million and 529 quality adjusted life years for each annual cohort of newborns diagnosed.

I was relieved by the Government’s announcement last month that the in service evaluation for SMA screening will finally begin in England this October. However, the Government confirmed on 16 June that the evaluation will cover only part of the country. Specifically, it will launch in only the seven newborn screening laboratories that already have the required equipment. There must be a way of getting around that problem so that all our babies can be tested and receive appropriate treatment if necessary. The Scottish Government began a national screening pilot for all newborns earlier this year, and Ireland announced the introduction of its own screening programme in April.

We cannot accept a health system in which a baby’s chance of typical neuromuscular development depends entirely on the hospital in which they happen to be born. Will the Minister confirm whether the evaluation will be extended immediately to cover all of England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, for the sake of those children? We have the treatment, economic case and diagnostic tools; we must stop denying babies the chance of a healthier future.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am proud to be a member.

I am grateful to everyone who signed this petition and I pay tribute to the lead petitioner, Jesy Nelson. She has used her personal experience and public platform to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy. We know that it is a rare neuromuscular genetic condition that causes muscle weakness, movement problems, and difficulties with breathing and swallowing, as well as tremors, and bone and joint problems. Although those symptoms are most often noticed in babies and toddlers, they can also start in teenagers and adults. This extremely cruel disease has touched many people across the country and beyond. That is evident, given the simple fact that the petition has nearly 150,000 signatures, including that of my constituent Nasser Iqbal.

Nasser’s daughter was diagnosed with SMA type 1, the most severe form, three months after birth. She is unable to walk or eat due to nerve damage caused by her condition being left undiagnosed and therefore untreated in the first few months of her life. We know that every year in the UK, 48 babies are born with spinal muscular atrophy, with 60% having SMA type 1.

Once symptoms begin, damage to motor neurones cannot be undone. However, there is clear evidence that babies diagnosed before symptoms appear have significantly better health outcomes, with many able to reach developmental milestones that would otherwise not be possible. Earlier intervention would have made a huge difference to Nasser’s daughter. I am proud to speak in this debate on her behalf, because she and many other young people are impacted by the absence of early screening. That is why the petition calls on the Government “to fund and help fast track the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel prick test”

so that every baby is “screened at birth to allow early diagnosis and access to life changing treatment.”

Although screening for SMA in newborn babies is currently not recommended by the UK National Screening Committee, it has confirmed that an in service evaluation of newborn screening for SMA will start in October 2026. However, the plans will include only seven of the 13 regions, which, as many Members have said, leaves approximately 163,000 babies without screening until as late as 2030 or 2031.

I am disappointed that one of the areas not included in the ISE of newborn screening for SMA is West Yorkshire, and I am extremely concerned that it will leave my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley without access to this potentially lifesaving screening, despite the ever growing need for it. Yorkshire has 1.5 times as many patients with SMA compared with national figures; in the last three years alone, the regional neuromuscular service in Leeds has diagnosed 10 infants with the most severe form of SMA. Two tragically died within their first year of life and two have survived, but are living with significant and lifelong disability. Neither child can stand or walk independently. They require night time respiratory support and are unable to feed themselves without assistance. In comparison, the children diagnosed and treated pre symptomatically have achieved their expected motor milestones, and they are sitting and walking as expected for their age.

