House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Employment Rights Act 2025 is bringing employment rights into the 21st century, with phased implementation to give businesses and workers, including those in Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, time to get ready and understand their new rights at work. We have already repealed burdensome trade union legislation, strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day one paternity leave rights and launched the Fair Work Agency. We continue to consult on measures such as zero-hours contracts and non-disclosure agreements to get the details right. Further changes will happen in October, including trade union reform and better protection from sexual harassment.
Katrina Murray
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as co-chair of the Unison group of Labour MPs. For too long, many workers have been expected to keep themselves available for work without any certainty over the hours or income that they would receive. The right to guaranteed hours was designed to change that. As those provisions are implemented, what practical difference does the Minister expect they will make to working people across the country?
Kate Dearden
Through the right to guaranteed hours, we are tackling one-sided flexibility. Qualifying workers are offered contracts that better reflect their hours, and they can then plan their lives and finances. Over 1.2 million people work on a zero-hours contract, and research published by the Living Wage Foundation in 2022 found that 87% of zero-hours workers said that they want more hours in their contract. My hon. Friend will understand the terrible consequences and the impact that not knowing their regular hours or how much they will earn that month can have on people’s lives, including the severe impacts of not being able to feed their kids or know whether they can pay their bills. We are working to get the details right and to get businesses, workers and trade unions to engage in our recent consultation so that we can achieve both flexibility and security.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Government’s impact assessment puts the costs of the Employment Rights Act at up to £5 billion, which will hit small and medium-sized businesses since they lack the human resources teams and the expertise to absorb the additional burdens. What advice does the Minister give to small and medium-sized businesses in my Mid Leicestershire constituency on how they should deal with that?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member might not have read the updated impact assessment, which significantly lowered that amount, following the passing of the Employment Rights Act towards the end of last year, to £1 billion. On supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, we want to work closely with them because many across the country are already doing lots of the things that are in the Employment Rights Act. They also understand that treating their workers fairly benefits their business and makes the economy grow. I am grateful to the small and medium-sized businesses that I have worked with and which fed directly into the details of the Act. I want to work closely with them to understand the impacts and where we can get this right, and to work on the details. I thank them for their engagement, and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Today, we Conservatives have launched a campaign to save the summer job. Employment rights do not help young people if they cannot get a first experience of work, and they are trapped in a Catch-22 situation of needing experience to get work but not being able to get any during their education years. Young people say it, businesses say it and Alan Milburn, the former Labour Minister, says it. Will the Government now back our plans to save the summer job, cut employment red tape, support seasonal working and lower taxes?
Kate Dearden
The Opposition’s suggestion of getting 13-year-olds to work later hours on a Sunday is simply not serious. What is serious is the review that we have conducted with Alan Milburn on how we can get more young people into employment. We recognise the challenge, and that is why it is an important priority for us. We inherited a situation in which nearly a million young people were not in employment, education or training. That increased by 250,000 before the general election, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing about it. Young people written off by a legacy of rising youth inactivity and declining apprenticeship jobs. That is why we are serious about this. I appreciate and welcome Alan Milburn’s review, which is detailing how we can improve the situation. He has looked at the challenges that we are facing and laid bare the scale of them. We have already taken action to help young people by bringing forward the biggest youth employment reforms to create 500,000 opportunities for young people through our £2.5 billion youth guarantee, and we will continue to do more.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Research by the British Retail Consortium found that over two thirds of part-time workers in the retail sector took the role because they needed flexibility around educational and caring commitments. The number of young people not in employment, education or training is over 1 million. Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that Labour’s jobs tax would hammer job opportunities for young people and that its business rates hikes would kill off opportunities on the high street, which gives so many young people their first job. As they implement the Employment Rights Act, which will introduce some welcome measures for employees, how will the Government ensure that this is not yet another burden that prevents businesses from being able to provide entry-level and flexible jobs?
Kate Dearden
I am glad that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson welcomes parts of the legislation, but I wish she would not repeat lines from the Conservatives, who broke our economy and destroyed our labour market. That is why the Act is so important: it will fix problems, particularly the problem of people being in insecure work, which does not grow our economy and will not provide the stability that we need.
I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning flexibility. The problem occurs when flexibility is one-sided and workers bear all the financial risks. That is why, as part of our consultations, particularly on zero-hours contracts, we want to get flexibility and security right, so that we can rebalance them. We are working closely with employers, including in the retail sector, to understand how best to get that balance right, so that it benefits workers and businesses, too.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Resilience is vital in all our supply chains. That is why we have launched the supply chain centre, which will help to strengthen that resilience. War, extreme environmental events and the deliberate or accidental closure of shipping routes can affect everything from agriculture to construction in the UK. We want to do everything we can to predict, assess, minimise and mitigate those risks.
Chris Hinchliff
We have already seen the vulnerability of our economy to global supply chain shocks from the impact of wars on food, fuel and fertiliser prices, but scientists now warn that we are likely to be heading into a super El Niño—a global heating event that will trigger extreme weather around the world, threatening fish stocks and agriculture, disrupting the Panama canal and bringing climate-induced fires that destroy vital timber supplies. How are Ministers preparing for those risks?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise El Niño. We believe that it has already started, and we are conscious of the issues that may arise from it. We are closely monitoring it and trying to ensure that we have resilient policies in place in every single sector, including agriculture and fisheries.
I should underline that the launch of the supply chain centre is an important moment for us. For the first time, we will have a body that can anticipate future supply risks, identify the inputs the UK needs, build domestic resilience and foster resilience through global partnerships. Those are important ways of ensuring that the UK has strong supply chains.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answer. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I am particularly concerned about the problems that the Windsor framework has created for those trading across our borders and between our ports—he has answered my questions on this on other occasions. Businesses continue to report increased costs, administrative burdens, disruption to supply chains and delays. As a result, businesses have stopped trading into Northern Ireland. Given the likely negative economic consequences of that, will the Minister consider further steps to reduce those burdens and ensure smooth trade into Northern Ireland?
Chris Bryant
We are doing that all the time, and that is why we bring the issue of resilient supply chains into consideration in all our international trading relationships. For instance, particularly important to Northern Ireland is our relationship with the European Union, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in mentioning the Windsor framework. I am keen to ensure that resilient supply chains are looked at in the relationship between the EU and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, because it is not just what happens on the continent of Europe that is important; it could be what happens in the Gulf or the situation in Ukraine, which had dramatic effects on supplies of fertiliser around the world. We take specific action to ensure that we guarantee those supply chains.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Our most critical supply chains are those that are directly linked to our national security. From autonomous vehicles to blast protection, British small and medium-sized enterprises are the vital link in the supply chain, ensuring that our armed forces have the capabilities to face down our adversaries. The Government have said that the Defence Office for Small Business Growth has an important role to play in supporting the sector, so how is the Minister co-ordinating with the office? If I am a defence SME, how will it help me?
Chris Bryant
What is really important is the work that the Department for Business and Trade does in knitting together all our different policies—for instance the trade strategy, which looks at these issues, the critical minerals strategy, the small business strategy and the industrial strategy. All those need to mesh together. One of the key things we have done is to produce, for the first time, a growth-driving inputs list that specifies the particular elements that are vital for SMEs’ growth into the future. That is precisely the kind of action that a Government need to take to guarantee economic growth for the future.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for that very comprehensive answer to a very different question—less of an answer, more of an interpretive dance.
Gareth Davies
I just want an answer! Defence SMEs have said that the delay of the defence investment plan caused great uncertainty and disruption to the sector. In addition, they are completely confused by this Government’s endless offices, initiatives and quangos. Will the Minister commit—if he is still in position in a few weeks’ time—to providing more certainty to such an important sector?
Chris Bryant
I know from my constituency and across south Wales how important it is to have a defence investment plan that delivers jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom. One of my anxieties about the previous Government was that they refused to take action either to invest in our armed forces or to ensure that we were able to produce things in the UK, rather than relying, for instance, on steel to produce everything that our armed forces need. That is why we introduced our steel trade measures earlier this week.
And there is nothing wrong with interpretive dance, Mr Speaker. As you know, the creative industries are an important part of our economic future, with 5% growth under this Labour Government.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this vital sector for island economies. Whisky exports were worth over £5.4 billion in 2025, supporting jobs and supply chains across Scotland. We are supporting distillers through UK Export Finance, DBT’s export support, trade promotion and direct engagement with the industry to help businesses, including small distilleries, to grow, invest and reach new markets.
Torcuil Crichton
Distilleries in my constituency—I count nine of them—overwhelmingly rely on kerosene heating oil to make their product. Since President Trump’s folly in Iran, they have seen costs rise by 18%. It is not just the distilleries; seaweed manufacturing, chemical processing at Callanish and the iconic Harris tweed industry all rely on kerosene heating oil to make their products. Domestic consumers in the islands are helped by generous support from the Government, but can the Minister outline what the UK Government can do to help these energy-reliant industries that keep hundreds of jobs in Na h-Eileanan an Iar keep on going?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend knows that at this time of year, my heart is in Uist, and I wish I was there now sampling a gin cocktail from the Downpour distillery—my favourite of the nine distilleries he mentioned. We are determined to support energy-intensive industries such as his local distillers. The supercharger for British industry is being reviewed this year, and we are keen to hear from the whisky industry as we review that support. As he says, many distilleries are off-grid and heavily reliant on heating fuels, and are suffering from the Iran war. That is why we are considering the temporary suspension of tariffs on kerosene oil. The consultation on that ended a few days ago, and we will make a decision on it in due course.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Earlier this year in my constituency, the much-loved brand Slingsby Gin went into administration. A cocktail of different things added to the pressure on the business. Will the Minister wish the new owners of Slingsby Gin, Chris and Asma Williams, good luck in their new venture, and tell me what steps the Government are taking to support them going forward?
Blair McDougall
I absolutely wish the hon. Member’s constituents all the best. It is entrepreneurial spirit like that that drives the economy forward. I will give one example of the support: there is a big extension of UK export finance so that such businesses can find new markets, because the best way to become a more resilient business is for them to open up and diversify their markets. I will gladly put his constituents in touch with people at UK Export Finance to discuss that.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Strong delivery of the 10-year modern industrial strategy is ongoing, including the investment in the British industrial competitiveness scheme—the long-term industrial intervention to address energy costs. We also have the advanced manufacturing sector plan, which includes sector specific cross-cutting measures to support manufacturers right across the United Kingdom.
Dr Ahmed
The Secretary of State will know very well that Glasgow South West is home to a storied, nationally significant collection of advanced manufacturing, from Type 26 frigate construction at BAE Systems, to small satellites at Craft Prospect, to the maritime supply chain at the Malin Group. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with businesses in Glasgow and Glasgow South West specifically about how we can grow this advanced manufacturing base, so that Glasgow can play its full part in Britain’s reindustrialisation?
Peter Kyle
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the extraordinary achievements of our country that have stemmed from his constituency. As he knows, on the Clyde they have adapted from manufacturing the Dreadnought through to the frigates that he mentioned. We are in another era of change, and the Government are on their side in this latest transformation. They will have access to a range of sector-focused interventions from the industrial plan, as well as support for access to finance, innovation and tech adaptation. He will also be aware that the Glasgow city region will receive £50 million through the local innovation partnerships fund—a fund that I launched when I was in my previous job at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am pleased to see it being put to good use in his constituency.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The largest employer in Woking is McLaren. It sells around half of its cars to the US, which, needless to say, has not been easy since Donald Trump took office. What are the Secretary of State and his Department doing to work with the US to lower trade barriers, so that we can continue to have high-quality advanced manufacturing jobs in Woking?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Member for championing what is an extraordinary company. I met the chief executive of McLaren just in the last week, and I will be meeting him again in the next couple of weeks. This is a Government who are on its side—of course, we got tariffs reduced to 10% for 100,000 cars. I have spoken to my counterpart in the United States, the Commerce Secretary, numerous times about the fantastic cars produced in our country, both the high-volume mainstream products and these high-value precision products that do our country proud. I can tell the hon. Member that the deal we have struck with America does those businesses proud too.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
This week, our hard-pressed automotive industry has sounded the alarm: under the zero emission vehicle rules, British car makers are being fined for making precisely the type of cars people want to buy. That is costing them £5 billion a year, denying consumer choice, damaging British jobs and putting automotive firms at risk. Like me, the Secretary of State met with car makers earlier this week, so will he listen to them, adopt the Conservative policy of scrapping these rules and support our great British automotive industry?
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful for the hon. Member’s question because he raises important points. First, we are a listening Government, which is why we have acted to tackle the energy costs faced by the automotive sector—of course, we inherited those energy costs from the Tory Government. The BICS will lower the cost of producing cars in this country.
The hon. Member mentioned the ZEV mandate. I am listening very closely to him on that. In general terms, when it comes to environmental regulations across the piece, it is really important that we deliver net zero targets and get to that destination. We need to be creative in how we get to that destination, and I speak in general terms. He spoke to the automotive sector earlier this week, as I did. I was very honest about these issues. He should have been honest, too: his party brought in the rules in the first place—he should have apologised for them if he does not like them.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We are taking two steps to try to drive up our trade with Europe. First, we are seeking bilateral wins with individual countries like the small modular reactors deal that has just been done by Rolls-Royce in Sweden, or opening up the pilot digital trade corridors that we have with Germany and France. We are also seeking to renegotiate a reset with the European Union as a whole. In the words of the Sugababes, we stand ready to “Push the Button”.
Richard Baker
The EU is a key trading partner for Scotland, accounting for almost 40% of Scotland’s international exports. Can the Minister reassure my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife that while we wait for a new date for the EU summit, this Government will press ahead with plans to align with more areas of the single market, so that we can continue to remove barriers for our businesses to trade with Europe?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our trade in goods with Europe has fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our trade in services has grown by 7%. All of this shows what a shockingly appalling, shameful, despicable deal was done by the previous Government with the European Union. It was bad enough leaving, but the terms on which they left were absolutely appalling for British businesses. We are determined to turn that around, and we will.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Ten years on, Brexit continues to have a detrimental impact on Scottish businesses to the tune of almost £4 billion in lost revenue per year. Forty per cent of businesses say that Brexit is the main cause of trade difficulties. One of the worst hit sectors is farming, and lots of farmers in my constituency have written to me—even in the last two weeks since I was sworn in—to tell me that Brexit continues to put up barriers to business and trade, including through labour shortages, trade friction and long-term uncertainty over subsidies. At a time when food insecurity and the cost of living cannot be disentangled from the experience of farmers, what is the Minister doing to support farmers in my constituency to produce the food that we need at this crucial time?
Chris Bryant
I want to recruit the hon. Lady to my campaign to make sure we end up with a better deal with the European Union, so that UK farmers can export easily and readily into the European Union and we can get goods from across the rest of Europe into the UK easily. So many sectors are affected. I sat down yesterday with Tracy Emin, one of the world’s greatest artists, who explained to me the problems since Brexit in bringing artworks in and out of the European Union from the UK. Resolving those problems is an important part of ensuring that we remain the second biggest art market in the world—again, part of the creative industries, which we should be supporting.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Joining the single market and a customs union could boost UK GDP by about £25 billion a year. Single market membership would give the UK access to EU defence programmes, creating high-skilled jobs in aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence technology. It would restore passporting rights for financial services, reducing costs and administration for firms operating across Europe. For businesses, joining a customs union would eliminate the rules of origin red tape that adds between 2% and 8% to the cost of exporting.
The current Prime Minister and Chancellor have both admitted that repairing the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever they could pull for growth, and the incoming Prime Minister has stated his desire to rejoin the EU, so does the Minister agree that there is political momentum and a desperate economic need now to negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with Europe?
Chris Bryant
I do agree on the broad principles, but the Lib Dems were part of the coalition Government who created the momentum toward the Brexit referendum in the first place, so I am not going to sign up to any Liberal Democrat campaign. We are going to make sure that we reset the relationship with the European Union.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Department has not provided guidance on that matter. Fees relating to the accreditation and monitoring of alternative dispute resolution providers have not risen since 2015, and have been significantly eroded by the impact of rising costs. The intention behind the new fee structure is to ensure that, over time, fees are commensurate with the costs of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute performing the relevant functions to the required standards, that they are predictable for ADR providers, and that they provide costs recovery for the CTSI.
Alison Bennett
I thank the Minister for that response. Caroline from Lindfield owns a small business that provides arbitration services. Since the introduction of the one-size-fits-all fees set down earlier this year, her business model and that of so many other small ADR providers has become nigh on impossible to sustain. Has the Minister considered the impact on the sector from the fee changes? Can she explain why no impact assessment has been done? In particular, has she received feedback from trading standards since the legislation came into force?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. A well functioning ADR system makes markets work more effectively and drives economic growth. We are committed to ensuring that consumers and businesses are able to resolve disputes early, which helps to raise consumer confidence and compliance rates. We acknowledge that there will be a period of adjustment as the new fee structure beds in, and in the autumn we will conduct a review to assess whether the fee structure should be amended further. We recognise the importance of ensuring that charges are fair and proportional for all ADR providers and the CTSI as the competent authority.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
We are investing £2.5 billion over the next three years in tackling the issues around youth unemployment. That will include new initiatives, such as a further 19 technical excellence colleges to provide high-quality training for jobs in key sectors.
Mr Mohindra
I recently met people from Mission Employable, an incredible charity based in Chorleywood, which offers supported internships for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It was deeply concerning to hear that in England only 6% of adults with learning disabilities are in paid work. Will the Secretary of State outline how he is working with other Departments to ensure that the youth jobs grant does not disincentive employers in hiring people from supported internship backgrounds who are not claiming universal credit?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important issue. It sounds as if the charity that he references is doing incredibly important work locally. We want to support that work. It is a shame that in the years running up to coming into office, apprenticeship starts had fallen by 40%. We are reinvesting in apprenticeship starts and ensuring that they are available to everyone, from every background and with every ability.
John Cooper
While still at school, I played my part in the creative industries by playing in bands with names as louche as Street Lethal and Cheap Sweeties. It was very lucrative.
John Cooper
I’ve got it! In the modern era, that all important first job is increasingly hard to find because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the massive 330-page Employment Rights Act 2025. Will the Secretary of State go to the new northern powerhouse Cabinet and impress upon the Chancellor the need to save our summer jobs and cut the burden on industry?
Peter Kyle
I am glad to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s childhood experiences. In retirement, perhaps we will see him in the musical “Mama Mia!”. My first job was on a battery chicken farm collecting eggs, so I hope that I can take a different path when I move away from the current profession. I assure him that not only are we are investing £2.5 billion but we are working across Departments to ensure that 400,000 students in disadvantaged schools will take up AI and tech skills through the tech first programme. These are the kinds of initiatives that we are wrapping around young people so that they get support for the age in which we are living. Extending the hours for 13-year-olds is not a serious solution to the challenges we face, but that is the only answer that we have heard from Members on the Conservative Benches in recent times.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Small and medium-sized enterprises are often best placed to kick-start a young person’s career, but when I met a group of small business owners at the Crown pub in Granborough, many told me that the up-front costs of training and supervision often act as a barrier to taking on young people. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what support the Government are providing to incentivise small and microbusinesses in helping to give opportunities to young people?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have created a specific fund to support SMEs and young people to start up businesses. It is incredibly important that people from all backgrounds get to explore their entrepreneurial talents, and that is exactly what this Government are doing to make that happen.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
We are investing £720 million in the greater Lincolnshire investment fund over the next 30 years as part of our devolved funding and support for areas just like my hon. Friend’s.
Melanie Onn
News of apprenticeship incentives, the youth jobs grant and the jobs guarantee will provide a welcome boost for my brilliant young people in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, but they and other jobseekers will want to know what permanent jobs they can move into. We have huge opportunities and experience in new clean energy and the supply chain. What action is the Secretary of State taking to expand existing businesses and attract new investment in this sector to deliver jobs for my hard-working constituents?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is right that her constituents are hard-working and they deserve to have a Government on their side: in this Government, they have that. We have invested £140 million in a pilot with the mayoral strategic authorities that will benefit her area. That will connect 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training to local apprenticeship opportunities in her area. We are also investing £2.5 billion in the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy over the next three years. NEETs rose by 250,000 under the Tories and we are doing everything we can to get that down, including in her area by providing specialist advice via the Business Lincolnshire growth hub.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for young adult carers. I have been honoured to visit Carers Count Calderdale in my own constituency of Halifax, and I know about the important and vital support that incredible unpaid carers across the country are providing to their loved ones. We are reviewing the employment rights available to them, including through a public consultation that launched last month and which is currently open for views. We are considering the merits of additional support, including paid leave, improved guidance and a right to return, while remaining mindful of any potential impacts on businesses.
Chris Vince
I thank the Minister for her commitment to unpaid carers. I speak to unpaid carers across my constituency all the time, and I personally thank them for all that they do in caring for loved ones and in the wider community. However, so many unpaid carers I speak to tell me that they struggle to hold down a job, and many of them have had to give up really important careers. I absolutely welcome the Government’s commitment to a review, which has the potential to be absolutely transformative, but does the Minister agree that we must continue to support unpaid carers in Harlow and beyond?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the vital contribution that unpaid carers make to their loved ones and their communities, and the experiences of families in his constituency reflect the challenges faced by unpaid carers across the country. We want to ensure that carers can remain in work and fulfil their potential. Through our review, we will ensure that we are backing our unpaid carers to balance work and care, as well as the employers who support them in the workplace.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member’s contribution in the recent Westminster Hall debate on seasonal hospitality businesses, including those in his constituency. We are delivering permanently lower business rate multipliers for more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is backed by a £4.3 billion support package over three years, which includes transitional relief to protect businesses from large bill increases following the re-evaluation. We have increased the hospitality support fund to £10 million over three years, building on the previous scheme, to support larger, longer-term projects. I am committed to working in partnership with industry and across Government to support growth and resilience, including through targeted support measures and engagement, such as with the Hospitality Sector Council.
Andrew George
As welcome as that is, and I am not crying wolf, the hospitality sector faces a very high risk of substantial business failure in the next 12 months as a result of the tax burdens that it has to face simply for attempting to survive, rather than a tax burden to help it succeed—in other words, shifting from VAT and business rates to corporation tax. Will the Minister look again at this issue before real catastrophe comes to the sector? Will she talk to Treasury Ministers and find a way out of this extremely serious situation?
Kate Dearden
Unfortunately, we inherited an absolutely dire situation from the Conservatives when they left office. They left deep scars on our economy from a decade of stagnant growth. We know that hospitality thrives when our economy grows, wages rise and people have money to spend, which is why we are absolutely committed to supporting businesses and working closely with them. The hon. Member will know that the Government need to consider a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, such as whether they support wider Government objectives. He will also know that the Government keep all taxes under review as part of the policymaking process, and the Chancellor will announce any changes to the tax system at fiscal events in the usual way.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Northampton-based McManus Pub Company runs 18 pubs and employs 370 people. I spoke to Tom McManus yesterday, who told me that successive Governments have ignored hospitality and that in the past five years business costs have made it harder for him to turn a profit. Tom has asked me to lobby the Government to cut VAT to 10%. What message does the Minister have for family businesses such as Tom’s?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, for raising the preferences of businesses in his constituency and for his continued engagement on this issue on behalf of his constituents. He will know of the recent announcements on the temporary great British summer savings scheme, which will reduce VAT from 20% to 5% on selected hospitality activities between June and September. He will also know that we keep all taxes under review. He should say to his constituents, and particularly to his businesses and pubs, that we are absolutely committed to working with the industry and the sector to support them to thrive. They are vital to our local communities, people and jobs, and I know that he knows that too.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Harry Kane’s heroics last night mean that many England fans are looking forward to an early morning or a late night on Monday, depending on one’s perspective. That is a good thing, but pubs risk missing out on a real opportunity to get more money into the till if Ministers do not make a blanket extension to licensing hours. Will Ministers consider that with their colleagues in other Departments so that fans can enjoy the game in the pub?
Kate Dearden
I pay tribute in this House to the incredible Harry Kane, our captain, for his performance last night—he calmed my blood pressure—and we will be championing the boys on Sunday. The hon. Gentleman will know that pubs can stay open for an extra two or three hours depending on how late the match starts, so that they can still be open when the game finishes. Unfortunately that does not apply to Sunday, given the 1 am start, but going forward we are backing our pubs so that people can watch and support our lads. It’s coming home, hopefully.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Titanic Brewery, based in Stoke-on-Trent, makes a fabulous pint—I highly recommend the plum porter. However, the Minister will know that as an independent brewery, access to market is quite difficult because of the way that tied pubs insist that landlords buy their products. Could the Minister make an announcement before the summer recess on the access to market scheme, and in particular the guest beer arrangement that would allow 1,500 SMEs access to market? It would not cost the Government anything, and the Minister could find that lots of people raise a pint to her over the summer.
Kate Dearden
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for his continued engagement—I know how important the issue of market access for our breweries is to him. I was delighted to meet him and colleagues across this House recently, and I look forward to continuing to engage and work with them as the Government consider the evidence ahead of any announcements.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The hospitality sector remains a major UK employer. It supported around 2.1 million jobs last year, or around 6% of total employment. Employment has grown by over 18% in the past decade, and although growth has stabilised more recently, that follows a period of strong expansion, reflecting the sector’s continued importance to local economies and youth employment. I know myself how vital the sector is for first jobs—my first job was in a café, and that opportunity gave me the skills to go on and succeed in my career. We are supporting jobs through skills investment, including new hospitality apprenticeships, incentives for SMEs to recruit young people, and sector-based work academy programmes to help people into work.
John Glen
I thank the Minister for her answer and the positive news about the sector apprenticeships. Hospitality is critical in Salisbury as we move towards our 800-year celebration next year, but last summer there was a 25% drop in temporary work in the sector, and the cost of employer national insurance contributions for part-time workers in the sector—those working 15 hours—increased by 73%. I say respectfully to the Minister that I recognise that tough decisions have to be made in the Treasury; I was there for seven years, and was part of those decisions. However, this sector is under real strain, and part-time jobs for the youngest workers are not there at the moment. Something quite significant needs to change in the Government’s approach.
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for raising the vital role that the hospitality sector plays in providing those first jobs and opportunities for people. I work closely with hospitality businesses, and I am really keen to continue to listen to them, to understand the challenges they face. I know that the right hon. Member will welcome our youth jobs grant, which was launched this week and is open for applications—that was welcomed by the chief executive of UKHospitality. We want to keep working with those businesses, and I thank them for their engagement so far on how we can continue to support them to crack on with the brilliant opportunities they provide in communities across the country.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
When it comes to international deals, we regularly fight determinedly for the farming sector and the wider food and beverage sector. Sometimes that means defending our UK farming and food standards, but just as often, we are able to secure significant advances; for instance, we have managed to secure increased access for British beef in the United States of America, for lamb and salmon in India, and for lamb and beef in the Gulf. We will always fight for the British farming sector.
Joe Morris
The effects on farmers and food standards are some of the most visible and felt impacts of trade policy, and obviously domestic agriculture is one of our sectors that are most sensitive to import shocks. Does the Minister agree that transition periods are vital when the Government are negotiating international trade agreements? Will he commit to making sure that the farming sector is properly consulted on implementation and transition periods for any agreement that is made, and particularly the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, and will he work across Government on that?
Chris Bryant
I commend my hon. Friend—since he has been in the House he has raised lots of issues on behalf of the farming sector in his constituency. Some of those are issues that need to come directly to Ministers, so that we can take action on them, and this is one of them. We are very keen to make sure that the SPS agreement is negotiated in a way that really works for farmers in the UK, but I would also apply that to any free trade agreement we were to sign up to. I am very keen to ensure we get good deals for British farmers, and as I say, we will always, always, always defend farming standards and food standards in the UK. Those are not negotiable in free trade agreements.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Farm profitability in the UK is incredibly low. As we know, for many farms it is less than 1%. Reports show that a poorly negotiated and poorly implemented sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could see a 10% hit to profitability for our arable farmers. That will have a trickle-down impact across the whole agricultural supply chain, impacting many businesses UK-wide. How is the Minister’s Department working with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that our arable farmers and the supply chain are not impacted?
Chris Bryant
We have regular conversations and at every stage, we are trying to ensure that we get the best possible deal that works for UK farmers. I just say gently to the hon. Lady that I was a Member in this House, representing a Welsh seat with many Welsh farmers, when the previous Government struck the deal with Australia and New Zealand. Welsh farmers, both in my patch and elsewhere in Wales, were absolutely furious, because it did not seem to consider their needs for a single instant.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
This Government are determined to tackle the scourge of late payments, which closes down the equivalent of 38 businesses every day. The Commercial Payments Bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 May and had its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 9 June. This legislation sets out stricter maximum payment terms, mandatory interest on late payments and stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner to ensure that small businesses are paid on time. That will give the UK the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.
Mr Rand
Small businesses are at the heart of Altrincham and Sale West, and when I meet them, often alongside the Altrincham district improvement board, they tell me that one of the biggest problems they face is late payments. Can the Minister explain further how this Government’s action on mandatory interest rates and to force large firms to pay up within 60 days is a win for my high street?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend always fights hard for small businesses in his patch. This Bill will ensure that purchasers pay suppliers within 60 days and that mandatory interest is paid on late invoices. For too long, large businesses have used small businesses as a source of free credit. That will end under these plans. That will mean better cash flow for businesses in his constituency, more jobs, more economic growth and better high streets.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The UK was the fastest growing G7 economy in quarter 1 of this year, and we know that we will only achieve a thriving economy once people have a wage they can count on. We want to grow our economy with people in secure work. That is why we are giving greater certainty to more than half the UK’s workforce through our Employment Rights Act 2025 and putting more money in their pockets. External analysis by world-leading experts shows that the Act could increase employment, and our impact assessment shows that it will benefit more than 18 million workers across the country.
Joy Morrissey
The Employment Rights Act, the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are all making it difficult for employers to keep taking on new employees, or even to keep them at all. What advice does the Minister have for small business owners in Beaconsfield and Marlow having to make the difficult decision to either cut jobs or close their businesses thanks to this Government?
Kate Dearden
We are focused on fixing the issues in our labour market that the Conservatives neglected: poor working conditions, insecure work, inequality, the undercutting of good employers in brilliant SMEs, and the bad industrial relations that we inherited. Since July, real wages have grown. We have the third highest employment rate in the G7, and we are focused on backing our brilliant SMEs. They are the backbone of the community. I come from a small business family, and it provided me with that first job and opportunity. We want to get more people into work and to work with our SMEs, so that we can build that thriving economy where people have a wage so that they can get on.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I am grateful for the opportunity to say that one year ago we published our industrial strategy. Since publication, work driven by the industrial strategy has secured around £360 billion of private investment into the eight industrial strategy sectors and £33 billion-worth of export announcements, supporting up to 120,000 jobs. We are backing winners and giving our sectors with the highest potential everything they need to succeed, and in year two we will go further. We will be cutting energy costs for 10,000-plus manufacturing firms, working with businesses to create jobs for those eight sectors—the IS-8—to secure the workforce of the future, and cutting regulatory burdens to unlock investment. In just under two weeks, on 15 July, our trade deal with India will enter into force. India has never implemented a deal of this size, which could boost UK GDP by £4.8 billion every year in the long run. That is just the start. We will continue to drive delivery to secure investment and good high-paying jobs into year two and beyond.
Mr Mohindra
Micklefield Hall in Sarratt is a great example of a small business that has survived covid, only to be repeatedly hit by this Labour Government. Its representatives have contacted me to say that they are keen to borrow money for long-term investment, but fearful of yet more taxes on business. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to small businesses that want to invest for future growth, such as Micklefield Hall?
Peter Kyle
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman again in the same session—I suggest that he buy a lottery ticket tonight, because he is certainly having a lot of success in the draw. I can assure him that we are investing in small and medium-sized enterprises, and we have funding targeted at helping young people to start their own businesses. He lists some of the perceived challenges in the economy at the minute. Do not forget that youth unemployment went up by 250,000 in the years leading up to the general election without all the things that the Conservatives keep mentioning we are doing, such as giving rights and delivering investment into the economy.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I pay tribute to the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency that he advocates for. Businesses around the country are paying the price of, and having to adapt to the challenges posed by, the Iran war. It is a good job that we have a Prime Minister who kept us out of the war—those on the Conservative Benches would have plunged us into it and made things even more difficult for businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. On his specific question, I can tell him that we are engaging regularly with refiners, importers and distributors to ensure that any emerging risks are identified and managed properly.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
There is a bit of an end-of-term feel in the House at the moment. I heard the Secretary of State set out his answer to his essay question, but I point out that UK business confidence is at a four-year low, unemployment is up, millionaires are fleeing, and the Department’s own figures show inward investment falling by 26% this year to the lowest level in over a decade. I would say that is a failing mark. What does the Secretary of State plan to do differently when the new headteacher arrives?
Peter Kyle
I always look forward to the hon. Lady’s questions. The fundamentals of running our economy are going in the right direction. Growth is up, and inflation is down. These are things that the Conservatives never achieved when they were in government, but we have achieved them in two years. We have got more growth into our economy in the last two years than they achieved in multiple years leading up to the election.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I did not hear a plan for improvement in that answer. I am afraid the mark is “must do better”.
Let us turn to another bit of the Secretary of State’s coursework in this failing end-of-term report. Will he agree today to compensate all the Horizon victims, and to get Fujitsu to pay towards it, by the end of the year?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), has met victims regularly. We are accelerating the compensation and the justice from what we inherited, because it was going too slow to deliver the justice that people required. When it comes to Horizon, we will deliver the justice and compensation that people require.
On the plan, our industrial strategy is crowding £360 billion of private investment into key sectors of our economy. We are lowering energy prices for manufacturers. Through plan after plan after plan, we are delivering the change that business is calling for and needs.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are working closely with various stakeholders to ensure that workers understand and claim their new rights under the Employment Rights Act. I know how vital trade unions are not just to organising, but to educating workers on their rights at work. I am so proud that they have been instrumental to development and implementation of these rights, and we look forward to continuing to working with them closely.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
In Aberdeen South, there is a jobs emergency, with 1,000 jobs a month being lost from the oil and gas sector. So will the Government ditch their damaging policies that are destroying the oil and gas industry and destroying jobs in Aberdeen South?
Peter Kyle
This Government are investing record amounts in the transition to renewable energy. We need to break the dependence on fossil fuels that our country has been forced into by the Conservative party. We will do so by creating wealth, jobs and businesses in the meantime.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s really important question. As I have said throughout this session, we are investing in young people and people in work, so they can adapt to the changes happening in the economy because of the transition to digital technology, particularly with AI. We are providing flexible support through bursaries for younger learners and learner support funding for adults. Do not forget the work that Business and Trade Ministers are doing jointly with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that people in the workplace are trained and have all the skills they need to thrive in the digital age.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Small rural businesses in villages such as Pembridge in my constituency tell me that the combination of high business and VAT rates and rising national insurance contributions means they are facing a struggle for survival. Small rural businesses face greater pressure than their urban counterparts, with lower footfall and seasonal fluctuations in trade, so they operate with very tight margins. Does the Minister recognise the additional pressures faced by such businesses and that existing support schemes simply are not enough, and what more will he do to support businesses in constituencies such as mine?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Of course, we recognise that this has been not just a tough time for small businesses, but a tough decade for those running one. That is exactly why our small business strategy is improving access to markets for small businesses, improving access to finance for small businesses, and cutting the regulatory burden on small businesses. We will of course keep doing more to make it easier, simpler and more profitable to run one.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I can provide all the reassurances my hon. Friend seeks. We are of course investing in the new technical colleges, as I have outlined. We are investing in young people so that they have the skills to transition from education into the workplace. We know that young people face challenges in this era because of not only the legacy of the last Government but the transition towards an AI future, which is disrupting the workforce. We are focused on training people, and we are working very closely with Alan Milburn, who brought consensus to the diagnosis of the challenges facing young people, and I hope will now bring consensus across the House to how we grab this issue once and for all.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
In early 2025, Rutland police caught a local shop owner red-handed with a carload of illegal fake cigarettes. Since then, I have reported this to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police and trading standards, and nothing has happened. Will the Minister please haul in trading standards, because this individual runs two shops in my constituency, which are both still open, attracting in children and encouraging the sale of vapes? That is wrong, and such shops are clearly part of the black economy.
Blair McDougall
It is infuriating when we see bogus businesses forcing legitimate, valued, independent retailers out of our high streets. The hon. Member will be aware of Operation Machinize, through which we have put significant resources into tackling the type of crime she raises. That is becoming a permanent approach under this Government. For my part, I am constantly meeting Companies House and the Insolvency Service to talk about how we can improve our enforcement efforts to force these bogus businesses out of our high streets and create space for legitimate businesses.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am already working with DSIT on these issues, but because of my hon. Friend’s informed question and the imploration for me to do more I will double down on that. He is giving real voice to an incredibly important part of the defence technology sector which we need to foster. The defence investment plan invests much more in drone technology. We will be investing more than £5 billion in drones over the next four years, and that his constituency will be playing a very key role in that.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. With the issues around Morrisons Daily and TGJones, a lot of people across the country are worried about the future of their local post offices. Under the decision we made to maintain the current size of the post office network, I have been talking to the Post Office, and it is clear that where there is a risk of disruption that does not mean the service will disappear. Around the country, where there is the potential for a closure, it is advertising for alternative sub-postmasters to take over the businesses.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the appointment of Parminder Kohli as the chief executive officer of the Office for Investment. He is a personal friend of mine, and he will bring 30 years of experience in the oil industry. Will the Secretary of State set out what measures of success Parminder will face, so we can judge what impact the Office for Investment makes and what role he will play?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his informed question. I, too, celebrate this important appointment and the Office for Investment is doing great work. The criteria for success that I see are how Britain can get more scale-up investment into companies, so they do not have to go elsewhere around the world to find the capital they need to grow, and how more people can start, build and scale right here in the UK. I often ask myself why the continent of Europe does not have a single trillion-dollar company. The Office for Investment, working with the Government, can start to answer that question.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 73% of all steel imports into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue. If my hon. Friend would like to have a meeting with me and officials, we can make sure that that happens.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Last night this House debated the extended producer responsibility, which is seeing breweries, pubs and other businesses pay twice to recycle glass bottles. What meetings has the Department for Business and Trade had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to raise the economically damaging nature of this tax? If it has not raised concerns, will it?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are having conversations with DEFRA over these issues. We want to ensure that regulation is right. We need to incentivise the right behaviour and the circular economy, but we need to do so in a responsible way. We are always engaged with the sectors that are impacted, not just because of regulatory measures but because of external measures facing our economy.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government’s critical minerals strategy was a fantastic achievement, with clear targets, and it will kick-start a nascent industry. To take the next step to get the sector up on its feet and to a more competitive place, will the Minister support a Government price certainty mechanism for lithium?
Chris Bryant
That is one of the issues that we need to look at not just in the UK but with our international allies. We have got ourselves in a ludicrous position where critical minerals are available all over the world, but 85% of them are only processed in one country. We need to ensure that we have resilience in this area, and it is precisely the kind of issue that we need to look at to protect jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently visited Envirovent, a manufacturer and supplier of sustainable ventilation products just outside Harrogate. It was recognised in The Sunday Times’ best places to work 2026 and recently produced its three-millionth ventilation fan unit. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Envirovent on those achievements, and perhaps visit to see the fantastic work it does for the people of Harrogate and North Yorkshire?
Peter Kyle
I certainly join the hon. Member in celebrating the success of that business—and businesses across the country that are doing such great work for the people who work in them and our overall economy. I would like to hear more about the business, and if I get the opportunity, visiting would be a pleasure.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I know the Secretary of State will join me in wishing the United States a very happy 250th birthday on Saturday. It was John Pym and Members of this House four centuries ago who helped found the American economy, and I know the whole House will wish the young republic well. But it is the Republic of France that I want to ask the Secretary of State about.
Today, I am publishing correspondence between the Committee and the Port of Dover, warning that we will have, without doubt, a critical incident at the border unless France is persuaded to suspend the entry and exit system. The modelling has been done, and we know the chaos that will follow, so what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that we avoid this peril?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s advocacy, and I share in his birthday message to the people of the United States of America. The Department for Transport is engaged with the Port of Dover, and thanks to the functional and productive relations we have with the EU, we are working with it on those issues to ensure that the worst-case scenario my right hon. Friend outlines does not come to pass,
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State is aware of the importance of Cheltenham’s cyber-security industry, which is a key part of this nation’s defence efforts. I have good news for him: we are about to break ground on the Golden Valley development, bringing 12,000 jobs in cyber and tech to my town, as well as much-needed new homes. Would the Secretary of State and his colleagues like to come and visit this success story in due course, not for the ground breaking next week, but in the future? It will be popular with the incoming Prime Minister.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Member’s enthusiasm is infectious. He came to meet me when I was Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to talk about the Golden Valley, and we spoke about our shared ambition in that area for the clustering of expertise that having GCHQ and others brings to the community he represents. I share in the hon. Member’s celebration and hope that I get to visit at some point soon.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The owner of Palace Cycles recently told me that while explaining to a customer that he would not service the illegally modified e-bike that had been brought into his shop, the bike shot across the shop of its own accord. When will the Government regulate to ban the sale of dodgy, illegal, unsafe e-bikes and the kits that create them?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her constant campaigning on this issue. I know how important it is and, I value working closely with her. Businesses producing or supplying those products must ensure that they are safe before they are placed on the market, including online marketplaces. Businesses should not supply products they know—or should know—are unsafe. My hon. Friend knows that taking action includes regulatory action. We work alongside other Departments on this, and our recent consultation looked at how we can go even further to ensure that products are safe.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Recognising that the real Golden valley is in Herefordshire, will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 6 July will include:
Monday 6 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security (State Threats) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.
Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day (second allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 8 July—Debate on a motion on UK rearmament and war fighting readiness, followed by general debate on corridor care in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Thursday 9 July—General debate on a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, followed by debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July includes:
Monday 13 July—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day (third allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 16 July—The Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 July and return on Tuesday 1 September.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know that he and the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the England football team on their win last night, although I must say I am not sure we should be thanking them for the trauma and heart-stopping cardiovascular workout that I, at least, experienced right to the end.
