Westminster Hall Presses Government on Nepal, NHS and Nuclear Power

High-Level Summary

Westminster Hall considered UK support for Nepal after severe flooding, the proposed replacement of Chetwynd Bridge, oversight of underperforming NHS trusts, school funding in Stockport, and the future of nuclear energy in Scotland. Members discussed humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for Nepal, including consular support, climate resilience, religious-minority access to aid and Gurkha pensions. They also sought Government support for Chetwynd Bridge, clearer accountability and resources for challenged NHS trusts, greater certainty and fairness in Stockport’s school and special educational needs funding, and a role for nuclear power in Scotland’s energy mix. All five motions were agreed; the NHS debate was suspended for a Division in the House, but the transcript does not state the division’s result or numbers.

Detailed Summary

Nepal: UK Government Support

Matt Rodda opened the debate by seeking an update on the UK’s response to the floods and on longer-term reconstruction. Members referred to more than 1,455 deaths and over 5,000 people missing, welcomed the UK’s £5 million humanitarian package, rapid deployment and consular assistance, and raised questions about infrastructure, climate adaptation, early-warning systems, international finance, trade and investment, access to aid for religious minorities, and pensions for Gurkha veterans who retired before 1997. Rodda summarised the relationship between the two countries by saying: “Nepal has always been there for Britain, and now Britain needs to be there for Nepal.”

Chris Elmore, the Minister responding to the debate, said the £5 million was being tracked through trusted United Nations partners and was supporting emergency shelter, clean water and sanitation, protection and health assistance. He said that the Government were co-ordinating with Nepali and Chinese authorities, that police family liaison officers continued to support affected British families, and that 36 British nationals remained missing. He undertook to arrange written responses from the Ministry of Defence on Gurkha pensions, and referred to a £333 million UK fund for climate-driven instability and resilience and to work with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other institutions. In response to concerns about religious minorities, he said the Government supported communities “to ensure that the humanitarian funding and aid we are allocating is received in the correct way”. The motion was agreed without a division: “That this House has considered Government support for the situation in Nepal.”

Chetwynd Bridge

Dave Robertson sought Government support for replacing Chetwynd Bridge, a grade II*-listed cast-iron bridge over the River Tame that has been closed to heavy traffic since 2019. Members representing affected constituencies described delays, an 18-mile diversion, additional costs for farmers and freight operators, risks to fire-service response times, and effects on festivals and local businesses. Robertson said Staffordshire County Council was prepared to contribute just over £6 million and was seeking just over £40 million from the structures fund, with the aim of opening the replacement bridge in 2029. He said: “The bridge is essential.”

Simon Lightwood said that the structures fund would provide capital for the repair or replacement of major local highway structures that authorities could not afford to restore from their own budgets. He confirmed that Staffordshire County Council had put Chetwynd Bridge forward for consideration and said funding awards were expected in the autumn. He did not announce a specific award or funding commitment, but said Members would be updated “as soon as possible when we announce the successful structures fund schemes”. The motion was agreed: “Question put and agreed to.” The sitting was then suspended.

Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

Marie Goldman initiated a debate on oversight of underperforming National Health Service (NHS) trusts, focusing on Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust. Members raised concerns about waiting times, patient experience, staffing, estates, leadership, ambulance handovers, cancer care, maternity and stroke services, rural funding and whistleblowing. Goldman cited figures placing Mid and South Essex 114th of 117 trusts for cancer diagnosis or exclusion within 28 days, and 117th of 117 for both elective patients waiting under 18 weeks and patients waiting over 52 weeks. Other Members also described improvement: Jack Abbott said that Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust had reduced waits of more than 18 weeks by over 80% and improved treatment within two weeks for first-episode psychosis, while Helen Morgan described improvements at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS trust. Several speakers distinguished between the performance of systems and the work of frontline staff. Goldman argued that culture and patient care should not be subordinated to financial considerations, saying: “Money is not the problem with that system; it is a cultural problem.”

Karin Smyth said that underperformance could reflect workforce shortages, poor estates, weak leadership, organisational change and rising demand, and that the Government would not accept poor performance. She defended the oversight framework and the intensive recovery programme, whose first cohort comprises Hull, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, East Kent, North Cumbria, and Mid and South Essex. She said that Mid and South Essex had more than £122 million of identified productivity opportunities, that £80 million was supporting Southend Hospital’s structural estate problems, and that work was under way on patient flow, governance and waiting times. She offered to meet Rebecca Long-Bailey about Salford and said she would ensure that Lola McEvoy had a meeting with a Minister about County Durham and Darlington. She said: “We will judge our approach by its effect on patients and staff, not by the creation of more processes.” The motion was agreed. The transcript records a suspension for a Division in the House during the debate, but gives no division numbers or result.

School Funding: Stockport

Lisa Smart argued that Stockport schools receive less funding per pupil than neighbouring Manchester: £5,623 compared with £6,404 in primary schools, and £7,320 compared with £8,452 in secondary schools. She said that 68 of Stockport’s 78 schools were heading for a deficit, reserves had fallen from about £11 million to about £5 million, and the cumulative deficit on Stockport’s dedicated schools grant could reach about £68 million by March 2027. She welcomed the proposed write-off of 90% of the accrued deficit but sought certainty about further deficits before the funding override ends, publication of the new special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) funding model, and a review of the national funding formula. She said: “The children of Stockport are as bright, hard-working and deserving as any in the country.”

Georgia Gould said that the 2026–27 core schools budget would increase by £2.3 billion to £67.6 billion. She referred to £4 billion for early intervention, including the inclusive mainstream fund and Experts at Hand, and £3.7 billion for new specialist places. She said that every local authority had been asked to produce a SEND reform plan, that data would be monitored quarterly, and that future deficit support would be proportionate and conditional on reform and improved support for parents. She also said that the national funding formula would remain under review, with 11% allocated through deprivation factors and 18% for additional needs in 2026–27. She said: “We will be working closely with Stockport council.” The motion was agreed. No specific publication date for the new funding model was stated in the transcript.

Nuclear Energy: Scotland

Susan Murray argued that nuclear power could complement Scotland’s renewable generation, provide reliable low-carbon electricity, support energy security and create skilled employment for workers transitioning from oil and gas. Members supporting new nuclear highlighted Torness’s scheduled closure in 2030, potential sites including Torness, Hunterston and Dounreay, and the claimed loss of Scottish jobs and investment. They also argued that nuclear could support rural communities and industrial demand. Graham Leadbitter and Brian Leishman questioned nuclear’s cost, construction times, carbon impact and radioactive-waste legacy, and supported alternatives including geothermal, tidal and other renewables. Leishman said: “Nuclear is no quick fix or solution for families struggling with energy bills”

Melanie Ward supported civil nuclear power as part of Scotland’s future energy mix and said that the UK Government would respect devolved planning powers rather than impose projects. She said that Torness might continue beyond 2030 if EDF made a successful case to the regulator, and referred to independent and international assessments of nuclear safety. She argued that Scotland was losing jobs and investment because of the Scottish Government’s planning position, while rejecting proposals to override the Scotland Act 1998. The debate ended with Murray asking the Government to set out, before the end of the parliamentary term, the jobs and economic benefits that new nuclear could bring to Scotland. The motion was agreed, but no specific new Scottish nuclear project was announced.