I pay tribute to the Leeds teaching hospital for reaching out to me before this debate. In particular, I thank Dr Anne Marie Childs and her team of paediatric neurologists, who asked me to tell the Minister that we cannot be in a scenario where not every new born baby in the UK has access to early diagnosis and life changing treatment. I therefore call on the Minister to make sure that West Yorkshire and my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley are included as part of the early screening process.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) have eloquently and powerfully laid out the ethics of leaving out some children from screening, as well as the deep unfairness those children face in not being screened. Is there not also a question of evidence? When we are talking about a rare disease, the numbers are so low that it makes sense to include the whole of England in what is essentially a clinical trial being run by the NHS. If we need a control arm to compare data against, there will be historical data for the children who were not screened and treated too late. I am genuinely perplexed why the Government have not included every testing centre or every laboratory in this trial in the in service evaluation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. The reality is that, when dealing with such rare diseases, we are better casting the net far and wide to get as much data as possible. That was one of the points made to me by the Leeds teaching hospital. Dr Anne Marie Childs is advocating for West Yorkshire to be included as part of the early screening process because, at the moment, it is a postcode lottery. Whether someone has access to early screening depends on wherever they happen to be born. The data collection would feed into national reassurance that the Government should be focusing on this issue. It pains me to say that right now a child born in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in West Yorkshire does not have access to early screening.

SMA is a debilitating condition and, although it cannot be prevented, the outcomes are significantly better for babies who are diagnosed early. Looking at the progress made in Scotland, which began screening new born babies for SMA in March based on in service evaluations, I urge the Government to ensure that no child is left behind and that we roll out screening for every child, no matter where in this country they are born.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for leading this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the 306 residents of Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition. I am delighted to have spoken with the chief executive of SMA UK, Giles Lomax, a number of times, and I pay tribute to his tireless advocacy. I also thank Jesy Nelson for her work raising awareness of SMA following the diagnosis of her twin daughters.

SMA is a serious but rare genetic decision that causes progressive muscle weakness and deterioration, as we have heard. I should declare that, in my previous life, as a paediatric physiotherapist, I treated a number of children and babies with SMA, so I know a bit about the struggles that families go through in coming to terms with the diagnosis, the treatment, the child’s ongoing needs and the aids and adaptation that are required throughout their life.

Currently there is no cure but, thanks to transformative research, treatment can slow symptoms and even stop progression. As a result, early detection and treatment of SMA due to newborn screening can dramatically improve the wellbeing of patients. That includes the significant benefits that have already been highlighted to respiratory health, motor function and, critically, life expectancy.

To be totally hard hearted about it, catching SMA early via screening saves not only lives, but taxpayers’ money. Without presymptomatic treatment, The Lancet estimates the annual health cost for a single child at about £75,000—not including the wider mental health issues, equipment, carer costs, housing adaptations or disability benefits. Those costs can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds per family. It is therefore not only morally right to roll out the screening to all children straight away; it is also financially prudent.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government have recognised the public case for newborn screening, becoming the first nation in the UK to add SMA to their universal screening programme. If they can do it, why can the rest of us not? It is really important. I am pushing for all constituent nations of the UK to learn from that example and urgently explore how we roll out universal screening for SMA. We cannot risk the postcode lottery mentioned in this debate. Children with SMA should not have their life chances determined by which part of the UK they live in.

I welcome the progress made in England to extend access to newborn screening, although we know it does not go far enough. Around 72% of babies born in England will be screened, but we obviously must go further. The previous Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), committed to expanding the ISE to ensure that more children could be screened, so I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the progress on delivering that.

While significant progress has been made in England, Wales still has no plans for a screening roll out, despite being uniquely well positioned to participate in the ISE. Screening facilities at the Cardiff and Vale University health board are currently being upgraded and have the capacity to facilitate newborn blood spot screening for every child born in Wales. A single, one off and modest investment of around £1.5 million could therefore deliver 100% coverage and certainty for the parents of the 27,000 children born in Wales every year.

Given that unique opportunity, the decision thus far by the Welsh Government not to participate in the ISE is extremely frustrating. I wrote multiple times to the previous Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, urging him to reconsider that short sighted decision. Although the NHS in Wales faces many challenges and competing demands for future investment, I will continue to press the new Welsh Government to participate in the ISE. Waiting until the ISE concludes risks no babies being screened until the National Screening Committee makes its formal recommendations in 2030—four years more of missed opportunities for Welsh babies.