The Prime Minister was quite punishing about the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday for their sanctimoniousness. Let us be clear: we can all agree that he was spot on. However, the Prime Minister has not exactly been immune to sanctimoniousness himself. He was extremely rude about the state of the public finances after the general election and promised “tough decisions” to “fix the foundations”. The imaginary £22 billion black hole that he inherited needed, he said, candour, discipline and hard choices.
Those tests should also apply here and now with the defence investment plan, which commits £15 billion in additional defence spending over four years, of which £4.7 billion will be confirmed at Budget 2026. In other words, the plan, which comes 394 days after the strategic defence review and on the eve of a NATO summit, is partly unfunded from the moment it is published. That is not what candour, discipline or hard choices look like. Irony of ironies, the further £10 billion reportedly needed for the DIP is itself precisely the kind of unfunded bequest to the next Government that the Prime Minister claims to condemn.
Of course, the plan is also too small. The Government say that 3% is their ambition for the next Parliament. Getting to 3.5%—the UK’s core NATO commitment—by 2035 requires about £25 billion a year more in today’s terms. The Government have offered no funded pathway to either figure. It is little wonder that the plan has been so roundly criticised by defence experts across the board. The Leader of the House might feel tempted to make comparisons with 2010; perhaps I might remind him that at that time, the UK was reeling from the global financial crisis, a very different US President was in the White House, Ukraine was not at war and Russia was not directly threatening NATO members.
Cost escalation in defence is just part of a wider British problem with major national projects. High Speed 2 is the starkest warning. As far as I am aware—I spent two years at the Treasury trying and failing to stop it—HS2 is still constructing a gigantic so-called bat protector at a cost of more than £100 million in order to protect 20 or so pairs of endangered bats. There is little to no evidence that such a bat protector will do that or, indeed, to suggest that a few nets with some bells on would not be at least as effective. In other words, Edward Lear himself could not make this nonsense up.
Now we have Northern Powerhouse Rail. This week, the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Government still lack a convincing plan to manage, spend or prioritise benefits within the £45 billion rail budget, with unclear scope, optimistic costing, weak governance and late trade-offs. That is how large projects get into serious difficulty. Other nations have shown that they can do it better. Norway built the world’s longest and deepest subsea tunnel for about £450 million at the time of completion; we should be asking why we cannot do the same.
We have got a great model of our own nearby: the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which cost £369 million over 10 years. That is the lesson for restoration and renewal of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Palace of Westminster, the cost of which is currently estimated at up to an astonishing £12 billion to £19 billion. No one doubts that the Palace of Westminster badly needs restoration, and it needs a decision on that soon. No one disputes those points—the fire risk, asbestos, and failing electrical and mechanical systems are real—but Parliament cannot ask parliamentarians and, through them, the poor, long-suffering taxpayer to support a project of that scale without demonstrating the same disciplines it requires of others: not merely cost forecasts but stated and effective governance, a capped budget, independent challenge and proper named accountability. May we have at least two debates in the House on restoration and renewal, with one to discuss the issues in detail and another in relation to an authorising motion?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me join the right hon. Gentleman in sending our congratulations to the England football team—we all look forward to the early hours of Monday morning.
Before I respond, let me pay a personal tribute to my predecessor, Sir Neville Trotter, formerly the Conservative MP for Tynemouth for more than 20 years, who, unfortunately, passed away at the weekend. We had our political differences, but he was a much respected politician who dedicated his life to public service. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and friends.
I congratulate Eve Samson on her appointment as the 53rd Clerk of the House. Eve has worked in the House for almost 40 years. She brings a wealth of experience to the role and will be a distinguished successor to Tom Goldsmith. She will also make history as the first woman Clerk of the House.
This week, the youth jobs grant was launched. Businesses who take on jobless youngsters will be offered thousands of pounds in the latest boost to youth employment support. It is a practical step that helps business investment in young people while giving them the confidence, skills, experience and support they need to embark on their careers.
Also this week, the outdated and harmful Vagrancy Act 1824 has been repealed, bringing an end to two centuries of legislation that has criminalised rough sleeping and begging. Repealing the Act is a vital step in ending a system that has failed to address the causes of rough sleeping. It shifts the focus towards prevention and long-term solutions. Many hon. Members, including the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), have raised the issue with me in this forum, and I know they will be pleased to see that the Act has finally been repealed.
Let me turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I remind him that, since 2024, tough decisions have been taken, which is why inflation is lower and interest rates have fallen. At the same time, we have invested more in public services. However, we accept that the security situation has deteriorated—the challenges are there—which is why the Government brought forward the defence investment plan, and plans on how we will fund it.
The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the situation internationally in 2010 was different—of course, it was—and that the then Government were reeling from the global economic crisis. Let me remind him that in 2024 this Government and the country were reeling from 14 years of Tory mismanagement.
Let me return to the key issue of defence expenditure. The Government have already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war and surpassed the promises we made in our manifesto. Our plan provides funding to strengthen military readiness, accelerate drone transformation, boost fighter jets and strengthen our nuclear deterrent. At the same time, we will create nearly 60,000 extra UK industry jobs by the end of the decade.
We inherited a situation where £54 billion a year was being spent on defence, but under this Government that figure will rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029. Any plan will have its critics, but I note that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and the Chief of the Defence Staff have backed our plan. We are on track to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The vast majority of this package has already been funded through the right and tough decisions to prioritise departmental spending. This will give the Ministry of Defence the certainty that it needs to get on with the job. The remaining £1 billion a year over four years will be confirmed in the usual way in the Budget.
With regard to R and R, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any major project needs to be managed properly and that where taxpayers’ money is concerned, we must get value for money. In that regard, I hope to bring forward a motion shortly to allow the House a long overdue debate on the next steps with R and R. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is broadly a consensus in this House about the need to get on with restoration and renewal, and that message comes through in recent public polling; three out of four people want to see us get on and take the necessary action to restore this place. However, there is not consensus about how we will actually do it. I am very keen to build consensus and ensure that we have the right safeguards; the right hon. Gentleman and others are perhaps critical of some of the report that has been produced, but we want to build that consensus. I am very grateful to the NAO for its recent report and to the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to the Committee’s investigation, so that it can bring forward recommendations. I hope that, at the end of it all, the House can come together so that we can get on with this, because it is long overdue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to end this session by around 11.45 am, so let’s help each other. I call Siobhain McDonagh to set a good example.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
St Helier hospital has the fourth best maternity unit in the country, the only exclusively NHS-run assisted conception unit in south-west London, and a specialist gynaecology ward where nurses are highly trained in counselling. Yet all that is set to close next May because of the need for emergency repairs. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on those vital services, and whether they be temporarily relocated somewhere else on the St Helier site and returned to the current building on completion of the repairs?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a strong defender of the interests of her constituents, and I listen very carefully to her concerns. The Government are committed to improving maternity across the country. That is why we have set up a national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and we are very keen to get on with it. If she wishes to apply for an Adjournment debate, she could hear directly from a Minister about how her specific constituency concerns might be addressed, and if she wishes to seek a meeting with Ministers to make her case, I will help her to arrange one.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the whole House in congratulating the England team, in particular Tottenham Hotspur academy product Harry Kane for his heroics last night. I am also grateful to the Conservatives for their lecture on sanctimony, though I note that self-awareness was never their strongest trait.
This week my community was rocked by the news that Coughlan’s Bakery—a family-run business that been operating in the local area for 89 years—will close its doors for the last time. In their announcement, they say: “This was so devastating as March was a fantastic month, as was a lot of last year with our growth with new stores opening, but as soon as April’s new Government rules kicked in on national insurance, wages and rates, it instantly hit the high street”. That shows that Government policy is directly killing long-term, family-run businesses.
We warned the Government about this, and when we did we were told that they could not fund public services without the rises in business taxes, but let me make it clear to them: the Government will no longer receive any tax income from this local business anymore, and I fear that the revenue loss will continue to grow over the course of this year. Will the Government organise a statement from the relevant Department explaining what they are going to do about small businesses in distress, outlining how many are at risk and how many have already closed since April?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am concerned to hear of a business closing, particularly one that has been around for such a long time and which has served a community. I am genuinely sorry to hear that.
Small businesses are at the heart of our local communities and economies, and the Government are committed to supporting them in every way that we can, which is why our small business plan will save businesses time and money, boost access to finance and create new opportunities—but I do understand that for some businesses, there is an alternative scenario. We are also supporting a large number of businesses through a £4.3 billion business rates package.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about national insurance, but the change was made so that we could invest in our public services. He cannot have it both ways; Liberal Democrats constantly talk about the need for more spending on all sorts of things, and yet, when it comes to a difficult decision about voting for the money, they vote the wrong way.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Shabir Ahmed was the ringleader of a disgusting Rochdale grooming gang. He was convicted of serial rapes against young white girls and repeated rapes of a young Asian girl. Today, Shabir Ahmed is being released from prison with a restriction that he should not enter the Rochdale or Oldham boroughs—yet Shabir Ahmed is joint UK-Pakistani national, and he should be deported to Pakistan. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Home Office and the Foreign Office should do everything possible within their power to make sure that people like Ahmed are deported and that their victims never ever have to face them again?
Sir Alan Campbell
In short: yes, I do. Our thoughts should be with the victims of these appalling crimes. The perpetrators in grooming gangs and sexual abuse cases must face the full force of the law, whoever they are and wherever they come from—let me be absolutely clear about that. If the individual we are talking about breaches the very strict conditions that have been placed upon him, he will be locked up again immediately—I hope he pays heed to that—but I also know that the Government are exploring every option in this case.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Chairman of the Committee sends his apologies, Mr Speaker. In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, the Committee has agreed two Select Committee statements: one next Thursday from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and one the following Thursday from the Work and Pensions Committee. In addition, in Westminster Hall next week, there will be debates on UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends and on the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people. On Thursday, there will be a debate on Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. The following week, there will be debates on isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities, on the impact of the national planning policy framework changes and on capital funding for Changing Places.
I urge Members to take part in the Sir David Amess debate, which the Leader of the House mentioned. It is an opportunity to raise any constituency matters and perhaps to avoid having to come to the Backbench Business Committee, where we have to find more time for those debates. In addition, will the Leader of the House give the Committee early notice of debating time in September, particularly if it is on the first day back?
Moving on to my own question, I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware of the long-running campaign by the National Association of Retired Police Officers in respect of the injustice to widows and widowers, who can be deprived of their pension if they remarry. I have raised the matter in the House previously. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister to come here and outline the Government’s plans? I know that would please many of my constituents and others across the country.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving an update on what the Committee is planning, and I thank the Committee for its work. We were able to provide more time in response to the Chairman’s request last time, and it is good to see that coastal communities are getting a hearing. I am pleased to confirm, as I did in my statement, that the Sir David Amess debate is taking place, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words that it is a good opportunity for colleagues to raise any concern. I will give early notice, where I can, of plans for when we return in September.
The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous campaigner on police pensions. The 1987 police pension scheme is now closed and has been superseded by the 2015 scheme, and there are no plans for further improvements to the benefits accrued under it. However, I will make sure that Ministers have heard his concerns; should he wish to raise them with Ministers personally, I will help him to arrange a meeting.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. The Leader of the House and many Members will know that since the payment of civil service pensions was outsourced, there has been near chaos; many civil servants have been unable to retire because they have not received information about their pensions, and retired civil servants have not even been receiving their pension. A written ministerial statement yesterday said that there will be an update to Parliament shortly, and that, with regard to Capita,
“the Government will not hesitate to take firm action for continued underperformance.”
Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office that the update should include a commitment to returning the administration of civil service pensions to public control—and that means insourcing?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my right hon. Friend for his campaigning on this matter, which has been raised often with me in this Session. I had hoped that there would be an update to the House; I still have that hope, and I hope that it happens very soon indeed. What the Minister will say is, of course, a matter for the Minister, and I do not want to pre-empt that, but we should expect that update, during which my right hon. Friend and others can raise concerns directly with the Minister.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May we have a statement from a Work and Pensions Minister on the lack of routes through which right hon. and hon. Members can contact the Department on behalf of constituents who, as in the case of one chronically ill lady whom I represent, have lost universal credit and wish to challenge that? She has been struggling for more than a year, whereas we have been struggling only for the last six months, to get an answer out of the Department. When the Leader of the House sends on that request, as he always assiduously does, may I include a summary sheet about this case for him to include with his letter to the Minister?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman may indeed include that, and I will take this up with the Minister, because I know that his frustrations are shared by many Members of the House. If he lets me have that information, I will get on with it.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Serhat Erdogan and his team on the successful opening of Cafe Victoria? He has taken on a long-empty shop in Grimsby town centre, which shows great confidence in the local economy of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. The Government launched community auctions for empty shops; will the Leader of the House help me to get a Government statement on progress on community auctions?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone involved with the opening of Cafe Victoria. I know the trials and tribulations of coastal communities, and the important role that cafés and hospitality play. If she wants to make the case directly to a Minister and get that update, I will help her to achieve that.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—the Prime Minister in waiting—has said that his approach to devolution would be one of urgency, yet we understand that there may be conversations about delaying announcements on local government reorganisation and devolution of powers, so that the new Prime Minister has the glamour of announcing them. Will the Leader of the House put those rumours to bed, and confirm that announcements on the creation of unitary authorities in Hertfordshire and elsewhere will be made in this House, before the summer recess? That way, Members can ask the Government questions, and local authorities can have certainty about going ahead with local government reorganisation without further disruption to vital services, such as special educational needs and disabilities provision and social care.
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me think about what the hon. Lady has said and find out from the relevant Department what its plans are. On what might happen in the future, let me reassure her and the House that there will be continuity of government. Of course, if there is a new incoming Administration, it is not unreasonable for them to look at plans, but they will be absolutely aware of the need for local areas and local government to plan for the future. Let me think about the first bit. I reassure her that whatever happens in the future, I would expect the next Administration to want to get on with it.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Many of us remain frustrated by delays to Royal Mail postal deliveries. My constituent Anthony Barnes was removed from a treatment waiting list on three occasions because hospital communications did not arrive in time. I have encouraged local healthcare providers to use Royal Mail’s NHS-specific barcode, which prioritises delivery for health board correspondence. Can I ask the Leader of the House for a ministerial update on Royal Mail’s performance, including uptake of the NHS-specific barcode? That will be important to many of our constituents across the UK.
Sir Alan Campbell
The consequences that Anthony faced due to Royal Mail delivery issues are simply unacceptable. My hon. Friend is right that this affects constituents right across the country. I am pleased to say that the Business and Trade Committee continues to look at Royal Mail’s performance, but I will raise this matter with the Department on my hon. Friend’s behalf.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Back in 2022, the Keighley Cougars were awarded over £2 million to replace the Danny Jones stand, which is in dire need of repair, but Bradford council has still not made a decision on releasing this money, despite it having been awarded to the team. Can we have a debate in this place about how we unlock this money, which had been allocated through the Keighley towns fund, so that we can get these projects underway for the benefit of my residents in Keighley?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me wish the Keighley Cougars well in their endeavours. Also, I hope that Bradford council has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, that it can get on, and that he gets the positive response that he seeks. If that is not forthcoming, perhaps he would seek an Adjournment debate on the issue, in order to hear directly from the Minister, who I am sure will confirm the importance that this Government give to local sport.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Rick Rescorla, a son of Hayle in my constituency, was a security guard in the Twin Towers on 9/11, and is widely credited with saving 2,700 lives while sacrificing his own. Decorated in his career in both the British and US armies, Rick was truly a national hero. Ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the heroes of 9/11, and also help me secure British and US army representation at a ceremony in Hayle on 9/11?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter in the House. He is absolutely right to highlight the bravery shown that day by Rick Rescorla. It is an absolutely remarkable story from a very dark day indeed. As we approach the anniversary, I hope that my hon. Friend might consider applying for an Adjournment debate on this subject, to start the build-up to what will be a prolonged and important commemoration of those dreadful events. As for his point about ensuring that servicemen or women are at the ceremony, I hope that the Ministry of Defence has heard it. If not, I will point it out to the Department.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
On Tuesday, we learned that the only two major road projects in the east midlands—the A46 in Newark and the A38 in Derby—were to be scrapped. So many questions remain. How were these projects chosen? Why are the only projects being scrapped in the whole country those in the east midlands? Who, if anyone, was consulted? The Labour Mayor of the East Midlands was not. How much money has been wasted over the last 10 years getting to the point that we are at today? Does the Department for Transport even support this decision, given that the only communication we have had—by “we”, I mean the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), the Labour Mayor of the East Midlands and I—came, weirdly, from a special adviser in No. 10, not from the Secretary of State for Transport? It really is a mess. Can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to get in touch with those of us who are interested in this matter, and to come to Parliament to answer questions on it?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, in short; I will ask the Secretary of State to ensure that MPs from the area, including the right hon. Gentleman, get the information that they seek. These are very tough decisions indeed. On the one hand, it is quite right that Opposition—and, indeed, Government—Members should call for greater expenditure on defence; that is why every Department has been asked to look at its spending commitments, including Transport. These are tough decisions, and I understand that they are frustrating and can have a big effect on local areas. I will seek a meeting for the right hon. Gentleman and local MPs, so that they can make their case to the relevant Minister.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know that I never miss an opportunity to raise the subject of the state of Staffordshire’s roads, but they may not have heard this variant before. Residents in Church Eaton have reported a sinkhole on their high street. I have seen it. Nobody seems able to get it filled in. It is on a main road, close to a primary school, and it has become something of a legend among local residents, to the extent that one constituent wrote a poem about it. Could the Leader of the House grant a debate on the condition of rural roads, so that we can get to the bottom of why repairs like this keep falling through the cracks?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for her constituents on the issue of local roads, and I pay tribute to her for that. Her constituents are rightly angry about this issue, and I expect better—well, perhaps I do not, but we ought to—from a Reform county council. I hope the council has heard my hon. Friend this morning. We are doubling investment in local road maintenance, and providing a record £7.3 billion boost for councils over the next four years. My advice to the council is this: the money is there—get on and use it.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
In Salisbury, we welcome zero emission buses, and the previous Conservative Administration worked with the ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional area—scheme to deliver 30 new buses. Last week, when I met Ed Wills, the new managing director of Salisbury Reds, we discussed a number of matters, including acoustic measures to mitigate the noise from those buses, but the challenge is that Chinese-manufactured buses are cheaper, and offer greater battery range. The Government need to make a decision about the next round of the ZEBRA scheme. Could the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement on this, so that local authorities around the country, including those in Wiltshire, can determine the best way to expand provision?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me draw that to the attention of the relevant Minister. This Government set great store by buses and the environment, but we are encouraging councils and businesses to buy British wherever they can. I will raise that matter directly with the Minister, and we will see whether we can get the update that the right hon. Gentleman is looking for.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I have not yet had the opportunity to mention the knighting of Kevin Sinfield—a great human being, a brilliant sports player and, I suppose above all, a humanitarian. One of his distinguishing characteristics is his modesty, but modesty cannot be attributed to the new boss at Royal Mail, who is driving that company into the ground, in spite of the efforts of the posties. He has paid himself a £7 million salary in a single year. Can we have a debate about corporate failure and executive reimbursement? That would allow us to express our frustration about what is happening in the country.
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me join my hon. Friend in once again paying tribute to Sir Kevin Sinfield on his well-deserved honour. Royal Mail is the subject of an inquiry that will report back to the House; there will be an opportunity at that point to debate it. If we need further time for debate on the subject, I will give that matter consideration.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Cellnex estimates that Mid Sussex is ranked 499th out of 650 constituencies for quality of mobile signal strength. The current obligations on mobile operators are clearly failing to provide the coverage that my constituents deserve in villages like Cuckfield, Bolney and Fulking. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the merits of changing these mobile operator obligations, so that we can have the coverage that we so badly need?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is a concern for the Government. We want to make sure that everyone has the services they need, and we are keen get that coverage rolled out. I encourage the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate, or perhaps a debate in Westminster Hall, to make her case, so that she can hear directly from the relevant Minister what more we can do.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Government have shown a clear commitment to addressing many of the issues facing leaseholders, but may I ask them to go further? I say that because many of my constituents who are leaseholders in a particular building that is under 11 metres tall are facing a bill of £70,000—in fact, the managing agent is asking for £3,000 a month. This is not due to any fault on the part of the leaseholders. Will the Leader of the House ask the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make an oral or written statement on the support available to leaseholders in buildings that are under 11 metres tall?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. The Government are working hard to strengthen leaseholder protections through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and our forthcoming leasehold and commonhold reform Bill, but I shall certainly seek the update she requests. I remind the House that there is a Backbench Business debate later today on leasehold reform, in which my hon. Friend and other Members will be able to raise these issues and hear directly from the Minister for Housing and Planning.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The House will be delighted to learn that 17-year-old Leo, whom I have mentioned previously in the Chamber, is now cancer-free after being matched with a stem cell donor. This is excellent news. In addition, Leo is up for an award—the BBC Make a Difference young hero of the year. Will the whole House join me in wishing Leo the best of luck, and perhaps the Leader of the House will root for Leo to go on to win?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly send my best wishes to Leo for a full recovery. I recall the hon. Gentleman raising Leo’s remarkable story, and I am delighted to hear the news. I also wish him all the very best in relation to the award. There are some remarkable young people, and I hope that Leo is recognised as one of them.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
More than 70 organisations and novelist Irvine Welsh are backing the community-led bid for Leith to become the first ever UK town of culture. Can my right hon. Friend put in a word for Leith with Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and will he make arrangements for a written statement to update us on the timetable of the UK town of culture 2028 competition?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure Leith is a perfectly lovely town and a fine contender for town of culture; however, my hon. Friend invites me down a route I simply cannot take, because North Shields, a town in my constituency, has also put in a very strong bid—as has Chorley, Mr Speaker—and I do have to return to my constituency, so I have to be careful. None the less, I wish all the towns, including Leith, the very best in their attempts to be crowned the first town of culture. It is a great scheme and, win or lose, a great way to highlight the importance of our towns and the communities who live in them. I will ask the relevant Minister to update the House on the process as soon as possible.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. On 23 December 2024, my constituent Aaron Jones was killed in a hit and run while walking his dog. The perpetrator was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. Two weeks ago, his widow, Lisa, received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her of sentence changes under the Sentencing Act 2026, but she will have to wait until the end of August to know whether the man who took her husband’s life will be released earlier than expected. Does the Leader of the House agree that this uncertainty only brings further distress to victims’ families, and will he grant a debate in Government time so we can ensure that the Act is implemented with the required sensitivity, and with the safety and wellbeing of survivors the foremost consideration?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the sensitivity of this matter and the distress that the death of Mr Jones and what has happened since must bring to his family. These are difficult decisions, but I understand the hon. Lady’s point about giving families reassurance as far as it can be given. I hope that the Ministry of Justice has heard her comments, and I will raise this case directly with Ministers.
If the hon. Lady seeks an Adjournment debate to hear a Minister explain how else this process can be strengthened, I think that would be appropriate, but let me be clear: this must be a part of every process, not just applied in individual cases. A cultural shift is needed in how we deal with these matters.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
On 15 June, a vehicle crashed through the fence at Sunny Days nursery in Vale Road, Ellesmere Port, injuring a number of children. Thankfully, it does not look as if there has been any long-term damage. The parents want to praise the staff at the nursery and the local residents and businesses who came to the children’s aid, but the incident has raised questions about security and safety standards at nurseries. I understand that the Department for Education is looking at the issue, but will a Minister make a statement about it?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right that the Department for Education takes the issue very seriously indeed and is looking at these matters. When it has reached its conclusions, I am sure that the relevant Minister will want to bring them to the House. I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend has done, not just to the staff at the nursery but to the whole community, who sound as though they rallied together after this unfortunate and terrible situation. Let us hope that what comes forward makes it much less likely that something like this will happen again.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
In 2023, I secured funds from the last Government to conserve and bring home our 10-foot sea dragon to Rutland. Unfortunately, Rutland county council has now overrun on another project and has decided not bring the ichthyosaur back to Rutland, which will cost our local economy in terms of future prosperity. The local conservator has said that he will reduce the cost of conserving this specimen of national importance, but the council has said that it cannot accept a reduced cost or retender for the work because of national Government rules. Does that not seem preposterous? It flies in the face of the idea of best value for taxpayer money.
Sir Alan Campbell
It does sound slightly odd, and I share the hon. Lady’s concern. If she provides me with the details, I will take them away and get the Department to look at them to see how the council has interpreted the rules and whether this is the reality, but I hope that the council has heard her remarks.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. This week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) declared that he is earning an extraordinary £22,500 per hour working for a gold bullion dealer.
Mr Speaker
Order. Have you informed the hon. Member for Clacton that you intended to raise this matter?
Phil Brickell
Questions have also emerged about his lobbying the Bank of England for crypto-friendly policies, having himself invested £215,000 into bitcoin company Stack BTC, alongside former Conservative Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. Does the Leader of the House agree that Members of this House are public servants and that we should always put our constituents first, before any private interest? Will he use his good offices as Chair of the Modernisation Committee to deliver much-needed reform to the rules on Members’ outside employment?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes. I share my hon. Friend’s view about the importance of the primary job of MPs. There was a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall yesterday. This matter was raised on a number of occasions and the Minister without Portfolio set out the current Government’s response. The Government believe that an MP’s primary job is to represent their constituents, which is why we have already made some important changes following the general election to tighten the rules relating to MPs’ second jobs. We accept that there is a great deal more to do and I will continue to work closely with the Committee on Standards, which is looking at this matter and I hope will bring forward recommendations that satisfy my hon. Friend.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dairy. I welcome the fact that the Government’s farming road map explicitly designates food production as an issue of national security, but I am deeply concerned that their water White Paper proposes a blanket extension of environmental permitting, from poultry and pig farms to the dairy sector, despite animals in the former being kept mostly indoors and cattle mostly outdoors. My North Cornwall constituents and National Farmers’ Union delegates estimate that this could cost around £10,000 per farm and produce much more paperwork. Can we please have a debate in Government time on the need to support farmers to produce food for this country, rather than deterring our farmers from actually farming?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government share the hon. Gentleman’s view that it is important that we support farmers, and agree with him about the importance of food security and food production as we go forward. As he alluded to, we need to ensure that what is happening in certain areas of farming and the Government’s plans on water are joined up, because we need to get this right. In order to get an answer from the relevant Minister, I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate so that he can hear from them directly.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Vernon Building Society, which was established in 1924, offers financial services to people in Stockport and across Greater Manchester. It is a true mutual, owned by members, not shareholders. However, as the building society sector grows, there are concerns about meaningful democratic engagement for members. In particular, in Nationwide, which is the largest building society in the world, concerns have been raised about a virtual-only annual general meeting, a lack of member-nominated directors and the quick vote mechanism. When members are owners, they must have a meaningful voice in how the organisation is run and governed. As such, may I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on the Building Societies Act 1986 and the need for a meaningful democratic voice for the membership?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises some interesting concerns, particularly around transparency, and he rightly points out that building societies are a vital and growing part of our economy. I suggest that he should seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate so that he can hear directly from a Minister how his concerns might be addressed.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
EnQuest has just announced that jobs will be lost at the Sullom Voe oil terminal, in the latest blow to the oil and gas sector. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a full debate on the future of the oil and gas sector before it is too late?
Sir Alan Campbell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I know that the oil and gas sector was a very big issue in the by-election, and the Government take this matter very seriously indeed.
I very much regret the loss of jobs that the hon. Gentleman has talked about, but I gently remind him that it is not a new phenomenon; some 70,000 jobs have been lost in the last decade. However, oil and gas come out of the North sea 24 hours a day, every day, and they will continue to do so. We have a mixed economy, but we must ensure that green jobs are coming through as well, because the sector needs to change.
I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of a debate specifically on this matter at the moment, but the Government are very cognisant of it. Should we or the Backbench Business Committee get the opportunity to have that debate, I am sure it would be very well attended.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Increasing numbers of people experiencing homelessness are being forced to choose between accessing accommodation and keeping the pets that provide them with companionship, emotional support, stability and a sense of safety. Street Paws is a leading campaigner to remove this preventable barrier. Pet-inclusive approaches have been introduced successfully in a number of areas, including Greater Manchester, demonstrating that such policies can be implemented safely and effectively. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the need to expand that support and ensure that no one is denied accommodation simply because they refuse to abandon a beloved pet?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very important point indeed, which I know is a concern to many of our constituents. The homelessness code of guidance sets out the framework that local authorities must follow in carrying out their homelessness duties. It is not always possible, but the Secretary of State recommends that authorities give careful consideration to those who rely on pets for companionship when making provision for them. I will ensure that Ministers have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns; if they have further proposals to bring forward, I am sure that they will do so.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join the people of the Isle of Man this weekend, as they prepare to celebrate Tynwald Day on Monday. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting the Tynwald day reception in Speaker’s House last night with the Chief Minister, the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys.
For several years, I have received correspondence from former constituents who have moved to countries such as Australia and Canada after a lifetime of paying tax in the UK. Nearly half a million British pensioners abroad have their state pensions frozen, while those in the EU and the United States receive annual increases. That is even the case for those who retire to the British overseas territories of Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos. How can it be right that British nationals are treated differently depending on where they live? Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this long-standing injustice?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Isle of Man on Tynwald Day, and wish its people every success going forward.
On the issue of frozen state pensions, I cannot respond in any detail now, because it is a pretty complex area and I may well get it wrong. However, I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with the relevant Ministers, and see whether we can get an update on where we are and what proposals there might be in future. If the hon. Gentleman seeks a debate about this issue—because not just his constituents will be affected, although he takes a particular interest in overseas territories—he may well get an opportunity to put his concerns directly to the relevant Minister.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Just over 18 months ago, Harshita Brella was murdered in Corby and her body was found in the boot of a car. We are aware that there is an ongoing police investigation, and none of us wants to do anything to prejudice that, but her family feel isolated; recently, they flew over from India to get an update. When they hear nothing, they feel as though nothing is happening, so will the Leader of the House work with Home Office and Foreign Office colleagues to ensure that the family receive monthly updates on what progress is being made in securing justice for Harshita?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important case, and share his horror at this horrific attack—our thoughts remain with Harshita’s friends and family, and I understand the strength of feeling about this case. As my hon. Friend points out, there is an ongoing investigation, but I understand that the Home Office will be writing to him soon to address his concerns. Should he want a further meeting with Home Office representatives, I am sure they would be happy to arrange it.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Yesterday, over 50 parliamentarians from across this House and their Ukrainian counterparts wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about “Masha and the Bear”, a Russian cartoon series in which the militarisation of children and a distinct lack of regard for boundaries are key themes. It is currently streamed to British children on Netflix and ITVX; it is produced by a Russian studio paying tax to the Russian state, and has been labelled an instrument of Russian soft power by the Ukrainian Centre for Countering Disinformation. Does the Leader of the House agree that British children should not be an audience for content with these propaganda concerns, and will he ask the Secretary of State for DCMS to make a statement on what the Government intend to do about it?
Sir Alan Campbell
I share concerns if children are being bombarded with propaganda, because that would be highly inappropriate, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise those concerns. I will take them up with the Secretary of State for DCMS and get an update on what the Government intend to do, and can do, about this matter.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It has been more than two years since the devastating explosion at Coronation Terrace in Willington, and although the immediate emergency has long since passed, the impact on local residents continues. Families have had to live alongside an unsightly, derelict and potentially dangerous site, and there have been prolonged delays in resolving insurance claims involving numerous parties, leaving the community in limbo. As usual, discussions take place behind closed doors, but my constituents deserve to see all those involved working together to bring this matter to a conclusion. Will the Leader of the House advise me on the best way to expedite action in cases such as these, where complex insurance processes appear to have stalled progress for far too long?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter—she is an assiduous campaigner for her wonderful constituency. It is important that work is done, and that that work is transparent and timely. I encourage the local council to engage with this matter and to work with my hon. Friend to resolve it. It is the council’s responsibility to help with these matters, but I will reach out to the relevant Government Department to request that it provides my hon. Friend with any available guidance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House please ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the escalating abduction crisis in northern Nigeria? Reports indicate that some 1,100 people were abducted in the first four months of this year, and last week, gunmen—terrorists—attacked Government Day secondary school in Lassa, Borno state, and abducted 36 students and one staff member during examination time. What representations have the Government made to the Nigerian authorities to strengthen civilian protection, secure the release of those still held captive, and tackle the armed groups responsible for these attacks?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. I saw those reports, and what is happening is appalling. The UK stands firmly against these attacks, and at this difficult time we stand firmly with the people and Government of Nigeria and with the families of the children who have been abducted. We continue to work closely with the Government of Nigeria, including through our ongoing security and defence partnership. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with the Foreign Office.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Craigmark Burntonians, a club from my home town and the community I am proud to represent, have won the west of Scotland football league division 3. Vital amateur league football plays a great part in our local communities. I would like to thank Steve Clarke, an Ayrshire man, for his outstanding contribution over the past seven years, which included taking Scotland to the world cup, and that is not to forget our fantastic, amazing fans. Does the Minister agree that those achievements highlight the need for a debate on the vital role that football plays in our local communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
Football at every level, from Sunday league to the world cup, plays an important part in local communities across the United Kingdom. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Craigmark Burntonians on their success. I recommend, particularly in the light of what is unfolding at the world cup, that she apply for a debate on the importance of football. I am sure it would be well attended.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be well aware that our UK Labour Government have given more than £340 million to the Plaid Cymru minority Government in Wales, specifically for those with additional learning needs. Could he explain why this money has not been distributed to local councils, as all 22 local authorities and every teaching union have called for? Why is this vital funding being held back? Why is it not being used to support our Welsh pupils with ALN? I am at a loss to understand it. Could he help, please?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not in a position to help, because I do not understand either. It seems incongruous given what this Government are seeking to do and, I would have thought, with the intended actions of the new Administration in Wales. It is a great deal of money and the need is there, so I do not understand why it has not happened. I hope that the Welsh Government have listened to the very wise words of my hon. Friend. Let us see what happens. Should she want to hear directly from a Minister about what further we can do from here, I would advise her to seek an Adjournment debate.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Last week, Sarah, the head of pastoral services at Hexham Priory school, and the Friends of Hexham Priory school began their 24-hour challenge. They raised more than £28,000 by running and walking laps of Wentworth leisure centre in Hexham for a continuous 24-hour period—in one of the hottest weeks on record, no less. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them on their actions? Will he support a debate in Government time on support for respite services for the families of children with special educational needs and disabilities in rural areas?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in celebrating the remarkable achievement of Sarah Dodd and the Friends of Hexham Priory school, who raised more than £28,000, particularly since it was during a heatwave. I would be happy to raise my hon. Friend’s request for a meeting with the Department for Education so that he can discuss how respite services for families of children with complex needs can be improved, but he will have noticed that the Secretary of State for Education is on the Front Bench and will have heard his remarks.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
This weekend, more than half a million people from around the world will descend on the Silverstone circuit—half of which is located in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency—hopefully to see another British win at the British grand prix. The race will also allow Buckinghamshire to showcase its status as a hub for high-performance engineering in which more than 8,000 people are employed by 1,700 businesses. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing British racers the best of luck this weekend, and might he find time for a debate on the contribution of Formula 1 and motorsport to the UK economy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly send everyone my best wishes and I agree with my hon. Friend that Formula 1 and motorsports generally bring a huge advantage to our economy, whether that is through the highly skilled engineers, researchers and developers or the success of British drivers including Sir Lewis Hamilton, George Russell and Lando Norris. We have a great deal to celebrate, and I hope there is more to celebrate in the future. I hope that all fans enjoy the race this weekend, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter today.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the 2nd Wednesfield scout group on its upcoming 100th anniversary? I give particular thanks to Steve Rogers, better known as Codge, for 50 years of service. He has shown incredible dedication to so many young people, over many generations, in and around Wednesfield. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Codge and all involved in our scout groups in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the good work of the scouts, and I join her in congratulating the 2nd Wednesfield scout group on its upcoming centenary—a remarkable achievement. I also join her in expressing thanks for the voluntary service of Steve Rogers, and of all scout and girl guide leaders, who generously give their time in support of young people.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
On Sunday, I was delighted to attend a teatime event with the Fulford community choir. It was an uplifting and joyous event, and I congratulate Gail Sullivan, Wendy Godfrey, Dan Hollinghurst, Rowena Davies and all the volunteers and musicians who helped organise the event. Does the Leader of the House agree that choirs and community events, such as the one at Fulford village hall, do so much to improve mental health, tackle loneliness, and strengthen our communities and villages, such as Fulford?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that choirs and local events can do so much to support and bring together our local communities, including by helping with mental health and combating loneliness. Volunteers who help to organise events, such as the members of the Fulford community choir, provide an invaluable service to their local community, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Heat-related mortality has taken 10,000 lives in England over the last five years and exacerbated the risk of ill health, from asthma to stroke. With climate degradation, things are only going to get worse. What steps are the Government taking to address this issue and ensure that there are proper facilities in workplaces, homes and communities, to future-proof our society against extreme heat?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise that. We know that extreme weather events are getting more common and that these issues will not go away. We are working across Government to respond to severe heatwaves and mobilise support, particularly for the most vulnerable, who are of course at greatest risk of harm. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are taking action to combat climate change, and I will make sure that the points she raises are shared with the relevant Minister.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Wolverhampton community radio—101.8 WCR FM—in my constituency provides a vital service for people across the city. It gives a platform to local voices, community groups, charities and volunteers, and keeps residents informed about the issues that matter to them most. I have been on the radio talking about knife crime and the Pride in Place programme. At a time when we have had reductions in local radio services following commercial radio mergers, will the Leader of the House please agree to a debate in Government time to recognise the invaluable contribution of community radio stations, such as Wolverhampton community radio, and the importance of providing sustainable, long-term funding for community broadcasting across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the role that local radio plays in giving a platform to local voices and communities. We have launched our local media strategy, with an increase in community radio funding to £1 million per year. I suggest that my hon. Friend apply for a Westminster Hall debate to discuss the role that radio plays in our local communities, because every constituency will be affected.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I recently did the school run in Ilkeston with Bebe Newton, experiencing it in the way that she does: in a wheelchair. We navigated broken pavements, uneven crossings and all kinds of poorly placed street furniture. It really showed me the barriers that disabled people face every day of their lives. It was so difficult, mentally and physically exhausting and, at times, dangerous. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate so that we can examine properly the experiences of disabled people and the barriers that they face in everyday life?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, my hon. Friend is a champion for the rights of his constituents, and I pay tribute to him for that. We are committed to ensuring that streets and transport networks are accessible for everyone, including disabled people. However, the overall responsibility for the management of pavements, crossings and street furniture lies with the local highway authority. I hope that it has heard his powerful representation on behalf of his constituents.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
After holding a series of stakeholder events with local businesses and charities and an online survey attracting more than 1,000 responses, I have recently published the results of a city centre survey for Dunfermline. That survey highlighted that people are very proud to live in Scotland’s newest city and ancient capital, but that improvements are needed in the city centre itself to improve aesthetics and attract new businesses. Does the Leader of the House agree that the people of Dunfermline deserve to see improvements in their city centre, and will he help me deliver that for my constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. Scotland has so many brilliant places to visit, and he is right to promote his city of Dunfermline. We are committed to backing Britain’s tourism industry, which supports over 1.3 million jobs and £64.3 billion in gross value added to the economy. I recommend that he applies for what would be a very popular Westminster Hall debate.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Around 59% of children in the most deprived areas reach a good level of development by the time they start primary school compared with 79% in the least deprived areas. Babyzone is a charity set up to level the playing field by providing free-to-access community hubs that offer services to support children’s development. I recently had the privilege of opening Babyzone’s first Scottish hub in Easterhouse, which I know will make a real difference to local families. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Babyzone’s work, and will he consider allocating parliamentary time to debate how we can close the development gap between affluent and poorer neighbourhoods so that every child gets a fair start in life?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise charities such as Babyzone, which deliver a truly positive impact on local communities. Improving outcomes for pupils in deprived areas is an essential part of this Government’s wider mission to ensure that every child, whatever their background, can succeed. I certainly encourage her to apply for a debate on these matters so that Ministers can not just praise the success of organisations such as Babyzone, but outline plans about what further measures we intend to take.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Ward Jackson primary school in Hartlepool has been named one of the top 10 schools in the world for overcoming adversity on behalf of their pupils. In the words of the award organiser, it is a school where
“leaders refuse to let circumstance define what a child can become.”
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating pupils, families, governors and especially the extraordinary school staff at Ward Jackson on this brilliant achievement in leaving no child behind, which shows Hartlepool once again leading on the world stage?
Sir Alan Campbell
This Government are absolutely committed to giving every child the best start in life, and I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Ward Jackson primary school on being named one of the top 10 schools in the world for overcoming adversity. I am sure that this achievement would not have been possible without the support of the brilliant staff, the pupils’ hard work and the dedication of the families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Historical Forced Adoption
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This morning in Downing Street, I met some of the mothers and adult adoptees harmed by historical adoption practices in England. They are here with us in the Gallery today, and I had the chance to talk with them privately. They are the most remarkable women, and I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage with which they have shared their harrowing testimonies and fought for the truth time and again. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I have to confess that, as I said to those mothers this morning, I found it hard to read the testimonies and to hear their stories—I found it particularly hard as a dad—but how much harder it must have been for them to go through that, to set out their testimonies and to tell their stories over and over again. As they said to me this morning, this is something which is so intensely private having to be public. The courage and resilience they have shown, and others alongside them, is absolutely incredible, and I want to mark that.
What happened to them, and to tens of thousands of mothers, children and families, should never have happened. It is a stain on our history. Mothers—many young, vulnerable and without support—were coerced, bullied or misled into feeling they had no choice but to have their children taken from them. What a thing to do.
These were not isolated or accidental acts. They were practices embedded within systems across local authorities, across voluntary and faith-based institutions, and in health and social care services, including parts of what is now the NHS. They were all institutions that operated with power over people’s lives, yet they did so without compassion, without consent and without dignity or proper safeguards.
These practices were particularly prevalent between 1949 and 1976, but also extended beyond those years. In some cases, women, including those placed in mother and baby homes and other institutional settings, were cut off from their families, relationships, education and employment, and subjected to harsh and isolating conditions. Some experienced treatment that amounted to exploitation and abuse.