Given the clear benefits of cross border working across our Union, could the Minister outline what conversations she and her colleagues have had with their Welsh Government counterparts about the ISE and how Wales could participate in it? If she cannot answer tonight, I would be grateful if she would write to me.

To conclude, although the effects of SMA can be dramatic, screening and early treatment offer us the opportunity to transform these children’s lives. We need to ensure that all babies across every nation of the UK receive blood spot screening for SMA, so that no child’s future is determined by their postcode.

Our final Back Bench contribution will be from Chris Vince.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening and framing the debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) for sharing Harvey’s story with us. It was really powerful, and I hope that Harvey’s memory will live on for us through this debate.

One of the reasons I want to speak in this debate is that I am a new father, who celebrated his first Father’s Day yesterday, and I know how important it is for all new parents to know that their baby is healthy. I am very proud that so many of my constituents in Harlow, which borders Broxbourne, feel so passionately about this issue and signed the petition. Spinal Muscular Atrophy UK and Muscular Dystrophy UK have asked for SMA to be included in the newborn screening programme, and I thank those charities for their work. As Members will know, this issue came to the fore at the beginning of this year when Jesy Nelson’s twin daughters were diagnosed with SMA, and I thank the then Health Secretary for meeting her. The petition was launched subsequently and led to this debate.

I recognise that the Government have started to roll out an in service evaluation in NHS screening services in response to this petition, but I add my voice to those of the campaigners, the Members who have spoken in this debate and the many Harlow residents who signed the petition to urge the Government to go further and faster. The quoted 18 months for evaluation is just too long, and so many babies will not be diagnosed because of it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, the sooner this treatment is administered, the less these young people will be impacted. I also welcome his comments about screening not becoming a postcode lottery. Both those points are really important. I hope the Minister heard the passionate words of Members from across the House, in particular those of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), who is obviously hugely passionate that her constituents are not left out—I would feel the same if it was my constituency.

Having worked with children, particularly young people with lifelong disabilities and their parents, for pretty much all my life before I came to this place, I know that the trauma they face never really goes away. The more we can do to support them and their children, the better.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this debate so well. I am grateful to the petitioners for securing this debate, including the 287 constituents in my own patch, and to the many families, clinicians, charities and campaigners who have worked so hard to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy and the importance of newborn screening. I would like to say a big thank you to them, and I truly mean that.

This issue goes to the heart of what our health service should be about: identifying serious conditions as early as possible, ensuring equal access to life changing treatment and giving every child the best possible start in life. Spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, is a devastating genetic condition, as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) so eloquently set out when he shared that letter. It causes progressive muscular weakness and can have a profound impact on almost every aspect of a person’s life. Many people with SMA face significant mobility challenges, difficulties with breathing, and bone and joint complications such as scoliosis.

An SMA diagnosis can be life changing for whole families. It brings uncertainty, anxiety, and in many cases, the prospect of intensive and lifelong care needs. Historically, SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality. Before effective treatments became available, up to 90% of babies with the most severe forms of the condition would die or require permanent ventilation before the age of two. That stark statistic reminds us just how serious this condition can be.

Thankfully, the picture today is different. Thanks to years of scientific research, medical innovation, and the determination of patients, families and campaigners, we now have treatments that can dramatically alter outcomes for children diagnosed with SMA. These advances represent one of the great success stories of modern medicine, but there is one crucial factor that determines how successful those treatments can be: timing. The earlier SMA is diagnosed, the better the outcomes. In many cases, treatment before symptoms develop can prevent irreversible damage to motor neurones and dramatically improve children’s future quality of life. Earlier diagnosis can mean the difference between a child learning to walk independently or their never achieving that milestone. That is why newborn screening matters, as all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate have made so clear.