Many were made to feel ashamed—that came through very, very powerfully in the discussions I had this morning —silenced, and unworthy of care or dignity. Children grew up believing that they were unwanted. Young mothers were told that they were immoral and that their babies were better off without them. As they told me this morning, that lasts a lifetime and has a huge impact.
Ann Lloyd Keen, who is in the Gallery and is of course formerly of this House, described to the Education Committee how she was stitched without anaesthetic, and was told:
“You will remember the pain, because you’ve been a bad girl.”
Many of those harmed in this way feel a gut-wrenching sense of shame. Ann and others have said that that has stayed with them. She says that she still feels it today. I know that this apology will not be able to lift it completely—it will help a little, I hope, but it will not lift it completely.
I say this to Ann, to everyone with us in the Gallery, and to all those impacted and affected, wherever they are in the country—there are many thousands of them, including some who still, to this day, have not been able to speak about what happened to them. I hope this statement and apology perhaps gives some of them the confidence to speak about what happened to them, because it will help in a small way. The shame is not yours. The shame was never yours. The shame is ours. I say that on behalf of the whole country and I say it to every single person impacted. We are deeply and profoundly sorry.
To the mothers who were told they were unfit, who were prevented from caring for the children they desperately wanted to help and to keep and who have carried this loss for decades. To those who were not given the information they needed to provide informed consent, who faced pressure or coercion and who experienced practices that were unethical.
To the sons and daughters, the children who are now adults, who through pressure and coercion within these systems were taken from their families and denied their identity, their history and sometimes their safety. To those who grew up believing they were unwanted, some of whom were even told directly that they were second class.
To those who have carried a burden of loss, confusion and stigma, or who experienced neglect and abuse without the protection or oversight that should have been their right. To those who have experienced lifelong uncertainty, loss or questions about identity and belonging, or whose mental and physical health, relationships and sense of self across their lives has been affected.
To the fathers who were denied a voice, excluded from decisions, or separated from their children. To the siblings, grandparents, partners, extended families, and future generations who have lived with the consequences of these practices. To those who experienced harm from these practices, even while being brought up in loving homes, by their adoptive parents.
To those who were adopted across borders or cultures, who lost connections to their heritage, and racial and personal identity. And to those from ethnic minority backgrounds who experienced racism or were treated differently within those systems, and who as a group were less likely to be adopted or to grow up in stable family homes.
I am struck by the words of Debbie Iromlou, who I met this morning. She says she was
“raised with racist views towards her own biological family.”
Mr Speaker, how do you even begin to comprehend that? To each and every one of those affected, we say a deep and heartfelt sorry.
Let me be clear and unequivocal: those harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state. Governments funded, enabled and relied on systems that were not consistently or effectively overseen. The state did not prevent harm from continuing. The state bears responsibility for the systems it funded and legitimised, which enabled those practices to occur. The state did not do enough to protect mothers, children and families from harm. And for that systemic failing, I am truly sorry.
Many of those affected have suffered a further injustice. They have had to fight for the basic human right to know their own story. As Sally Ells puts it:
“We are treated as if the information about our own lives, does not belong to us”.
Debbie Iromlou was told her birth mother’s life would be in danger if she tried to search for her. Barriers were put in place at every twist and turn. Records have in some cases been lost, altered, or not made fully accessible to those seeking answers, and the whole process is painfully slow—traumatic and dehumanising all over again.
We say sorry and we mean it, but sorry is not enough. This must also be the start of real change: working with those affected and their families to improve access to records, and to provide the care and support that people need. So today I can tell the House that we will fund the development of a national online resource, creating a single access point to locate records wherever they might be held across the country. We will consult on requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years, so they remain available across the lifetime of those affected.
Today, the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities, regional adoption agencies and voluntary adoption agencies, setting out the expectation that requests for records should be responded to swiftly and with compassion and consistency. We will expand access to funded intermediary services, with a particular focus on pre-1976 cases, where access to support is currently most limited. We will establish national virtual peer-led support groups for mothers and adopted adults, to improve access to ongoing, trauma-informed support across the country.
We will work with NHS England to ensure those affected are taken seriously when they seek help. That includes new support for clinicians to better understand the impact of forced adoption and respond appropriately in their care. NHS England will also explore how those who wish to do so can have their experience of forced adoption appropriately recorded in their health record.
Finally, to further recognise those affected and ensure we learn the lessons of the past, we will commission a testimonials project to capture the stories of those with experience of historical forced adoption practices. Through all of this and more, we will continue to meet regularly with those with lived experience. We will be guided by them to get this support right and learn from our past to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again in this country.
Finally, this national apology reflects and builds on the approaches taken by Scotland and Wales, whose devolved Governments have also issued apologies for these practices, which we fully endorse. I welcome the process under way in Northern Ireland to establish a statutory public inquiry into mother and baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee for all they have done to shine a light on this injustice.
Most of all, I want to thank those who have campaigned for so long to have the truth recognised, including those who are no longer with us to hear the apology they fought for. It should never have happened, and they should not have had to fight so hard for this day to come. Today, finally, I say on behalf of the state and the nation as a whole: we see you, we hear you, and we are truly sorry.
I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for coming to the House to deliver the statement himself. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, we welcome what he has said and agree that whenever the state makes grave errors, it has a deep responsibility to apologise for what it did to those it has wronged.
One hundred and eighty-five thousand children grew up in Britain without their mothers because of bad decisions and fundamentally flawed beliefs that treated unmarried mothers with a shame and stigma that is mercifully alien to us today. Those decisions and beliefs left a permanent mark on each and every one of those lives: on children separated from their mothers, and on the mothers whose children were taken away. As the Prime Minister said, this is a stain on our history.
Bonds between mothers and children are the foundation of security and identity; indeed, perhaps the foundation of all we have. While I know from much experience that the act of adopting a child is among the greatest kindness one person can show another, and that many of those children will have gone on to be raised by loving families, there can be no doubt that they will also have carried a great grief across many years.
One cannot help but be moved by the powerful testimonies that some have given. I will mention just one mother’s experience: the journey back from the hospital
“was the longest I held my daughter—it was two hours—and it was like everything suddenly made sense. I just felt like this was absolutely right, and I wouldn’t let go of her…a woman appeared and said, ‘It’s time’…and she was taken from my arms and handed over. And she howled—I assume I did…and the following week they sent me back to school.”
Thousands upon thousands of such experiences happened every day in every corner of our country over many years.
Thankfully, in the years since, a huge amount has been done to ensure that such things cannot happen again in our country; change in adoption law and modern courts and legislation make a repeat of these injustices much less likely. We welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has outlined today and the fact that the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities and agencies setting the expectation that requests for records should be swiftly responded to. I am glad that that builds on the steps the previous Government tried to take to improve access to adoption records, offer post-adoption counselling and improve the complaints procedure for agencies. We hope that all these steps will make a difference to some whose experiences lie in the past, and to many in the future.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. The Education Committee called for an assessment of international redress schemes. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government are considering that? I welcome his announcement of support groups for mothers and adopted adults. Who will be responsible for establishing this service and what budget will be set aside for it?
I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement and repeat what he has said to those affected: the shame was never yours.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his response and for welcoming what the Government have set out today. I also thank him for the care and attention that he has shown personally to this issue and linked issues.
I genuinely believe it is so important that we speak with one voice in the House today, so that those affected know that this is an apology from all of us in equal measure and that the House is united on this issue. I thank him for speaking in that way, because the issue impacts not us in the Chamber but all those who have been affected. To know that the whole House supports the apology that has been given today, and how it has been given, is really important.
On the hon. Member’s questions, we are looking at schemes. We are being guided by those affected as to the support that they think is most important to them, and we will continue to be guided in that way. He also asked about responsibility, which will be with the Department for Education. I am happy to provide him with further information as these things develop.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The evidence that the Education Committee heard from mothers and adult adoptees was utterly devastating. I thank Diana Defries, Ann Lloyd Keen, Sally Ells and Debbie Iromlou for courageously reliving their trauma so that we could shine a light on the extent of the injustice they suffered and the urgent need for a meaningful response. They should not have had to work so hard for so long just to be heard and to have their experiences recognised.
I also thank the academics who gave evidence, and especially Professor Gordon Harold and Dr Michael Lambert, whose painstaking and rigorous research helped to prove what mothers and adult adoptees have long known: that the state was culpable for the wrongs they suffered by presiding over, funding and facilitating a system that dehumanised unmarried pregnant women and their babies, and inflicted horrific cruelty upon them.
I thank the Prime Minister for this apology today. It is long overdue and much needed. I thank him for the breadth of the apology and for the Government’s work with survivors to get to this point. Women whose babies were forcibly adopted and who endured cruelty and humiliation in mother and baby homes and in the NHS should know today that the shame of this period in our history rests on the Government and on the religious and community and healthcare organisations who presided over, facilitated and sustained the system; it is not, and never was, theirs to carry.
This apology is a watershed, but it must be only the beginning of putting right the disgraceful wrongs of this shameful period of our history. May I ask the Prime Minister to set out how progress on delivering the support he has announced will be monitored and how survivors will continue to be involved in it? Will he ensure that as the Government progress this work, information on how to access that support will be made widely available?
So many families have a story, and there are so many stories that are still untold with so many still feeling ashamed to speak about this period in their lives and its lifelong impact. They must no longer feel ashamed; they must feel that they can come forward and access the help and support they need.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done and led through the Education Committee, and I also thank all the members of that Committee. I heard about the testimony to the Committee and how difficult and harrowing it was for all concerned. She is absolutely right to thank those who gave their testimony and those who supported its work.
My hon. Friend used the word “dehumanised”. That is the right word, although it hardly feels strong enough to me. To break the bond between a mother and a child is nothing less than dehumanising. It goes to an intense feeling that we all have as human beings. To break that bond is indescribably painful—even to describe, let alone to have gone through—so “dehumanising” is the right word.
As I heard this morning from those in the Gallery, it is about not just the initial act and all the pain and anguish, but the everyday reminders, like when people ask, “Do you have children?” What a difficult and awful question to answer over and over again, and they have all had to come to terms with how they answer that question. It is a question that we might all hear or pose on a daily or weekly basis—it is such a simple, everyday thing, but it is so painful. That really struck me this morning, and there will be thousands of things like that across all the testimonies and stories.
To my hon. Friend’s question about monitoring, that will be done by the Department for Education, and we will, of course, involve survivors as we go forward. I have no doubt that the Education Committee will want to monitor that itself and be updated on it regularly.
My hon. Friend’s point about making sure it is widely known that support is available is so important. Many thousands of people will need the support, and they must know that it is available. As I said in my statement, I am acutely conscious that there are some who to this day have still not been able to speak about this. I hope that by making it widely known that support is available, some may feel able to come forward and get the support that they need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology, and we associate ourselves fully with all his remarks, including those about being united as one House in this apology.
I pay tribute to all the mothers and children who have campaigned so bravely and for so long for this apology. Speaking as a mother, I cannot begin to imagine the trauma, agony and shame that they experienced and had to live with. The testimony that they gave to the Education Committee this year is some of the most powerful and harrowing ever heard in this Parliament. The mothers who gave birth were denied pain relief as “punishment” and then given just a few hours or days with their newborn baby before they were stolen away. The children only found out years or decades later what had happened to them, discovering that they were victims of this appalling scandal. That evil has been compounded by the long wait for an apology. It should have come long before now.
It is a tragedy that Veronica Smith, whose daughter was taken from her 60 years ago and who founded the Movement for an Adoption Apology 16 years ago, sadly passed away before she could see her campaign succeed. This apology is a tribute to her and all who fought alongside her. I hope it gives them some sense of closure. I hope it helps them know that the blame does not lie with them, and never did, but with those who did this to them and those who allowed it to happen. That includes the Church of England, the Catholic Church, charities and, of course, the state.
As the Committee heard, an apology in words alone is not enough; it has to mean action to help heal the trauma that this scandal has caused. I very much welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has announced today on adoption records, trauma-informed support and the testimonials project. Will that support include a specialist mental health pathway for all those who need it? Will he commit to a continuing dialogue with the survivors on any further support or redress that they want?
Today’s apology is not the end. It must be the beginning of a better, more caring approach to these mothers and their children.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming this apology, and I repeat just how important it is that we are united across this House, speaking with one voice. I thank her for saying that.
The hon. Lady mentioned the long wait for an apology and for justice. It has been a double injustice. There is not just what happened, but then the fight, as is often the case, for acknowledgment of what went wrong. We got this wrong as a state. So often we circle the wagons and protect the decision makers and wrongdoers instead of asking ourselves the question, “Where is the injustice here, and how do we put it right?” That has to change, because it has happened in this case and others. I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to that.
We are looking at mental health pathways, which are vital. We are looking at how they need to be tailored, trauma-informed and developed. We will of course continue the dialogue with all those affected, and with the Education Committee and the House.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
As an adopted person born in 1972, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. I have no idea if my birth mother felt forced to have me adopted, but I do know that prior to the birth, she was in a Church of Scotland mother and baby home. My adoptive parents have since died, but I am sure that they would not have wanted to adopt any child who had been forcibly removed from their mother. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that mothers should be supported by the state to look after their children and not forced to give them up?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing her personal experience—it is obvious how hard that is. To say out loud, in a Chamber like this, things that are intensely personal and private, full of pain and grief, is really difficult. It is hard for some of us to comprehend just how difficult that must be, so I salute her courage and resilience, and all those who have spoken out. To have to speak out about something that is so intensely difficult over and over again is incredibly, incredibly demanding, but I hope there can be comfort not only in that you have been seen and heard because of it but in the fact that others will have the courage too to speak out about what happened to them. I thank her in that regard as well. We must keep up the support and the dialogue, and we will. I thank my hon. Friend again for her remarks.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything that the Prime Minister has said, and I join him in his apology. Of course, while historical misdeeds—and these are misdeeds—have got to be condemned, individuals have to be judged by the standards and morality of their own time, not ours. We have to bear that in mind. But I will say this: those of us who claim to be of religious persuasion should remember that our religion should be one not of judgment but of love, and that love should extend to everybody—young mothers, babies, and every frail person—from the very beginning of life to the very end.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, his welcoming of the report and his comments about love. I have to confess that I do not entirely agree with what he said about judging people by the standards of the day. I understand the point that he makes, but I think that something as visceral as this is wrong according to any standards—then and now. I am not disrespecting the point that he makes, but I just personally feel quite strongly that to dehumanise someone in this way is hard to explain—whenever it happened, whatever the standards in place. Otherwise, I agree with everything he said.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his really heartfelt statement—I think everybody here could feel that. Does he agree that we must recognise that a lack of empathy and dehumanising approach was adopted in this practice? I am minded that the statement “Don’t judge someone before you walk in their shoes” should apply. Unfortunately, in some service areas, we do not apply that principle, and it is demonising and dehumanising people. We need to recognise and support our common humanity.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for what she has done on this and on so many other issues. She is absolutely right that this cannot simply be a backward-looking exercise; we have to carry the principles that sit behind this apology into all the other instances when there is disrespect and a lack of regard for people’s dignity. If we commit to that, it will make the apology more meaningful, I am sure.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May I thank the Prime Minister for the incredibly powerful statement? I was lucky enough to bring forward legislation for victims of institutional child abuse in Northern Ireland. As part of that legislation, there was an apology. Those people, like the victims in this case, waited decades for people in important positions to properly listen to them, and I think what the Prime Minister has done today is a massive step forward. Even when the apology took place in Northern Ireland, though, the churches could not bring themselves to move away from the script provided by their lawyers, so I urge every institution that has been involved in these horrendous crimes to properly say sorry. We have heard about the processes that will follow this statement, but may I urge the Prime Minister to use the considerable power that he will have as a former Prime Minister to stay involved in this issue?
The Prime Minister
First, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will stay involved in this issue; it is a deep injustice. Secondly, I thank him for his work in Northern Ireland, because it was a really important moment. He is absolutely right about the way others address these issues—he gave the example of the churches. If you say that you see someone and you hear someone, you have to see them and you have to hear them. You cannot give an apology that is just lawyer’s script. You have to listen, you have to take it in, you have to try and understand—though you cannot completely because you have not been through what they have been through.
In that regard, I would like, if I may, to thank the Secretary of State and her team for the way that they have gone about preparing this. I know that they have tried their level best to make sure that they have reflected seeing and hearing those who have been affected. It does make a difference, because an apology can be a formal form of words or it can be something that is heartfelt and meaningful. I hope beyond hope that today is received as something heartfelt and meaningful, and I extend thanks to the team in Government who have done so much work to try to ensure that that is the way that today is received.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I must start by thanking the victims and sufferers who came to the Education Committee and shared their harrowing, first-hand lived experiences. It was extremely difficult to hear but—my gosh—it must have been unimaginable to actually live those experiences. But again and again, the victims were put through processes where they had to relive their trauma in an unacceptable struggle for the justice they deserve. I thank the Prime Minister for his unreserved, heartfelt apology, but does he agree that this must be just the beginning, with survivor-led support, specialised counselling, improved access to records and help to reunite families living with this injustice?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in this area and for her powerful intervention and question. She is absolutely right about not just the initial injustice, but all the hoops, burdens and barriers that were then put in place; at almost every twist and turn, of every road, fresh barriers were put in place. That is why this absolutely must be the beginning of survivor-led support, and we mark it in that way.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
We heard on the Education Committee harrowing testimonies of the cruelty that unmarried mothers and their babies were subjected to. They were shamed, coerced and separated from their babies, causing lifelong trauma for them all. The Government’s apology is welcome yet long overdue, because for many survivors, official recognition of this injustice is an essential step towards healing. Ensuring that survivors obtain information about their personal histories is fundamental, so will the Prime Minister set out a timescale for the national online resource to improve access to adoption records?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for her work on the Committee and agree with her that the apology is long overdue; it should have been given a long time ago, in my view. The point that she makes about information is important, and the online resource will be put in place as quickly as possible. It is not a small matter, because this is information that belongs to those who are affected. It is not information that is provided to them out of some service from the state; it is their information. The fact that barriers have been put in the way of those seeking their own information about their own lives and their own identity is an appalling additional injustice, of which there are very many in these cases.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I sincerely thank the Prime Minister for his statement. In my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, he will know that I wrote to him at the start of the year about the importance of issuing this apology. I really thank him for the way that he has done that.
We know that from that post-war era to 1976, 185,000 families—that number is hard to appreciate—were affected by forced adoption, including 404 families in my own city. Will he ensure rapid access to therapeutic support? We know that it is incredibly difficult, both for adoptees and for women and those who were girls who had their babies forcibly removed. Will he consider babies who were brought to the UK from other jurisdictions and who were also forcibly removed from their mothers?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the APPG and for her campaigning, and acknowledge what she has done. As for the number, 185,000 is a shocking figure, but I worry that it may be higher than that. I worry that there are cases that we still do not know about—those where the records are not available and where, as I say, some people feel that they still cannot talk. That rapid access to therapeutic support is hugely important and she is right to highlight it.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
To all the mothers and your stolen children who have wrongly carried grief and shame for so long, you were denied the love that you deserved and tortured by a state—and the silence only revictimized you. We are sorry. It is shameful that Barnardo’s and the Salvation Army have yet to apologise and face up to the role that they played in this. My father was haunted by the way in which Barnardo’s played a role and he would tell me of his horror, which he carried for life, of seeing the laundries as he walked around the streets of Dublin.
In addition to those who were cruelly and forcibly adopted, hundreds of babies died—frankly, they were killed—as their mothers were tortured, and they were buried in unmarked graves. Will the Prime Minister, as he continues with his important work on this, put in place an effort to find those graves and to force the opening up of those records so that the mothers who were denied a lifetime of memories with their children can at least now bury them and have time at those graves with them?
The Prime Minister
I can give that undertaking, and I thank the hon. Member for raising that important aspect. With each question, with each issue, we can begin to understand the very many ways in which the injustice—across a number of different fields and a number of different strands—played its part. For those who lost their babies altogether, that work on graves and on records is really important.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I echo the Prime Minister’s powerful tribute to the women—the mothers—and the families who suffered and struggled for so long for this apology, and who suffer still the legacy of such state failure and, indeed, state cruelty. It shames us, but never them. The moral outrage targeted against unmarried mothers has largely passed, but the Prime Minister spoke about the lack of compassion that enabled the state cruelty; still today, we too often see, increasingly in bureaucratic processes, in technology and in under-resourced state capability, a lack of compassion and understanding. What can the Prime Minister say to reassure us that action can be taken to ensure humanity and compassion from the state?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she draws attention to the suffering. We absolutely have to make sure that compassion is there in everything the state does. We can change rules and processes, but it is a culture; it is about recognising that human dignity matters whoever you are and wherever you are. If that was inserted into everything that the Government and the state did, what a difference it would make! Human dignity is one of the most important things to me and my politics, and that is what has been lacking here. We will do everything we can to turn that around.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology and his statement. Nothing can undo the horrific harm and trauma that have been caused. He outlined the national online resource and national virtual peer-led support groups. Can I press him to say what steps will be taken to support those who might struggle to access digital services, and who might be digitally excluded? Will he consider setting up a national hotline, so that everyone can get justice, whether they can use technology or not?
The Prime Minister
We are setting up a national advice line. It is important that it is national, available and comes in different forms. Digital will work for most people, but not necessarily everyone. We need to make sure that everybody affected and everybody who has not come forward yet finds a way to get that support in the appropriate way. We will take those steps.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I too thank the Prime Minister for this important statement, and I pay tribute to the courage of the women who came forward, including my constituent Ann Keen. I met Ann shortly after I was elected in 2019 —we first met online—and what I sensed in Ann was someone who was not going to give up until her voice, and the voices of the many women who suffered this injustice, had been heard, and that wrong had been made right. Ann has worked tirelessly with many other campaigners. In that cross-party spirit, I pay tribute to the late Sir David Amess, who also led on this issue; he delivered a letter to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in May 2021. I still have a text message on my phone from Ann telling me what more I could do. I also served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we launched our report on this subject in July 2022, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness Harman.
It is right that this apology has come, but as everyone has said, this apology is not enough. What more can be done to ensure that the voices of women are taken seriously? We had the maternity statement the other day. A running theme in all these injustices is women not being believed, women being silenced, and women being told that they are the problem. What more can we do to ensure that women’s voices are front and centre when it comes to matters concerning them?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the anguish that the mothers must have felt, and the constant sense of shame that was inflicted, including on the adult adoptees; they described that to me this morning. The message of being unwanted is really hard. As they said to me this morning, it is not something you can just offload; it is not something that changes. Again, as we discussed this morning, even where parents and children have been reunited, that has not been easy. It is not walking off into the sunset, as we would all like to believe; it is the extremely difficult next chapter of a journey. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and for reminding us of the work of Sir David Amess on this. She is absolutely right that the voices of women have not been heard in the way that they should have been, and that this is not an isolated incident; it is a pattern of behaviour. We have to do better than this.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
My own mother was pressurised into giving up a baby for adoption, and this was handled by the Church. I found out only after her death. She carried her secret to her grave. When I found out, I tried to find my sibling, but drew a blank. I had to pay privately to find him, and we have now been united. Can the Prime Minister assure those affected that the new systems and resources will be given the funding that they need to reunite families?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that personal story; we can see just how difficult that must have been, and she has shown huge courage in saying that in the Chamber today. The way she described her mother taking the secret to her grave is very powerful. It is an example of the way in which some people simply feel that they cannot talk about this, and did not talk about this. Those who have passed will never now be able to talk about this. She shows great courage in speaking on her mother’s behalf as well. I am glad that there has been that reuniting, but it should not be the painful journey that she has just described. We have to do better than that, and we will.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his sincere and moving apology, and I stand with him on it, as I am sure everyone does, across this Chamber. There is possibly no dry eye in the Chamber. That demonstrates the effect this will have had on all of us, as a society.
The Prime Minister will know that when I was the children and families Minister, I met campaigners on this subject, and victims of the abhorrent abuse that is historical forced adoption. It feels to me, as I hope it feels to them and to everyone from across the Chamber, as though the tide is beginning to turn. I am overjoyed about this apology, but we have already heard that it has been a long time coming. That needs to be recognised. I hope that what comes out of this situation is more caring and more compassion coming through in our society. We lack those, and we will need them more and more as days go by.
The Prime Minister mentioned therapy and new support for clinicians. That therapy and support will need to be there for adoptive families, extended families and, of course, the adopted adults. Will he say more about what the new support for clinicians will be? If he cannot say that now, will he agree for written statements to be made to the House? Adopted children need specialist therapy, in particular dyadic developmental psychotherapy. I press him again to look at that.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for the work that she did as children and families Minister; she did a lot on this, and I pay tribute to her for it. She is right about the support that is needed, particularly specialist therapy; I am in no doubt about that. It is important that we are raising funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund to £55 million. Across this House, we need to keep talking to those affected to make sure that we get this right.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Prime Minister has done a good deed today, and he is deservedly getting the united response from the House that he requested. He mentioned the admirable idea of putting the documentation online; will there be a facility on the website for people to upload their own stories, if they wish to do so?
One aspect that is being somewhat skirted around is why this happened in the first place. The answer appears to be that there was too much state respect for dogmatic and fundamentalist interpretations of religious doctrine. Can we look at our society today and say that there is not still, in some parts of that society, too much religious repression of women, and too much respect for cultural sensitivities, which are preventing us from tackling that?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we can and should say that, and I thank the right hon. Member for reminding us that this is not all about the past. If we mean what we say, we have to tackle the present as well. I was struck not just by the dogmatic adherence to views at the time, but the complete lack of empathy, the complete lack of feeling. That is something else. That goes beyond dogma; that is just how human beings treat each other. I have had examples described to me of individual human beings dehumanising other individual human beings, when they did not have to. They chose to act in that way, adding even more grief and pain to what was an awful injustice in any event.
As for the uploading of stories, there will be the facility for testimonials to be there—obviously, only if people want to share them. We are looking at how that could be done.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister wholeheartedly for this apology. Everyone present can see the pain, and the real need for this. I want to ask quite a technical point about the national online resource. Families often end up paying huge amounts of money to try to locate family members. Often, DNA is a way that people are reunited. Is that something that has been considered, in terms of the online resource, in order to help people reunite with family members in cases where records have been lost, heavily redacted or withheld?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. We are working with all those affected, and with the families. precisely on the issue of ensuring that all the relevant information is put together. It is a difficult job, because it is held in different places in different ways. I cannot stand here and pretend that all the information is available, and that we simply have to get it in one place. It will take a lot of work to get it all there, and some of it may not be retrievable, but we will do everything we can to ensure that it is as complete as possible, as quickly as possible.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The apology today is so welcome, and my heart goes out to all those people who have campaigned and been hurt by the failings of the state. In his statement, the Prime Minister said, “These harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state.” Just this week in this Chamber, we have heard of that happening to women—when they are pregnant, labouring, or have just had a baby and are vulnerable. The Adjournment debate on Monday night was about diethylstilbestrol—DES—and justice for women who, over the decades, were prescribed a drug long after it was known that it was harmful. Baroness Amos’s report this week says that this is not just a historical problem of misogyny in the state; today, women who are having children are ridiculed and not listened to, and are hurt as a result. I ask the Prime Minister: how can we unwind misogyny from the state?
The Prime Minister
We have to tackle misogyny in all its forms, wherever it rears its head. It is here with us today, and as she rightly says, we have even heard of it this week in the Chamber, in various debates in which issues have been raised; these issues are constantly raised. It is important that we address this by looking at it historically, up to today, and then forward, in and across the board. I thank the hon. Member for raising it.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I add my thanks to the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology from the Government for the historical forced adoptions in mother and baby homes across the country. It is something that I have campaigned for since coming to this place. For far too long, the horrific experiences of mothers and their children were ignored. Sadly, many passed away before this day finally came. I join everybody here in paying tribute to all the mothers, children and campaigners, and the relatives who have supported them along the way. They have fought tirelessly; I recognise their courage and determination. Today, we take away their shame, because it is not theirs to bear.
Many have been left scarred by the trauma that they endured—a lifetime of feeling unworthy, unloved, judged and guilty. Many babies lost their life due to poor maternity care, and the locations of their burials are not known. Could the Prime Minister consider a way to memorialise the lives lost and give back some dignity? Does he also recognise that even modern adoption practices are inadequate, leaving adoptees and their families ill-equipped to deal with trauma, attachment issues and identity struggles, and that we must learn lessons from all these historical events?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. In both respects, we have to find a way of providing memory to those who lost their lives. To those mothers who passed away before today, this took too long. As a result of that, they are not hearing this apology. We need to be clear: that is an additional injustice.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This is long overdue, and so I congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing this forward and for the tone in which he has delivered it.
I would like to raise the case of Jenny and Scott, two constituents who I have been supporting in recent months. They have been fostering a child called Alfie for six years. They have provided a loving and nurturing home to Alfie, but have persistently come up against blocks from the state as they seek to adopt him. With Walsall council in particular, they found it very difficult to gain support so that they could make progress on adopting Alfie and, regretfully, they have now had to instruct the local authority to look at a new fostering placement for him. Does the Prime Minister agree that while a pragmatic balance has to be struck between safeguarding and enabling a loving home to be found, the state must remove any bureaucratic obstructions along the way? Will the Prime Minister support me in trying to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister, so that Jenny and Scott can elaborate on this more comprehensively?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising the case of Jenny, Scott and Alfie. I assure him that if he provides the full details, I will ensure not only that the relevant meeting takes place, but that we look at the details of that particular case.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his moving statement and the formal apology today. We have heard the heartfelt personal experiences of Members across the House and the experiences of their constituents, and it has been deeply moving. I know that all our thoughts are with the mothers, babies and families separated and with everyone in England who has lived with this trauma. The shame was never theirs, and this apology recognises that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) promoted a Bill, Philomena’s law, that I was honoured to co-sponsor. It would ensure that victims of mother and baby homes in Ireland would not lose care support for accepting compensation that they are rightly owed. In the spirit of the statement today, will the Prime Minister reiterate this Government’s commitment that the social care entitlements of survivors of Ireland’s mother and baby homes will be protected? Will he ensure that we continue to work closely with the Government of Ireland to ensure that British survivors abroad are also supported?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important issue. I am aware of the issues, and I will remake that commitment.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today and for the apology on behalf of the state. I acknowledge the visitors we have in the Gallery today and the extraordinary testimonies of Members across this House. So often this Chamber is divided along the lines of party politics, but on days like this, we are united as living, breathing and feeling human beings, and I think the Chamber is at its best in those moments.
My constituent Lynne was forcibly adopted shortly after the second world war. To understand her health concerns, she was eager to learn something of her family’s medical past. She was denied access to medical records for many decades. In fact, it was only a very helpful social worker who sought to try to reconstruct her family’s medical past for her and with her. Could the Prime Minister say more about whether the new national online resource will include details such as family medical history, so that constituents like Lynne might better understand their own health concerns? Bearing in mind the highly time-sensitive nature, given that often the children were born in the late 1940s and 1950s, can he say more about the timescales he expects to deliver this new resource?
The Prime Minister
The unity across the House and the courage of a number of Members in speaking out has been incredibly powerful. I think this aspect of how this House works is not well known enough, and we all have a duty to show this House when it is behaving well, not just when it is behaving not so well.
The business of being denied access to records goes really deep. Individuals are trying to access records about their lives and their identities, and yet barriers have been put in the way of them accessing their own material. That has to stop. We need to do everything we can to make sure that those medical histories are available, and the hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to move at speed, because we are talking about events, in some cases, of many years ago. We need to move at speed, and we need to remove the barriers. This is personal information—private information—about people and their background and their identity; they are entitled to it. Nobody should be putting barriers in the way of that, but I know that has been done.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I am really grateful to the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and apology. As a man of faith, I struggle to see what possible religious justification there could have been to take babies away from young mothers just because they were not married, and I have to feel a sense of shame that religion could be used in such a way. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all the mothers, campaigners and members of trade unions, including members of my own trade union, the GMB, for their decades of campaigning to achieve this apology. One would have hoped that the apology could have come sooner, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing?
The Prime Minister
It is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing—I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, including the GMB and other trade unions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about what went wrong. The question that should have been asked was, “What support can we give you to be able to bring up your baby?” not the questions that were asked. If that question had been asked, we would not be standing here today in the way that we are.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament when it issued its own apology, and I know how important that was to those families. How will the Government work with devolved Governments to provide ongoing support, access to records and potential redress schemes to those affected?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for reminding us how important it was in Scotland as well. We have to work with the devolved nations on this. It is important that we do so constructively, positively and at speed, because everybody affected needs to know that we are all pulling together and that, where information and support is needed, it will be provided as quickly as possible.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I welcome today’s heartfelt and important apology. The Prime Minister may recall that 16 years ago, Gordon Brown publicly apologised to Britain’s child migrants—130,000 young children who were sent overseas, often without their parents’ consent, to Commonwealth countries around the world. Margaret Humphreys and the Child Migrants Trust, which is based in my constituency, continue to support survivors and campaign for recognition and redress. Following today’s apology, alongside the very important commitments that the Prime Minister has made, will he also consider what more can be done to support the child migrants and to honour the national apology that was made back in 2010?
The Prime Minister
The 2010 apology was a solemn moment, and work continues to honour the legacy of that apology, just as work will continue to honour and follow through on the apology that has been issued today.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is barbaric that 185,000 babies were taken from young mothers across a quarter of a century until just 50 years ago, and the Prime Minister is right to say how wrong that was. In apologising on behalf of the state, he acknowledged that, of the children who were taken, some were raised in loving homes by adoptive families. Does he accept that it is possible to say sorry to birth parents and their children while simultaneously being grateful to parents who did their very best to adopt children over that period, many of whom did not know about the circumstances in which those babies were removed from their birth parents?
The Prime Minister
I do not want to go against the spirit of the hon. Member’s question, but I do have to say this. Too many of those who were adopted were told that they should be grateful for what happened to them, and too many of the mothers were told that they should be grateful that their children would get care they could not provide. That, in itself, was deeply hurtful—deeply, deeply hurtful. I am not suggesting that others did not try to do their level best, but this was not a situation in which anybody affected should feel or be told that they should be grateful for what happened. I am not disrespecting the hon. Member’s question; it is just that, having had the discussions I had this morning, I know that this is felt very, very deeply, so I must therefore say that from this Dispatch Box. Otherwise, I thank him for his question.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him wholeheartedly in standing with the victims—those here and those who are not with us. As he said, it is another example of the perpetuation of abuse, because there was not just the initial abuse but the cover-up, the secondary abuse that followed, and the denial and the frustration for victims, their families and friends to get the truth. What more can he say about that and the culture change that can be embedded not just across the state but in every applicable institution, so that not only this stops happening but there is accountability where it does once again happen?
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said about the Child Migrants Trust, which I worked with before coming to this place. I urge the Education Secretary to look at the work it has done on testimonials, because some of the experience there will be invaluable for victims if they want their stories to be told and recorded.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I think it is really important that we learn those lessons and draw where we can on the examples of other apologies and the legacy. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there is not just the initial injustice; there are all the further injustices at almost every twist and turn—those who were adopted being told when they try to find their parents, “It wouldn’t be good for your mother if you tried to find her,” or that they cannot have access to their own records, which would have helped with their identity and sense of worth. All of these injustices build on the initial injustice, and they are not all so historical, either; some of them are much more contemporary. If we are really going to deal with this, we have to recognise that with our eyes wide open.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, for his very careful and softly spoken words and for the apology. An apology, while vital for healing, is only a first step; it must be followed by tangible, compassionate action. We owe the survivors nothing less than the total truth and structural redress, as well as our compassion for a lifetime of sometimes feeling unloved and unwanted, when that could not be further from the truth. We cannot give their years or their relationships back, but we can be honest and step up. What concrete steps are being taken to guarantee streamlined, free access to original birth records? What co-operation is there with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the other devolved Administrations to ensure that survivors across the entirety of the United Kingdom can and will receive the same standard of tracing services and therapeutic support?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is absolutely right: there has to be tangible action, and it has to be streamlined, as he described. We need to work with the devolved Administrations. What we cannot do now is add a further injustice to all the injustices we have been describing, by doing anything that makes it harder from hereon in for people to get the support and information they need. We need to action what we are saying today, and we will do so.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Rosemundy mother and baby home, a Church of England-affiliated institution in St Agnes in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, was a key institution in this scandal. The shame and pain has lived with these families for decades, and many have since taken this pain to their graves. As the Member of Parliament for St Agnes, I warmly welcome and echo the Prime Minister’s national apology and what he said about lessons being learned, so that we can at least try to relieve a tiny fraction of that pain. Does he agree that we simply would not be here today without the tireless and extraordinary efforts of the campaigners?
The Prime Minister
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and thank him for highlighting the example in his constituency. I suspect there are other examples in all constituencies. We would not be here today without the hard work of the campaigners. Let us be blunt and honest about that. Their work was not heeded quickly enough, in my view. I am glad that we have got to this day; it is an important day for them, but it is also an important day for us, because we need to recognise that this is about the state—how the state responds and how the state acts. It is important for all of us.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for coming here with this heartfelt apology. I also thank all the campaigners for being here today and for the evidence they gave to the Education Committee. I was proud to be on the Committee when we reopened this inquiry. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her work, and to the Ministers. We heard compelling evidence from mothers whose babies were so cruelly ripped away from them, as many have described, and from those who were adopted—I see Sally in the Gallery; she spoke about a feeling of not belonging. Does the Prime Minister agree that supporting the victims of this terrible injustice is about supporting not just the mothers, but the babies, now adults, who were adopted?
The Prime Minister
I know the testimony was really powerful, and I thank the Select Committee again for its work. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to see and hear everyone who was affected—the mothers, the now adults who were adopted, but beyond that the extended families and siblings, and those who, sadly, passed before we reached today. If we are going to hear, if we are going to see, we have to hear and see everyone who has been affected by this, not just some of them.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for this long awaited and long overdue heartfelt apology on behalf of the state. As the mother of an 18-year-old daughter, as each day takes me further from the day I gave birth to her, I hold on more fiercely to the precious memory of her entering this world. I cannot begin to imagine the pain inflicted on the mothers whose babies were ripped away from them. I imagine that they, too, have clear memories that never fade, but instead become even sharper as time goes by. I am in awe of their strength. I am so sorry that they experienced such pain. I thank the Prime Minister for making it clear that the shame sits with the Churches and charities, the healthcare system and the state, not with the survivors. I hope that today goes some way to help families that were torn apart to heal as best they can.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the pain is felt every single day and carried by those affected, and we recognise that. I recognise also that today does not change that. Let us not pretend that all the pain is taken away by this apology; it is not. It provides a degree of justice and acknowledgment by the state, but I am in no doubt that those affected will, unfortunately, have to continue to carry that pain. We will simply do all we can to support them throughout, but nothing can ever lift the pain. We will do all we can to build on the apology given today.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his sincere apology to those who experienced this historical forced adoption scandal, and I pay tribute to those in the Gallery today and those who cannot be here. He has talked a lot about those who need to be heard but who may not have been heard, so my question is about constituents of mine, and of other hon. Members, who may not have had the courage to come forward or who are not sure whether they were adopted or were otherwise affected. How can we give them the courage to come forward and know that they will be listened to and heard, and that they will be able to access some of the support services that the Prime Minister has announced?
The Prime Minister
I hope the apology helps those who have not felt able to talk about this to come forward. On one level, it is a matter of courage, but it is probably more than that. I was struck this morning by the example given to me of trying to read a story in a newspaper about these issues and covering it up, not wanting to be seen in public reading the story, out of a deep sense of shame. I have no doubt that some who have not spoken out feel that they cannot do so, because they cannot break out of that. I hope that today helps them and that making it clear that the shame is ours, and hearing of the courage of those in the Gallery and other campaigners, gives them the ability to come forward. That is important, because if they do, they will find support, and that talking to others who have been affected in the same way will give them a degree of comfort they probably do not have at the moment. It is very difficult for people who have shut these things away to come forward. It will take time, but I hope we have taken one step closer today.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
In moments like this, I feel the privilege of serving on both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee. The Prime Minister is right to say that it should not have taken two Select Committee reports to get us here today. More important, it should not have taken the victim survivors of this terrible scandal having to retell their stories, retraumatising themselves again and again, to get here. As the JCHR report makes clear, there are some things only a Government can do; for that reason, I thank the Prime Minister from the bottom of my heart for his apology on behalf of the state today, and ask him to set out in a little more detail how he and the Department for Education have worked with survivors to get to the full apology he has given today.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on both Committees. The work to get us here today has been done in conjunction with all those affected, and we will continue to work in that way. That is the right way—the only way—to proceed, and will continue in that vein. There are many challenges still ahead, but if we approach them by hearing and seeing and working with those affected, we have a better chance of meeting those challenges.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I think the Prime Minister for what he said today and the way he said it. I pay tribute to the bravery of all the people who have been involved in getting us here. A constituent who is an adult adoptee came to see me recently; she was born in 1969, so she is three years older than me. She told me that adoptees are four times more likely to try to commit suicide than non-adoptees, so I really welcome the support for adult adoptees and others in the form of a health pathway for those affected by forced adoption, including the counselling they will need for post-traumatic stress disorder. My constituent also asked me to raise the possibility of marking medical records of adult adoptees, so that those who do not have a family medical history to fall back on can get the screening and support they need.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those really important questions. We will work with her and others to make improvements and put the appropriate support, screening and information in place.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), prior notice of this point of order. Yesterday, I asked him about Britain’s relationship with Israel in relation to its disgraceful expansion of illegal settlements. I emphasised that they are illegal and made the point that they are supported and facilitated by the Israeli Government. He did not answer my question about Britain’s military co-operation; instead, he misrepresented my words and implied that I was somehow or other making a statement about the views of the Jewish people in this country, which I absolutely was not. I seek your advice on how I can ensure the Minister comes back to the House, corrects the record and answers the question that I put to him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that Ministers themselves are responsible for their words at the Dispatch Box. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concern, and I am sure that they will pass it on to the Minister. He is an experienced Member, and will know that a number of routes are available to him to pursue questions to the Government on this issue. The Clerks in the Table Office can advise him further, if need be.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
On a point of order, yesterday in Westminster Hall, the Maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), may have inadvertently misled the House. I confirm that I have given the required notices. The Minister stated on three occasions that a Court of Appeal judgment changed the legal status of maritime coastguard rescue officers. That simply is not true. The Court of Appeal confirmed worker status that already existed and has existed for years; it is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, backed by the Government, that is now seeking to change the status of those brave heroes to that of unpaid volunteers. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on how I can seek to get the record corrected?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point and will doubtless communicate it to the Minister, who is in his place, who will be able to consider whether there is anything in his remarks that requires correcting or whether, taken as a whole, they gave an accurate account of the situation.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, I seek guidance from your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how to remind Members about the courtesies of the House when undertaking events in other constituencies. I am proud to serve the constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, where there are many wonderful venues that host many fantastic events. When Members, including senior Members, take part in speaking events in another constituency that are not private events, they should notify the sitting Member.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on purely a private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The document called “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter and failure to follow that guidance is regarded as very discourteous.