The debate is about ensuring that children can benefit from treatments at the point when those treatments are most effective; it is about giving families the opportunity that comes with early intervention; and it is about ensuring that where a child is born does not determine whether they have access to life changing care. That is why there is understandable concern about the current rollout of the in service evaluation for SMA screening. The principle behind the evaluation is sensible, and gathering evidence and ensuring that the NHS is prepared for wider implementation are important objectives. However, the rollout to date has been inconsistent and incomplete. Some parts of the country have been included, while others, as we have heard, have not.

Families living in areas such as Oxfordshire currently have no access at all to the programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of his constituents affected by this issue. In response to a parliamentary question that he submitted, it was confirmed that the current in service evaluation will offer screening to about 400,000 babies. By comparison, a national screening programme would cover approximately 650,000 babies every year. In other words, under the current arrangements about one third of babies born each year will not be covered by the evaluation.

That inevitably brings up questions, and not just those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who rightly said that services for rare conditions should cast the widest net possible. Why should access screening depend on geography? Why should one family benefit from early detection, while another family living elsewhere does not? If the evidence increasingly points to the importance of early diagnosis, how can we possibly justify such uneven access? Too often in our NHS, patients and families face postcode lotteries. Whether it is on access to dentists, GPs, mental health services or specialist treatment, geography can end up determining outcomes.

The Government and NHS England have acknowledged concerns about the rollout. We welcome indications that NHS England is considering whether implementation can move faster, and whether the evaluation could potentially be extended more widely. That is encouraging, but families and clinicians need greater certainty. At present, there is a lack of clarity about how long the evaluation will run, when additional sites may be added, and when a final decision on a national screening programme can be expected. Those are issues that it is reasonable to ask questions about, and people deserve answers to such questions.

The Minister might point to the need for robust evidence before national implementation. Of course evidence matters and of course changes to screening programmes must be safe, effective and carefully planned, but if the stated purpose of the in service evaluation is to gather evidence, surely there is a strong case for gathering that evidence from as broad and representative a population as possible. A wider rollout would not only improve equity of access; it would also strengthen the evidence base on which future decisions will be made.

A couple of my constituents with direct experience of SMA got in touch with me. The thing that they identified as being most difficult about the current arrangements with the in service evaluation is the lack of detail about how long it will take. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Minister could provide a level of clarity about the length of time that the ISE will run, that might give us the sense that there is forward momentum on this issue?

The hon. Member makes the good point that often the uncertainty and the unknown length of time for which people are in limbo matter, and I hope that the Minister can address his question when she responds to the debate.

In conclusion, the story of SMA over recent years is ultimately one of hope. Medical science has transformed what was once considered an overwhelmingly bleak diagnosis. Children who previously would have had very limited prospects now have opportunities that simply did not exist a generation ago, but those opportunities depend on timely diagnosis. The treatments exist, the evidence is growing and the need is clear. The challenge now is to ensure that every child has the same chance to benefit from those advances, regardless of where they happen to be born. Families affected by SMA deserve urgency, clarity and, above all, a system that acts as quickly as science now allows. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The debate is an example of Parliament at its very best.

I also acknowledge Jesy Nelson and her tireless efforts to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy following her twin daughters’ diagnosis with the condition. Little Mix have long used their platform to support a wide range of charitable causes, and I express my sincere thanks for their continuing to do so. However, to open up about something so deeply personal goes a step further. I also pay tribute to all the other families who have opened up to so many Members of Parliament.

I have often spoken about my time working in children’s hospices, and it was always the families’ stories that made compelling cases for the extra support that was needed. I acknowledge the work of Spinal Muscular Atrophy UK, whose dedication to supporting individuals and families affected by SMA continues to make a meaningful difference in countless lives. In this country we are lucky to have so many wonderful charities that help families through difficult times.

As we have heard, SMA is a progressive condition that causes muscle wasting and weakness. It is a most awful condition that is not reversible with treatment and, as we have heard, there are several types. SMA type 1, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) talked about Harvey having, is a severe form that develops between birth and six months of age. Without intervention, life expectancy is often less than two years. Type 2 develops between six and 18 months of age; children usually cannot walk unaided and may suffer respiratory complications into adolescence. Type 3 develops after 18 months of age; individuals can usually walk independently, although that may become progressively more difficult over time.