Bill Presented
Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Matt Turmaine presented a Bill to change the procedure for amending Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 110).
National Audit Office
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Michael Jary CBE to the Office of Chair of the National Audit Office from 10 January 2027.
The chair of the National Audit Office plays an incredibly important role in our democracy. The role supports Parliament’s scrutiny of Government expenditure and safeguards the independence of the National Audit Office. At a time of continued pressure on public finances and household budgets, delivering value for money across Government is absolutely vital, so it is right that this appointment is made on the basis of merit and commands confidence from Members across the House.
Michael Jary brings extensive experience of leadership, governance and public service. As the Government lead non-executive director, he provided independent advice and challenge across Government. His work strengthened the performance of the public institutions that all our constituents rely on. Indeed, his commitment to public sector effectiveness is such that since leaving that role he has led university programmes at home and abroad, challenging others to think about how leaders can deliver for the people they serve.
Alongside his many years of service in public roles, Michael has also supported the work of various charities, including the King’s Foundation and the Fairtrade Foundation. Remarkably, he has still found time to pen four books. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a strong commitment to the values this office requires. I am confident that he has the judgment and experience necessary to fulfil its responsibilities and I commend this motion to the House.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister very much for making this appointment. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the appointments panel, I warmly welcome the motion to appoint Michael Jary CBE as the next chair of the National Audit Office.
Michael Jary brings extensive experience in Government, leadership and organisational transformation, together with independence and judgment, to this important role. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the current chair, Dame Fiona Reynolds, for her distinguished service? The Public Accounts Committee has long benefited from the NAO’s outstanding support and we are grateful for her stewardship. Michael has the skills and the leadership needed to ensure the NAO remains a high-performing, innovative and digitally-enabled organisation, supporting Parliament’s detailed scrutiny of public spending and helping to secure value for money for taxpayers. For these reasons, I am delighted to support this appointment.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Michael Jary CBE to the Office of Chair of the National Audit Office from 10 January 2027.
Backbench Business
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we come to the debate on commonhold and leasehold reform, I inform that House that permission to appeal has been granted following the judgment on the judicial review brought forward by ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund and others over the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. The case is therefore sub judice. Mr Speaker has granted a waiver to allow Members to discuss fully the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report on the implications of the Government’s draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. I call Florence Eshalomi, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s First Report of Session 2026-27, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill (HC40); notes the Government’s commitments to cap ground rents and to bring forward legislation in this Session to support the uptake of commonhold in place of leasehold; further notes the concerning practices of some property managing agents who fail to act in the best interests of homeowners; and calls on the Government to accept the Committee’s recommendation to legislate to create a body with enforcement powers to regulate property managing agents.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important and timely debate, which gives the House the chance to consider our Committee’s report on the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. I thank my fellow Committee members for their collaboration and cross-party work on the report, the excellent Committee staff for their help in preparing the report and the Committee’s two specialist advisers, Professor Nick Hopkins and Wendy Wilson, for their assistance throughout our inquiry.
Today’s motion invites the House to call on the Government to use the final Bill to legislate for the regulation of managing agents. Colleagues from across the House will be all too familiar from their inboxes with the “wild west” of managing agents, but first I would like to begin by discussing some of our findings on the draft Bill more generally.
For many of the 5 million leaseholders across England and Wales, these reforms have been a long time coming. After a decade of campaigning across party lines, we now have an opportunity to finally tackle the fundamental injustices of the leasehold system, once and for all. Leasehold reform has long commanded cross-party support. Ten years ago, the campaign in Parliament was championed by the former Member for Worthing West, Sir Peter Bottomley. His work chairing the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform amplified leaseholders’ voices across Westminster. I thank the current chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for his tireless cross-party campaigning. It is in that cross-party spirit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and Lord Gove generously gave evidence alongside each other in the opening session of our inquiry. The two former Housing Secretaries were united in their view that this draft Bill is welcome, and that the Government must go further and faster to deliver for leaseholders.
The draft Bill is technical and long—it runs to 164 clauses and 13 schedules—but if we take a step back, the problem that it seeks to address is about control. Control is supposed to be one of the main advantages for people of buying their own home.
For many leaseholders, a flat is their first foot on the housing ladder. They may have been drawn in by the banners on new build developments advertising the Government’s Help to Buy scheme. Many leaseholders were told that that was the affordable route to buying, via shared ownership. They expected control and a feeling of security, knowing that they could make the changes that they wanted in their own home and have control over the running costs, and would not be threatened with eviction by a landlord.
The benefits of home ownership simply do not apply to leaseholders. They are homeowners, yet they are tenants. Far from home ownership and the dream that they were sold, many of them are stuck in a living nightmare. In the words of one leaseholder, who shared their story with our inquiry:
“I thought I’d bought a flat, then discovered leasehold is a financial trap. I have no control over my finances, my relationships, where I live, or where I work”.
We all agree that this is an injustice that needs to be addressed. This afternoon’s debate is an opportunity for Members to reflect on the draft Bill and what additional measures might need to be included in the final version to ensure that we get these reforms right.
Perhaps the most headline-grabbing measure in the draft Bill is that it will cap existing ground rents at £250 a year. We must be absolutely clear across this House and in the other place that ground rent is money for nothing. An investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority found “no persuasive evidence” that leaseholders “receive anything in return” for ground rent. Many leaseholders have ground rents that double every 10 years or increase with the retail prices index.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, for recognising the work done not only by me, but by Peter Bottomley and Jim Fitzpatrick on the APPG. I was struck by a comment in the Committee’s report about the argument put forward by some freeholders that ground rents are used to cover service charges and that people will be put in danger if they are lost. The Committee used the word “shameful” for that argument. Does that not show that this system is a money-making racket? People are using any excuse to carry on that income stream.
Florence Eshalomi
I refer my hon. Friend to the evidence session at which we had representatives of freeholders—one of the most enlightening sessions for my Committee and my colleagues. We probed and pushed and tried to seek justification for ground rents, but none was forthcoming. That shows that they are a money-making scheme.
We must be absolutely clear, as the Competition and Markets Authority has said, that there is no place for ground rents. Last month, there were media reports that the Government are preparing to accept our Committee’s recommendation to bring the £250 ground rent cap into force in late 2027—one year earlier than previously planned. If those reports are correct, that will be welcome news for many leaseholders, who are calling on us to act with greater urgency.
However, even before the final Bill has been introduced, we hear threats of judicial review from a small number of organisations with very deep pockets. Rather than engaging with the process here in Parliament, they are preparing to challenge the democratic mandate of successive Governments, and the will of this House, to make these changes. Shame on them. They know that they have lost the political debate.
The Government should be emboldened by the fact that they have successfully defended judicial reviews in the past. We think they should push ahead with these reforms, but there is a real risk that these measures could be delayed if freeholders do launch such a challenge. The Committee has called on the Government to include a clause for the ground rent cap in the final Bill to ensure that it comes into force two months after the legislation receives Royal Assent.
We support the Government’s intention to change to peppercorn ground rent over time. We understand that that will need a transition period, as Ministers must be confident that they are striking a fair balance between the interests of competing parties, but it is not clear to us how the Government decided on their policy of a 40-year transition. Based on the evidence to our Committee so far, we think a shorter transition period may be justified and fair. That is why our report calls on the Government to publish more data in the coming months so we can be confident that we are getting the transition period right.
Another key focus of the draft Bill is the measure to replace leasehold with a new commonhold tenure. Commonhold will allow all homeowners to have a vote in how their block is run. Homeowners are not required to participate in commonhold if they do not want to, and many blocks will vote to appoint their chosen managing agent, but this modern tenure will offer homeowners the control that they do not have under the current leasehold system.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for the excellent work that they have done in preparation for this Bill. Pensioners who bought retirement flats in Aire Valley Court and Sutton Court in my constituency were hoping for peace of mind; instead, they have had rocketing service charges, poor maintenance and a lack of communication and transparency from FirstPort, the property managing agent. Does my hon. Friend agree that while commonhold is a fantastic opportunity for leaseholders to take charge, we need further independent regulation of property agents to ensure that they provide a good service to leaseholders and commonholders in the future?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I thank many other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I will come on to the very important area of managing agents and a firm that is notorious with many of us in this Chamber—FirstPort.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is about to come on to property managing agents. May I add to the experiences heard by her Committee the experiences of constituents in my communities? Probably one third of the casework that I deal with relates to the poor performance of property managing agents. Does she agree that many leaseholders face real difficulty in getting proper recourse? A much tougher regime than the one currently in place, involving the property ombudsman and the property redress scheme, is urgently needed if leaseholders are to have genuine hope that their concerns about managing agents will be taken seriously.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend, a fellow London MP, for that intervention. This issue is not just isolated to London; it happens in many areas right across the country, and it was raised continuously throughout our inquiry. As I mentioned, I will come on to the issue of managing agents more broadly.
Our Committee is broadly supportive of the move to commonhold. That said, we have two key questions about its implementation. First, the Government must clarify what voting rights shared owners will have in commonholds. The Government have indicated that housing associations may have control over the votes of shared owners during the 10-year initial repair period of their properties. That could leave shared owners without any say in decisions that directly affect their homes. We call on the Government to clarify the position on this matter. We must ensure that the vote can be split between shared owners and their housing providers if necessary, so that shared ownership leaseholders get a meaningful say.
Secondly, we need to ensure that as many existing leaseholders as possible are able to convert to commonhold. The Government want all new build homes to be commonhold and to support existing leaseholders to convert. However, the draft Bill does not enact important recommendations from the Law Commission that would make it easier for leaseholders to buy out their freeholder and make the important switch. Our report includes proposals on how some of those recommendations could be included. If it is not possible to include them in this Bill, the Government must bring forward further legislation later in this Parliament. We do not want to run the risk of leaving some leaseholders behind.
The biggest issue and source of frustration for so many homeowners and leaseholders in the leasehold system is the quality—or lack of it—and service provided by their managing agents. Many colleagues from across the House will share cases involving their constituents in this afternoon’s debate, but it will come as no surprise to anyone that one company came up time and again in the stories we heard from leaseholders. That company was FirstPort, the largest independent managing agent in England. Last year, the Minister said he had “significant concerns” about FirstPort’s unreasonable service charges, its slow response to complaints and its approach to debt collection.
Ultimately, the problem with many of these managing agents is that they are taking advantage of a captive market. They effectively have a monopoly on individual estates, meaning that they are able to treat homeowners with sheer contempt. In the words of one leaseholder we heard from, homeowners are left feeling “like cash cows”.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about leaseholders being treated with contempt. I have an estate in my constituency, Bishops Gate, where it took three years for FirstPort to respond to residents’ requests, and even when the council got involved, FirstPort refused its request. Given all the service charges they had paid in, the homeowners believed that there would be £230,000 in the account; in fact, there is zero, and they are told that there is £60,000 of debt. That is the sort of scam that is going on.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that example; colleagues across the Chamber will probably cite similar, if not worse, ones. That is a shocking indictment of the company we are discussing. The law already requires service charge increases to be “reasonable”, but when charges are skyrocketing for basic maintenance services such as cutting grass, many residents do not feel that they are being treated reasonably.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Residents in Stratford and Bow tell me that some of their monthly service charges have now reached almost £600. It is driving them to the financial brink, and many of their neighbours are now facing legal threats for falling behind. I have had to intervene on several occasions, calling public meetings with management agents that are behaving terribly and treating residents as cash cows. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute disgrace that leaseholders continue to be pushed about by unregulated property management agents who are profiteering from our constituents, and that the Government must bring forward robust measures to protect leaseholders as quickly as possible?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point—as I mentioned, many colleagues will have dealt with similar cases. This is an issue that we want the Government to look seriously at, and one that has frequently been brought up in the Chamber. It is right that Members are advocating for their constituents, but local MPs or Housing Ministers should not have to name and shame these companies; we are talking about some of the largest managing agents in England. We are seeing patterns, with the same companies coming up time and again across the country. As MPs, our support for individual blocks and housing estates might result in small wins locally, but it is not addressing the root cause of the problem.
Our Committee surveyed over 7,000 homeowners, and found that the regulation of managing agents was the No. 1 action that homeowners wanted the Government to prioritise as part of their leasehold and commonhold agenda. In 2018, the Lord Best report proposed a new regulator to cover letting and managing agents, with a mandatory and enforceable code of practice. Lord Best recommended that this new body should be established as a statutory regulator for property agents, as there was no existing body that could take on that role. Even the managing agents themselves have told us that they would welcome Lord Best’s proposals for regulation and the professionalisation this would bring to the sector. We already have industry-funded professional bodies with their own codes, but self-regulation does not work.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I am dealing with huge numbers of groups of leaseholders, and one of the things we have discovered—with the managing agent very much as my hon. Friend is describing —is this habit of subcontracting, only for the leaseholders to find that the subcontractors are owned by the same company; the name has just been changed. When we raised this point, the answer we got from FirstPort last week was, “We can do what we want.” Does that not reinforce my hon. Friend’s argument about regulation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before the hon. Lady rises, I remind Members that this is a very oversubscribed debate, and I am sure that many people want to speak.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and wish him a happy birthday—I am sure a good birthday present for him would be the regulation of managing agents for the sake of his constituents. Self-regulation does not work when there is no real enforcement, and leaseholders were clear with us that they do not just want mandatory qualifications. As Lord Best put it in his evidence to the Committee,
“being qualified doesn’t necessarily make people behave properly; you still need a code of practice and enforcement”.
What we need is a regulator with teeth—one that will issue meaningful sanctions against agents that treat homeowners like a revenue stream. For the worst offenders, that should include the removal of their licence to operate.
I should acknowledge that our inquiry heard from some campaigners who were concerned that regulation could add to the costs passed on to leaseholders via service charges. On balance, though, we think that regulation is now necessary to protect all leaseholders from rogue managing agents. The reality is that some leaseholders will not be able to convert to commonhold—some blocks will not be able to meet the 50% threshold to convert, and some blocks will have special features that mean they are not eligible. We cannot leave those homeowners behind.
Ultimately, commonhold is a vast improvement, but it will not always be as simple as hiring and firing agents. Commonholds are likely to appoint managing agents on contracts that last for several years, and they need to have confidence that they are appointing high-quality service providers. An independent code of practice would provide that assurance, so overall we think it would be a valuable addition to the final Bill—one that would benefit homeowners. Homeowners want a crackdown on poorly performing agents like FirstPort, with a regulator that has teeth and can deliver.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of times that nobody should be left behind by this legislation. My constituents suffer from the actions of the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust, a supposed charity that refuses to allow them to extend their leases and is using a loophole in the current legislation, leaving them—as one constituent put it—as prisoners in their current homes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation should address those concerns and liberate my constituents?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of marriage value and the extension of leases, with many people having to take out additional loans just to remortgage and extend their lease. All these areas are covered in the draft Bill, and I know the Minister is keen to address them.
The Bill will be an opportunity to impact the lives of millions of constituents across England and Wales who bought their homes in good faith. We must all take responsibility for keeping this topic on the agenda and ensuring that the final Bill comes back to this Chamber in the autumn to make progress through Parliament—we cannot allow this issue to be swept away by events that are happening outside this place or that are beyond our control.
Our Committee’s report sets out the blueprint for the changes needed to make the Bill a bolder, more ambitious piece of legislation. With an independent regulator, we can ensure that all homeowners see a real change in the short term. I therefore urge Members across the House to support today’s motion; leaseholders’ expectations have been set very high, so it is vital that we get the reforms right. If we do so, this will be the Parliament that finally allows leaseholders to realise their dream of home ownership, making them true homeowners with the control they have been promised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We will start with an immediate four-minute time limit.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her opening remarks, and on the work her Committee has done to produce its report. It was an exceptional read—I thank her and her Committee.
I am seeing increasing numbers of cases where leaseholders experience a range of problems, including high service and administration charges, a lack of transparency, overcharging, disproportionate costs to extend leases or buy freeholds, poor actions by managing agents, a slow and costly sales process, and imbalanced dispute mechanisms with leaseholders potentially liable for the freeholder’s legal costs. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the retirement village up in Ben Rhydding in my constituency.
For the past year, I have been working with the Clevedon owners group, who have experienced real-life examples of how the current leasehold framework governing the integrated retirement sector falls well short of the standard that should be expected. The Clevedon owners group is made up of a group of leaseholders at the Audley Clevedon retirement village in Ben Rhydding. They have experienced repeated failures by their landlord to fulfil some of the most fundamental obligations contained within their leases, while the landlord continues to collect substantial service charges. The owners group estimates that the Audley Group collects approximately £30 million of annual service charges a year across its whole estate, with £3.5 million of deferred service charges, yet its residences are falling into disrepair and the freeholder is not updating its commitments or undertaking its responsibilities.
The owners group has highlighted to me that its biggest concern is around the legal definition of the service charge and, crucially, whether certain mandatory payments in retirement leases fall within the statutory definition of a service charge under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The experiences of those residents in the Audley retirement village demonstrate exactly why this seemingly technical issue has profound and real consequences. Leaseholders have paid substantial monthly management charges and deferred management charges on the understanding that the funds would maintain their homes, safeguard communal facilities and ensure the long-term sustainability of their residential community. It is clear from the meetings that I have had with my constituents that that simply is not the case. Instead, their properties have gone unserviced, which presents serious questions about how the annual service charge and those funds are being used. Following years of expansion, heavy borrowing and financial difficulties, maintenance across the Audley Clevedon retirement village has reportedly declined significantly, despite leaseholders continuing to pay increased service charges. That needs to change, and I respect some of the recommendations in the report on that point.
Does the Minister have any intention of commissioning an independent forensic audit of major retirement community operators to examine corporate governance, financial arrangements, service charge accounting, deferred management charges and compliance with lease obligations? Can he confirm that leaseholders in retirement housing, including integrated retirement communities, will not be excluded from the protections of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024? The current legal framework has failed to keep pace with increasingly complex corporate structures. If confidence in retirement housing is to be restored, residents must be given the protection, transparency and accountability that they rightly expect.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Trust in politics is at an all-time low, and part of the reason is that our society is littered with examples of structural unfairness, injustice, and ordinary people being ever so slightly fleeced. The housing market of recent years is a strong case in point, with multiplying ground rents, abuse of the forfeiture system, opaque service charges, management companies that cannot be changed, overpriced maintenance performed by firms connected to the management company, no adoption of common assets, short leases and exorbitant lease extension fees—the list goes on.
It has been a privilege to have played my part in scrutinising the draft Bill, because it represents an opportunity to put a significant dent in some of these practices, and to demonstrate that politics and politicians can deliver for people and change lives for the better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) has set out, the Committee took evidence from an extensive array of witnesses on the measures in the Bill, and I thank them for their contributions.
I will draw out a few specific points from our report. First, the reinvigoration of commonhold that this Bill will deliver has rightly been described not just as an alternative to leasehold, but as a radical improvement on it. For it to be implemented successfully, considerable work needs to be undertaken at the Land Registry to make sure that it is ready to respond, not just to the registration of new commonhold, but to the conversion of existing leases. Our Committee found that a failure to modernise the Land Registry’s legacy systems would pose a significant risk to commonhold working. Good-quality public access systems will be crucial.
My second point is on the ground rent cap. It is fair to say that the Committee spent a lot of our time attempting to get to the bottom of the Government’s rationale for their proposals. I support the proposal to adopt a flat cap of £250, rather than the cap being a percentage of property value. However, I have struggled to understand the rationale behind waiting 40 years before converting to peppercorn rent. I can understand the desire to give certainty and predictability to investors, and I can understand an argument that investors need time to adapt to such changes, but the last three successive Governments were elected on a mandate to address onerous ground rents. The ground rent system, as my hon. Friend said, was condemned by the Competition and Markets Authority, which said that it could find
“no persuasive evidence that ground rent was either legally or commercially necessary, or that consumers received anything in return”.
It should not be a surprise to anyone to hear that the days of ground rent are numbered. I cannot think of a single other example of a Government being so generous as to provide 40 years’ notice of a change to terms of business. Governments have not done that for students on plan 2 loans, for example, or for those affected by the rising pension age. The previous Government thought 20 years’ notice was sufficient, and I am minded to agree with them, unless the Department can bring forward more evidence on its rationale.
My final point is on the absence from the Bill of measures to regulate property management agents. Everyone in the House knows that that change is long overdue. We have Lord Best in the Gallery today. His excellent 2019 report set out the case for regulation clearly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), following his work on his private Member’s Bill. I understand the concern about the size of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill as it stands, and that adding these measures would create further delay. All I say in response is that we have the opportunity and the responsibility to act. No time has been set aside in the King’s Speech for a separate regulation of property agents Bill, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity in front of him, and chip away at another practice that blights the lives of our constituents and undermines trust in institutions’ ability to deliver for them.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Leasehold is a con. We are one of the few countries that still has residential leasehold, and because of that, people are being sold a lie on home ownership. As Woking’s MP, I hear countless stories about it, and I will not use my time going through every single one, but I impress this point on the Government: we need to regulate these bureaucratic con artists. People have been scammed out of home ownership in place of leasehold. It is fleecehold. Dreams of home ownership have stayed dreams—far out of reach, and fast becoming nightmares. We hear far too often of leaseholders who have been distressed by poor service. These bad actors hide behind paperwork and avoid responsibility. Major firms such as FirstPort have, for far too long, been allowed to deliver an appalling service without consequences.
The new leasehold reform Bill must put in place a regulator with the teeth to sanction these rogue agents with meaningful penalties. When that happens, MPs can end the wild west of property management agents. To see why leasehold reform is so urgent, we need only look at how managing agents such as FirstPort treat leaseholders. I had a situation involving a retirement development in Woking. It should be a lovely place to live that gives peace of mind to vulnerable, elderly residents, but when people fell over, the safety systems that FirstPort put in place did not work. Elderly residents were left lying on the floor, having called for help. FirstPort should have fixed that, and it did not. People were left in those distressing situations, but because of the lack of regulation, we cannot hold those responsible accountable.
FirstPort also managed the Clock Tower building in Maybury. It has spent years causing misery to leaseholders, because of the failure to deliver minimum levels of service, and people are trapped. I have written to the Minister on numerous occasions about that case. Leaseholders have few rights, and cannot sell their homes or control who manages the development. The leaseholders of Bramwell Place, another development in Woking, know those problems all too well. They are trapped in their homes, due to frequent stalling and lack of communication. The developer completed the necessary fire safety investigation a year ago, but refused to release critical reports, burying them in an internal review. Lenders have denied the people in those homes mortgages, buyers are walking away, and innocent residents are left struggling.
I am on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I have been proud to work on its report that pushes the Government to go further, faster. I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her leadership, and our Committee Clerks for their excellent support. I hope the Government listen to our cross-party calls today. We recommended significant changes to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but does not deliver what we want. It is mind-boggling that the Bill does not deliver on the promises in the Labour manifesto. We recommended that the Bill deliver an independent regulator to end the wild west of property management agents. If we do that, FirstPort and others will not get away with the appalling treatment that my constituents and others face.
It is heartbreaking that so many people in Woking and across the country have worked hard to get on the property ladder, but have seen their home ownership dream turn into a nightmare. Successive Governments have failed to tackle ground rents and leasehold reform. We want to put homeowners in control of the management of their buildings. I urge the Minister to implement the Select Committee report in full. Let us leave a lasting legacy on leasehold reform.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to get on record what has happened in my constituency, because I said to my constituents that I would. With the expansion of Heathrow airport, land prices have gone up. Manufacturers have moved to cheaper areas, often with grants, and in the former manufacturing areas, a large number of flats have been built. I would normally welcome that, but the prices of those flats are prohibitive for local people. However, a large number of young people—bless them—have done everything they can to raise the £300,000 or £350,000 needed to buy one of those small flats. They have new homes, and we have welcomed them into the community, but we are now getting a flood of constituents coming to see us because the increase in service charges has pushed them over the edge.
In response to surveys, young people have explained in heartfelt terms, “We’ve not had a family because we can’t afford a family.” Some of them have tried to sell on, but some got a grant to buy their flat and have to pay it back, so they are caught in a Catch-22 situation. They say to me, “Here are the service charges, and this is what we get.” The service is absolutely appalling. We have had numerous examples of that. I understand the call for regulation and a regulator, and I agree with them, but the best form of regulation is to give ownership to the people living in the properties. My simple message to the Government is: please deliver the Law Commission’s remaining recommendations on enfranchising people to manage.
Another issue that has come up time and again is developmental value. This is an issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) has been campaigning since the early 2000s. It is ludicrous that people have to pay up front for a development that might never happen, and that might be costed by the freeholder. That prevents people from buying or selling on. The Law Commission has made a key recommendation on this point, and I urge the Government to act on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned that the threshold for participation in a move to commonhold is set at 50%. In other areas, that does not apply; for example, the threshold for tenant management organisations is 20%. We are now removing such onerous criteria from employment rights legislation, because they prevent participation. In areas like mine, a lot of properties are owned by overseas landlords, and it is very difficult to get them to participate in any way. The request is that we move the threshold to 35%; that is reasonable and manageable.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) that 40 years is too long to wait before changing the situation regarding ground rent. We will have the WASPI women banging on our door soon, won’t we? I know of no other issue on which there has been a 40-year notification period. The recommendation is to get it down to 20 years. I would get rid of ground rent now, because I think it is wealth extraction in return for no service whatsoever.
Finally, I turn to the Government’s proposals for ensuring that lease extensions and freehold acquisitions are cheaper overall. Ultimately, they will benefit a large number of our constituents, but they need to be implemented as rapidly as possible, which is why I welcome the Bill. I hope that the new regime allows us to get this legislation through as fast as possible.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing today’s important debate. I want to use the brief time I have to share two examples from my constituency of systemic mismanagement of managed property.
The first example that I will cite is a FirstPort-managed property—we have heard that name mentioned already—called Bentley Court in Camberley’s town centre. On 19 March, the building’s only lift broke down. For most of us, that would be a frustration, but for the retirement community who live in that building, it has been life changing. These are older people, often with significant mobility issues. That lift is not just a convenience; it is their access point to and from their property. It is their independence. Residents tell me that they have not been able to go shopping and have missed hospital appointments. Some cannot take out their rubbish, and others have become trapped in their home for days at a time.
That brings me to the case of Audrey West, one of my constituents. She lived at Bentley Court for more than 26 years. She suffered from heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, and had serious mobility problems. She became a prisoner in her own home when that lift broke down, and her health and wellbeing deteriorated. When she attempted to tackle the stairs, the physical exertion caused enormous strain on her body, leaving her breathless and exhausted. That was only compounded by the recent heatwave. In order to secure her safety, her family concluded that the only thing they could do was remove her from her home of 26 years. On 28 June, just days after leaving her home, Audrey’s family contacted FirstPort again, copying in my office, to inform the company and me that Audrey had died. I am not here to claim that a broken lift directly caused Audrey’s death, but I am willing to say this: no vulnerable resident should ever be left feeling abandoned and trapped in their home. The lift remains unrepaired and unrepairable, with no end to the situation in sight.
My second example is Mytchett Heath, a not-for-profit retirement community managed by Cognatum Estates. MPs from across the House have constituents who are affected. Again, older residents are feeling completely ignored, and now maligned, by the company that should be looking after them—residents who have invested their life savings in a home, but who have no voice when it comes to how their property is managed. Last month, I met a group of Cognatum residents here in Parliament. One described Cognatum as
“the worst commercial organisation I have dealt with in a long professional career”,
and nobody in the room looked surprised at that.
Residents described soaring service charges, complaints that went nowhere, a regulator—the Association of Retirement Housing Managers—that they do not believe is independent, and a tribunal process that is so expensive. Lease terms can allow the managing company to recover legal costs from residents, who simply give up trying to engage with the process. Residents spoke about residents’ forums disappearing, and about having to renegotiate electricity contracts on behalf of the management company, because it was incapable of doing so itself. The most extraordinary thing that we heard was that Cognatum has refused to allow defibrillators in a retirement community, because it is fearful that members of the public might seek to access those defibrillators from outside the estate.
I will conclude in just a few seconds, if you will allow me that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There is a very strict time limit.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this debate, and for all the work that she has done on this issue. I see that Lord Best is in the Gallery; he, among many others, has been campaigning on these issues for years.
I rise to draw attention to the experiences of some leaseholders in my constituency. I have previously spoken at length in the Chamber about unadopted estates. I am not going to dwell on that subject today, because it is not discussed in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report, but I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention, as it is a major issue in my constituency.
To turn to the specific problems we have, the draft legislation, as it stands, is fantastic. The proposal to cap ground rents will be absolutely life changing for people in my constituency who have contacted me and talked about how ground rents are going up to double what they were and about the difficulties they are consistently having with the fact that there appears to be no real ability to hold a managing agent to account.
The specifics I want to talk about are from a case I have been working on with the homeowners—well, the leaseholders—for some time, in which FirstPort, yet again, is the managing agent. Having finally managed to dislodge FirstPort as the managing agent, the residents have been told by the new managing agent that of the £40,000 reserve they believed was available to them, there is none—nothing. FirstPort has not explained where that money has gone or what it has been spent on, and this has been the outstanding position for well over six months. A sum of £40,000 is a lot of money to just vanish, and we would think that an organisation would be able to point to what it had been spent on pretty readily, if it was keeping accounts in any normal fashion. That is one of a succession of difficulties that these leaseholders have had with FirstPort, and this has been going on for years and years.
I understand that the Government have concerns that the draft legislation is already exceptionally long, and as a lawyer, I have a huge amount of sympathy for that, but I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and the members of her Select Committee that we must do something, in line with Lord Best’s previous recommendations, about the regulation of managing agents. We have been talking about this topic in this House for as long as I have been an MP, and clearly significantly longer than that. If these organisations were capable of self-regulation and if educating people who worked in them was sufficient to solve this problem, it would have been solved a long time ago. No one wants regulation for the sake of it, but the only way there will be accountability for vast amounts of individuals’ money that appears to simply vanish into the ether is if we put regulation in place. I thank the Minister.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate, and for her continued strong and effective leadership of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
I have spoken several times in this House about the problems with the current leasehold and property management system, more recently from the Opposition Front Bench. Like so many of my constituents and people across the country, I am a leaseholder and I know at first hand the horrific situation they face. However, in today’s debate I would like to focus on property management companies, which are bringing misery to the lives of both leaseholders and those living on freehold estates in so-called fleecehold properties.
Apart from the law as it currently stands, it is the poor performance and, quite frankly, the total incompetence of companies such as the Residential Management Group and FirstPort that are at the root of so many of the issues facing leaseholders across the country. Since my election, I have not come across one property management company that residents are happy with. Whether it is High Leigh in Hoddesdon, Academia Avenue, Robinia Road and Watery Lane in Turnford, Aldermere Avenue and Magnolia Way in Flamstead End, or Eleanor House in Waltham Cross, it is hard to think of one part of Broxbourne that is not affected.
The Minister, with whom I get on well, has promised to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, but how much longer will my constituents have to wait? His Department has already held a consultation on measures to help leaseholders challenge unfair fees and charges, and introduce qualifications for managing agents. In fact, the consultation opened nearly one year ago and closed in September 2025, and the Government are still analysing the feedback. That is what the people out there get fed up with. The Leasehold and Freehold Act 2024 is on the statute book and the present Government clearly want stronger regulation of managing agents, as that is what they have told this House, so why the delay? We need to get this sorted.
I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward a Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and allowed my Committee to scrutinise it in its draft form. That is a positive sign that the Government want to get the right legislation in place for our constituents, but I feel they should commit to giving more powers to the Department, so that Ministers can hold managing agents to account, specifically with enforcement powers. Managing agents that break the rules should be fined, and ultimately stripped of their licence to operate. This means that management companies would have to start to care about the interests of the residents they are supposed to look out for.
In my constituency of Broxbourne, we have had to put up with poor service charges and increasing bills for years. Residents have nowhere to turn when something goes wrong. They feel that managing agents have all the power. I know the Minister wants to change that, and I hope he will reflect carefully on what has been said across the House. I urge the Government to get a move on, and solve this issue for millions of people across the United Kingdom.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and the members of her Committee for their excellent pre-legislative scrutiny work, which we have heard about today.
Since becoming an MP, one of the most common issues I hear from my constituents is the poor quality of service provided by managing agents to local leaseholders. When the boilers broke at Walsham Court and Hinds Court last November, residents tried to contact Anthem, but to no avail, and they were left without water for four weeks. Middlesex House residents were left without water for days, without extra support and supplies, until my office intervened. At Armstrong House, FirstPort has let the quality of communal areas deteriorate to a shockingly poor extent. I could go on for hours, but I have only three minutes to go. As Members have said, there are countless examples of service failure from managing agents.
I welcome the Minister’s actions to date, and the proposals in the draft Bill to cap exploitative ground rents, which will save thousands of pounds over the lifetime of leases, pushing for service charge reform and transparency, and pushing for commonhold as the default form of tenure. These are long overdue changes. However, having seen these cases at first hand, I know that more is needed. My ten-minute rule Bill in the last Session proposed the establishment of an independent regulator of managing agents, modelled on the excellent recommendations of Lord Best’s 2019 report. I understand that the Government are willing to move on mandatory qualifications for managing agents—again, that is welcome —but I am concerned that, without an independent regulator to enforce codes of conduct and ensure we can reap the benefits of those qualifications, that will be of little benefit to many leaseholders. Furthermore, without a dedicated regulator, the burden of enforcement will continue to fall on individual leaseholders—and, in future, commonholders—to take up lengthy and expensive legal action to hold their managing agents to account.
Three key benefits show why a managing agent regulator is desirable. First, good regulation is good for markets, and I think this will help growth, not hinder it. There are significant costs and financial waste in the current system, and the leasehold brand has been exceptionally damaged by the poor behaviour of managing agents. A regulator has the chance to restore confidence in leasehold and commonhold in the future. Secondly, introducing a regulator for managing agents would help ensure the success of the commonhold tenure. The need for managing agents will not go away with the introduction of commonhold. Thirdly, introducing a regulator for managing agents is strongly supported by those in the system, the customer—the leaseholder—and also the provider of services themselves.
As the Chair of the Select Committee has mentioned, leaseholders overwhelmingly responded to the survey that they want to see this change, and the Property Institute, RICS and even the managing directors of FirstPort and Rendall & Rittner are all supportive of the need for more effective regulation and a regulator of managing agents. Those in the industry understand that there is nothing to gain from the poor behaviour of some undermining the good behaviour of many more.
Yes, we need to take forward the existing important proposals in the draft Bill, but the time for the regulation of managing agents is now—in this Bill. It is vital that something is done and is clearly seen to be done before the next election for existing leaseholders struggling day in and day out with rogue managing agents. The establishment of a regulator would be a clear signal to existing leaseholders that we are serious about protecting them, as well as a signal to the property and construction sectors that this Government are focused on restoring stability to the housing market and, crucially, calling time on the poor practice of rogue managing agents, which are far too common in our system, finally fulfilling the promise of ending fleecehold for good.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whose motion, report and recommendations for the Bill I support and welcome. Thorough and fair leasehold reform is long overdue. My inbox as MP for Brighton Pavilion is littered with horror stories from constituents about their experiences as leaseholders who are forced to fork out extortionate service charges with no value for money, poor maintenance and no transparency on how that money is spent, as well as awful communications. My leaseholders continue to suffer from a lack of agency in solving the building safety scandal, which has left too many leaseholders in Brighton’s many high-rise and mid-rise blocks stuck in unsafe homes.
Some of my constituents tell me that they believe freeholders are still trying to cut corners and do this work on the cheap. Just last month I was contacted by multiple constituents about developer Barratt Redrow’s plans to remediate their blocks, built in the early 2000s, to a B1 standard, rather than to an A2 standard as they had understood would happen. This type of dispute, nine years on from the avoidable Grenfell disaster, is commonplace, and it is so worrying for too many of my constituents.
I, too, want to talk about property management agents. A large number of leaseholders in Brighton and Hove are in a nightmare situation right now of not being able to access money paid into accounts managed by just one large property management company in sudden crisis. Under current leasehold regulations, when a managing agent’s client accounts are frozen, or irregularities are identified that suggest mismanagement of accounts, leaseholders are left exposed to very big financial losses.
In the private rented sector, there is a Government-backed tenancy guarantee scheme, but for leaseholders there is no equivalent guarantee on service charge accounts and reserve funds. Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 does require property management companies to hold service charge contributions in trust and with a financial institution authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Yet the flexibility of how leaseholder money is held in reality means that the sums of money in property management company accounts may far exceed the maximum amounts guaranteed under the financial services compensation scheme. Section 156 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 adds a requirement for managing agents to hold service charge funds in designated separate accounts, but it is not yet in force. This lack of enactment seems to leave wide open the potential for managing agents to hold leaseholder money in a way that falls outside of compensation schemes. It cannot be right that leaseholders are left exposed to risk in that way.
To conclude, there is no doubt that the feudal leasehold system is broken and must be abolished in favour of commonhold. The regulation of managing agents to end their exploitation is very, very urgent. The promises that the Government made in opposition, to end the system within the first 100 days, were missed long ago, but we need full reform now, without delay, to ensure an end to leaseholders being ripped off, living in unsafe homes or being exposed to avoidable financial risk and losses.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this incredibly important debate.
This issue is the reason I got into politics in the first place. My first community activism was with my fellow neighbours against an unscrupulous developer up in Newcastle. What I learnt from that is that when people are trapped in their own homes by systems which have been designed to extract money from them rather than serve them, they need a Government who are on their side. For too long leaseholders have not had that at all. I am so glad that this Government have taken strong steps already on commonhold and leasehold. There is so much that does need to change.
In the past, as many hon. Members have spoken about today, leasehold has been used as a system that has allowed developers to treat homeowners as a revenue stream: escalating service charges with no breakdown; poor maintenance resulting in unsafe parks; problems with footpaths and dying trees; and to make matters even worse and more insulting, really poor communication from managing agents, which makes it difficult to get your voice heard or your complaint addressed.
On local estates such as Marston Grange, Sancerre Grange and Sheridan Grange, I have worked to help residents register and build residents’ associations, and to raise their cases with managing agents so that they get better maintenance. Working together, we have had some genuinely great results, but for residents on new build estates it should not depend on how active or vocal their local MP is; it should be written into law. I urge the Government to ensure that property managing agents are sufficiently regulated.
I will give the House a couple of examples from my constituency. At my coffee morning last week, a case from Gateway Avenue in Baldwin’s Gate was raised. At their AGM, the residents wanted to form a management company, but they were blocked, and one is being imposed on them against their wishes. On St George’s Estate in Stafford, residents have reported that
“it genuinely feels like the managing agent is stealing money from us”
to the tune of £600 to £1,000 per leaseholder. Their charges have trebled. They now have to pay £2,500 to change the rent review period on their lease to be able to remortgage or sell. As a system, that is deeply unfair. At Deanspark Court, a retirement complex—other hon. Members have spoken about this—residents who own their own flats describe management charges as “extortionate”. The company refuses to engage meaningfully. At Adlington Brooklands House in Stafford, a constituent’s ground rent has risen year on year and now stands at almost £2,000, which is nearly six times the national average. I could go on—and on, and on, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I think I have made my point clear.
The Government have taken bold and decisive steps already in capping ground rents, abolishing forfeiture and making commonhold the default for new flats. Those are really significant reforms, but the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has called the absence of independent regulation of property managing agents a “significant shortcoming”. Every one of my constituents would agree with that.
As far back as 2019, Lord Best recommended an independent regulator with the powers to fine agents and revoke licences. It is now 2026. The case for that has been made consistently, and delivering it would be a tremendous contribution by this Labour Government.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also give some comfort to my poor residents on both Ribblesdale Avenue in Accrington and Lyndon Park estate in Great Harwood, who are currently faced with the impending truth that FirstPort will shortly be their managing agent? They are rightly terrified about what that might mean for them and what expense it might add, as well as the failure of such organisations to manage local parks and so on. Taking the steps that she mentions will help give my residents confidence that they will have the protections they deserve.
Leigh Ingham
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Given FirstPort’s record and the number of times that FirstPort has been called to Parliament—it has been called to speak before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the “Labour for Leaseholders” group, which has worked really hard—it is an abomination that it is still getting contracts, to be honest. As someone who used to award contracts in my previous career, I think it is mad when previous behaviour is not taken into account when giving out contracts, and FirstPort is a case in point—absolutely atrocious behaviour.
Learning from my own experiences, I am helping constituents on estates across the constituency, as I am sure many hon. Members are, to form residents associations to fight back, but I think we are beyond that. We should not need to be fighting back any more; we should have the regulation in place to protect us.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I very much welcome, as I am sure do most of colleagues on the Labour Benches, the Government’s actions so far on commonhold and leasehold, and I look forward to their further steps. Today, I would like to speak to the issue of property management agents, particularly in the context of unadopted estates.
As with so many issues, the fundamental problem here is a lack of housing. Despite the enormous actions taken by this Government to get the housing market moving, the reality is that housing delivery collapsed in the wake of the 1984 housing legislation. Anyone who looks at a graph of housing delivery since that point can see that the mass exit of the state from the direct delivery of housing has never come close to being replaced by the private sector. That is one reason why I was very excited this week to see the Secretary of State’s comments on the potential mass re-entry of this Government into housing delivery. It is one of the very few things that could resolve the issue, because we have a broken market.
People are forced to accept unreasonable housing conditions because they have no choice. Until we resolve the broken market, we will continue to have various forms of exploitation. The reality is that developers—there are good developers and bad developers—will, overwhelmingly, seek to minimise their costs as far as possible, whatever the impact on the communities they are creating. If we allow poor practices to be possible within the law, we will see poor practices being delivered by these people.