Before 2019, there were no effective drugs available on the NHS to treat the condition. However, over the last seven years, three transformative treatments that can stop SMA in its tracks have become available on the NHS: one is administered by a lumbar puncture every few months; the second is gene editing infusion; and the third is a treatment that patients must take orally for the whole of their lives. There is encouraging evidence that those treatments really are helping.

We have heard that SMA cannot be reversed, but NHS data from 2023 shows that children with SMA 1—the most severe form of the condition—are now surviving for longer. For families affected by an SMA diagnosis, time is everything, so that is an important start. When I worked in children’s hospices, I saw so many families go through incredibly difficult times. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) mentioned, it is not just about caring for a child; there is the impact on relationships, family finances and even sleep. I remember one father saying to me that if he got up eight times in the night, he considered that a good night’s sleep.

We had a saying in the children’s hospices: while we cannot add days to their lives, we can add life to their days. However, in this case we can literally add days to their lives, and we really should do so. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston that the Minister is very diligent and clearly cares, but will she tell us how many babies and children are currently receiving the drugs I mentioned from the NHS? Will data continue to be collected to give us fresh insights into the effectiveness of those drugs over time? While the damage inflicted by SMA is irreversible, if treatment is given before symptoms begin, that damage can be prevented. Screening can therefore be an absolute lifeline for babies and families if SMA is caught early. That is why we welcome the UK National Screening Committee’s recommendation to introduce in service evaluation, which will see newborn screening for SMA trialled in the UK, and the role that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), played in all that. It is a positive step forward.

I want to add my voice to those of other Members today, and put some questions and points of clarification to the Minister. The ISE, recommended by the National Screening Committee, will evaluate newborn screening for SMA for some newborns in England, commencing in October 2026. However, as we have heard, reports suggest that about one third of newborns will initially not be included. Will the Minister explain the logic behind the choices that have been made?

As I understand it, the seven NHS newborn screening laboratories in England that will undertake screening are in Birmingham, Great Ormond Street, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, south east Thames and south west Thames. Government statistics do not suggest that babies born in those regions are more likely to have SMA, and there appears to be no correlation at all between instances of SMA and the location of the centres chosen to screen newborns for the condition. I could also find no correlation with the efficiency of delivery for the screening programme. That begs the question: what is the rationale for choosing just those centres, and why have others not been chosen?

A baby born today who is screened and treated straight away is likely to walk at three years old. One born in a non screened area, who is treated only when they become symptomatic, is very unlikely to walk and may not even be with us for very long. NHS England is responsible for organising the screening, but we know that the Government are going through with its abolition, along with the reorganisation of integrated care boards, so what assessment has the Minister made of the impact the restructuring may have on the capacity to deliver screening? That is an important point to bear in mind.

There are other conditions that are excluded from newborn screening, such as metachromatic leukodystrophy. I met a mother who has been campaigning hard on that, along with other campaigners. Will that condition and others also be included in newborn screening in the UK? Surely we should help if we can, because, as I say, the impact is really difficult for those children and their families. I am a huge fan of early intervention, so if we can do something about it early on we should—I cannot remember which hon. Member said this, but even if we just look at it through the hard lens of finances and public money, we would save a huge amount of money over the years.

It is desperately sad to see babies and their families affected by SMA. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance to those families that the forthcoming screening that they have long been fighting for will be fair, effective and accessible to all newborns in the UK. As I mentioned, the families I used to work with in children’s hospices would often say that, when their child was born or diagnosed with whatever condition it may be, their hopes and dreams for their child changed. When the baby was first born, they thought about the first day at nursery, primary school or secondary school, and then doing exams, going on to get married and have children and so on, and suddenly those dreams had to change because their life would be different. If we do this screening, some of those families, can keep their original dreams and we can add days to the lives of those children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is very heartening to see so many Members in the Chamber and so many families in the Public Gallery, all united by a shared concern for children and families affected by spinal muscular atrophy.

SMA is a cruel and devastating condition. It can steal from a family the carefree future they had imagined for their child. It can take away a child’s mobility and, far too often, it can take away a child’s life far too soon. I pay tribute to children living with SMA for their courage, to their families for their strength, and to campaigners for working tirelessly to ensure that their voices are heard. Their message to us is clear: where there is a chance to identify affected babies earlier, and where treatment may have its greatest effect, we must pursue that chance with urgency, care and resolve.

I particularly thank Jesy Nelson, who is in the Public Gallery and is very welcome. She is so brave to share her experience of the condition, which affects her twins, Ocean and Story. She has given a public voice to all those going through a similar experience. This petition has rightly gained significant support—150,000 signatures —in such a short space of time. I am so pleased that we can take the time to have this debate and raise awareness of SMA.

I assure everyone that this conversation will not stop today. I will continue to listen to the voices of those speaking for children with SMA. Tomorrow, for example, I am due to meet with members of Muscular Dystrophy UK to continue this very conversation. I know that many families and advocates feel that the Government have moved too slowly towards a decision on screening for SMA. I understand that frustration, but decisions about national screening programmes must be made with great care.

We must be confident that screening will do more good than harm, that it can be delivered safely and fairly, and that we are making the best possible use of NHS resources for the babies and families who depend on them. There remain many unanswered questions about the benefits and practical delivery of screening for SMA. That matters because the answer we seek must be robust enough to support a lasting national programme.

We were pleased that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published final guidance earlier this year accepting both nusinersen and risdiplam as treatments that could be routinely offered to SMA patients for whom gene therapy has not worked. The finding that those treatments can improve survival rates and slow the progression of disease is welcome and significant. For families living with SMA, even slowing that progression can mean more time, more independence, more moments together and more hope.

The Minister says that screening must be safe and fair. We know the benefits of screening—the people in the Public Gallery have articulated it so clearly. The benefits are undeniable, so is it fair that the whole of Wales and a third of England does not have such screening?

I was going to come to the point about labs, but let me address it now. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore); the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew); and others have made that very point. The trials will be rolled out to seven of the 13 labs, which leaves six labs outside the trial. I am told that the reason is that, as it is such a rare condition, the trial has to be broad enough to ensure a robust evidence base. The six not included do not currently have the requisite equipment. If that changes, more labs could be included.

I thank the Minister, who I respect her massively, for her comments. Portsmouth hospital is part of the generation study, so it is already able to test for the condition and could have rolled out the evaluation had it been included in the trials. It seems very strange that we are able to test babies in the generation study but not across the board.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central also mentioned the generation study. There are lots of questions around this, and, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is aware, in preparing for this debate, I have been asking lots of those questions. I will take that point away and get back to her.

As we have heard, spinal muscular atrophy affects every part of daily life for the children and families involved: their routines, milestones, plans and the hopes that families hold for their children. Any progress against it matters deeply. At the same time, NICE has been clear that important questions remain, including around longevity and how long the benefits of these relatively new treatments may last. Those questions, alongside important issues of feasibility, must be answered before a national screening decision can be made.

That is why my Department has worked with the National Institute for Health and Care Research and NHS England to establish an in service evaluation. That evaluation will run within the routine newborn blood spot screening programme to gather the evidence that we need, help answer difficult questions and fill the gaps that stand between us and a confident national decision. Crucially, the Department has worked alongside patient advocate groups, including the SMA NBS Alliance and SMA UK. I commend both groups for their excellent support and advocacy. They help to ensure that families’ voices are not an afterthought but are at the heart of decisions.

I acknowledge that, as we have heard, many have been frustrated by the pace of planning for this large scale scientific evaluation. I hear that frustration—I really do—but we must get this right, because only a strong evaluation will give us the answers that families deserve and the evidence that a national programme requires.