We need to be mindful, of course, that regulation has an impact. As someone who has delivered local plans, I can tell hon. Members that I was always very mindful of the requirements I was putting on developers, because I knew that every single requirement was an affordable house being taken out of the system. As legislators, I think we have sometimes been a bit careless with unnecessary additional requirements. We must ensure that regulation is proportionate, but in this case it very much is.
I have been dealing with the issue of unadopted estates for the better part of two decades now, and no worse example exists in my experience than that of Forge Wood. It is part of a new town that has all the services that the neighbourhood principal should deliver for a neighbourhood, but unlike in my other neighbourhoods the residents of Forge Wood are all having to pay for them a second time: once through their council tax and a second time through their management agency, with a fee that rivals the level of district authority council tax. They are paying more for fewer services.
There are questions over the nature of the contracts and the contractors that are brought in. If we look at any of those property management agencies, the company secretaries are registered to hundreds, if not thousands, of such companies. How effective can someone be when they are registered as secretary for thousands of companies? It is frankly little more than fee farming from residents for no benefit. I have gone through the articles of association to try and find ways for residents to wrest back control, but the complexities mean that these people are completely unaccountable. It masquerades as ownership by those communities, while delivering an unaccountable system.
What should we do? The Government’s existing proposals are an improvement, and I welcome the Committee’s recommendation of the independent regulator, which should come into effect. On the issue of unadopted estates, ultimately, we now have to turn off the tap. We need to establish fixed conditions and fees, so that they are all adopted at the point they are completed and handed over to local authorities.
We also need to establish a pathway for existing unadopted estates to be taken on by the state, with a need for local authorities to plan how they bring them in. I believe it is possible to adopt them within the existing system and within financial constraints. However, we cannot do that while running up a flag to tell every developer in the country to ditch their responsibility to get the estates adopted. I am pleased by the recommendations before us, but further action is needed on an independent regulator and on turning off the tap on unadopted estates.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The exploitations in the leasehold system are endless: unfair service charges, ground rents, marriage value buy backs, the hidden cost of utilities, inflated insurance—the list goes on and on, as do the ways that freeholders line their pockets while ordinary homeowners bear the cost.
We have seen that acutely in Sheffield, with Andrew Milne buying up hundreds of freeholds at £250, and then shamefully charging homeowners extortionate prices to buy them back. He has rightly faced consequences with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the police for blackmail. It was only a few months ago that residents in Walkley in my constituency were receiving legal letters saying that their leases would soon be up for sale, leaving them worried whether they too would be subjected to extortion. No one should be living with that kind of fear.
Across the developments of Columbia Place, Millsands, Riverside House, Anchor Point and Little Kelham in my constituency, residents speak with one voice: the problems in their homes are overwhelming; the responsibility to chase managing agents is taking up their time; and they are being charged extortionate amounts for work that never seems to happen properly, or at all.
Two weeks ago, I met with over 40 residents from Little Kelham. Their stories told of one horror after another. I heard from a family with a six-year-old child living in a home with a broken window, who were told by the managing agent that there was not enough money to fix it. Another family were told to move out from their home for six weeks for repairs. It ended up being 14 months, and when they moved back in, the repairs were incomplete.
Another resident told me that her service charge went up by 250%, and when she challenged that, so opaque were the figures and how they were calculated, they were then dropped. Many other residents, who had tried to take over the management of their properties, complained that the finalised accounts they requested never materialised. The lack of financial transparency is staggering. It shows that these are not only isolated failures but symptoms of wider structural problems. There are two things that my constituents are calling for above everything else: transparency in their arrangements, and accountability when things sadly go wrong.
Today’s motion rightly says that the absence of statutory regulation for property management agents represents a major weakness in our plans for reform. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has made it clear, as does the evidence in Lord Best’s review, that voluntary self-regulation has not delivered the standards that leaseholders deserve, nor will it deliver the accountability they want. Where management agents repeatedly fail residents, simply issuing guidance is not enough. The regulator should be able to impose meaningful financial penalties and, where appropriate, remove licences altogether.
Leaseholders deserve far greater transparency over their service charges, stronger rights to challenge unreasonable costs, and easier routes to replace managing agents who fail to deliver. We have got to seize this opportunity to ensure that managing agents are properly regulated. That is the action that my leaseholders deserve and that I hope the Minister will carry out in following through the recommendations of the Committee.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I am glad to be able to contribute to this debate to give voice to a number of my constituents who have been suffering as a result of the feudal leasehold system for far too long. I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for setting out the issues that so many of our constituents face.
The measures outlined in the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill mark a significant step towards a fairer and more balanced system of home ownership. I thank the Minister for his work on the Bill; he is alive to the many issues and working hard to deliver on the many pledges in our manifesto that we were elected on.
For generations, the leasehold system has many homeowners paying substantial service charges, ground rents and administration fees, while having little control over the management of the buildings they live in. Too often, leaseholders have found themselves trapped in a system that is expensive, complex and heavily weighted in favour of freeholders.
The issues do not discriminate on size, affecting both small blocks and larger developments. In Luton South and South Bedfordshire, I have constituents living in a small block of 12 flats, Harrowden Court, of which Hastoe Housing Association is the freeholder. They have raised a number of issues with me in recent years relating to Hastoe’s management, including significant communication issues and substantial bills presented to leaseholders with little to no explanation for why they are expected to pay the charges.
Most recently, my constituents were notified by Hastoe of significant service charge increases over the next two financial years—2026-27 and 2027-28—to fund fire safety and external wall remediation works. Tenants’ service charge and sinking fund contributions to cover those costs will rise from around £250 a month to £900 a month. That unaffordable increase has caused considerable shock, stress and anxiety.
Residents are also concerned about a lack of transparency, as Hastoe has not provided estimated total costs, explained how charges are distributed to residents, or evidenced any competitive procurement process for carrying out the works. Such remediation works should be the responsibility of the building developer, and it is extremely unfair that those costs are being passed on to residents.
That is just one example of leaseholders being failed. I have a number of constituents living in Stockwood Gardens, a larger development of 11 blocks managed by MCR Homes, who are facing a similar reality. They are paying increased service charges, year on year, with little to no explanation as to why. Basic services that they were promised, including grass cutting and building maintenance, were provided at a sub-par standard or not at all. Many have also reported basic faults with their blocks, such as lights in hallways not working or regular leaks, which have been reported and not fixed, with no clear timetable for repair.
It is clear from those examples alone that there is a significant power imbalance in the current leasehold system, and companies managing those properties essentially have free rein to overcharge residents and underdeliver on services, with little to no transparency or accountability. I note that the HCLG Committee has done extensive scrutiny work on the draft Bill, and its report recommends that the final Bill include
“provisions to establish a new, independent public body as the Regulator for property managing agents, with enforcement powers. This must include powers for the Regulator to issue fines or revoke licences of managing agents who breach a statutory Code of Practice”.
I support that recommendation and believe that it is an opportunity to prevent bad practice and drive cultural change within the industry, while affording leaseholders greater protections.
I welcome the legislation, but it cannot be the end of the conversation. Leaseholders’ voices and concerns must continue to be heard if we are to fully address the problems within the leasehold system, and ensure our constituents feel the benefit of the reforms once and for all.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I start by referring the Chamber to my chairmanship of the leasehold and commonhold reform APPG, where I work closely with organisations such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign, to which I pay tribute.
As we have heard, complaints from constituents about management companies and the exorbitant fees they charge are something that we all deal with on a weekly basis. It is not a new phenomenon; it is something that I raised on the Floor of the House five years ago because I could see it becoming the next big scandal, and sadly that has come to pass.
Homeowners who buy their homes in good faith understandably expect to live in a functioning estate where responsibilities are clear and, where necessary, charges are fair. All too often, the opposite is the case. Homeowners are left in the pernicious situation of paying for services once in their council tax bill, and once again in extortionate service charges. Poor services are often exacerbated by a lack of accountability. Residents are forced to persistently chase matters, while frequently being passed from one organisation to another without resolution. But as soon as residents fall behind with a payment, these companies leap into action, often using aggressive debt collection tactics. Adding insult to injury, the financial structures of these estates are all too frequently opaque: governance structures lack transparency; companies are labelled as dormant for accounting purposes; and dodgy practice—where freeholders, management companies and debt recovery companies operate in an interconnected web—allows them to rack up eye-watering fees.
I will cite one very recent example from my constituency, where a constituent owed some service charges to RMG, with which I think we all are familiar. Looking at his bill, the constituent had been charged an instruction fee and a client admin fee on top of his service charges, adding another £600 to the bill, yet RMG had somehow managed to inflate the £1,100 owed in service charges to £3,300 by the time court papers were issued. There is no world where a trebling of this sum can be justified, and it just shows what a scam the system is.
Time and again, I see people raising problems from a range of new build developments in my constituency, including Ledsham Garden Village, Mersey View and Jacks Wood estates, where homeowners face a range of challenges. In Ledsham Garden Village, residents are facing combined service charges and fees running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, although only a fraction of the spending can be accounted for, which just rubs salt into the wound. Residents do not have any idea how the money is being spent and if it is being spent on the estate at all; they do not know whether the company is getting best value for money, how reserves are being used or how costs are allocated over different phases of the development. There are persistent maintenance issues, inconsistent grounds maintenance and safety concerns because of poor traffic management. People who buy their homes in good faith deserve better. Then there are the Jacks Wood estate in Ellesmere Port and the Mersey View estate in Bromborough, where the adoption process has effectively stalled, leaving residents in limbo.
The regulation of managing agencies is clearly something this House would like to see, but I would like to make some further suggestions. We could introduce standard costs across the country for estate management fees so that there would be a baseline from which to judge these companies. Residents could be given a far greater say over who manages their estate. We could have three-yearly ballots in law on whether they wish to carry on with the same management agents, which could end the “put up or shut up” approach that a lot of these companies adopt. As we have heard suggested today, an immediate step the Government could take would be to make it a condition of any planning permission moving forward that the developers must hand over the whole estate adoption to the local authority and pay a commuted sum for it, ending that revenue stream entirely.
Andrew Cooper
On the point about estate adoption, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that we need to get on and implement section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would require sewerage to be adopted as part of the public sewer as soon as possible.
Justin Madders
Yes, indeed. Residents of an estate in Eastham have been paying for a sewer that they cannot actually locate, which just shows that there is too much ambiguity over what these charges are for.
Finally, local authorities could be given powers to use their resources to bring estates up to an adoptable level and then charge the developers for that work retrospectively. The developers do not want to do it, and we need to find a way of breaking that logjam. These are just some of the measures that, alongside the many welcome reforms from this Government, would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this very important debate, which I know will be of interest to constituents of mine who find themselves victims of fleecehold.
Across the country, too many people are now buying homes on freehold estates and then finding themselves let down by developers and estate management companies that fail to deliver the services they promised. Developers build these estates, sell the homes and then, despite levying management charges, often fail to maintain the essential infrastructure that residents rely on every day, whether that is roads, drainage systems, which we have just heard about, or shared green spaces.
I have seen this at first hand in the experience of residents of Moorside Drive, a development by Gleeson Homes. My constituent Daniel first contacted me in July last year after purchasing his home in October 2024, when he had been assured that the outstanding works would be completed by March 2025. That deadline slipped to the spring, and then the summer; as things stand, residents have yet to receive any meaningful communication about when the work will finally be completed. The problems they are facing are significant: the road serving the estate has deteriorated and remains unfinished; the shared green spaces that were promised as part of the development have still not been delivered; and commitments to enhance and protect biodiversity have yet to be fulfilled.
Communication with residents has also fallen well below an acceptable standard. Daniel tells me that he was given no notice before work began directly outside his family home, and I have heard that traffic management measures were not properly put in place during other works, creating unnecessary disruption and safety concerns. Landscaping, meanwhile, cannot be completed until the roads are finished, and unresolved drainage issues continue to affect a number of residents on the estate.
This is not like being sold a faulty item that can simply be returned to the shop. These are people’s homes—the places where they expect to build their lives, raise their families and feel secure. When developers and management companies fail to honour their commitments, it is residents who are left living with the consequences. That is why reform and regulation is so important. Homeowners deserve transparency, accountability and effective regulation of the companies responsible for managing their estates. As we have heard already this afternoon, homeowners should not have to fight for basic standards of maintenance or chase endlessly for information about works that should have been completed months earlier.
I very much welcome the work of this Labour Government to strengthen the rights of people living on managed estates. These reforms have the potential to deliver greater fairness, improve accountability and ensure that homeowners receive the standards of service they have paid for. People who invest in a home deserve confidence that those responsible for maintaining their communities will fulfil their obligations. It is only right that we continue to strengthen protections for homeowners, and ensure that managing agents and developers are held to account.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for the assiduous work that she has done with her Select Committee.
It is inspiring when we, as Back Benchers, can have genuine influence by bringing the concerns of our constituents to this House of Commons and directly into the minds of Ministers, and when improvements result from that. I can recall my hon. Friend the Housing Minister using his mobile phone to instruct officials from a debate—because he was hearing so many complaints from hon. Members—to call in the CEO of FirstPort.
I want to touch on a couple of examples from my constituency. One constituent, a customer of FirstPort, had their service charge increase from £980 in 2023 to £3,800 in 2026, causing them financial hardship because they had to take out a loan in order to pay the bill. Now they say that their property is unsellable. There was a clear lack of transparency, with repeated requests for service charge accounts allegedly being ignored. Another constituent reported significant concerns about FirstPort property management, highlighting that service charges increased from around £1,000 in 2021 to £3,400 in 2026 for broadly unchanged services. They, again, allege lack of transparency and more. Residents ultimately exercised their right to manage and appointed a new managing agent, which estimates comparable services at around £1,600 per year, suggesting that FirstPort’s charges were unduly high.
I pay tribute to the work of Labour for Leaseholders, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky). We held a mini-inquiry and gave evidence to that inquiry. I think it was clear to all hon. Members that there is a captive market and that private companies and others are exploiting people; it may be within the law, but we have seen the behaviour of these companies and we are calling it out. One has to ask why and whose interests are being served—I will simply leave that question there.
In my remaining time, I want to move on to something that started as a negative and ended up as more of a positive. Residents of Eastfield House, a block of flats in Houlton in my constituency managed by Clarion Housing, repeatedly contacted me about problems. I went out to see them. I saw one of the flats, and the various problems with maintenance and lack of transparency—frankly, it was the usual story. It was deeply concerning: I saw the anguish, the stress and the upset of these people, who are having their dignity disrespected and damaged.
I contacted Clarion, which generously attended a meeting that I held with residents a few weeks later, and is taking action. The company has already given a payment to those residents, and it has a single point of contact and an action plan. It is doing what it can to improve the situation. I pay tribute to Clarion; it has shown that things can improve.
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 was a very good start, and I know that the Government are consulting further. This Government are intervening in failing markets, because if we do not do so, the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, worse, to exploit people.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a proper regulator for the property management sector, far from being anti-growth, would be a pro-growth measure bringing transparency and good functioning to these incredibly opaque markets that exploit leaseholders and renters?
John Slinger
I entirely agree. As I was saying, the market is failing, and many of the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, at worst, exploit people. As we have heard from hon. Members, some of those companies and individuals will continue to push the limits of decency, and possibly legality, because there is no accountability. Let us make it as hard as we can for them. Let us protect and empower the people who really count: the leaseholders.
In my remaining seconds, I ask the Minister to touch on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the need to look at the right-to-manage process. I suggest that the threshold should be reduced to 30% or that a deemed consent process should be brought in so that our residents can take control of poor estate management. We owe it to them; they deserve dignity in the housing that they have purchased.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
For 28 of the 29 years that I have been in Parliament, I have campaigned for leasehold reform. I was instrumental in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and on the Bill Committee during the passage of the 2024 Act. I welcome the Select Committee’s report and pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for her remarks.
There are 11,000 individual leaseholders in contact with my office. I pay tribute to Jackie George, who is in daily contact with hundreds of them; she is my office manager, and most of what she does with leaseholders is actually in her spare time.
Leasehold reform is about control. It is about passing power and control from the moneyed interests to the people whose homes they affect. To do that, we must enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage. For enfranchisement, that means restricting development value. It was promised to Parliament by the last Government in 2021 and it was meant to be in the 2024 Act. It is just wrong that leaseholders can be held to ransom by hypothetical development value, with developers claiming that they could build in the garden or on top of the building and demanding huge extra sums to stop leaseholders from affording the freehold purchase. Nicola Muir, a barrister at Tanfield Chambers, has wryly observed
“it is amazing what development landlords believe is possible and the profits they claim they will generate”.
She cited one instance where the landlord initially claimed £34 million for the alleged potential to build a skyscraper in the front garden of a block.
Today, the right to manage is a shadow of what the Labour Government legislated for in the 2002 Act. Freeholders can punish leaseholders who have taken back control of their blocks with the right to manage because of the Supreme Court decision in 2022—the Settlers Court decision—which went against the intention of Parliament by allowing freeholders to retain control of estate charges. We need to revert to the pre Settlers Court position; the Law Commission’s remaining right-to-manage recommendations would help to achieve that.
An entire legal industry has emerged in torpedoing right-to-manage claims for freeholders, where tiny procedural details can see leaseholders spending literally a fortune to defend their right to manage in tribunal and the courts, only to lose the claim. The tribunal has no power to waive errors made over the procedural traps, yet the reforms to change this—the remaining Law Commission right-to-manage recommendations that would end frivolous lawfare of freeholders and make right to manage a universal scheme—have been omitted from the Bill, despite previous promises.
I am conscious that the scale of the leasehold crisis has become much worse since the Law Commission issued its final report six years ago. There are quick-win policies that could still be added to the Bill, such as reducing the arbitrary 50% trigger for right-to-manage claims—as many hon. Members have already said—to 30% or 35%. Just imagine if we had a law that that said a bad Government could be removed only if 50% of all citizens with the franchise, and not just those who actually voted in an election, had to support the proposition. That is the situation with leasehold. If the right to manage is a no fault right—
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. Leasehold has become the ultimate con. Given the sheer quantity of leaseholder issues and complaints about the behaviour of property managing agents that my team and I come across weekly, some would think that we would be experts in this area, but no two cases are the same, and each case is more complicated than the last.
The system of leasehold is far too complicated. Whether we are looking at EWS1 forms, cladding, major works or service charge transparency, leasehold involves a number of different parties, each with their own interests, and the vast majority of cases end with all avenues being exhausted and the constituent having to seek legal advice, but not everyone has the time to go back and forth with their MP, raise internal complaints through every mechanism, and then complain to the ombudsman, and not everyone has the time and resources to seek legal support for their case. Thousands of leaseholders are encountering these issues, and they are completely locked out from accessing support. Past legislation to improve leaseholder rights seems to have added an extra layer of complexity, so any new legislation must simplify the system, not further complicate matters.
I have a specific concern about leaseholders in housing association buildings. While recent legislation has improved leaseholders’ rights in privately owned blocks, housing association freeholders have often fallen outside the scope of reforms. Housing associations must be specifically addressed in future legislation.
I turn to the unregulated headache that is managing agents. There absolutely needs to be a mechanism of oversight and enforcement, so I welcome the recommendation from an independent regulator, but that regulator needs not just teeth but claws. It needs to be able to fine managing agents, remove their licence, and prosecute repeat offenders who we know are gaming the system.
I cannot tell the House how many cases I deal with in which a constituent is just trying to get a response from their property managing agent. Frustrated leaseholders are paying ever-increasing service charges, and it is simply not right that they are struggling to even get a basic response. Charges climb year on year, but transparency does not climb with them. When my constituents ask for a proper breakdown of what they are paying for, too often they get vague figures, unanswered emails or silence. Lifts are broken, stairwells are unsafe, and communal areas never get cleaned, but still the bill arrives, unchanged and unexplained. Leaseholders have no real power to challenge what they are being charged for—and heaven forbid they refuse to pay their service charge, because then the communication they once begged for comes swiftly, in the form of threatening letters claiming the money.
This would not be tolerated anywhere else. Ofgem, which is not always that great, ordered E.ON Energy to pay £5 million, after customers were left waiting on hold for 18 minutes on average, and half their calls were never even getting through. It fined Maxen Power £1.65 million for poor communication and mishandled accounts. Just this January, a landlord in Harrow was prosecuted and fined £9,000 for failing to provide fire and electrical safety certificates, and a landlord who fails to carry out an annual gas safety check can face an unlimited fine or up to six months in prison. In every one of those cases, Parliament has decided that taking someone’s money and failing to deliver is not just providing a bad service, but carries real consequences. Management agents can take thousands of pounds a year from leaseholders, deliver next to nothing, and walk away with a strongly worded letter. We do not accept that anywhere else in housing law, and we cannot keep accepting it here. An independent regulator must do what was not possible in the past, which is remove the licences, fine the managing agents and, as I say, prosecute where necessary, because what these organisations have been doing is absolutely criminal.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all her work on this issue. I also thank the whole Committee and the experts who testified. I would like to speak in favour of the Government’s proposals, and will briefly describe the situation in my constituency and the wild west of management agents, as described by my hon. Friend.
Too many of my residents face deep frustration, even anger, because of the actions of these companies. In many cases, people have worked extremely hard to get a foot on the housing ladder. They bought an attractive flat in what they thought was a nice development, only to be let down extremely badly by these companies, who treat them in an appalling way, offer a very poor service, and charge high costs.
I will mention two case studies. The first is an attractive development in west Reading, for which Remus is the managing agent. It is near to a large Tesco and some parks. It is an attractive redevelopment of a hospital site, with low and medium-rise brick buildings that fit the built environment. Many young families live there. It should be a pleasant place to live. However, there are problems with antisocial behaviour, and Remus has persistently failed to respond to very reasonable inquiries and requests by residents. For example, it has failed for months to repair the shutters on the entrance to a car park, and has allowing antisocial behaviour to creep into the car park under residents’ properties. It also failed to restore hot water, which was unavailable in some of the flats.
There has been a whole series of other problems. For example, Remus expected residents to pay for the upkeep and closure of a park in which there was some antisocial behaviour. There are related issues involving other management companies, such as parking problems on some roads. This is all causing extreme stress for residents in the area. I had a public meeting with a number of residents recently, and they explained that very clearly to me. Rightly, residents are outraged by the behaviour of these companies.
The potential for reform is very clear, as my hon. Friend and others pointed out. In one of the blocks in the area, residents have gone through the extremely lengthy process of getting commonhold. That has led to a 50% reduction in the fees that the residents have to pay. That is a very clear indication of both the necessity of reform and the difficulties that some face in achieving it.
I realise that time is pressing, so I will try to pool together several other case studies, from Reading town centre and other parts of our town, relating to failures by FirstPort, Moreland Estate and other management companies. Companies have allowed antisocial behaviour to take place in stairwells, which leaves residents intimidated, and have had a poor response to fire and remediation issues. This is some years after the Grenfell disaster. There is also a series of other difficult problems.
Again and again, residents are being put under pressure. In one case, a resident rightly used the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to demand a breakdown of the payments that they were due to be charged, but the managing agent did not respond by the statutory deadline. That is the level of poor service that some of my residents and colleagues’ residents face. I urge the Minister to continue taking action on this important matter.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), on securing this important debate. The issues raised in her Committee’s recent report speak strongly to the experiences of thousands of my constituents in Poplar and Limehouse, which is the constituency with the highest percentage of leasehold homes.
Like members of the Committee, I am not just alarmed but very angry about what many constituents have to go through to get even basic repairs and maintenance done. Far too many of them have to deal with uncommunicative —sometimes even rude or dismissive—managing agents, who can offer no clarity on maintenance works, and who delay necessary repairs again and again. To give a recent example, in the heatwaves, constituents living in Royal Captain Court in my constituency have endured the most horrible conditions. The lifts were forced into fire safety mode because of the extreme heat in the tower, which is not air-conditioned. One resident fainted on the staircase, and dozens of others suffered in the temperatures. Residents have said that until the BBC reported on the case, they received no replies from the managing agent Sanctuary about how, when or if repairs would be done.
The issue of lift breakdowns is common in my constituency, and will occur more and more as climate change intensifies. On top of that, as we all know, service charges and fees are going through the roof. One constituent recently contacted me to say that their service charges rose by 12% in the last year, after doubling in the decade up to that point. Residents of Aberfeldy Village in my constituency are reporting service charge increases of £600,000 by FirstPort, and residents of the Wapping Lane development report that Ballymore increased their service charges from £7,000 in 2014 to £17,000 this year.
Across the board, residents and constituents tell me that there is no transparency regarding the accounts, and we know that they cannot easily or fairly challenge increases in court. The Government have been consulting on the implementation of section 56 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, and on provisions around service charge transparency—measures that many of my constituents need implemented swiftly. However, there must also be regulation of managing agents. I cannot simply accept the massive discrepancies in costs, the service charge increases, and the lack of communication and basic decency. In Poplar and Limehouse, many leasehold builds are huge. They are incredibly tall—over 20 floors high, in many cases—and that would make it very difficult for leaseholders to take over and run their building under the right to manage, which is a system that desperately needs simplification.
Some changes are being brought forward in the leasehold Bill, but thousands in my constituency will continue to suffer runaway service charges and from rogue managing agents. In the absence of the abolition of leasehold, it is only right that the Government accept the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Lord Best, and introduce an independent regulator for managing agents through the leasehold reform Bill. I urge the Government to do that.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a leasehold homeowner, which is very common in Sheffield. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of her Committee, and of Lord Best, about a regulator.
I welcome the fact that this Government have begun to take a close look at the injustices embedded in the leasehold system. It treats leaseholders not as full homeowners, but as a revenue stream for distant freeholders and managing agents. The draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill is an important step forward in correcting the imbalance, and I believe that it will help address many of the structural problems that leaseholders have endured. In my constituency, the consequences of the system are painfully clear, as has been mentioned by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). Not only have my constituents experienced threats of forfeiture, but they have been asked to pay thousands of pounds to their freeholder for minor breaches of their lease.
The ability of a freeholder to strip someone of their home is an extraordinary concentration of power, and I am pleased that the Government’s commonhold and leasehold reform Bill proposes abolishing forfeiture entirely. However, abolishing forfeiture alone does not resolve the fundamental injustice. Leaseholders remain trapped in a system that, at its core, is a feudal relic—a structure designed not to empower people, but to extract value from them. Under this system, people who have bought homes find themselves paying escalating service charges, opaque administration fees and arbitrary costs imposed by freeholders.
A significant number of my constituents own leasehold houses, and their lease requires them to ask permission from their freeholder before building a loft conversion or extension, and even before selling on their home. Those permissions are demanded in return for ground rents of little worth—often £10 a year—yet they give freeholders extraordinary control over the lives of leaseholders. That is not a fair housing system.
My constituents have a clear ask. They have rightly suggested that leaseholders of houses should be given a statutory right of first refusal when their leaseholds are sold. At present, leaseholders of houses do not have this right, while leaseholders of flats do. If a freeholder decides to sell the freehold of a house, the leaseholder has no guaranteed opportunity to buy it. They may learn of the sale only once it has occurred, several months later. If we are serious about empowering leaseholders, the right of first refusal must be extended. That should be included in the Bill.
It is not just freeholders who cause problems. We have heard about the problems caused to residents by managing agents, including in my constituency, where leaseholders were made to find £22,000 within five months for major works after an inept management company left balconies and walls to crumble, and the eventual repairs to become more expensive. A two-bedroom flat on that estate was advertised for sale with an annual service charge of £5,067, or £422 a month, which in Sheffield is a staggering amount of money, given our relatively low housing costs.
Unsurprisingly, some of my constituents have struggled to sell their flats; they are trapped in the Catch-22 that others have mentioned. It is time that we ended that. We need to ensure that all the powers in the Bill are enacted, but we should also be looking at ways to future-proof it, and to root the regulator in fairness.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
From the moment I was elected in Hartlepool, my inbox, surgeries and public meetings were filled with people telling me remarkably similar and shocking stories about their estate management companies. That is what I wish to focus my remarks on. The tales are very similar: terrible communication, risible explanations and no accountability, but ever-rising bills. Ahead of this debate, I asked constituents to send me examples, and I was overwhelmed by the sheer number that I received, so I obviously cannot go through them all today. The stories came from Marine Point, the Longbranch estate, Wynyard Mews, St Mary’s Court and other estates across the town.
One constituent, Andrew, highlighted the fundamental unfairness between estates adopted by the council and those left in private management: people can live just streets apart, pay the same council tax, and yet receive completely different levels of service. Derek asked me a simple question: why should he pay both Hartlepool borough council and Sela Management, when the council cannot carry out the work, because it has not adopted the estate, and the management company also appears unwilling to carry it out?
It is an entirely fair question.
Ray and Janice wish to put their property, which they own outright, into a living trust, yet they were delayed from doing so because Sela Management must first consent. They describe this as “medieval behaviour”. Jordan told me he was threatened over alleged unpaid invoices that he never received. The first meaningful communication was not an explanation; it was a demand. That is no way to treat people. When Helena bought her Longbranch home, she was told that as more families moved on to the estate, the costs would fall, because they would be shared more widely. The number of households has more than doubled. Her charges have not fallen; they have risen by more than £200.
Kim described waiting months for basic repairs, only for residents to feel that the work that was eventually carried out was of poor quality. Others have shown me photographs of unfinished drains, damaged kerbs and maintenance left incomplete. These are not legal technicalities; they are the everyday experiences of ordinary families—people paying real money for work that they cannot see, cannot verify and simply do not believe has been carried out properly.
My constituent Christine, whose property is managed by Kingston, told me that residents were collectively charged around £24,000 to repaint a block of flats on the headland. Within three months, the paint was already peeling. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Because of a fire evacuation of the Palace, the Serjeant on duty is requesting a suspension of the sitting. I have been advised by the Serjeant at Arms that the Chamber and Gallery should be evacuated, using the nearest available exits. Please proceed in an orderly manner and follow the directions of Doorkeepers or security staff.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call Jonathan Brash to conclude his speech, the remaining Members will have a time limit of three minutes.
I call Jonathan Brash.
Mr Brash
As I was saying, I welcome the Government’s commitment to leasehold reform, but Ministers must ensure that estate management companies are not treated as an afterthought. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 provides important powers that have not yet been brought into force, so I urge Ministers to do that. Estates do need to be managed, but we should go back to how they were managed: by local authorities. That is the way to truly fix the system: ensure that every estate is adopted by every council and drive these estate management companies into the dust where they belong.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank the Housing Minister for all his tireless work on these landmark commonhold reforms—I only hope he finds my constant lobbying not too tiresome. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her leadership on this issue.
My parents and grandparents are in the Gallery today. I thank them for ensuring that throughout my childhood, I had a roof over my head. Thanks to their efforts, I have enjoyed the childhood tour around all the various property tenures possible under English law—from council, to private rental, to leasehold, to freehold and a brief interlude as lodgers in a community Christian church.
When my parents moved to Earley, they bought a freehold house that was built in the 1960s. It came with no strings attached. If they had bought the same house on a new build estate built in the last two decades, it would have likely come with estate charges, standing charges for some, and often low-quality roads and communal infrastructure that will never have any route to adoption by the local council. They would have had a contract to pay these fees to a property manager—someone they did not choose and who they almost certainly cannot leave. Five million leaseholders also face similar fees, from ground rent to property management charges that are difficult to change.
What has happened over those few decades since the 1960s to make things so much worse for young families moving into new builds today? The negotiations and relationships between developers and local authorities, as other Members have pointed out, have taken a turn for the worse. As a result, over a thousand constituents have been in touch with me, seeking advice for taking control of property management and breaking free of the monopoly held over them.
The problems are not just about charges. In 2024, the average annual service charge bill rose by 11% to £2,300—four times the rate of inflation over the same period—so the average service charge now exceeds the average cost of all other utilities combined.
In Shinfield, the impact on my constituents goes beyond that; they also pay a suitable alternative natural greenspace charge. Following negotiations that I instigated between the landowners and the residents, they are still waiting for a final agreed position. They also face a lack of transparency. Residents in Woodley, for example, have negotiated through me a service charge freeze with their managing agents, FirstPort, but there is still lack of transparency about the underlying charges.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman might heed the fact that Members are on a very tight time limit, and he has not been present for any of the debate until this point.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Even before coming to this place, as a local councillor I dealt with so many issues relating to leasehold property management and unadopted estates.
A notable example is the Doulton Brook estate in my constituency, a mixed freehold and leasehold estate with houses and apartments built just over a decade ago by Taylor Wimpey and managed by Trinity Estates. Residents have been dogged by issues from day one, with a lack of transparency around estate management charges and decision making, inheriting responsibility for communal land and infrastructure, and an associated public open space linked to the estate with no clear management and future transfer plan. I pay tribute to Alan Watts, the lead resident of the Doulton Brook action group, and all the residents who have worked closely with me to hold the developer and the managing agent to account and unpick the multitude of issues that exist on a mixed estate like that. I worked with the residents, the council, the managing agent and the developer to get the estate up to an adoptable standard. That was not a quick process, with pushback every step of the way. Developers should not be allowed to leave estates in an unadoptable condition, especially not to use it to generate more money from residents. I hope the Minister will look at how we can facilitate retrospective action for existing estates suffering with the fleecehold system, as well as new ones.
I am part of the Labour for leaseholders group of MPs, and we challenged Trinity Estates’ CEO directly on poor practices. It was clear there was a total lack of oversight from head office as to what happens on the ground. They promised they would do better, but Alan and the other Doulton Brook residents have seen nothing change.
I also want to raise concerns about the use of leasehold in retirement apartments such as Webb Court in Stourbridge, managed by FirstPort. Residents seeking to enjoy their retirement are left stressed and frustrated by poor communication and lack of accountability, with an agent who seems to see the residents as a hindrance rather than customers to serve. Recently, FirstPort took the decision to upgrade the alarm call system—not a problem, but the way it was done meant that elderly residents faced a sudden demand of a lump sum of £1,100, to be paid immediately. Following my intervention, that magically reduced to £300, and we negotiated a payment plan, but this was despite nearly £100,000 sitting in the reserve fund.
I have provided support with issues in other retirement complexes with other managing agents, such as lifts left unfixed, as we have heard today, and residents harassed for payments that they have already made. I hope the Minister will consider the impact on our older generation in such situations, so that they are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and her Select Committee colleagues for their excellent report and for securing this important debate. Members on both sides of the House have made important points, including my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who resolutely spoke up for their residents.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a commonhold framework, the abolition of leasehold for new build flats and the end of forfeiture. Those are clear steps in the right direction, but they do not go nearly far enough. Liberals and Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for an end to unfair residential leasehold since the Liberal Government’s 1909 people’s Budget, and over 100 years on, progress has been woeful. Nearly 5 million households in England are living under this feudal system today. The Housing Secretary himself has called ground rent “money for nothing”, so why pay £250 for nothing for the next 40 years?
For any of the 5 million leaseholders living under this system right now, the draft Bill does very little to help them gain enfranchisement, fix service charges or take control of how their buildings are run. The Government have said they are committed to bringing
“the feudal leasehold system to an end.”
Where are the goals and milestones that mean it will happen? A target date is needed by which all leaseholders have had an affordable opportunity to convert to commonhold and for the right to manage across the sector.
As a first step to achieving those targets, the Government should enact all the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement, including cutting out the swindle of development value—recommendations that came out six years ago but, for some reason, remain unimplemented. The Government inherited that delay but then promised in the 2024 King’s Speech to enact them.
Let me give the House a specific example of what the delay in implementing those recommendations means in practice. One constituent in Taunton and Wellington went through the right-to-manage process as it stands. It took him four years, and he told me it
“felt like a full time job.”
The delay meant that he kept paying an overpriced service charge, adding up to an extra £5,000. Residents were forced to set up two separate right-to-manage companies, duplicating costs, simply to manage two buildings in one estate. Once they had finally won the right to manage, they found no legal way to recover even the basic costs of the right-to-manage company because the costs were outside what the lease defined as a service charge. There was a similar story when they went to amend their leases. What links all three problems is that the Law Commission recommended they be fixed back in 2020, so why not implement them in the forthcoming Bill?
Right to manage should not be a niche arrangement that only a determined minority can navigate their way into. Landlords and freeholders, who hold all the information and resources, should be required to offer right to manage through a ballot of residents, with a presumption in favour unless more than half of residents vote against it. In respect of leaseholders being enfranchised into owning their own home, and setting a target, the Minister should bring back the amendment he tabled in opposition on properly setting deferment and capitalisation rates. The Bill appears not to contain such a provision.
Before I end, I want to say a word about “fleecehold” as it affects freeholders. They face exactly the same issues of moving in, then having no control over the fees they are forced to pay. Homeowners should be given the right to manage the estates they are contracted into having responsibility for. I understand that the Government have asked the Law Commission to look into this, which is welcome, but the track record on Law Commission advice being acted on is worrying. On 27 January, the Minister promised my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) that those residents would get protection in this Parliament, but that protection is not in the Bill. When will it be legislated for?
In the meantime, councils should be given greater powers to adopt estates. Also, we need a property management regulator of the sort Lord Best recommended, which has the power to crack down on and cap the most exploitative service and estate management charges.
Six years have passed since the Law Commission made its recommendations and seven since Lord Best reported. Forty-two years will pass before leaseholders are free of the scourge of ground rent. Yet we still have no goal from the Government on how long it will take for the majority of leaseholders to enfranchise or to gain the right to manage, or for freehold estates to be sorted out. In closing, therefore, I ask the Minister for three things. First, enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations, so that leaseholders get the support they need. Secondly, create a regulator as a matter of urgency, and give it teeth to end rip-off charges. Finally, set a clear timetable for enfranchisement and right to manage becoming the norm, so that people win control over their own home. Let us free people from the leasehold trap. The Liberal Democrats would do that without delay.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing and leading this important debate. I pay tribute to the work of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee under her leadership, which generated a 159-page report containing a series of recommendations. I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not comment on the remarks made by Members from all parts of the House, but I extend my thanks to all those who made considered and important contributions.
The Opposition support leasehold reform. As we have heard many times, there are approximately 5 million leasehold properties in England and Wales, and it is clear that the leasehold system comes with problems and requires change. For too many leaseholders, the costs just keep piling up. In 2023-24, the average ground rent paid by a leaseholder in England was £304. Alongside that, there was a 5.8% increase in the annual service charge, taking the average annual cost to nearly £3,000. In London, those costs are even higher, with an average of £412 charged for ground rent and service charges sitting at about £8,000 in some modern high-rises.
Even at their highest, the costs continue to rise, bringing more uncertainty for leaseholders. Service charges in particular can rise astronomically, leaving leaseholders having to pay thousands of pounds more than they ever intended or believed they would pay, and some flats virtually impossible to sell. On top of that, for too many leaseholders, the costs they pay come with no transparency about how their money is spent, how spending decisions are reached, and who signs off on them. Lack of clarity around these costs is a problem that policy makers cannot ignore.
Knowledge of these problems is not new. In 2018, the then Government established a regulation of property agents working group under the chairmanship of the noble Lord Best. The group examined the key issues impacting leaseholders and the need for reform in the sector. The group issued its report in 2019 and proposed a new regulator and regulatory regime, and a new enforcement system. Neither the previous Government nor the current one did a great deal to bring that about. Seven years later, we still await any meaningful Government action building on the recommendations of the report, and the draft Bill is silent on that issue.
It is not the only thing that leaseholders have to wait for. In two years, the Government have not yet implemented the full measures promised in the Conservative Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. The Government have said that they have their own plans for leasehold reform, but leaseholders have been told time and again to wait for a new Bill because of significant flaws in LAFRA. For two years, we have been told that primary legislation is required to fix the Act, but nothing has been done, and the draft Bill produced by the Government in January this year does not address the supposed flaws of the previous Act.
That prompts the question: where is that legislation and what is taking so long? Why are the Government proposing to bring forward a Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill that does not offer these fixes? If the eventual Bill remains in line with the previously published draft Bill, when can we expect the next Bill to address those changes? Assuming this Parliament lasts for a full term, we are now 40% of the way through its life, and we have had more Secretaries of State in that time than actual leasehold reforms.
The Housing Minister himself spent the end of his time in Opposition highlighting the need for speedy implementation of new rights for leaseholders, pressing the previous Conservative Government to
“give us a sense of the timetabling of some of the more important provisions in the Bill, because leaseholders watching our proceedings will want to know when the rights provided for by the Bill can be enjoyed.”
Well, he was clearly correct, so I wonder what the shadow Minister of that day would say to the Housing Minister of today. I believe he would ask the same question as me: if not now, then when? When can leaseholders expect to see their rights come into force?
At the end of January this year, the Government published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. According to the draft Bill, leaseholders can expect a ban on leasehold for most new flats; a new commonhold system, including rules for mixed use, mandatory reserve funds and quicker debt recovery; a ground rent cap of £250 per year for many existing leases, which reduces to a peppercorn after 40 years; abolition of forfeiture and the introduction of a more proportionate court-based enforcement regime; and the repeal of rentcharge powers on freehold estates.
Perhaps most eye-catching of those is the much-touted ground rent cap, as the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee set out in her opening speech. The Opposition recognise the need to support leaseholders facing high costs, but while capping ground rent may sound like a silver bullet, for many leaseholders it might be closer to a damp squib. That is because ground rent is usually nowhere near the level of service charges, which can have a genuine and very real impact on a buyer’s ability to find a mortgage. For the many leaseholders burdened by excessive and unclear service charges and rising council tax, the ground rent cap is a mirage in a desert of higher council taxes, escalating service charges and poor building management.
While this move may have some marginal benefit to leaseholders, there could be ramifications elsewhere. Investors have expressed deep-seated concerns about the potential impact on investor confidence and faith in the UK system. That is because the UK has long been seen as a safe, secure and predictable place for sound investment, and ground rent investments, favoured by UK pension funds among others, have become an important part of that environment. The Government’s plans to unilaterally and retrospectively revoke key aspects of pre-existing ground rent contracts have rippled through our financial districts and risk significantly negative impacts on investor confidence, with a wider undermining of our economy.
The risk of freeholder insolvencies does exist and could be dangerous, as the Government know because their own impact statement lists freeholder insolvencies as a realistic cost that could have spillover impacts on leaseholders. If the Government get this wrong, there could end up being a significant, albeit unintended, risk to leaseholders—people with families and mortgages, or those living in their first home. All of this prompts the question: why is the Government’s focus on ground rent and not service charges? I hope the Minister will take the necessary time to address these very real fears and explain his choice.
As outlined by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green in her opening speech, one of the main focuses of today’s debate concerns the question of the regulation of managing agents and the Select Committee’s recommendation that clauses providing for this are inserted into any forthcoming Bill. We have heard compelling arguments from hon. Members from across the House, and powerful testimonies.
With the Government’s plans for a wholesale market conversion to commonhold, this issue becomes all the more pressing. That is because in moving to commonhold, there is the prospect of responsibility for building safety and management for thousands of flats moving from professionals to residents. That might work perfectly with a dedicated, well-trained and attentive residents’ committee at the helm, but what about the multitude of buildings where that may not be the case? What happens when the roof begins to crack, the water starts to seep in and the lifts begin to break down? What happens when the sinking fund has been drained and the residents’ committee chair, who might be under mounting social pressure, is forced to cut service charges to unhealthily and impractically low levels?
If commonhold is to become the norm, we must ensure that the Government are not laissez-faire in how they implement the system. They must not blindfold residents who may sleepwalk into a situation in which their homes are under management without proper training, a strong mandate and adequate knowledge of building safety and flood risks. To guard against that, it may very well be that commonhold residents choose to hire a managing agent to care for their homes.
Managing agents exist today—some are good, and some are not—but, as I outlined at the start of my speech, many leaseholders have spoken about the bad experiences they have had at the hands of some agents. The difference between managing agents being appointed under a commonhold system rather than a leasehold one is that the managing agent’s client would be the homeowners themselves, not a distant freeholder. The residents themselves would have the power to hire and fire the managing agent. That is why the Committee’s recommendations are so important.
If there is to be a regulator, it must have teeth, as the noble Lord Best said in his 2019 report and implied again in his evidence to the Committee on 10 March, and as the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green said in her speech. If there is a regulator, it is absolutely crucial that it works as intended. It would need to have the requisite expertise, personnel and budget to discharge its duties efficiently. Lessons must be learned from the failings of other regulators, such as the Building Safety Regulator.
The Government are considering bringing their Bill forward and examining the Committee’s work. If the Government decide to heed the recommendations of the Committee, I hope the Minister will commit to working across parties and with the whole industry to ensure that the Government get it right the first time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Minister Pennycook has agreed to give a short speech to accommodate the next debate.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I start by declaring an interest: my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work I will cite in the course of my remarks.
It is a pleasure to respond to this vital debate on behalf of the Government, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on securing it. Commonhold and leasehold reform and the regulation of property agents are issues of the utmost importance to millions of homeowners across the country, and I commend her and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate them in detail. Let me briefly put on record once again my sincere thanks to her, the other members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and its Clerks for the huge amount of work undertaken in support of pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.
This has been an excellent debate, with many informed and passionate contributions, and I thank all hon. Members who have participated. Collectively, those contributions have served to reinforce both the complexities and challenges of leasehold reform and the strength of feeling that exists across the country in respect of the need to act boldly and urgently to provide relief to the millions of leaseholders and residential freeholders currently suffering as a result of unfair and unreasonable practices—and make no mistake: they are suffering. We have heard of some particularly egregious cases in this debate.
What may seem like prosaic matters to many—service charges, ground rents, consent fees—are the source of acute financial hardship and misery for huge numbers of those living in one of the approximately 5 million leasehold dwellings in England and Wales. Let me be as clear as I can from the Dispatch Box: leaseholders are being routinely gouged by freeholders and managing agents acting on their behalf. They are being gouged as a result of a system that denies leaseholders control over the homes they live in and have paid for and subjects them to extraction in the form of punitive, escalating ground rents, unreasonable or extortionate charges, unjustified permissions and administration fees, and onerous conditions, often imposed with little or no consultation.
I have said it many times before, and I will say it again: this is not what home ownership should entail. Leasehold is blighting lives. Leasehold is a barrier to a fair and efficient modern residential property market. Leasehold is an anachronism in the 21st century. The aim of this Government by the end of this Parliament is nothing short of dismantling it and bringing the corresponding emancipation of leaseholders.
I will heed your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I do not have time to respond to all the specific points raised, such as points about freehold estates, service charges, development value and the retirement sector. Those were all well-made points, and, as ever, I am more than happy to speak to hon. Members outside of the Chamber. I assure the House that none of those issues are an afterthought. Where there are provisions in the 2024 Act, we are working at pace to take them forward; where there are issues outside of the draft Bill, such as freehold estates, we have consultations and are analysing feedback, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) knows.
In our manifesto, we made a clear and unambiguous commitment to act where previous Governments had failed and finally bring the leasehold system to an end. The forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill is not the end of that story, but it is integral to honouring that manifesto commitment. As the Committee’s report rightly recognises, the draft legislation represents a significant step towards ending the leasehold system for good, delivering greater fairness for leaseholders while laying the foundations for a reinvigorated commonhold model. I am immensely grateful to the Committee for its detailed and thoughtful scrutiny of the draft Bill. Its report provides a valuable set of recommendations as we continue the process of augmenting, strengthening and refining the Bill for introduction. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee knows, we are considering each of those recommendations carefully, and I hope we can report back in the not too distant future.
I want to make some very brief remarks about commonhold and ground rent, but before I do, let me address the main issue that has been the subject of today’s debate, which is that of property managing agents and the Committee’s recommendation that we establish a new, independent public body as a regulator of them, with enforcement powers. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and others who have mentioned the importance of control. I continue to believe that giving leaseholders control over the buildings they live in is our overriding priority, and that that will help to tackle the majority of abuses.
However, I want to reassure hon. Members that I have listened and heard the serious concerns raised on both sides of the House about the performance of managing agents, both on freehold estates and in leasehold blocks—I know from my own caseload how serious these problems are. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and as the shadow Minister said, their importance will only grow as we transition towards a commonhold future. That is precisely why we have committed to strengthen the regulation of managing agents.
As hon. Members know—it has been mentioned several times—the previous Government committed in 2018 to regulate the property agents sector. It asked a working group chaired by Lord Best, who I am very pleased to see in the Gallery, to advise them on how to do it, yet over multiple years they failed to act on that report’s findings. We have already progressed work on a number of those recommendations, including mandatory professional qualifications.
However, I will state candidly that in taking forward those and other measures designed to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, we have a choice about how we do so. We face those choices in the context of a substantive Bill that is already around 260 clauses and 20 schedules and could grow further, and the fact that we have made very clear—I stress this point again to hon. Members—that this is not the only piece of legislation required to meet our manifesto commitments. Other pieces of primary legislation are required, not least to enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage.
I want to make it clear, though, that I take very seriously the Committee’s recommendation of a new independent regulator. I am certainly not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and rule one out—indeed, I am personally extremely sympathetic to it—but we will set our overarching position on the regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course. I can assure hon. Members that in finalising that position, we will continue to consider all aspects of Lord Best’s report.
I can feel your eyes upon me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am going to skirt over commonhold—I am more than happy to speak to any hon. Members who have particular concerns about that—and speak briefly about ground rents. In particular, I want to touch on the decision the Government made in the draft Bill. We committed in our manifesto to
“tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges”,
and we are delivering on that commitment through the Bill. As hon. Members know, the draft Bill will cap ground rents at £250 a year initially, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years. This will deliver immediate relief for hundreds of thousands of leaseholders during this Parliament, and over the lifetime of that policy position, it will save leaseholders between £10 billion and £12.7 billion. It is a significant intervention. After 40 years, all ground rents will change to a peppercorn, ensuring that they are brought to an end in their entirety.
However, it is our view that a 40-year transitional period is necessary to avoid unintended consequences and ensure stability for leaseholders and the wider property market. This is a balanced and fair solution to the problems caused by unaffordable, unregulated ground rents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee that the cap must be introduced as soon as possible, so that leaseholders can benefit from reduced costs and more easily access mortgage financing when looking to move home. Subject to parliamentary timings, we are seeking to introduce the ground rent cap by 2028 at the latest. That is not the end of 2028—it is a point in time in 2028 at the latest—but I want to stress the words “at the latest”. It is up to this House to ensure that pieces of legislation progress more quickly.
Before concluding, I can helpfully clarify the answer to the very specific question that the shadow Minister put to me. There is no ambiguity about the fixes that need to be made to the 2024 Act. It is really unfortunate that we have to make fixes to that Act.
We should not be repairing primary legislation through new primary legislation, but we confirmed in the King’s Speech on 13 May that fixes to those flaws will be included in the forthcoming substantive Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.
To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green for applying for this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and all those who have participated in it for sharing their concerns, insights and case studies. I look forward to providing the Committee with a formal response to its report as quickly as we possibly can—notwithstanding the current constraints—and I look forward to continued engagement with the Committee as our substantive Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill progresses and as we continue to implement those reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute.
Florence Eshalomi
I am mindful of the time, but let me thank the 24 Back-Bench Members who have contributed to the debate; I hope that the Minister will see that there is cross-party support. We will continue to keep this issue on the agenda, because it is only right that this Parliament does what the Labour manifesto committed to do: bring an end to the feudal leasehold system.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s First Report of Session 2026-27, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill (HC40); notes the Government’s commitments to cap ground rents and to bring forward legislation in this Session to support the uptake of commonhold in place of leasehold; further notes the concerning practices of some property managing agents who fail to act in the best interests of homeowners; and calls on the Government to accept the Committee’s recommendation to legislate to create a body with enforcement powers to regulate property managing agents.
Access to Further Education
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to further education.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all the Members who supported bringing this important debate to Parliament today. I want to raise an issue that goes to the heart of opportunity, aspiration and economic productivity in my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby: post-16 education. Too often, we speak about equality of opportunity as though it can be achieved through slogans, White Papers or ministerial announcements. For a young person leaving school at 16, opportunity is far more practical than that. It is about whether there is a good college course nearby; it is about whether they can afford to enrol on an apprenticeship without spending hours getting there, and how they find the money for travel; it is about whether they can see a clear route from the classroom into a skilled, well-paid job; and it is about whether they believe they can build a successful life in the town where they grew up.
For too many young people in Runcorn, those routes are not clear enough. The existing provision is limited. Riverside college in Widnes does important work across Halton, but it is on the other side of the Mersey. For young people in Runcorn, that means a daily bridge crossing to access courses and facilities. Crossing the bridge into Widnes means paying the toll and facing additional travel time and cost. The sole local sixth form in Runcorn is at the Ormiston Bolingbroke academy. It has only 350 places, which is enough for less than 20% of the more than 2,000 16 to 18-year-olds in Runcorn. Provision is fragmented, options are limited and too many still face the prospect of travelling elsewhere for the courses, specialist facilities or technical opportunities they need. That is not good enough for a town with the industrial strength, scientific expertise and economic potential of Runcorn.
Runcorn is home to major manufacturing, logistics, pharmaceutical and life sciences employers. We have DHL, Ineos Inovyn, Encirc, Essar and Cemex, to name but a few. At the Sci-Tech Daresbury park, there are opportunities in engineering, software, laboratory science, project management, advanced manufacturing and technology. These are not theoretical jobs of the future; they are real opportunities on our doorstep, yet too many young people do not see a direct bridge between their school and those careers.
That is why I believe that Runcorn needs a dedicated post-16 skills and apprenticeship hub—a serious local offer, built around the needs of local employers and the ambitions of local young people. This should not simply be another institution, with another layer of bureaucracy, offering courses that do not lead to good jobs or which simply rack up student debt; it should be a practical partnership between Riverside college, local schools, Halton borough council, major employers and the Government. It could provide specialist technical education in engineering, construction, health and social care, digital skills, laboratory science, logistics and advanced manufacturing. It could offer high-quality T-levels, apprenticeships, traineeships and routes into higher education. It could give young people access to work placements, mentoring and guaranteed interviews with local employers. It could also give businesses a strong local pipeline of skilled young people who are ready to work, ready to learn and ready to contribute.
Having spoken directly to many local employers, I know there is a strong appetite to support that kind of initiative, and to play an active role in shaping and delivering it. That is how we should think about post-16 education: not as a separate part of the education system, but as completing the education journey, which should not finish until 18. We do not need to import talent while overlooking the talent growing up in our own communities. Indeed, local talent should be our priority.
Halton faces serious challenges. Too many children grow up in low-income households, too many pupils face disadvantage, and too many young adults leave education without the qualifications that would have opened up doors for them. In a constituency where many families have seen opportunities disappear over generations, post-16 education must be part of rebuilding hope, and that includes confronting difficult truths. The evidence shows that disadvantaged white British pupils, particularly boys, continue to experience poor educational outcomes in many parts of the country. In communities such as mine, where the population is overwhelmingly white and deprivation is entrenched, that cannot be treated as an awkward subject to be avoided. Neither should we ignore a generation of working-class children who feel that the education system does not understand them, does not speak to them and does not offer them a route to a secure future.
When a young person cannot see the point of school, cannot see a realistic job at the end of it and cannot access training close to home, disengagement becomes more likely. The consequences are severe: fewer qualifications, weaker employment prospects, lower wages and a greater risk of being left behind, with nothing to show for years at school and no prospect of employment. That is bad for young people, bad for their families and bad for the community. Towns like Runcorn cannot thrive, grow or prosper without a high standard of education and decent job prospects for their young people. The answer is not to lower expectations, but to give young people something real to aspire to.
A young person in Runcorn should be able to leave school knowing that they can train for a career in engineering, become a laboratory technician, enter digital work, learn a skilled trade, join a manufacturer or progress towards university. I therefore ask the Minister to work with local education providers, Halton borough council and employers to examine how a dedicated post-16 skills and apprenticeship hub for Runcorn can be delivered. That work should include a proper assessment of the local skills gap, the courses that employers need, the facilities required, and the opportunities for a satellite campus or specialist centre in Runcorn itself. It should also include a clear expectation that major local employers play their part through apprenticeships, placements, career advice, and direct partnerships with schools and providers.
Runcorn has the businesses, it has the people and it has the potential. What it needs is a more ambitious local settlement between education, industry and Government. The young people of Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby are every bit as capable, ambitious and hard-working as young people anywhere in Britain. They do not need pity; they need opportunity. They deserve the chance to gain the skills, qualifications and confidence to build successful lives in the communities they call home. For Runcorn, for our local economy and for the next generation, we must do better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This debate has to conclude at 5 pm. For me to accommodate all Back Benchers, there will be a speaking limit of two minutes.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Investment in our colleges is essential to this country’s future and to our manufacturing sector, our house building targets and our NHS. In Stafford, it is clear that we have no shortage of ambitious young people—I know this, as I meet them weekly—but we must invest in their futures. We must invest in our colleges to make sure that their futures are all they can be. I am proud of what this Government’s investment has delivered so far. Our advanced manufacturing tech is going to change the landscape in Stafford, and that work, done in combination with our local employers—hand in glove—shows exactly what can be achieved by an ambitious Labour Government.
I want to take this opportunity to raise something put to me directly by my local college and by Make UK, because it gets to the heart of the problem of how we fund our manufacturing and technical education. Right now, the payment per pupil is the same regardless of whatever course is being delivered, so an A-level student doing three A-levels in a classroom attracts the same funding as a student on a technical engineering apprenticeship, despite the fact that the equipment, the facilities, the staffing and the delivery costs are so different. At a place like Stafford college, which genuinely excels in exactly this kind of high-cost, high-value technical provision, that is really unfair and a direct disincentive to deliver the courses that matter most. If we are serious about making technical education genuinely world class, we have to fund it as though we mean it.
That is why I am so pleased and it is such an honour— I talk about it all the time—to have the best college in the country in my constituency. [Interruption.] It is widely accepted to be the best college in the country! I am also very pleased that the Government have taken substantial steps to invest in further education and vocational courses, so I would like to ask the Minister: what further investment is planned in our college estate, and how can the course funding imbalance be addressed to ensure that we have the best facilities and the best staff, and that we create the best possible opportunities?
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Too often, the voices of people who come through routes like apprenticeships, working people or tradespeople are missing from these debates, but I am really proud of my education and of my route through as an apprentice.
On apprenticeships, at the moment we are asking too many small and medium-sized businesses to carry the responsibility of training up the next generations of people without the funding and recognition that they deserve. I have met with small businesses across my constituency that want to take on apprentices, but tell me it is too expensive and too complicated; and it is not a lack of lack of willingness—it is a lack of support. We have to make it easier for small businesses to recruit apprentices by simplifying levy transfers, reducing administrative burdens wherever possible, and providing long-term funding certainty for their rising costs.
Apprenticeships need to be made easier for young people and families to understand and access, and to be recognised and respected as the meaningful route into essential skilled work that they are, with support for apprenticeship wages that better reflect local labour markets and the removal of unfair practical barriers. We want free bus fares for under-22s so that no young person is held back from getting to their apprenticeship. We want equal access to funded childcare and the scrapping of disincentives such as those within the benefit system.
Finally, we need economic policy that focuses on spreading opportunity and investment more fairly across the country, so that young people in places like Gorton and Denton are no longer left behind. In places like Gorton, Denton, Abbey Hey, Burnage, Longsight—all the places in my constituency—our young people have never lacked talent or drive, but we must stop wasting it, give them a chance and properly back further education and apprenticeships as the national assets that they are.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I want to raise awareness of the transformative role of further education in remote coastal communities, like mine in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle in Cornwall. Despite the talent, ambition and resilience of our young people, parts of my constituency continue to experience persistent deprivation. Nine neighbourhoods rank among the most deprived in the entire country. But amidst that deprivation, our local further education sector is helping to change lives and create opportunity. Cornwall college, which is rated outstanding by Ofsted, is a shining example. It is a vital cog driving our economic engine, equipping young people with the skills that they need to succeed, and providing employers with the workforce required to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
There is another further education college in Cornwall: Truro and Penwith college. Does my hon. Friend agree that transport, and getting children in rural and coastal areas to colleges and work placements, is a major issue?
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. In Cornwall, we have had significant issues with bus services to our colleges. We really need the Government to help with that.
Cornwall is on its way to an industrial renaissance as a strategically significant economic frontier. We are seeing exciting developments in critical minerals, including tin, lithium and tungsten, as well as in geothermal energy and offshore wind. Those sectors are creating good jobs that are vital to the national interest, and will help us to transition away from a fossil-fuel-based economy.
With that in mind, I warmly welcome the launch this September of the new Engineering Mining Academy. This is a partnership between Cornwall college and Cornish Metals. It brings together two of Cornwall’s crown jewels to train the next generation of engineers and mining professionals, and will ensure that young people can benefit directly from the return of the mining industry to Cornwall. This is exactly the kind of collaboration we need if we are to seize the opportunity to deliver growth in every corner of the country.
However, we cannot let staffing challenges, or cuts to dedicated student bus services, which my hon. Friend just mentioned, threaten those opportunities. Recruitment and retention are especially difficult in remote coastal areas, where there are profound housing and transport pressures. Unless we address workforce shortages, we risk undermining the FE institutions that are providing the skills on which our future economy depends. Cornwall’s FE colleges are playing their part, but we need the Government to step up and provide the funding settlement that our FE colleges deserve.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Quite often when I come to this place, it is to moan and groan, and gripe about something that has gone wrong, but today I want to highlight a really positive story. One of the first campaigns I ran after the general election was to secure an extension to the FE capital transformation fund for the rebuilding of Harrogate college. That is really exciting. I have been to Harrogate college a number of times, and I have seen the fantastic work that it does with people from across the local area. The new building will have some really exciting features, such as a replica hospital wing and renewable engineering kit. It is a really good success story about how we can upskill future generations to meet the skills gap.
I visited Harrogate college earlier this year for Colleges Week, when the theme was “Skills for All”. I press the Minister on what more we are doing to ensure diversity, and to get people from all backgrounds into apprenticeships and FE colleges. I used to be on the board of governors at Selby college, where I did my A-levels. A great thing there were the partnerships with industries and experts; they really supported FE colleges, and went above and beyond when it came to kit in the classrooms.
When I meet the principal of Harrogate college, he tells me that the real-terms cut to the devolved adult skills fund is placing pressure on the college. I gently ask the Minister whether that could be looked at, going forward, so that we can build effective pathways that allow adult learners to progress into areas where we see skill shortages. Harrogate college is well placed to help address the “not in education, employment or training” issue.
I would like to press the Minister on the funding cliff edge. There is also an issue relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities, and home-school transport issues. The principal of Harrogate college has told me repeatedly that he has seen an increase of children with SEND going to Harrogate college, but transport to get them there is a massive issue, and a barrier. What will the Minister do to ensure that people can get to FE colleges in the first instance?
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a governor at the City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and the Abbey Hill special college, and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth-form education. I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this genuinely important debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for rightly pointing out that the best college in the country is in my county. Where she was wrong is that it is actually 10 miles north, in my constituency, not hers, but that is a different matter.
I will push the Minister on two or three things. First is the introduction of the V-levels. I am grateful that the Government recognised that the scrapping of BTECs would leave a gap in the market for young people who wanted to go to college to study qualifications. The first three V-levels are due to be rolled out in September 2027, but the qualification guidelines are not going to be released until spring 2027, meaning that many colleges will be unable to work out what they will have to teach to ensure that young people get the qualification. Those prospectuses are being printed now, and knowing what the guidelines are would be a big help. Is there any chance the Minister could bring forward that announcement? I know colleges would be grateful.
There is also the issue of stand-alone sixth-form colleges, which fall between the cracks of FE and sixth-forms in multi-academy trusts when it comes to capital funding. They do not qualify for the school condition allocation fund, as those in MATs do, or the FE capital transformation fund. That is a genuine problem, because in the types of places that Members have mentioned, those stand-alone sixth-form colleges are a real engine for social mobility. They do not have the ability to borrow—it was taken away from them—and they are funded at 29% less than schools, so accessing capital becomes a real issue for the growing number of young people who want to go there.
Finally, I will push the Minister on the transport infrastructure that makes colleges accessible. Can the Department for Transport think about colleges as somewhere that bus routes ought to run to? In too many place, young people cannot rely on parents to get them there. Buses unlock opportunity for education and progression.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this important debate. I will spare hon. Members the parts of my speech about the importance of FE—I am sure we all agree that it is very important. Instead, I will talk to the Minister about the lasting impact on further education in my constituency of his Department’s 2016 review of post-16 education in Cheshire. That review has had deeply damaging consequences across Mid Cheshire, which continue to be felt by children in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich.
We know that there is a clear and well-established link between the distance a student has to travel for further education, and their likelihood of remaining engaged and successfully completing their course. In Mid Cheshire, we have been caught in a perfect storm. Colleges around Cheshire, which have been under pressure from financial instability caused by quality concerns, have responded through mergers and the gradual withdrawal of provision in communities like mine.
Where once there was a large FE campus in Northwich and a smaller one in Winsford, there is now just the small one in Winsford, which this year has ceased offering courses for 16 to 19-year-olds—it is now post-19 only. Winsford has NEET levels five percentage points higher than the borough-wide average for Cheshire West and Chester. The situation is as unacceptable today as when it first emerged. Even though it all started 10 years ago, it is still repeatedly raised by my constituents as an example of a deep injustice that they feel.
I strongly urge the Minister to revisit the issue with some urgency, and to commission a fresh comprehensive review that does not just look at the current landscape but actively seeks to repair the damage that was caused. It must prioritise accessibility, local provision and fairness, ensuring that further education once again serves all communities, rather than leaving some behind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this important debate. Access to further education is access to opportunity. For most young people, and for a great many adults, it is the route to a job or back into learning. When that access works, it changes lives. When it does not, we fail not just an individual but their family, their local community, the economy and, over a lifetime, the public purse.
We do not make it as easy as it should be to access further education. I will focus on two barriers: funding and transport, on which the Government are not going far enough or fast enough. Last year, in the skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised real-terms increases in per-pupil funding for 16 to 19 providers. Instead, per-head funding this year is going up by just 0.55%. That is a real-terms cut. Overall funding for 16 to 19 education now stands at around £4.7 billion, 30% below its inflation-adjusted high of £6.8 billion in 2003-04.
Cambridge Regional College sits just outside my constituency of St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. Its principal, Mark Robertson, has been clear with me about the cost: there is a pay gap of around £12,500 between school and FE teachers. At a time when the college needs enough maths and English teachers to deliver resits for about 1,300 young people in each subject, those teachers could earn thousands more teaching exactly the same subject in a school down the road.
Less visible but just as damaging is the fact that colleges are funded based on the previous year’s intake. This means that when demand rises—and it is rising—colleges have to enrol and teach students now, but must wait, often a full academic year, to be funded for them. Nationally, colleges took on around 32,000 additional 16 to 19 students in ’25-26 to meet that rising demand, and were left to absorb the costs themselves. That is not a funding system that supports improving access.
I would just suggest two changes that might help. As the Minister will know, colleges, unlike schools, cannot reclaim VAT. That amounts to a tax on further education worth around £210 million per year. The Liberal Democrats would end that anomaly. We would also extend the pupil premium to post-16 learners, including those in FE, so that support for disadvantaged young people does not simply stop the day they turn 16.
Of course, funding cannot reach colleges that are not there. I will give another example from my constituency: St Neots is the largest town in Cambridgeshire, but it has no further education college of its own. Despite innovative efforts to provide some provision in the town, many of our young people must travel to reach the courses that could change their lives. Of course, St Neots is far from being the only further education cold spot in the country.
That brings me to the second barrier: transport. The law requires every young person to remain in education or training until 18, but it does not require any local authority to help them to get there. Once a young person turns 16, transport support becomes discretionary, rather than statutory—a cliff edge at exactly the point the law starts asking more of them, not less. The Association of Colleges tells us that some students face journeys of up to three hours a day to reach their course, and colleges are increasingly subsidising transport themselves out of budgets meant for teaching and learning.
The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to fully restore the £2 bus fare cap—a change that hit rural passengers particularly hard, in exactly the areas where too many of our young people are trying to reach college. Perhaps the Minister could also explain in this debate why a more direct measure—a concessionary bus pass for under-22s, which was recommended by the Transport Committee—was rejected by the Government as unaffordable.
To conclude, it is worth highlighting what it costs when access fails. The Milburn review puts a number on it: an average of £29,000 a year for every person who is not in education, employment or training, rising to a lifetime cost of £240,000. We spend £7,900 a year on a further education student—that is not a close call. This is a false economy on a national scale. There is a missed opportunity on our doorstep to prove that it does not have to be this way. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government plan to address those barriers to access.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I now call the shadow Minister—I believe it is his first time. Congratulations and welcome, shadow Minister.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this debate. Whatever our political differences, I welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue that should unite Members across this House: ensuring that every young person, wherever they live, has the opportunity to develop the skills they need to succeed.
After the previous Labour Government badly neglected apprenticeships, the Conservative party prioritised them, delivering around 5.8 million apprenticeships between 2010 and 2024 and creating apprenticeship routes into 70% of occupations. The Conservatives are clear that further education is a great driver of social mobility. That is why I am proud that the previous Conservative Government introduced T-levels, degree-level apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy, and put English and maths at the heart of all vocational qualifications, helping people to climb up the ladder of opportunity and fortify their careers with the in-demand skills that businesses need.
Access to apprenticeships is not simply about education policy; it is about opportunity, social mobility and ensuring that the next generation can harness their unique talents to build rewarding careers, support their families and contribute to the prosperity of our country. Apprenticeships should enjoy parity of esteem with academic routes. University is the right choice for many, but it is not the only route to success. We know that higher-level apprenticeships are now out-earning the average degree, according to the Centre for Social Justice.
The right qualification at the right time can alter the trajectory of an entire family for generations, but we must also be honest that warm words alone will not create a single apprenticeship place, and with level 2 apprenticeship starts hitting their lowest level in four years last year, the time for action is now. Ministers wax lyrical about growth, skills and opportunity, yet employers continue to raise concerns about complexity, uncertainty and a system that is still failing too many young people.
Young people cannot build careers on announcements alone. This week, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) spoke passionately about placing technical education at the heart of economic renewal. That aspiration is welcome, but aspiration without delivery does little for young people looking for an apprenticeship today or for the small business struggling to recruit for today and tomorrow.
His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition has put forward a clear alternative through our new deal for young people, which places apprenticeships and technical education at the heart of economic opportunity. It would expand high-quality apprenticeships, remove barriers that prevent employers from taking on young people and ensure that skills funding follows the needs of local economies rather than the priorities of Whitehall.
We believe that employers should find it easier, not harder, to invest in the next generation. We believe that colleges should have the flexibility to respond to local labour market demand. Above all, we believe that every young person deserves a pathway into skilled employment, whether through university, an apprenticeship or another technical route.
If the Government genuinely believe that apprenticeships are central to growth, they—and the party of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, which needs to see what properly considered policy looks like—should accept our fully funded new deal for young people. It would: scrap real interest rates on plan 2 student loans so that balances can no longer rise faster than inflation, saving graduates tens of thousands of pounds over the course of their careers; create 100,000 more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds by lifting funding caps and supporting employers with up to £5,000 for every British apprentice they hire; and introduce a £5,000 first job bonus allowing young people to keep the first £5,000 of national insurance they would have paid by placing it into a savings account for a first home or future security.
The proposal for an apprenticeship hub in the hon. Member’s constituency deserves to be examined on its merits. If it can demonstrate value for money, genuine local demand and strong employer engagement, I hope that Ministers will engage constructively. But the debate, as we have heard in contributions from across the House, is about more than one constituency; it is about whether a young person leaving school believes that hard work and determination will be rewarded, whether employers have confidence that Britain is developing the skilled workforce that it needs and whether the Government will match their words with action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this timely and important debate. I have not had the chance to speak to her since her powerful and moving contribution earlier. FE colleges are engines of economic growth and social justice. They are anchor institutions, bridging talent with opportunities. While often overlooked, they are central to our very success and prosperity as a country.
I know full well the power of further education from my own local college, Lakes college in Cumbria, which, with the power of the Dispatch Box, I will declare is the best in the country. It has a distinctive national specialism in nuclear skills and engineering. But it is essential that everyone—whatever their background and circumstances and wherever they live—can access the opportunities of excellent further education.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Minister, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve, but the best colleges are in my constituency of Sussex Weald.
Josh MacAlister
I am just relieved, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were not ticking me off for something else. [Interruption.] Okay. It is a growing list.
It is essential that everyone, wherever their background and wherever they live, has access to excellent further education funding. That point was made by a number of Members in the debate. Just yesterday, the Government announced an additional £120 million for further education in 2026-27, rising to £365 million in 2027-28.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
This Government have rightly made capital investment decisions for the long term. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to properly plan further education provision with the skills and jobs needed for long-term growth in infrastructure?
Josh MacAlister
I do, and it is only possible with the funding that I was setting out that the Government have secured.
Funding per student aged 16 to 19 will have increased by over 12% in two years. That comes at a time of significant growth in student numbers. As a result, total 16-to-19 funding will increase from £7.6 billion in 2024-25 to over £9 billion in 2026-27, which is a material increase. This is timely because of the current challenge we face of the rising number of young people not in education, employment or training. The number is too high, and the consequences are serious.
The Government have a comprehensive plan for further education and post-16 education and skills overall to support young people into rewarding careers and tackle high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. As well as technical excellence colleges—specialist further education colleges in England designed to deliver high-quality training in priority sectors—we are introducing the new V-levels, which will sit alongside T-levels as the technical route and A-levels as the academic route, which Members will be familiar with.
The youth guarantee is this Government’s commitment to ensure that all young people can access education, training and apprenticeships, employment support or work opportunities. We are supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships and offering a £2,000 hiring payment for small businesses. This is complemented by the jobs guarantee, which provides eligible young people with a guaranteed six-month paid job, helping them gain work experience, skills and a route into sustained employment.
The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby highlighted the need for capacity in FE. Demographics mean that this is a national challenge, but we expect 67,000 additional 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to enter the post-16 system in 2028, which is very soon. That means we are investing £570 million to create the space that is needed in FE. Post-16 providers that are not in mayoral strategic combined authorities—I believe that the hon. Member’s constituency is not—have been able to bid for the construction skills capacity fund, the outcome of which will be revealed very shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) raised the variation in the cost of payments per pupil. High-cost 16 to 19 courses do receive more money. For example, engineering attracts 73% more funding than base cost classroom courses.
The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) was right to highlight the problems with the apprenticeship levy as was. We are making big changes to make it less bureaucratic for small businesses, in particular with the growth and skills levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) highlighted issues with transport, as did many other Members. He was right to say that bus access is integral to opportunities at further education colleges. I know that from my own constituency.
Jayne Kirkham
I would just like to highlight a point of inequity. Mayors sometimes subsidise buses for young people aged 16 to 19, which means that young people in urban areas are better set than those in rural areas where the councils cannot afford to do that and young people have much further to travel.
Josh MacAlister
As a Cumbrian MP, I know that problem all too well, and I know that many in Cornwall experience that too. We are building back our bus system in this country. There have been significant increases in funding for local authorities to build back that bus system. We do need to go further on it, and I completely recognise the connection that has been drawn by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) asked about funding. About 70% of FE funding comes from the Department for Education through the funding for post-16 courses. Earlier in my speech I set out the 12% increase over the last two years. Because that is such a large proportion, I recognise the other issues with adult skills budgets, but overall FE college funding is going up as a result of all of that.
Gareth Snell
I appreciate that this is the responsibility of our noble Friend in the other place, but if the Minister’s officials could write with an answer, I would be grateful. It is reported that pension contributions in the college sector will likely drop by about 8% as a result of the funds doing very well. There is a rumour that some of the colleges’ dividend from having to pay less into pension funds will be clawed back mid-academic year as part of the Department’s negotiations. I appreciate that he cannot answer that now, but that would be incredibly damaging to colleges. Any way of mitigating it would be welcomed across the sector.
Josh MacAlister
I was about to turn to my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to recognise the limits of my knowledge, given that my noble Friend in the other place has responsibility for that issue. I will happily ask for officials to write to my hon. Friend about that concern. He is also right to highlight the need for care in handling the transition in qualifications—a point he has made many times and on which he has helped the Government get to a sensible place. I will also ask my noble Friend, given her responsibility for this brief, to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) about the issue in his constituency.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), rightly highlights issues around funding. I believe I have covered that in relation to yesterday’s excellent news on FE teacher pay, overall funding and the population at post-16 settings; there will be a 12% increase over the next two years. The hon. Member and I spend quite a bit of time exchanging ideas and comments about each other’s plans; I have stopped keeping a tally of spending commitments from the Liberal Democrats, because they are racking up.
I congratulate the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), on his first time at the Dispatch Box. I can tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) are of one mind on the need for a transformation in further education. I do not have time to tackle the hypocrisy of the Conservative party’s student loans plan, because I have been asked to wrap up.
With that in mind, let me finish by saying that further education colleges are a manifestation of so much that we value as a Government and as a country. We back them with the money, reform and status they rightly deserve. There will be more to come, but change is already afoot. I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby for securing the debate and all Members for contributing.
Sarah Pochin
I thank everybody for their contributions this afternoon. This should not be a political issue; it should be addressed by all parties with the interests of young people at their hearts. In places like Runcorn, we are failing young people. Although I listened with some amusement about who has the best colleges, I am very envious, because I do not have a further education college. That is exactly what I am looking for. I welcome the news of the increase in funding; I hope that a great chunk of it is directed towards Runcorn.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to further education.
Siren Associates Ltd: FCDO Contracts
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a great pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate; I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for granting it. The Minister at the Dispatch Box and I are both Lincolnshire MPs, and we share the burden of knowing that Lincolnshire’s is the most underfunded police force in the country, and could really do with an extra £10 million to £15 million per year to provide an extra 200-plus police officers, more technology and more cars to prevent crime and secure more convictions. So, imagine my surprise and concern when last October, I read that the Foreign Office had granted a three-year contract for a sum totalling £46 million to help not the Lincolnshire police force, but the Lebanese police force.
I thought, “What’s going on here?” I thought, “This feels to me, in my honest opinion, a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash,” because my constituents in Boston and Skegness believe that it is the Lincolnshire police force that should be properly funded. With all due respect to the police officers within the Lebanese police force, in the nicest possible way, that is their issue; our issue is protecting and keeping our own constituents safe. The idea that the Foreign Office is sending £15 million a year to train the Lebanese police force is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash, and I will come on to how I would deal with it.
Of course, when contracts are placed by the Government, someone has to deliver that contract. Let me now introduce the House to a group of companies under the umbrella banner called Siren. There are a number of these companies, the first of which is Siren Associates Ltd, which is a not-for-profit company, which all sounds very nice and cosy and cuddly. There are other private companies called Siren Consulting Ltd, Siren Advisory Services Ltd and Siren Analytics Ltd. Those are owned and controlled by the four directors in varying different ways of the not-for-profit company Siren Associates Ltd.
This is the company that has pitched for the contracts from the Foreign Office, and not just the three-year contract for £46 million that I referred to that was granted in September 2025. No, it actually transpires that Siren Associates Ltd, this not-for-profit company, had secured two previous contracts in 2021 and 2022 for the sums of £15 million for one year and then £16 million for two and a bit years to provide the same sort of services to the Lebanese police force.
People might think, “That’s all very well.” I was surprised when I read into the accounts of Siren Associates Ltd, which are incredibly brief because they claim the exemption from full accounts, despite huge contracts from the Government, and from small company accounts, which means there is no profit and loss account. There is no explanation of how they are spending this taxpayers’ money overseas, of what an amazing job they might, or might not, be doing. Who knows? They have not explained how many police they are training and supporting in all the various ways. We have no idea whatsoever.
The only interesting thing I spotted was at the end where the related party transactions show that millions of pounds are going out the side door to the directors by way of director fees and management fees to three separate Siren companies. It is quite hard to work it all out, but I have done my best, and it appears to me that within the first two contracts totalling some £31 million during that period, some director fees of £3.2 million were paid over that five-year period, which means that the directors were probably taking out per annum more than the Prime Minister is paid. Then, there is an additional twelve-and-a-bit million pounds by way of management fees to these other companies.
It is probably worth reflecting on the four directors of this company, Siren Associates. One is a British citizen who appears to live in the United Kingdom. Two others are Lebanese citizens who live in Lebanon, and one is a Swedish citizen who lives in Sweden. I would have thought that directors’ fees of more per annum than the Prime Minister is paid is a king’s ransom in Beirut. I think many of our constituents would be pretty outraged, frankly, at the level of money—our cash—that has been going out the side door by way of directors’ fees and management fees.
If this not-for-profit company is doing such a great job, why does it need all these separate companies? Why not be clear and transparent, when this not-for-profit company is clearly giving the impression of a great, charitable, noble endeavour? Maybe that was what helped to persuade the Foreign Office to grant the contracts, but we do not know. There is an anxiety about why it is so complicated, why there is so little transparency and why there is so little information about the performance and the quality of what they have done.
So we have these four Siren companies, and we do not really know how they are performing. What we do know is that the framework contract under which these contracts were granted is the multibillion-pound conflict, stability and security fund. Accountability reports and audits have been done by the House and various others, and its performance has been heavily criticised here in the UK, with all sorts of red and amber alerts, which gives one considerable pause for thought.
Of course, we all know that Lebanon is sadly in a difficult place; it is essentially a warzone. When we drill into it, there are—regrettably but unquestionably—considerable links between the Lebanese police force and the proscribed terror group Hezbollah. Taxpayers might wonder whether it is really a good idea to send our taxpayers’ cash to the Lebanese police force, which clearly has significant links—there is no question about this—to Hezbollah. That is a genuine concern, but in no way am I at all suggesting that that has any involvement with the, I am sure, very lovely and nice four directors of Siren Associates Ltd.
When I learned this last October, I put out a tweet, and I gave my honest opinion that it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash to grant a contract for £46 million to help train the Lebanese police force. I expressed my concern about millions of pounds going out in fees to other companies. That was not well received, I think it is fair to say, by the four directors. They sent me a letter from their lawyers at the end of October, and just recently I have been notified that I will be receiving a writ and they will be suing me.
I believe it is a fundamental duty of a Member of Parliament—all of us, across all parties—to scrutinise the expenditure, value for money and performance of taxpayers’ cash. I do not think it is unreasonable therefore to look at that and, in a democracy where we pride ourselves on the joys of free speech, to be questioning where we can, where we should and where we must. Sometimes, that might involve language that some might find a bit bullish, a bit offensive or a bit too gentle—who knows? But that is our solemn duty. What is the point of us if we are not going to scrutinise that level of expenditure? It causes me real concern when I see this sort of secrecy and complexity, when it could be so simple, and they could be so informative, but they are not. It makes one think, “What have they got to hide?”
The directors could have just rung me up, or sent me a very nice email or letter saying, “Richard, we saw your tweet. Look, dear chap, we think you’ve got it wrong. Could we come and see you and tell you what a lovely job we’re doing and how fantastically we are serving the emerging trainees and police officers in Lebanon?” I would have welcomed that, and if they convinced me I had got it wrong, I could have corrected the record—while bearing in mind that my responsibility and duty is to my constituents in Lincolnshire, which is suffering the burden of colossal underfunding, as I said at the start. But no, they did not do that. They just took the most aggressive route possible, not even writing to me directly from the company, but instead sending me notification from the lawyers.
That makes me wonder, “Hmm, what’s going on here?” Where is the rational, calm, friendly, supportive approach one would expect from a UK company, based in Northern Ireland, that is benefiting from, in total across the three contracts, £77 million of taxpayers’ cash, to be spent with the Lebanese police force, where we know there are problems with links to Hezbollah? I think the company has got their response very badly wrong. To aggressively tell a Member of Parliament, “We’re going to sue you,” is completely the wrong approach.
I was then even more surprised when just yesterday, I was approached by another hon. Member of this House who gave me, essentially, a warning, a veiled threat, on behalf of what he called “a third party”, that I should be very careful. Bear in mind that this is a Northern Irish Member of Parliament, speaking with regard to a Northern Irish company. We all know the horrors and fears that came from Northern Ireland. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I received that with considerable concern and trepidation. Frankly, I think it is outrageous—absolutely outrageous.