I appreciate what the Minister says about getting evaluation right, but Ukraine can install such an evaluation across the whole country during a war, and Ireland is doing it, too, so why aren’t we?

Again, I have heard my hon. Friend’s remarks. They are not falling on deaf ears, as I am sure she is aware.

The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, along with Giles Lomax from SMA UK, and I know that that had a massive impact on him. They spoke at length about what is needed; he listened and we acted. That is why I was very happy to announce just last month that the planned start date of January 2027 would be brought forward by three months. The new start date for the in service evaluation will be October 2026. From that date, babies will begin to be screened for SMA, and we will begin collecting the essential information needed to help many more children in the years ahead.

I am pleased that that announcement was made, but, as I reiterated in my speech, that provision does not include West Yorkshire or my Keighley and Ilkley constituents. The Minister said that a broadbrush approach was needed to gain data, and that has been rolled out to the areas that the Government have already announced, but surely it is necessary to include all areas, as many Members said. Will the Minister meet me or write to me about what steps can be taken to include areas such as West Yorkshire, Leeds, and Keighley and Ilkley as part of the screening programme?

I have asked those very same questions. As it is such a broad trial, the small number that is not covered does lead me to ask those questions. I have not given up asking those questions, but for today, the answer is the same as the one I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn.

A group of SMA experts wrote an article in The Lancet in February 2025 entitled “The human toll of slow decisions”. They recommended that “expert opinion and international evidence should be more thoroughly integrated into the decision making process of NSCs”

and that “the decision of independent bodies such as the NSC should be subject to scrutiny by the Ministry of Health, given the substantial effect of failing in the duty of care.”

The evidence and experience are there, but we are lagging behind. I hope the Minister agrees that we must stop taking a conservative approach to this. Children’s and families’ lives are at risk, and it has to stop.

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate intervention. I say again that it does not fall on deaf ears.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) asked what steps can be taken to speed up the process. We will be working at pace. Again, I will be paying very close personal attention to that.

Let me refer to a few other comments that I have not touched on yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central asked about the unscreened community being used as a control or comparison group. I want to be very clear that those not included in the trial are not being used as a control or comparison group. Labs taking part in the study start to screen newborns for SMA in phases, and the labs act as the control before they start to screen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) asked when coverage will reach the whole of England. Again, this is about the six labs that are not covered. The Secretary of State is actively considering that, which is why I said that we are listening and working at pace.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Isl—[Laughter.] She asked whether we had spoken to Wales. It is a good job they do not send me to speak to Wales, because I cannot pronounce all the names! We work in close collaboration with the devolved Governments, who were all included in discussions about setting up the ISE.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry, asked a number of detailed questions. I will endeavour to write to him on those points. We have chosen areas with labs with the equipment needed to do the analysis, which is why I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North about the generation study.

We must move forward with compassion for families, rigour in the evidence and determination to give every child the best possible start in life, and that is what will do. I thank all hon. Members for their excellent speeches and for the challenge about the pace and coverage of the clinical trial. I hear them all and feel their pain deeply. The House should believe me when I say that I asked all those questions while preparing for the debate. I commit to them all that I will continue to ask those questions on their behalf. Where we can go further and faster safely, I will push for that to be the case. This debate has played a very important part in that push. I thank Jesy, all the petitioners and all hon. Members for ensuring that this debate took place today.

Mr Atkinson, you have one minute to wind up.

I thank the Minister for her remarks. As others have said, she is a diligent Minister, and I know that she will push this carefully with the Department. Would she consider meeting me, Jesy and SMA UK after she has had a chance to push some of those points? I thank all Members for their contributions today.

Most of all, I thank Jesy for bringing this petition to life, telling the story of her twin girls, being so clear and rightly challenging us about the fact that there should not be a postcode lottery in the UK. We should have screening provision as good as anywhere else in the world.

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).