Then, I was surprised to hear that, apparently, Siren Associates wrote a letter to the Speaker expressing concern that this subject might be debated. The purpose of this debate—the very purpose of this place—is to do our job on behalf of our constituents and secure good value and better public services, and make people in this United Kingdom across all of our constituencies better off. I thought, “What’s going on here? Why would they behave like this?” Then, I realised, “If you don’t understand something, follow the money.” There is a lot of money here, and I am deeply concerned.
The questions I pose to the Minister—a fellow Lincolnshire MP—are simple. Does he condemn on behalf of the Government a Member of Parliament being threatened as I have been? Does he condemn a lawsuit brought by a company against a Member of Parliament who is merely seeking to secure good value and to scrutinise the use of taxpayers’ cash? Given this chain of events, I ask him that a full and proper inquiry be conducted. Who granted these contracts? Where is the accountability? Where is the assessment of how well the company is doing? We do not know anything from what is in the public domain, because the company has not told us in their accounts, which I believe they should have done. Given all that I have described, I think the new three-year contract should be suspended, pending the review and the inquiry. This is not right. It is not fair, it is not proper, and it is not how we do things in Britain—it is just not the British way.
To conclude, I revert to where I started: I believe that that £15 million a year would be much better spent on the Lincolnshire police force as opposed to the Lebanese police force, and in my honest opinion, it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing the debate and for providing me with an opportunity to talk about the Lincolnshire police, which is where he started and so where I shall start as well. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that after years and years of underfunding for Lincolnshire police, we have secured a further £12 million a year in the first multi-year Lincolnshire police funding arrangement starting in January. I know that he will share my gladness in that arrangement.
The hon. Member referred to a range of issues about which I will not pass comment, unless Madam Deputy Speaker wishes to instruct me otherwise, including the conduct of other hon. Members in this House and what sounds like a private law dispute with the company in question. Let me turn to some of the substantive questions he raised in relation to the contract. I was pleased to see the hon. Member briefly earlier today and I am happy to discuss some of his questions in person, which may be easier.
I agree with the hon. Member that of course the Government must spend money diligently in support of UK interests and in a way that delivers value for taxpayers. I disagree with his assertion that the award of the contract under discussion does not align with those principles, so I will say a little about the contract and about Lebanon, and then I will seek to wind up.
The Foreign Office currently has one contract with Siren Associates and it is subject to formal commercial oversight. As the hon. Member says, it is part of the overall ISF programme. As he knows, it is to deliver the internal security assistance programme in Lebanon to support Lebanon’s internal security forces, and to help them become more trusted, professional and better able to address Lebanon’s internal security challenges. I have seen some of our work in Lebanon. It is precisely aimed at the issues he alluded to. We must see in Lebanon the security forces of Lebanon in control of the whole country, not Lebanese Hezbollah, a group that he rightly identifies as a terrorist group proscribed in this country.
The programme supports better planning, stronger police operations, improved co-ordination with the Lebanese armed forces, including in the South Litani Sector, which the hon. Member will know is the area that has been the subject of so much discussion in recent months. It is part of Britain’s wider efforts to promote stability in a highly volatile region, something that is firmly in the UK’s interests. I have seen for myself in the South Litani Sector the difference this support is making.
As this House is aware, and as the hon. Member alluded to, Lebanon faces an extremely challenging security situation. The actions of Hezbollah have dragged Lebanon once again into a conflict that neither its people nor its Government have sought. We have been clear that Hezbollah’s reprehensible attacks on communities in northern Israel must cease, but disproportionate Israeli military action in Lebanon has displaced over a million people and caused significant loss of life.
It is in that context that we seek to help. For all these reasons, it is vital that Lebanon’s legitimate security institutions are able to exercise state sovereignty across the country and provide security to Lebanese citizens. The UK has been a close partner of the Lebanese armed forces and internal security forces since 2009. We have provided training, equipment and advice to build their capability. That is important support to address key threats to Lebanon’s security.
Turning to the contract currently underway with Siren, the Foreign Office’s procurement processes are designed to ensure that all programmes are subject to robust due diligence, that they deliver value for money and that they are aligned both with UK priorities and the interests of taxpayers, including those in Boston, Skegness and Lincoln.
The contract with Siren Associates was awarded under the conflict, stability and security fund framework agreement, now known as the ISF framework agreement. It followed a competitive tender process and was open to around 80 suppliers, including a mixture of not-for-profit and commercial organisations. We received three tenders from interested suppliers, and each tender was checked for compliance with published instructions. Technical proposals were assessed against published criteria by a panel of subject matter experts, with scores moderated and agreed through a clear and documented process.
Commercial submissions were evaluated separately using the published methodology, with pricing tested against affordability, framework limits, eligible cost rules and value for money considerations. Due diligence was a core part of that procurement process. That included conflict of interest checks, financial health reviews, sanctions screening and an assessment of delivery and commercial risks. The competitive process was also scrutinised by a commercial governance board, which approved the outcome before the contract was awarded. As I set out in my letter in January to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, the review of Siren Associates did not identify any areas that would prevent awarding the contract.
The contract is currently valued at £17.2 million over three years—rather less than the increase to Lincolnshire police over the next three years, I am sure the hon. Member will be pleased to note. As he said, the contract began in September 2025 and runs until March 2028, and it can be extended until March 2030. Any further changes to the contract would be subject to a further rigorous assessment to ensure continued value for money.
The hon. Member raises concerns about the size of payments to Siren Associates’ directors, reported in the company’s filed accounts. I have checked this question with the Department, and the Foreign Office’s understanding is that other than the fees for services rendered, there are no other payments to Siren Associates’ directors in its published accounts. The Foreign Office manages and monitors payments to Siren Associates for work conducted for the Foreign Office; however, we do not have oversight of transactions that do not relate to Foreign Office work.
Let me be clear with the House that all relevant due diligence checks have been completed and deemed satisfactory. We will continue to keep the programme under close review, as we do with all Foreign Office programmes, to ensure that it delivers in full. We remain committed to supporting the Government of Lebanon and addressing threats to their security. Our long-standing work with the Lebanese armed forces and its internal security forces is a core part of that. That capability is central to maintaining security in Lebanon and preventing threats to the country, to the region and, ultimately, to the United Kingdom.
I will conclude with three clear points. First, supporting Lebanon’s security is firmly in the UK’s national interest. Secondly, we believe the programme delivered by Siren Associates is a practical and important part of that effort. Thirdly, the contract was awarded to Siren Associates through a rigorous and proper process.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Bill (Tenth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 43, page 30, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on Primary Care services.
(2B) The increase in spending set out in subsection 2B must be in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.”
This amendment would introduce the primary care investment standard, requiring integrated care boards to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 61, in clause 43, page 30, line 39, after “subsection (1)” insert “and (2A) and (2B)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 60 and would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if an integrated care board fails to comply with a direction to increase spending on primary care services in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.
Dr Chambers
Amendments 60 and 61 would introduce a primary care investment standard that required integrated care boards to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of their total programme healthcare funding. We have discussed the importance of primary care in previous sittings, so I will be brief now, because we have a lot to get through.
The primary care investment standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard. It would set a clear benchmark to which to hold the Secretary of State. Primary care is the very frontline of a health service, and it is vital to stop the rest of the health system becoming overburdened, with issues such as corridor care and long ambulance handovers often a direct result of the system’s failure properly to shift resources and focus into primary care and community care, so that we can catch diseases early and prevent people from going into hospital.
If people cannot get GP or dentist appointments, they turn up to A&E. That transfers the load to what is not only not the most efficient part of the NHS for dealing with routine issues, but the most expensive part of the NHS. That is hugely expensive, as well as not ideal for the individual. Although more than 90% of patients’ direct experience with the NHS is through primary care and GP practices, less than 10% of the NHS budget in England is spent on primary care.
Despite years of all Governments promising to shift patient care out of hospitals into the community, the proportion of the NHS budget spent on general practice has fallen to its lowest point in the past 10 years. The Royal College of General Practitioners’ 2025 practice manager survey revealed that although 61% of practice managers said that they need to expand the GP workforce to meet their patients’ needs, 62% said that the lack of funding in general practice is a major barrier preventing them from hiring the number of GPs they need.
It has been revealed that 22 out of 27 of the first round of neighbourhood health centres are already doing some of those functions; they are simply being rebadged and slightly expanded. We know that in the NHS, money is key, and there are constant important and competing demands for the limited amount of funding. Protecting funding streams for primary care would ensure that the Government actually provided the funds to back up their ambition of shifting care into the community. The benchmark that amendments 60 and 61 would set for the Government is modest, but it would have a huge impact if we could successfully transform the NHS by shifting care into the community. We hope that the Government will view this as a spend-to-save initiative as well. One question is always where the money comes from, but having fewer demands on A&E, the most expensive part of the NHS, would save money in the long run.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The amendments would introduce a primary care investment standard, requiring the ICBs to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of the total funding that they receive. The Secretary of State would be able to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply.
As the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not need to talk about the importance of primary care, because we all know it is very important and quite efficient. The Darzi report said that primary care is one of the most financially efficient parts of the NHS. The challenge is that demand is increasing across the whole system, and unless overall funding is increased, then giving primary care a bigger share must mean giving somebody else a smaller one.
My other concern is about how the hon. Gentleman thinks this will be measured. Is measuring inputs rather than outputs really the right way to run the health service? We have tested almost to destruction the idea of just giving more and more money, which I suppose is why the Government have introduced this Bill: to try to reform things and make them more efficient. We can argue about whether they are doing that well or not, but that is the thrust of what they are trying to do.
I think the idea behind the amendments is interesting, but I would be interested to hear more about how the hon. Member thinks the standard would work, and in particular whether he thinks it could be justified if there was huge unmet demand in the secondary care or mental health sector. The balance of need may change over time, and if it does, then legislating for a set proportion to go on this or that type of care, rather than on delivering this or that type of outcome, might not be the right approach.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for his explanation of amendments 60 and 61. Like my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I entirely understand what he is seeking to achieve, and also how important general practice is. Access to appointments with a general practitioner or at a practice is one of the most significant issues in Melton Mowbray. Despite the fantastic work that doctors are doing to try to manage that, the pressure continues to be intense, which on occasion is causing real anxiety for patients. Equally, I can see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) are trying to achieve by kick-starting a shift away from acute settings and towards front-loading—for want of a better way of putting it—people’s treatment in the NHS. As he said, Governments of many different complexions have tried to achieve that shift; what he is trying to do is give it a bit of oomph.
I can entirely see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do have some concerns, one of which was articulated well by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, which is that the amendments are very much focused on inputs rather than outcomes. With the Health and Care Act 2022, we sought to shift the focus more towards outcomes, and I think the Minister is also seeking to move it towards outcomes rather than purely inputs—she will correct me if I am wrong—so I do worry about that.
Like my hon. Friend, I also have a slight concern about the effect of amendment 60 on the flexibility to address local circumstances and—for want of a better way of putting it—the discretion available to ICBs in determining the local health priorities. The Bill moves us away from the conception of ICBs in the 2022 Act, under which they were essentially mapped on to an upper-tier local authority geography, so that those delivering social care mapped directly on to the same geography and better integrated with it. With the removal of local authority reps and their potential replacement with representatives of a mayoral authority, and with ICBs covering much larger areas, we see a fracturing of the link with social care provision, and also perhaps a lot of local mapping and a local focus from the ICBs. None the less, my concern is that taking a prescriptive approach in primary legislation could further reduce ICBs’ ability to flex in order to address local needs. I can entirely see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, and we all want to see primary care—general practice and dentistry—getting the funding it needs to address needs, but I am not convinced that the amendment will not have potential unintended consequences.
On amendment 61, I can again see what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell are trying to do: give the shift teeth and make sure that ICBs look at it. The risk is that if they fail to achieve it, they will face financial penalties, which risks compounding the financial challenges they face and potentially reducing the available funds for primary care, mental health and a range of other healthcare services in the vicinity. I get where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I share the objective, but I have concerns about how it would work in practice and whether it would be overly prescriptive.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham have covered a lot of the points I wanted to make, so I will keep this relatively brief. Like them, I entirely sympathise with what the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to achieve with the two amendments. I think we would all want to see more investment in primary care. As my right hon. Friend—a former Health Minister—knows all too well, we need to see growth in primary care. The fact that there is not a single dentist’s practice in my constituency taking new NHS patients is a real concern, as are the waiting times for GPs in my constituency.
However, I do have some concerns. The first is that the standard, as the hon. Member for Winchester puts it, would be mandatorily enforced with a potential financial penalty. That takes away from what I think the Government are trying to achieve, which is local flexibility. As far as I can tell from the amendment, it makes no distinction between revenue spending and capital spending. I am still hopeful that my ICB is going to build a brand-new GP surgery and health hub in my constituency—it has been promising that for eight years and it is not here yet, so this may be hope over experience—and that would be a significant capital investment. Would the ICB be able to include that as spending on primary care services and get around the potential financial penalty?
I also worry about pitting one part of health spending against another. The hon. Member for Winchester said that the proposed standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard, but I believe that the Government—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—have relatively recently changed the mental health standard to be in line with inflation rather than overall total spending. Therefore, if the amendment were to pass, primary care budgets would increase in line with total overall spending, whereas mental health budgets would increase in line with inflation. If those two things were out of sync, there would be a problem.
I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve. We all want to see more spent on primary care. The Government’s stated intention is to bring healthcare closer to home, and that can only be delivered, in my view, through primary care services. But there are some unintended consequences of the two amendments, which at least need more exploration before I could vote for them.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this discussion to the Committee. As has been said, we all know how important investment in primary care is, particularly as this Government shift to neighbourhood health, and that is why we have invested so heavily.
Although we are absolutely interested in the outcomes, the inputs merit some attention too. We have provided an additional £601 million for general practice to reinforce the front door of the NHS, bringing the total spend on the GP contract to £14 billion in this year. That builds on last year’s £1.1 billion of investment, which was the biggest increase to GP contract funding in over a decade. In community pharmacy, we have increased funding by £340 million, bringing the total spend to £3.636 billion. That represents a 10.3% uplift on the back of an uplift of more than 19% across 2024-25 and 2025-26, which again was the largest uplift in funding of any part of the NHS at the time.
In 2024-25, we invested around £3.7 billion in primary care dentistry, and we reduced the underspend from £392 million in 2023-24 to just £36 million in 2024-25, maximising the treatment provided across all our constituencies from taxpayers’ money. We are investing £20 million to support digital integration between primary care optometry and secondary care, supporting more eye care in the community.
Dr Chambers
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 43, page 30, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.”
This amendment would place the original mental health investment standard on a statutory footing, requiring integrated care boards to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 43, page 30, line 39, after “subsection (1)” insert “and (2A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9 and would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if an integrated care board fails to comply with a direction to increase spending on mental health services in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.
New clause 27—Duty of integrated care boards to meet Mental Health Investment Standard—
“In the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 223GC insert—
‘223GC A Duty of integrated care boards to meet Mental Health Investment Standard
(1) An integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to ensuring that expenditure incurred by the board in a financial year in relation to mental health complies with the Mental Health Investment Standard.
(2) For the purposes of this section, expenditure by an integrated care board complies with the Mental Health Investment Standard where the expenditure is greater than or equal to the amount specified for that board by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3).
(3) The Secretary of State must specify an amount of expenditure for an integrated care board which secures that the proportion of the board’s expenditure in a financial year in relation to mental health is larger than the proportion of the board’s expenditure in relation to mental health for the previous financial year.’”
This new clause puts the Mental Health Investment Standard on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an increasing amount of expenditure by integrated care boards on mental health and then requiring integrated care boards to incur that expenditure.
New clause 33—Review on mental health treatment delays across rural and urban areas—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider any disparities in the number of length of delays between rural and urban areas.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas.
New clause 34—Duty to promote mental health wellbeing—
“(1) It is a duty of the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.
(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State and/or any relevant body must have regard for—
(a) the prevention of mental illness,
(b) the promotion of positive mental health,
(c) the reduction of stigma and discrimination associated with mental health conditions, and
(d) the provision of accessible and appropriate support services to individuals experiencing mental health challenges.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken to discharge their duty under subsection (1), including an assessment of—
(a) progress in improving mental health wellbeing amongst the people of England, and
(b) any barriers to promoting mental health wellbeing for such persons and proposed actions to address them.
(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1) for which any relevant body or authority to which subsection (1) applies must have regard.”
This new clause creates a duty for the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.
Dr Chambers
Amendment 9 would place the mental health investment standard on a statutory footing, requiring ICBs to increase mental health spending at least in line with the growth in their total programme funding. Amendment 10 would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply. New clause 27, tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), is similar. It is quite reassuring to see that the policies of the Liberal Democrats and of the Health and Social Care Committee are fairly well aligned.
The Darzi report highlighted that 20% of the NHS caseload is mental health, yet at the time it was receiving just under 10% of the NHS budget in funding, and now it is receiving 8.4%. To put that in the context of real lives, when I was first elected in 2024, there were just over half a million children and young people on mental health waiting lists; as of last week, there were 1 million. While the Government have done commendable work in reducing waiting lists for physical conditions, mental health cases are increasing—and fast.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I am very interested in the increase in the number of people waiting for mental health care, particularly mental health assessments. Does the hon. Member think that that is because the funding is inadequate, or is there some other reason why the waiting list numbers have been shooting up?
Dr Chambers
I would happily speak for several hours on the multifaceted reasons why young people in particular are struggling with mental health. One of my passions is ensuring that people get intervention and support before they require clinical care, but at the moment that is not happening. For a whole variety of societal reasons, including young people applying for 300 or 400 jobs and not even getting a response, more and more people are ending up on mental health waiting lists.
The mental health investment standard has been widely hailed for bringing about positive change in the health service. It protects funds and provides certainty for services that are seeing dramatically rising demand and, importantly, it provides certainty about future finances. Placing it on a statutory footing in primary legislation would make it more transparent and prevent it from becoming a political football. It would also help to stop the watering down of targets that seems to have happened over the last few years. Claire Murdoch, NHS England’s national mental health director, essentially resigned over those changes.
To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the Milburn report and the report by the Children’s Commissioner this week showed that the number of children referred to mental health services in England has risen by over 10% in just one year—it is now at more than a million. The pressures on NHS services and funding are clear. If funding is not protected, there is a real risk that it will be cut due to competing demands.
One thing I found when speaking to staff at Winchester’s A&E department is that when mental health patients turn up, having been unable to get support and often having already been on a waiting list, sometimes for more than 18 months, the average time they spend in A&E is more than 18 hours, during which some of them require constant supervision. So, we are badly supporting people with mental health issues in the most expensive part of the NHS. We cannot afford to let the mental health crisis in this country continue slipping out of control, and funding for NHS mental health services is an essential part of stopping that.
New clause 33 would require the Secretary of State to
“conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas.”
Something I found interesting growing up on a farm and working as a vet is the almost unrecognised mental health issues in rural areas. That is partly because many people who work in rural vocations have minimal contact with people outside their workplace. Sometimes the vet and the postman might be the only people that a farmer sees in one, two or three weeks. There are a lot of questions about why disparities in accessing treatment in rural versus urban areas exist. Alternative approaches are needed, and some of the ideas floated have included mental health support officers for rural GP surgeries, or training vets up as mental health first aiders, because they might be a point of contact for a farmer and recognise when they are struggling.
Different communities require help in different ways, and farming communities often feel overlooked. They are vital for keeping the nation fed and fit and healthy, but they have a job that involves working from before 5 or 6 in the morning until late at night. If services are provided that do not fit with that person’s lifestyle and job restrictions, they can often struggle to access them, which, when coupled with having virtually no mobile signal and poor broadband, means that people in rural areas are sometimes cut off in more ways than one.
The Mental Health Act 2025 had a fairly limited focus on providing care to those with the most acute mental health problems. We need to look at preventive measures to ensure that people are supported through difficult times in their lives. These new clauses will require a report from local authorities so that we can ensure that they are providing tailored support to those in need. The Liberal Democrats strongly believe that early intervention and preventive services are key to tackling to mental health issues. These new clauses would urge mental health service providers to look beyond putting out the fire. This is about moving from crisis management to ensuring that people are supported in their local communities so that they do not reach the point of crisis. We need to treat mental health as seriously as we treat physical health. I know the Minister agrees with that; we think these new clauses will enable the Government to deliver on that ambition.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 9 and 10 have some similar issues to the last two Liberal Democrat amendments. They referred to the primary care investment, while these amendments refer to the mental health investment standard, which seeks to define the proportion of NHS money spent on mental health and maintaining it at a static position. Essentially, similar arguments apply.
In 2016, the mental health investment standard was brought in, albeit not on a statutory footing, to ensure that mental health got the attention it deserved and that the resources provided to it were higher, because the number of people with mental health problems was increasing. There was good sense to that.
However, the challenges to the NHS evolve over time. If the standard were to be fixed in statute, what effect would that have? Would that create an upper limit on spending on mental health at a time when mental health was increasing in prevalence as a problem? Would it increase the lower threshold when the reverse was the case? The Government need flexibility. I would hope that the Government make the right decisions, but that is the democratic process, and they need the flexibility to make the decisions that are appropriate for the time, rather than having this fixed in place.
If we look at current waiting list figures on the Government’s referral to treatment dashboard, in general, the number of people waiting has risen in the last month for which figures are available. If we look in particular at people who require an admission to hospital for a procedure or operation, the numbers are higher over the last month, and also over the last year, for all types of admissions. Not all mental health figures are covered in the dashboard, but those that are have improved slightly in the last month. The point I am making is that things fluctuate over time, and the Government need flexibility to deal with that.
Let me turn to new clauses 33 and 34. As a rural MP, I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Member for Winchester made about rural healthcare. It is more difficult to get to the major, tertiary centres that provide the most up-to-date treatments. People might have to travel quite long distances to get to the doctors they need to see or to visit in-patients. Of course, those individuals also face transport costs, as we discussed in a previous sitting.
I note for the record that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the British Medical Association, and an NHS consultant paediatrician. Last week, the Children’s Commissioner published a report that found that 60,000 children were waiting for more than two years for support; the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has also sounded the alarm about the number of children attending A&E because of mental health service issues. In that sort of the situation, the Government might want to move money from A&E services to mental health support to prevent A&E admissions. They may also need to do the reverse, in order to treat those A&E admissions in the first place. Flexibility is required.
New clause 34 would create a duty for the Secretary of State and any relevant body or authority carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to
“promote mental health wellbeing among the people of England.”
That is a statement of his job, and a statement of the obvious; if the Minister is responsible for the mental health services of the country, of course he has a duty to make sure that they do their jobs properly.
It is a nice amendment—it is one of those things that it is politically difficult to vote against—but I would ask the hon. Member for Winchester what practical effect he thinks it would have on mental health. Does he think the Secretary of State is not thinking about mental health? I do not sit on the same side of the House as the Secretary of State, but I think he is interested in mental health and wants to do his best job. Does the hon. Member for Winchester think that is not the case? What does he think the new clause would achieve in practice?
Gregory Stafford
I will start by addressing Liberal Democrat amendments 9 and 10; once again, I see the impetus and reason behind tabling them. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, new clause 27, tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, has a similar but subtly different—in my view, usefully different—impetus and emphasis.
I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we published a report into community mental health in December last year, which laid bare the shocking state of mental health services in this country, especially community mental health services. Mental health accounts for over 20% of the demand for health services in this country, but in the period 2025-26, it is forecast to receive only 8.7% of NHS expenditure.
The spend in that period is expected to be higher than in the previous year, 2024-25, but it will actually be a smaller proportion of total NHS spending, decreasing from 8.78% to 8.71%. That reduction also means that 2025-26 will be the first year since 2016-17 in which mental health spending will not rise as a proportion of total health spending, which is in contravention of the mental health investment standard that has been introduced. In fact, on 17 November last year, NHS England confirmed that the proportional increases will not take place over the next two years to 2028-29, and that there will instead be “flat real funding growth”.
Overall, although I accept that the Government have increased spending on mental health, the fact that it is going down as a proportion of the total bill is one of the many reasons why we on the Health and Social Care Committee were very concerned about the future of mental health funding. It is also why we supported our Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, in tabling new clause 27.
The differences between new clause 27 and amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, relate to the financial penalty. If we want people to spend more on mental health, it would seem perverse to punish them by taking money away from them, because there might be reasons why they could not meet this requirement. I totally accept what the hon. Member is trying to achieve, because as he said, Claire Murdoch, the national director for mental health, resigned in September over the fact that she did not feel that the Government were spending the right amount on mental health.
New clause 27 would put the mental health investment standard on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an increasing amount of expenditure by integrated care boards on mental health, and then requiring integrated care boards to incur that expenditure. It also differs from amendments 9 and 10, in that rather than increasing the amounts as a total of expenditure—an approach for which I have sympathy—it has the more realistic requirement that it must only go up every year. Over some years, I would like the amount to increase as a total proportion from the current figure of 8% or 9% to 20%, which is the real cost or burden of mental health care in this country. I think new clause 27 is a much more fair and appropriate way of achieving that.
I accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about a potential loss of local flexibility, but I think the new clause is written in a way that gives ICBs at least some flexibility to decide how they spend that money. Also, unlike amendments 9 and 10, there is not a financial penalty if for some reason they do not manage to do so it.
In principle, I see merit in new clause 33. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I represent a semi-rural seat, so I know that understanding delays in accessing mental health treatment is essential if we are to have services that meet patient needs and ensure greater transparency on waiting times. All this can help identify inequalities and inform better policymaking. The requirement to examine the disparities between rural and urban areas is particularly welcome given the challenges that rural communities can face in accessing specialist mental health services. However, it should be noted that the new clause would primarily deliver a reporting mechanism rather than a solution to the problem. Although annual reviews might improve our understanding of treatment delays, they do not in themselves guarantee improvements in access, workforce capacity or service provision. There is also a question as to whether the health service already collects much of this information in other ways, and whether a new statutory review would add significant value beyond the existing reporting arrangements.
Better evidence about the scale and geographic distribution of mental health treatment delays could support more targeted interventions and help to ensure that patients are not disadvantaged simply because of where they live. The challenge will be ensuring that the findings of any review actually lead to meaningful action, rather than just becoming another reporting exercise or inquiry.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that reporting between urban and rural, which runs through these amendments, is particularly useful? Many of the solutions put forward throughout this Bill involve mayoral areas or authorities, which of course do not currently exist in many rural areas, and in some may never exist.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have talked about this issue while debating numerous clauses of the Bill. If someone were being ungenerous, they might say that there is an urban bias to this Bill. I think that it is less that than the fact that the Government have decided to use, as my hon. Friend rightly says, these mayoral structures to base health services on, when in fact, in so many areas, they either do not exist yet or, as far as we can tell, will never exist. Maybe Manchesterism will change that; we do not know. The Minister is smiling, so maybe she knows.
Regarding new clause 34 and the promotion of positive mental health, the prevention of mental illness and the reduction of stigma are obviously vital and important goals. I welcome the intention of the new clause to ensure that mental wellbeing is taken seriously across the health service. However, I have a few concerns about placing such a broad duty on a statutory footing, not least because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked: is that not the job of the Secretary of State anyway?
As far as I can tell, new clause 34 essentially duplicates many of the responsibilities that already exist. The Secretary of State and NHS England—as currently exists—along with integrated care boards and other public bodies, are already subject to duties relating to improving health, reducing inequalities, promoting public health and improving the quality of services. Many of the objectives listed in the new clause are already capable of being pursued under those existing powers and obligations. The question therefore arises as to what additional legal effect the new duty would have.
Secondly, the concept of “mental health wellbeing”, while perhaps being a term we kind of understand, is inherently broad and rather difficult to define when we are talking about writing it into law. Unlike things such as waiting times, staffing levels, or access standards, “wellbeing” is not really a measurable outcome. I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who said in evidence that he wanted to see fewer targets, because they often have unintended consequences and skew the system towards the targets rather than what is actually required.
Mental health wellbeing could encompass life satisfaction, emotional resilience, social connections, employment, housing security and many other factors. As a result, I do not think it is clear what compliance with the duty in this new clause would look like in practice, how the success would be measured or how public bodies could demonstrate that they had fulfilled the obligations.
Finally, although the requirement for an annual report may improve visibility, as with the provision in new clause 33, there is a risk that new clause 34 could create an additional reporting obligation without necessarily improving services or outcomes. Before Parliament imposes a new statutory duty, it should be satisfied that there is a clear objective, a measurable standard against which performance can be assessed and a distinct purpose that is not already served by existing legislation or rules. I am afraid that, unless the hon. Member for Winchester comes back with a devastating argument in his wind up, I am not yet convinced that new clause 34 amendment meets that test.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this discussion to the Committee. I will turn to amendments 9 and 10 along with new clause 27, which address similar points. These amendments would require integrated care boards to increase their spending on mental health services at least in line with their growth in their total programme funding. Amendment 10 would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties for non-compliance, and new clause 27 would also place the mental health investment standard, or MHIS, on a statutory footing by requiring the Secretary of State to specify an annual increase in the proportion of mental health expenditure for each integrated care board and require integrated care boards to meet that level of expenditure.
I want to be really clear with the Committee: mental health remains a priority for this Government, and the Government are already making record investments in mental health services. Spending on mental health continues to increase in real terms and is forecast to reach a record £16.1 billion in 2026-27. That represents a real-terms increase of around £140 million, compared with 2025-26 and around £900 million of real-terms growth since 2023-24.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Minister has pointed to some improvements. She will know there is real concern about parity of esteem between mental and physical health, including the ways that we measure them. The Government have already done a great deal, but would the Minister say how we can ensure that parity of esteem between mental and physical health is achieved using the powers in clause 43?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for that and for her work on this issue. She is absolutely right: parity of esteem is critical, and we are committed to a spending increase to deliver it. I will come on to some of the points that she quite rightly made.
Although I do not think he was speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon took us through some of the concerns of his Select Committee. The Government have put a formal standard and a financial safeguard in place through the mental health investment standard, and as set out in NHS England’s medium-term planning framework, we expect all integrated care boards to meet the standard over the next three years, and all are currently forecast to do so. For this period—2026-27 to 2028-29—the standard has been set on real funding growth, meaning that funding is expected at least to keep pace with inflation.
Meeting the mental health investment standard remains essential to delivering the Government’s ambitions on mental health, including achieving full national coverage of mental health support teams in schools and colleges by 2029, and expanding access to NHS talking therapies. The Government’s approach is to maintain strong protections for mental health investment, while giving local systems the flexibility to focus on outcomes and deliver services that meet the needs of their communities, which, as we have heard this morning, are very different. However, workforce increases and funding alone will not deliver the improvements the public and patients rightly expect in mental health care and support.
Demand for mental health support has risen rapidly, as we all know from our constituencies, with long waits and too many people unable to access the right support when they need it. We need a new approach that reduces waiting times, improves care quality and promotes early intervention and prevention in mental health. That is why we are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England that will transform mental health care into a system that responds and intervenes earlier, reduces waiting times for support and ultimately supports people to participate fully in education, work and community life.
Liz Twist
I wonder whether, as part of that strategy, the Government will look at waiting times for mental health services, as we have heard of the considerable delays. That issue is important to everyone, but especially young people. Will the Government look at that issue and get waiting lists down?
Karin Smyth
Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, the rising demand and the ways that waiting lists are managed and supported locally will have to be a critical part of any strategy. Also, as we have said in our elective reform plan, giving people information so that they can understand what is happening in their local systems is part of the wider patient experience work that we are going to do.
The Government are committed to prioritising the delivery of mental health services. That is why we have a standard already ensuring that mental health spending keeps pace in real terms, while allowing systems discretion to make additional investment in the way that best meets local needs. The amendments would place an inflexible financial requirement in statute. A more effective and overarching approach will be delivered through our cross-Government strategy. For those reasons, a further statutory duty is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Prinsley
We are talking about investing in mental health services, and we should consider more widely the causes of the mental health disorders that we are having to approach. If we are spending public money, we may be better off spending it on dealing with the causes of mental health problems rather than the consequences.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend touches on what I will come to as I conclude my remarks on the next new clause. He is absolutely right. The wider determinants of mental health need to be part of developing these services, as with physical health.
On new clause 34, I reassure the Committee that the Government are taking significant steps to improve mental health services in this area. We have recruited over 8,500 extra mental health workers since July 2024, we are accelerating the roll-out of mental health support in schools and colleges, and we are investing a record £16 billion in NHS mental health services this year. Furthermore, there will remain a requirement, as introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022, for mental health expertise on local integrated care boards.
However, as my hon. Friend just said, we know that good mental health and wellbeing requires more than improving NHS services. It requires concerted action to promote positive mental health and tackle the causes of mental ill health. That is why we are developing a new cross-Government mental health strategy for England, to be published later this year. It will take a whole-system approach, recognising the role of schools, employers, the voluntary sector and local government, and representing all parts of the country in promoting positive mental health and preventing mental health ill. The strategy will also go further on reducing the stigma and discrimination associated with mental health conditions, with a focus on improving mental health literacy across the population.
Finally, the new clause risks imposing unnecessary burdens on local systems. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester not to press it. I hope he feels assured that the Government will take forward many of the Committee’s concerns in the mental health strategy.
Dr Chambers
I thank hon. Members for their insightful input to the discussion on mental health in general and for their thoughts on our amendments. It is reassuring to see the cross-party concern for mental health and the recognition that it seems to be an increasing problem.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made a good point about the causes of mental health problems. We know that people in debt are three times more likely to have mental health issues than people on an average income, and that people who have served in the armed forces are at a higher risk. A whole combination of non-clinical things, such as insecure housing, zero-hours contracts and even social media for adults and children, are potentially adding to the mental health challenges that we are facing.
I appreciate the Minister talking about the new cross-Department mental health strategy. It sounds valuable and it seems to address a huge number of the multifactorial issues that have led us to this point. I will happily not press any of the amendments apart from amendment 9. The mental health investment standard is one of our absolute core priorities, and I would like to press that to a vote. I thank everybody for their contributions and insight into this.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Karin Smyth
These clauses will make a series of vital changes to the NHS financial framework following the abolition of NHS England, strengthening funding arrangements and financial accountability. First, clause 43 will enable funding to flow to integrated care boards following the abolition of NHS England while simplifying the powers to direct how resources are used. The first change in new section 223G will transfer the responsibility to fund integrated care boards from NHS England to the Secretary of State, maintaining continuity of allocations and allowing in-year adjustments where needed.
We will also simplify the existing power in new section 223GA to direct integrated care boards in how resources are used, making it clearer and easier to use. That will ensure that safeguards can be applied consistently, such as the ability to recover funding where there is a failure to comply with a direction. Transparency will be maintained through the requirement to publish directions.
The clause will also introduce new section 223GB, setting how the direction powers in new section 223GA can be used in relation to expenditure on service integration across health and social care. At present, service integration funding must be placed in a pooled budget with local authorities, even if that is not the most effective approach. The current legislation allows for only one model, even where that may introduce unnecessary bureaucracy or delay. The clause will remove that mandatory requirement, giving the Secretary of State discretion each year on whether integration funding should be pooled.
That will not remove pooled budgets; they will remain the default where they deliver better outcomes, and local areas will still be able to enter section 75 agreements voluntarily. This clause will introduce proportionate flexibility and enable the Secretary of State to decide, transparently and through published directions, whether funding should be pooled in particular circumstances. That will ensure that we can act quickly when needed, for example in responding to urgent pressures, so that the Secretary of State is not constrained by a blanket legal requirement that does not always add value.
Clause 43 will also make necessary consequential changes following the transfer of functions from NHS England to the Secretary of State. That will include replacing “NHS England” with “The Secretary of State” in section 223GC, which concerns the power to give directions about integrated care board expenditure limits, and repealing section 223K on quality payments, as the Secretary of State can use other powers to deliver payments for quality improvement purposes.
Having set out a clearer and more streamlined framework for allocating and directing NHS resources, we now turn to how integrated care boards and providers will be held accountable for managing those resources. Clause 44 will omit sections 223M and 223N from the National Health Service Act 2006, which require each integrated care board and its partner NHS trust and foundation trust to balance their finances collectively. By removing sections 223M and 223N, we will ensure that one organisation’s deficit can no longer be obscured by another’s surplus, while preserving the Secretary of State’s ability to set joint financial objectives for integrated care boards and their partner trusts where system-wide alignment is needed.
If we are to achieve the ambitious aim set out in the 10-year health plan, of getting most providers to achieve a surplus by 2029-30, we must place the onus back on individual organisations. Each NHS organisation should be unambiguously accountable for managing its own finances, rather than relying on collective system balances to absorb overspends.
Importantly, that does not mean abandoning collaboration. Clause 44 amends section 223L of the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to set joint financial objectives for integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts, where local system-wide alignment is genuinely required.
This approach supports the wider policy direction for ICBs to operate as strategic commissioners. With clearer organisation and financial accountability, ICBs can focus on population health outcomes, prioritising prevention, reducing health inequalities, shaping services around need, and driving better value for money through more effective commissioning.
These clauses make a clearer, more disciplined framework, where individual accountability is strengthened, ambiguity is reduced and national oversight is more coherent, while retaining targeted tools to support collaboration where it adds value. I therefore commend clauses 43 and 44 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clause 43 is particularly long: it runs to almost two pages of text. Essentially, clause 43 transfers the responsibility for funding ICBs, and deciding how they use the resources, from NHS England to the Secretary of State. In many cases, that is consistent with the Government’s plan to abolish NHS England, take decisions and responsibility in-house, and get some more control.
One thing that does not make sense to me is that the Government are talking about devolving control and decision making, yet this clause gives the Secretary of State powers to control spending, direct how ICBs spend money in different areas, and penalise them if they do not do what they are told. The Minister has also talked in this Committee about a vision for the future in which ICBs are consistent with mayoral authority areas, and mayors sitting on ICBs to provide some sort of democratic accountability. But how can mayors be held democratically accountable if they are, or might be, overruled by the Secretary of State? How does the Minister see that working?
Also, greater financial intervention powers for the Secretary of State, if used, could expose ICB budgets to short-term political pressure, such as funding for a specific health area that has received celebrity or media attention. How would the Minister guard against that?
If the Secretary of State is able to contest financial decisions taken by ICBs, will that slow down decision making and make things more “sticky”? Essentially, the changes seem to go against the Government’s stated aim of a more devolved and autonomous operating model for the health service. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.
Clause 44 is a little shorter. It essentially makes changes to the joint duties of ICBs and providers. Some of those changes are again necessitated by the abolition of NHS England; keeping some of the sections would result in overlapping systems, so those make more sense. But the duties requiring ICBs and their partner trusts to achieve overall system balance are repealed. That goes against the collaborative principle behind the creation of integrated care systems, and makes it more difficult to manage financial pressures across a geographical footprint. If, in a particular year, there is financial pressure in one area of an ICB but less so in another, it is not able to transfer things so easily between those areas. How does the Minister expect that to work?
Clause 44 also allows the Secretary of State to set objectives for “one or more” partners. Is that discretionary or are there criteria for it? If it is discretionary, what would prevent the Secretary of State from selectively choosing which trusts are bound by joint objectives and which are not? How will that decision be made? How will trusts know whether it is likely to be made, or in what circumstances it could be made? This could undermine consistency of treatment across different ICBs and trusts. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on those points.
Dr Chambers
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham covered most of the points I was going to make, so I will be very brief. The changes that are proposed to the better care fund seem like another example of decision making being taken away from local authorities and other organisations, which are often the ones that are best placed to understand the health and care needs of their local populations. This measure centralises power rather than devolving it.
Ultimately, the Bill leaves the impression that social care is being pushed more and more on to local authorities. That seems like an ill-judged move, given the ongoing stand-offs we have on the funding of social care and continuing healthcare up and down the country, and it is hardly encouraging the integrated working that everyone accepts is needed to address the joint issues in social care and the NHS. We are worried that there are multiple measures in the Bill that are separating social care and the NHS at a time when greater integration and closer working are so clearly needed. If we want to grasp the nettle on corridor care, overcrowded hospitals, ambulance delays and delayed discharge, we need to get the NHS and social care working together. All those issues seem to have their roots in social care—or the lack of it.
Taking these changes alongside others, such as the removal of local authorities and GPs from ICBs, it looks as though ICBs will not be capable of living up to the ambition of acting as joint committees that co-ordinate care with local trusts, GPs and social care. In summary, this all boils down to the fact that we cannot keep treating NHS services and social care as separate entities.
Gregory Stafford
While I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester, I note the irony that he is talking about how he wants more independence in this clause, whereas the amendments he tabled previously would have taken independence away from the ICBs—but hey, ‘twas ever thus with the Liberal Democrats.
On the new powers in clause 43, we have previously discussed the power of the Secretary of State to direct how ICBs use and manage both financial and other resources, impose expenditure limits, require approval of local decisions and compel repayment of funds where directions are not followed. These provisions substantially weaken the operational independence of ICBs, transforming them from organisations that are intended to exercise local strategic leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, into bodies primarily responsible for implementing centrally determined priorities. Such centralisation risks diminishing the flexibility required to respond to local, demographic, clinical and population health challenges.
The timing of these legislative changes also raises significant concerns, because they coincide with the abolition of NHS England, the redistribution of its functions and the requirement for ICBs to reduce their operating costs by at least 50%--and, in some cases, even more than that. Collectively, those reforms represent one of the most significant reorganisations of NHS governance. However, there remains little clarity regarding which responsibilities will remain with the ICBs.
The clause makes it even less certain which responsibilities will transfer to regional teams or providers, and how accountability will operate across the system. Introducing substantially enhanced ministerial powers before the future operating model is fully defined, as we have discussed with regional mayors and other bodies, will essentially risk creating uncertainty, duplication and potentially gaps in oversight.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about uncertainty. Essentially, those powers could not be used at all to direct or they could be used to micromanage. It is not clear what the intent is.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is right, and I have mentioned that in relation to other clauses. I am perhaps a cynic in my belief that if stuff is being written into legislation, that probably means that the Department has some idea of what it wants to use those powers for. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what her and the Department’s intentions are for these powers. How directing or otherwise will they be of ICBs?
Specifically, proposed new section 223GB to the NHS Act 2006, relating to service integration, also exposes that inherent contradiction. It enables the Secretary of State to require ICBs to allocate designated funding into pooled budgets with local authorities, and at the same time to impose centrally approved spending plans and performance objectives. It is not possible to take the clause forward without having some clarity on exactly how those powers are going to be used in future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, clause 44 is shorter. She covered most of the points that I was going to make, but I think the Government should explain how effective oversight of the system-wide financial discipline that we have talked about will be maintained in the absence of the provisions omitted from the 2006 Act and the Health and Care Act 2022 by the clause.
Dr Johnson
I note that proposed new section 223GA to the 2006 Act, inserted by clause 43, includes the duty to “publish any directions” but there is no timing for that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to understand how soon after the direction is made we should expect the Minister to publish it?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is right again: there is a lack of clarity in these two clauses, as I have highlighted. I am sure the Minister, having heard my hon. Friend’s question, will respond when she gets her moment.
Karin Smyth
In my comments on the amendments, I think that I addressed many of the points raised. On the final point made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, he will be aware that the Government have already improved financial oversight of the NHS system this year without any changes. We are getting a grip on the finances that were allowed to go so badly out of control across the entire piece under the Conservative party’s stewardship.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the Opposition spokesperson, started her comments by saying that the changes made by the two clauses are entirely consistent with the wider Bill, and I agree. We are abolishing NHS England—which, as I have oft repeated in these deliberations, has not been opposed by the Opposition parties—and of course there are some consequences of that, including giving the Secretary of State powers.
I will address a couple of other points directly. To be very clear, the better care fund remains a core mechanism to support the NHS and local government to join up health and social care services to a greater degree. The changes made by the clauses address the inflexibility of the current arrangements. The Committee had a good debate earlier this week about the Government’s commitment to enhancing that collaboration and joint working at a very local level. The clauses introduce flexibility, allowing the Secretary of State to determine when pooling is the best way to achieve better outcomes, while local areas are of course still able to pool budgets voluntarily through section 75 of the NHS Act 2006.
The allegation that there is weakening of joint working is not true. The clauses do not remove the ability to pool budgets; they just allow flexibility. As I said, the focus remains on delivering outcomes for patients and communities, not on financial structures.
A final question asked for reassurance that decisions made by the Secretary of State will not be arbitrary. Parliament will be reassured through clear safeguards and transparency. Any directions issued under the new powers must be published, ensuring visibility and accountability. Decisions will be guided by consistent criteria, including joint spending plans and performance objectives. Pooled budgets will continue to be required where they support better outcomes. In exercising these functions, the Secretary of State must also have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to health services and the outcomes achieved. Together, that ensures that decisions are—quite rightly—transparent, justified and applied fairly across the entire system.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Licence conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Karin Smyth
Clause 45 adds an additional purpose to those already listed in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 under which the Secretary of State can set or modify conditions in the provider licence. It will allow the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for licensing following the abolition of NHS England, to set licence conditions that promote or secure compliance with statutory obligations.
The NHS provider licence was first introduced in 2013 for NHS foundation trusts and in 2014 for eligible independent providers of NHS-funded care. It set clear rules and expectations around a range of matters, such as pricing and governance, for providers of NHS services. It also provided a mechanism for regulatory action when failures occurred at those organisations.
Licence conditions can be set only for specific purposes set out in legislation; the additional purpose does not change the existing licence conditions. The Secretary of State will be able to add or modify licence conditions only following a statutory consultation.
This additional purpose will allow the Secretary of State to hold providers to account when they are not meeting their legal obligations; for example, when they are not following procurement rules. As with other conditions in the licence, it means that we can use guidance to influence provider behaviour in these areas. The change is necessary and forms an important part of the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene where providers are not meeting expectations.
Clause 46 clarifies the methods by which the Secretary of State can serve certain notices relating to changes in the regulation of healthcare services. It brings existing requirements up to date with modern methods of communication, reducing administrative burden.
As the Committee already discussed when considering the abolition of NHS England, the Bill will transfer functions relating to the provider licence and the payment scheme from NHS England to the Secretary of State. When changes are proposed to these documents, NHS England must consult those affected and must notify all relevant organisations of the consultation. Currently, that notice cannot be delivered by email without the agreement of the organisation receiving it—without that agreement, it must be posted.
That process is out of step with the modern, digital-first approach set out in the 10-year health plan. Technology has evolved since those requirements were set, and we no longer communicate predominately through the postal system. The changes in the clause allow for rapid communication to ensure that the notice reaches the appropriate person promptly.
The clause brings the method by which the Secretary of State can deliver notices up to date with modern methods of communication to ensure that everyone affected has the chance to participate in the consultation in a timely way. I am sure all hon. Members agree that that is necessary, so I commend clauses 45 and 46 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clause 45 makes technical changes to the licence conditions, allowing the Secretary of State to use those conditions as a tool to ensure compliance with legal requirements beyond those in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That power is somewhat open-ended, which reduces certainty for providers, particularly independent ones, as they will not be able to easily anticipate what additional legal duties might be folded into the licence. The Minister said that there would be a consultation, but does she have any more details on how long the consultation process will be, or on how much notice of changes providers can expect? Like other clauses in the Bill, despite the Government’s discussion of devolution, the clause introduces another centralising power.
Clause 46 is about the specifics of to whom legal documents can be served and through what mechanism. I understand the Minister’s argument on the need for modernisation, but everyone will have had emails that were bounced by spam filters or the like. How will she ensure that the emails are not just sent but received, so that there is a fair playing field for everyone?
Gregory Stafford
I understand the purpose of clauses 45 and 46, as there is clear public interest in ensuring that providers that hold licences in our health and care system comply with the law. Patients, taxpayers and staff are entitled to expect high standards, proper governance and accountability. Where a provider delivers vital public services, it is reasonable for the licensing scheme to help to uphold those obligations. In that sense, the intention of the clauses is good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham outlined a number of questions for the Minister. Could the Minister explain in more detail how clause 46, which essentially provides for the enforcement of the provisions in clause 45, will operate in practice?
Karin Smyth
I do not have any more details on how the clauses will operate in practice and follow through into guidance; that will obviously be in the usual guidance on the operation of the system. It is usual practice for people doing the work to make contact with the receiver of the email to check that they have received it and are acting on it appropriately.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Single patient record
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 47, page 34, line 19, after “behalf” insert “, including nominated carers”.
This amendment makes it explicit that nominated carers can access the single patient record on behalf of those they care for.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 65, in clause 47, page 35, line 6, after “treatment” insert
“, or to any specific support needs or reasonable accommodations required for the effective provision of such care or treatment”.
This amendment aims to clarify that “patient information” held on the Single Patient Record would also include any specific support needs or reasonable accommodations, such as those arising from health conditions or disabilities, that a patient requires for the effective provision of their care or treatment.
Dr Chambers
All the stakeholders have said that the single patient record is part of the Bill that could be genuinely transformative. I would also like to note the Bill’s many references to carers, including the Secretary of State’s duty to promote the involvement of carers alongside patients in decision making around care and commissioning. However, the Bill is currently quite vague as to whether carers will be able to access the single patient record, and we want that to be made explicit. We want to reiterate the lack of focus on social care, which is the biggest issue facing the NHS, and emphasise our call for carers in general.
The benefits that the single patient record could bring to patients have been well-established, and it is well-supported, but we believe that the single patient record could also be of huge benefit to carers. It could allow them to care more effectively for their loved ones, and it could allow it to be flagged on their own records that they are carers, so they receive the support that they need.
Gregory Stafford
I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment and what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve through it. Does he have any idea of how a patient would nominate a carer in such a circumstance? Indeed, would it be done by the patient themselves? If not—for example, the patient might have mental health issues or capacity issues—could the carer be nominated by a health professional or a statutory body?
Although I absolutely agree with the intentions of the amendment, could he give some examples? For instance, would a carer be able to access all of the patient’s record, or just the part for the period in which they have been providing care? It is entirely right that a carer should see the patient record relating to whatever it is they are providing care for, but—I am not trying to be flip—should carers know that at 17, the person who they are caring for was treated for a sexually transmitted disease or something similar, which the patient might not want them to know?
Dr Chambers
The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. Obviously, the whole point of this amendment is to equip people who are providing what is often the daily care for someone else with the information they need to provide that care. My family cared for my father at home for many years when he had dementia; he was on medication for other physical health issues as well, and he was not capable of administering his own medicine, or even of understanding what he was on half the time.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I am very sympathetic to this amendment, and to the argument that patients and carers should have enough information about what they are providing care for. In the current system, carers get a copy of the care plan, which states what the patient’s care needs are, as assessed by health professionals. Does the hon. Member agree that carers need to see only the care plan for the patient, rather than the patient’s whole record?
Dr Chambers
I agree that there is no need for carers to see irrelevant or extremely historical information in the single patient record. Currently, however, there are a lot of carers who, for various reasons, such as not having legal power of attorney, cannot access the information that they need.
We also sometimes find that the people who are carers, who are potentially the spouse of the patient and are themselves elderly—because a lot of people receiving care are elderly—do not understand the information that they are being given. There can be a situation where the person providing care does not fully understand why the patient is getting some medication, or the best way to treat them. We hear that quite a lot.
We understand that the Bill is not designed to set out all the specifics of what the single patient record will look like—that key point was made in the interventions by the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Ashford. However, although we do not know exactly what it will look like, as it is being created, drafted and thought through, we would love the Minister to confirm to us that carers will be able to see the appropriate parts of the single patient records of those they care for, so that they can oversee their medical care and flag any issues.
There are some specific advantages to having a single patient record when travelling between hospital trusts. For example, being able to quickly see what historical medication the patient has had, especially when it comes to antimicrobials, and the results of tests that were performed in other hospitals and healthcare settings, is absolutely vital to ensure that we do not allow antimicrobial resistance to increase at an unnecessary pace. Often, patients do not understand the type of antibiotic they are on, or remember the name of it, and that is a specific but big issue, because it can generate antimicrobial resistance. There are a few more issues that I could speak to, but I will sit down.
Dr Johnson
I rise to talk about amendment 8. I essentially understand what the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to do—to make sure that carers are provided with the information that they need to provide the best possible care—and I think we would all agree with that ambition. However, I have a couple of questions for him. The Bill, as drafted, discusses “making” information
“available to people other than a patient on the patient’s behalf”.
I am not quite clear why would that not encompass a nominated carer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made an important point about privacy. The single patient record will encompass a patient’s entire medical history, medical notes and medical information, but every person who provides that patient with medical or social care does not need to see all of that, and in some cases, the patient may not want them to. My hon. Friend gave a good example of that; another example would be an elderly lady who does not want her carer to see that she had a termination at 23. There are lots of things that are private to people that they do not want others to see. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on this issue. Access to the record is seen as a binary choice, but in some respects, it needs to be a much more nuanced affair than that, while still allowing someone access to the areas of the record that are required for them to complete their duties.
Dr Chambers
The hon. Lady is making very good points. The whole thrust of the argument is that there is little detail around how the single patient record will be created and implemented. This is a perfect opportunity to work out how we can empower carers while preserving patient confidentiality where necessary. If we do not focus on that in the early stages of the SPR’s implementation, before it has even been designed, we will miss the opportunity to ensure that carers have an easy way to get the right information. We should not miss that opportunity.
Dr Johnson
I understand the hon. Member’s point, but we need to start with the patient at the centre and ask what is best for patient care. It is about what the patient wants to share with their carers. The patient may make an informed decision not to share information that is potentially useful, but if they have capacity, they are free to do that. It is about starting with the patient.
I have huge sympathy with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I am not sure that that is not already included in proposed new section 250E(2)(c)(i) of the NHS Act 2006, which mentions “making” information
“available to people other than a patient on the patient’s behalf”.
The important thing is that patients make the decision if they have the capacity to do so, or that someone acting with power of attorney has done so on their behalf.
Amendment 65, which is also in this group, talks about support needs. I have some sympathy with that as well. When I see a patient in clinic—I am a paediatrician, so they are all children—I look at the notes, which say they have a particular issue, and I go out into the waiting room and call the child’s name. There is nothing on the record, necessarily, to tell me that the patient and the mum are deaf, or that the other parent is deaf and may not be able to hear me calling them in the waiting room. So I have sympathy with the idea that the record would flag up reasonable adjustment needs; I think there is a place for that.
There is something called the reasonable adjustment flag on the NHS Spine, and perhaps the answer is to use that rather better than is happening at the moment. With carers, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, or with parents or legal guardians looking after children, we should consider whether reasonable adjustments also need to be made for the parent, guardian or carer who is likely to bring the patient to be seen.
Gregory Stafford
As I expressed in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I have a lot of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve with amendment 8. Whether by accident or design, he has allowed us to have a real think about—
Gregory Stafford
I will be charitable and take him at his word. We have opened a vital conversation about who will have access to this record, how it will be shared, which bits of it will be shared, and how we ensure that the laudable aim of a single patient record—to ensure that a clinician treating a patient has all the vital facts in front of them—is balanced with that patient’s privacy. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we must make sure that the patient is put at the centre of this.
We need to look at the amendment under that microscope of scrutiny. We must use our role as legislators to ensure that gaps in legislation are closed so that loopholes cannot be exploited. I am fully in favour of the Government’s intention on that. However, I have some concerns about privacy and access, and amendment 8 potentially highlights those.
The amendment provides for a nominated carer to access a patient’s record, but who nominates the carer? Is it always the patient, and how will that consent be verified and continually checked so that if the patient wishes to remove consent for the carer to see their record for whatever reason, there is a way of doing so? What protections exist for vulnerable patients who may feel pressured or even coerced into granting access? If circumstances change, how easily can that access be withdrawn, by whom and through what process?
Although I am not being critical specifically of the amendment, the Government will need to think about those questions when they introduce the single patient record. It is not as simple as saying, “Here is a wonderful record and everyone can access it,” because it will contain some of the most sensitive information an individual holds, including details of their physical and mental health.
I entirely accept that carers often play a vital role in supporting patients, but unrestricted or poorly governed access could undermine patient confidentiality and therefore trust in the system. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the hon. Member for Winchester and think that, not just in relation to this amendment but as the record is pulled together, we really need to consider these vital issues.
On amendment 65, like the shadow Minister, I have a lot of sympathy with the point about reasonable adjustments. We need to be careful when deciding as legislators the purpose of the single patient record. Is it simply a repository of treatments, illnesses, conditions and so on, or does it give a wider commentary on those conditions and treatments? In the example given by the shadow Minister, knowing that someone has hearing difficulties would be useful, but is the single patient record the appropriate place for that? I do not know the answer, but we need to discuss and decide that, because there is a danger of scope creep. If we try to make it all things to all men and women, it could lose the stated purpose, which is to ensure that a clinician has the full facts when dealing with a patient.
Dr Johnson
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying; he is making a very good speech. I wonder whether he agrees that one of the challenges for us as legislators, in looking at all the amendments on the single patient record, and indeed at the single patient record itself, is that while the principle of a single patient record might be a good, it is all about the devil in the detail and the delivery. We do not have a delivery plan or a vision of more of the detail relating to how it will look, so it is difficult to make judgments on many of the clauses.
Gregory Stafford
As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. It would be helpful to have more clarity on what the single patient record will look like. I will not repeat my earlier questions, but I think they are prescient. I hope that the Minister—even if she cannot answer now, which I accept—has those in mind when she and her colleagues start to look at this.
Even if the Minister cannot provide detail, all I ask is that she provides reassurance that access to the single patient record will be based on explicit consent, limited to what is necessary for either the caring role—as in the amendment of the hon. Member for Winchester—or the clinical role overall, subject to some kind of regular review and supported by some robust audit mechanism. If we are to create a system on this scale, we must ensure that the safeguards are just as strong as the benefits.
Karin Smyth
I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that, through this amendment, the hon. Member for Winchester has given us an opportunity to think. I am grateful to him for this chance to talk about carers and this important issue. I am a carer of an older person, and for those of us who are carers, it is helpful to have some discussion about this area. Carers play a vital role and we are committed to ensuring that they have the support they need. We are of course very grateful for all the work that they do.
The Bill already includes a power that permits regulations to make patient information available to people other than patients on the patient’s behalf. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, said, that can include carers, and it is our intention to do so. We want to ensure that carers who act on behalf of the people they care for get the full benefit from the single patient record.
NHS proxy access already allows for people other than patients—which includes carers, parents or care home staff—to manage the health and care of someone they care for. Setting up proxy access requires the consent and involvement of the individual and the person they care for. We will set out in regulations how proxy access will work for the single patient record, as in the existing NHS position.
The single patient record will be developed on two priority care pathways in maternity and frailty, which will initially be delivered through local arrangements. Some clinicians and patients will be able to view and manage additional elements of care, such as proxy access for carers, earlier than others. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw his amendment.
We have had some helpful comments about some other concerns.
Dr Johnson
Will the Minister confirm whether the intention of the Government is to separate parts of the record out so that people can give consent for part of the record to be shared, but not the complete record, where they have reasons to want extra privacy?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady knows that we are talking about an enabling power in the Bill. All the details will be brought forward in regulations, through discussions and consultation. We will discuss that more broadly as we talk about the wider clause.
One of the key issues I have been asked about is protecting vulnerable people. Patients will access a single patient record through the NHS app, and NHS England has published guidance on clinical safety, safeguarding and the NHS app, which provides advice on minimising the risk to those where there may be challenges or potential risks. We will adopt a similar approach to the single patient record. Clinicians will be able to redact information that is too sensitive to share, and we will agree a protocol with professional bodies on how that will be applied. I am sure that we will discuss that in more detail, because it is an important area to get right.
Dr Chambers
I thank everyone for that very useful discussion. I was pleased to see everyone broadly in agreement that we need to work out how we can provide the necessary information to provide better care, and to balance that with privacy. Everyone made really insightful points on that.
I just emphasise that, as we all know, there is a difference between treatment/prescription and compliance, and compliance is where many medical treatments fall down. It is once the medical staff are not involved on a day-to-day basis, when the patient is not under their direct care or in the facility of the medical treatment, that most of the care takes place, and that is when successful or unsuccessful treatment for the medical condition occurs. If the people providing the daily care are not empowered properly, it is—well, not a complete waste of time, but the efforts of the medical staff are in vain if the compliance day to day is not accurate.
I thank everyone for the discussion. I will not press the amendment to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 47, page 34, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must make provision for medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.
(3B) The regulations must include a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of introducing a statutory requirement for mandatory medical markers for firearms licence holders to be used by those relevant in providing patient care.”
This amendment would require medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72, in clause 47, page 34, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must make provision for prior membership in the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record.
(3B) The regulations must include a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of making prior membership in the armed forces visible on the single patient record.
(3C) A report under subsection (3B) must consider—
(a) the ability of veterans to access the necessary NHS support, and
(b) the ability of medical staff to provide former members of the armed forces with appropriate care.”
This amendment would require prior membership in the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record and require the Secretary of State to publish a report on making prior membership in the armed forces visible on the single patient record.
Dr Chambers
The amendment was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and would require medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.
I will not read through all my speaking notes but, in a nutshell, a person rightly undergoes mental health checks before they acquire a firearms licence, but that will not be reviewed until they are due to renew their firearms licence a few years later. If their mental health status changed during that time, the amendment would enable them to be flagged to healthcare workers and GPs as a person who has a firearms licence, so that any necessary proactive measures could be taken to ensure that they are still safe to have that licence, or should have it removed, rather than waiting for them to apply for a new licence in a few years’ time.
The British Medical Association supports the amendment and the Royal College of General Practitioners thinks it would be valuable. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of health issues that could have an impact on the certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Quite often, however, the GP is not aware that the person is in possession of a firearms licence.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
In essence, we debated the amendment in a Westminster Hall debate some months ago, when I had the dubious honour of being the shadow spokesman for the Conservative party despite not being a Home Office shadow Minister. It became clear in that debate that mandatory medical markers do not exist. It is still a voluntary system. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to make the system equitable?
The hon. Gentleman and I support mandatory medical markers, and there seemed to be cross-party support for them in the Westminster Hall debate. If they are not mandatory, some people will potentially be put under a different system, because their sufficiency or ability to hold a shotgun licence could be taken away from them, while those who are not on the system, because it is not mandatory, would not lose theirs. How does the hon. Gentleman deal with the equity issue and the potential for some people to be missed?
Dr Chambers
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I suppose this is another chance to use the developing single patient record to ensure that we close the gap. The record could be formed in such a way, and the process put in place, to ensure equity in the system, with mandatory markers.
Amendment 72, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require prior membership of the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a report on making prior armed forces membership visible on the single patient record.
There are just over 1.85 million armed forces veterans in the UK, 13.6% of them women and 86.4% men. The transition from serving in the armed forces to civilian life can mean that many of those individuals struggle with mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. The issues are often specific to the service the individuals have given. Some stats show that more than half of England’s Army veterans have some sort of health problem. I should point out that veterans do not only have mental health problems. Specific back and knee problems are much more common among infantry soldiers because of the type of training they have done over many years.
The amendment seeks to make prior armed forces membership visible to all relevant healthcare workers, and to make the Secretary of State consult on the merits of doing so, so that when a GP is treating a patient, they are aware of that person’s service history without having to ask about it specifically.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I have a couple of questions about amendment 71 for the hon. Member for Winchester. First, can he comment on why the amendment refers to firearms, which have stricter licensing conditions than shotguns? Also, the GP should be aware, because all relevant medical information should filter back to them, that the person has a firearms licence, which, as I say, has stricter criteria. It is essentially harder to get a firearms licence than a shotgun licence. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on that.
On amendment 72, I have a large veteran population in my constituency, and I am very grateful to all those who have put their lives on the line to keep us safe, both today and in the past. I can see that there may be benefits to the amendment in respect of the delivery of the armed forces covenant and aspects of veterans’ care, but I am curious about how it is written. Proposed new subsection (3A) of proposed new section 250E of the National Health Service Act 2006 says that
“regulations must make provision for prior membership…to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record”,
but proposed new subsection (3B) requires a report on the potential merits of doing that. It seems slightly counterintuitive to do it and then decide whether it is a good idea, rather than decide whether it is a good idea, consider the pros and cons, and then do it afterwards. I am interested to understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks the amendment is drafted in that way.
Gregory Stafford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. On amendment 71, I ought to declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance. Although I do not own a shotgun myself, I represent a large shooting community and I have been on a shoot relatively recently, but without a gun, so I did not shoot anything.
As I alluded to in my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester, I spoke on this issue in Westminster Hall some months ago, when it was clear to me that there was a significant level of cross-party support for the idea of mandatory markers for GPs. As mandatory markers for firearms licensing are technically a Home Office issue rather than a Department of Health and Social Care one, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), responded to that debate, but he was unable to reassure us that provision would be made. I did not understand the arguments he made, because I think mandatory markers are probably the way forward. Given that they are supported by organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance—organisations that one might not have expected to be in favour of them—the Government should look into the idea.
There would clearly be a benefit to the proposal in amendment 71. If a patient who holds a firearms licence presents a serious medical risk because of a mental health crisis, suicidal ideation or behaviour that raises concerns about risks to themselves or others, an immediately visible marker would help clinicians to make informed decisions and take the appropriate safeguarding action. But a firearms licence is obviously not a medical condition, nor is it health information in any traditional sense. This goes back to the point I made in the debate on a previous amendment, about how broad the information that we keep on the single patient record will be. The inclusion of such a marker across the single patient record could lead to issues relating, as we talked about in previous debates, to who would want to see that information.
For example, there may be people out there who are not in favour of recreational shooting, and someone may hold a firearms license for recreational shooting. Of course, section 2 firearms licences, especially for shotguns, are often held by farmers and people involved in conservation, and for all sorts of other reasons, including the control of pest populations. But if someone has a licence for recreational use, there may be people who, for whatever reason, find that to be against their own beliefs and opinions. That might lead to a patient being subjected to a level of intrusion or bias, or perhaps not receiving the care they deserve, because someone has made an assumption about what they are like based on that information. We need to be careful about that.
Dr Johnson
Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I ask him about security? It might also be possible for someone who looked at the records to identify where guns are kept. That information is currently is more protected than that.
Gregory Stafford
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention; I had not appreciated that. If that is true, the security and safety of the individual who holds the firearms licence, and indeed of anybody else in the vicinity, is paramount, and we generally would not want people to know precisely where guns are held, because that could be a security risk. I think the hon. Member for Winchester has the best of intentions, but the consequences have not been fully thought through.
Gregory Stafford
I will, but first I want to be kind to the hon. Gentleman and say that, as with his previous amendment, he has opened up a conversation about the single patient record that we really need to have, to ensure that what is on it needs to be there for the treatment of patients. As legislators, we need to have a wide conversation to decide what it includes and how it is going to be used.
Dr Chambers
The hon. Gentleman makes some good points, especially given his experience as the Conservative spokesperson in the Westminster Hall debate on this subject, for which he did a lot of research. I do not think we need to worry about medical professionals seeing that someone has a firearms licence and potentially treating them differently because of assumptions they make about them. Medical professionals are trained to be dispassionate, and they try to show little bias. I would be very surprised if a doctor, seeing it flagged on a single patient record that someone was in possession of a firearms licence, changed their attitude towards or approach to the treatment of that individual. I think that particular point is probably not relevant.
Gregory Stafford
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s optimism. I am not belittling his point—I, too, hope that no one would be treated, both in the traditional sense and in the medical sense, based on their background or anything else, including their recreational hobbies. Unfortunately, we have seen cases in the NHS in which someone’s religious background has led to antisemitism and other unfortunate issues. Unfortunately, sometimes the system itself has a problem. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report relatively recently on black maternal health. We could see the difference and the fact that, unfortunately, black women experience a worse level of care, often because of assumptions made about their backgrounds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I hope everyone is treated dispassionately, but I am afraid it does not always happen. We need to make sure that we root out that kind of behaviour, but we also need to protect people from it.
Amendment 72 is another that was tabled with the best of intentions. The improved identification of veterans is an interesting idea, because I do not think many veterans actively identify themselves when they access healthcare. A visible marker could help to ensure that healthcare professionals are aware of a patient’s service history without relying on self-disclosure. There may be direct benefits to a veteran, because they may be eligible for dedicated NHS services—including mental health, rehabilitation and other veterans’ healthcare pathways—through the armed forces covenant. A marker could, then, assist clinicians in directing patients to appropriate support more quickly.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Wherever possible, the single patient record will build on source records such as GP records. As such, it will include relevant patient information and, where appropriate, digital markers such as those suggested in the amendments. We have had some useful discussion as a result of the amendments, but such considerations are generally operational, and legislation is neither necessary nor practical.
On amendment 71, Members will know that the Government have been doing significant work in support of a digital medical marker for firearms. Medical information for firearms licensing provided by the applicant has been a mandatory requirement for every firearm and shotgun licence application since November 2021, as we have heard, when the new statutory guidance for chief officers of police on firearms licensing was introduced. When any individual applies for a firearms licence, the applicant’s doctor must provide details of any relevant medical conditions, such as depression, dementia, mental health conditions or drug or alcohol abuse.
A digital maker is placed on the GP patient record when a certificate is granted, and a GP can alert the police if a licence holder has a relevant medical condition. The digital marker automatically flags to the GP if a patient is suffering from a relevant medical condition and is a firearms certificate holder. It is true that the marker is not legally mandated, but it is supported by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the former issues guidance to GPs about the firearms marker.
GPs already have professional duties to consider patient and public safety, and existing firearms licensing arrangements support GPs to share relevant concerns with the police where appropriate, while the responsibility for licensing decisions rests with the police. Data shows that, since its introduction in 2023, the marker is being used and that GPs are notifying police of medical issues that have arisen. There is nothing to suggest that the system is not effective.
Dr Johnson
Is it not also the case that anyone who is aware that an employee or relative has a licence and is concerned about their mental health can make such a report?
Karin Smyth
I am afraid I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question, but if it is relevant, I will try to get back to her on it.
People applying for a licence must now indicate whether they have seen a medical practitioner other than their GP. The Government also intend to make a statutory instrument to require licence holders to inform the police if they consult a third-party medical practitioner who is not their GP.
The single patient record will build on and connect with information from GP source records where appropriate; no new provision is needed for that to happen. That process should be agreed as part of operational arrangements with the profession, in line with the current approach to markers in the GP record. If it is agreed that it would be beneficial for health and care professionals to have wider access to the firearms marker, the single patient record could facilitate that, but we do not intend to fill the Bill with detailed operational requirements such as that.
We do not believe that the SPR is the appropriate vehicle for having a debate about regulations requiring a report on the merits of a mandatory marker. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, we should not expand the clearly defined scope of the single patient record—the scope is limited to direct care—to include a debate about what is stored more generally in NHS records. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw amendment 71.
On amendment 72, as I have already outlined, the single patient record will build on and connect with existing source records, such as GP or hospital records, wherever possible. Where a person’s status as a military veteran is recorded, it will be possible to make that information available in the single patient record. Therefore, the provisions already ensure that the information is made available, where veterans opt to have that status recorded—that addresses some of the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. There is no need to make any statutory requirement to ensure that staff have that information and consider any necessary adjustments or potential treatment options that may be relevant to ensure safe and effective care.
In addition, the clause contains powers to make regulations to allow people involved in the provision of an individual’s direct care, including that of any veteran after they have left the military, to access their single patient record. We want the single patient record to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of care for everyone. That includes making sure that military veterans can access necessary support and that staff can provide them with appropriate care. Furthermore, duties in the Armed Forces Act 2006 require the NHS and local authorities to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, which, of course, I fully support. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester not to press amendment 72.
Dr Chambers
I thank all hon. Members for their input, and the Minister for her insights. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 47, page 34, line 38, at end insert—
“(6A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record.
(6B) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must consult all stakeholders the Secretary of State considers relevant, including patient representation groups.
(6C) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must have particular regard for—
(a) those without access to a suitable electronic device,
(b) those without access to suitable broadband connectivity,
(c) those with physical and/or mental disabilities,
(d) those belonging to groups considered socially excluded, and
(e) those considered lacking digital skills.
(6D) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the risk assessment under subsection (6A) before both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 49, in clause 47, page 36, line 1, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations may not be laid under this section unless the Secretary of State has published a plan for a public awareness campaign to be conducted before the system established under section 250E(1) is made available to patients (a ‘public awareness plan’).
(4B) The public awareness plan must include—
(a) a description of the information to be communicated to members of the public through the campaign, which must include information about—
(i) what the single patient record is and what patient information it will contain;
(ii) who will be able to access patient information through the system and for what purposes;
(iii) the rights of patients in relation to their patient information, including any right to object to or restrict access;
(iv) how patients will be able to view a record of access to their patient information; and
(v) how patients can raise concerns or make complaints;
(b) the steps to be taken to ensure that the campaign reaches groups who may face barriers to accessing information, including people with disabilities, and people with limited digital access or literacy;
(c) the proposed timetable for the campaign, including the date on which the campaign is to commence and the minimum period during which it will run before the system is made available to patients; and
(d) a description of how the effectiveness of the campaign will be evaluated.
(4C) The minimum period referred to in subsection (4B)(c) must be not less than three months before the date on which the system is first made available to patients under subsection (1)(a).
(4D) The Secretary of State must lay the public awareness plan before both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a public awareness plan has first been published, laid before Parliament, and a minimum three-month public information campaign has been conducted before the system goes live.
Helen Morgan
Amendment 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record. I declare an interest as the current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities.
I hope that we Liberal Democrats have been clear that overall, we are supportive of the single patient record; it is important that every patient can access their own health records. Under the SPR, however there is a risk that people belonging to already vulnerable groups will be digitally excluded from accessing their health information. Research commissioned by Ofcom suggests that 2.8 million people—5% of the UK population—do not have access to the internet at all. Although age is a predictor for a person not having access to the internet at home, especially if they are over 85, more than half of such people are younger than 75.
Amendment 70 would ensure that the Secretary of State assesses the potential for digital exclusion with relevant stakeholders, including patient groups, and that the assessment is laid before Parliament. It would also ensure that the Secretary of State takes into consideration the risk of exclusion for those lacking access to a suitable electronic device or suitable broadband connectivity, including people who have disabilities, who belong to socially excluded groups or who lack digital skills.
Dr Johnson
Amendment 70, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, would require the Secretary of State to publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion in the single patient record. That is important because, as our lives become more electronic and online, there are people who are getting left behind. That could be because they have a disability that prevents or makes it more difficult for them to access online facilities, because they do not have the resources, because they live an area of the country that is less well served by digital or broadband provision, or because they are elderly and have decided that they will not get involved in the digital world.
In fact, according to the Good Things Foundation, 7.9 million people in the UK lack basic digital skills and 1.6 million adults do not have a smartphone, tablet or laptop. Of those with no basic digital skills, 77% are over 65. People need more healthcare as they get older, yet those individuals have fewer digital skills, so this issue needs to be addressed. The NHS Alliance published a report on digital inclusion in March 2026, which found that rural and coastal areas typically have higher levels of digital exclusion than urban areas.
Lincolnshire ICB, which covers the area that I represent, estimates that 21.3% of Lincolnshire’s population live in the most digitally deprived areas. The ICB has a digital inclusion strategy for 2025 to 2028, which includes efforts to try to reduce digital exclusion; I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on how she might expand that sort of initiative across the country.
The Government’s equality impact assessment for the single patient record recognises that digital exclusion is a significant challenge in several groups with particular protected characteristics and other characteristics. I am interested in learning more from the Minister about how she intends to mitigate that challenge. In many ways, digital availability is a good thing, and it makes things much easier for many people—I am not knocking it in any way—but we need to ensure that people do not get left behind.
I understand that NHS England is supporting public libraries to signpost users to the NHS website and help them navigate it. What will happen to that support as NHS England gets abolished? Does the Minister intend the Department of Health and Social Care to provide something similar?
Amendment 49, tabled in my name, is basically about public awareness. Although we get immersed in what we are doing here, the public are not necessarily following every word that is said in Committee or in this House—or even necessarily every word that appears in the press—so when the single patient record is launched, it is important that they are aware of it, and in particular, aware of their rights.
We have talked about whether a person might want to let a carer see the single patient record or whether they might want to let someone see part but not all of the record. If the record goes live before people are aware of their rights and abilities in relation to it, they might find that things are available to people, or can be viewed by people, who they would not have wished to see them, which could lead to a number of problems. The amendment would allow people to be more aware of the single patient record for a period of time before it is brought in to try to make sure that that sort of problem is mitigated, and I am interested to understand the Minister’s view on it.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I wish to speak on this aspect of the single patient record. Although I support the general intention and aim of the single patient record, I have some wider concerns about how it will be implemented. I will restrict my remarks to the issues related to this group of amendments, and particularly amendment 49 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
Plainly, most people—I would probably include myself in this—are not immediately familiar with all the ins and outs of how their medical records are kept and used, and why should they be? However, they have some pretty clear views on what they expect, whether that is confidentiality or their records being used and stored in such a way that does not inadvertently act as a barrier to accessing healthcare in an efficient and timely way. That is why the Government have introduced these proposals, which I mainly support.
Gregory Stafford
As we move towards a single patient record, we have to ensure that technological progress does not come at the expense of those who are least digitally connected. As others have said, I am particularly concerned about older patients and many disabled people, who often rely most on NHS services but can face the greatest barriers when healthcare systems—and all systems—become increasingly digital. For some elderly patients in my Farnham and Bordon constituency, navigating online platforms is challenging, and others may not have regular access to the internet at all. Unfortunately, my constituency has one of the worst full-fibre broadband roll-outs in the country, and it has extraordinarily poor mobile phone reception in the central rural parts of the constituency, despite my best efforts with BT Openreach and others.
Disabled people may also face accessibility barriers that these systems do not always anticipate in their design. Modernisation should never mean creating a two-tier NHS—one for those who are digitally confident and another for those who are not. The people at risk of being left behind are often those with the most complex healthcare needs and the greatest reliance on the continuity of care. A proper assessment of digital exclusion is therefore not just a bureaucratic exercise, as some may describe it; it is an essential safeguard. We need to understand how the single patient record will affect elderly patients, disabled people, carers, those with learning disabilities and those who may struggle to engage with digital services.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
My understanding is that the single patient record is just a single place where all of a patient’s medical records will be kept. It will not necessarily change the ways in which they access healthcare services, such as A&E, the GP or a dentist. Those ways of accessing healthcare will stay the same, whether we have a single patient record or not.
Gregory Stafford
For me, the key thing is that we must have equity of access to the single patient record. If somebody wishes to see their own medical record, they should be able to do so, whether they are digitally savvy or not. As far as I can tell, that is the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment.
However, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. We are seeing this already, but the more we go down the digital route—because it is more efficient and straightforward, and takes out the unnecessary bureaucracy of having a human interaction to book an appointment or whatever—the more likely it is that this will become the portal for all interactions. I am not saying that that is the Government’s intention, but he raises a point, perhaps inadvertently, that we need to think about.
To conclude on amendment 70, before we proceed any further, the Government should be able to demonstrate that no patient will receive a worse service, face greater barriers to care or lose access to information simply because they are older, disabled or less digitally connected than others—that goes to the heart of fairness and equity of access in our NHS. I am absolutely certain that the Minister does not wish that to happen, but it would be interesting to hear how she will ensure that it does not happen.
Amendment 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a public awareness plan had first been published and laid before Parliament, and a minimum three-month public information campaign had been conducted before the system went live. That seems eminently sensible, and I hope it is something that would be not just welcomed by Ministers, but on their agenda already.
Patients clearly have a right to know what information is being held, who will have access to it, how it will be used, what safeguards are in place and what rights they have in relation to their own data before the system goes live. A three-month campaign to give them that opportunity would be appropriate, because the things that I have outlined are not technical details that need to be buried in some Government website or hidden in the small print of a privacy notice; they are fundamental questions that deserve proper public engagement.
I am especially supportive of amendment 49 because of the impact on older people, disabled people and those who are less digitally engaged. I do not think that most of my constituents spend their time reading NHS policy documents online—my notes say “most”, but I think none of them do, unless they are involved in the health world themselves—and they should not wake up one morning to discover that a major change to the management of their health information has already been implemented without their knowledge.
A public information campaign is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is a democratic necessity. If Ministers are confident that the single patient record will improve care, strengthen efficiency and protect privacy, they should be eager to make that case to the public and should therefore welcome the scrutiny, transparency and informed debate that a three-month public information would bring.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I want to speak primarily to amendment 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the shadow Minister, and to agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has just said. Sadly, there will be a large number of people who do not follow the debates in this House or this Committee in great detail, however fascinating they may be. That is perfectly understandable.
The single patient record has genuine potential. It has the potential to put all the different bits of data in one place, so that when, for example, someone is blue-lighted to hospital, their consultant or the doctors treating them in A&E can access the information they need about their medical history and any medications they are on, which could improve clinical outcomes for patients.
I can entirely see the potential of the single patient record, but I am also conscious of the genuine concern among those of our constituents who are aware of this about what it might mean in practical terms for them and their data—it is important to remember that it is their data. They will have concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon set out, about who can access it, what safeguards are in place, whether they can opt out, and a range of other legitimate questions about how it will work.
I have to say that amendment 49, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, is not unreasonable. It would give the Government an opportunity to reassure our constituents and bring them along on this journey, rather than leaving questions unanswered or just addressing them in a Q&A on a Government webpage. People have genuine questions, and in many cases I am confident that the Minister will be able to allay those concerns or put them to rest, but some campaign of that sort is needed.
Such campaigns happen regularly on a range of subjects. The Department of Health and Social Care spends a significant amount of money on public health and awareness campaigns, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs spends a large amount of money on reminding everyone to get their tax returns in on time, in the lead up to that, or to remind them of the penalties if they do not. Government do that day in, day out across a range of services and where major changes are being made.
The Government have a genuine opportunity to accept amendment 49, which will help them to bring the people we serve on this journey, and potentially help to realise the benefits and allay people’s concerns. I genuinely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or will commit to take it away, look at it, engage with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and possibly bring back a Government amendment that does exactly this on Report.
Dr Johnson
I am advised to declare that, although I am not a licence holder of a shotgun or a rifle, my husband has both a shotgun and a firearms licence.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to hon. Members for this debate. Meaningful public engagement will be key to the success of the single patient record—we absolutely understand that—in building awareness and in designing the system. It has to have digital inclusion at its heart, but adding statutory requirements for public awareness campaigns and risk assessments is not the way forward. Amendment 49 seeks to put such a requirement on a statutory footing. I want to reassure the Committee and all Members: as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston said, public awareness is absolutely key and will be integral to success. Work is already under way to ensure that we do that; we do not need to wait, nor should we be constrained by the proposed amendment.
In 2024, we began extensive public engagement on the use of data across health and social care, which showed strong support for the single patient record. We have heard that most people felt it was
“long overdue and a necessary step towards better care”.
The public engagement findings indicated support to progress at pace on the concept of a single patient record, to resolve the frustrations that patients and the public have when they have to repeat their story at multiple health and care settings.
As we move towards our ambition to give all patients in England access to a core set of their data through the single patient record from 2028, we will maintain a sustained drumbeat—as they say in the jargon—of public communications to raise awareness of the single patient record. We have heard some examples of where the Government do that well. Of course we want to learn from such examples across the country and from previous Government campaigns that have worked well, to explain the benefits and safeguards in plain English, and to signpost accessible information and feedback routes for patients and the public. I heard the comments made about people who may be excluded or have particular disabilities, including some older people—from conversations with my own constituents, it is often older people or those with multiple disabilities who can have their experience enhanced. We should make no assumptions about who does or does not feel excluded in this space; we need to learn from them all.
Furthermore, we have already published public-facing single patient record information and a dedicated feedback route. We will continue to co-create plain English, easy-read and translated materials, frequently asked questions and “voices heard/action taken” updates with public panels and patient groups ahead of roll-out. We will build on what we learn from that ongoing work as we develop the regulations. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham not to move amendment 49.
On the lead amendment, moved by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, we recognise, as I hope I have assured the Committee, that digital inclusion is an important issue. To quote another Member, we are eager to get it right, and we are taking it very seriously. Digital inclusion is a key driver in addressing health inequalities, supporting individuals and empowering people to better manage their health, which is at the heart of our 10-year plan. It is a system-wide issue, and one that the health and care system is taking action to address. We have considered this as part of the equality impact assessment of the single patient record provisions in the Bill, and will continue to keep those issues and potential mitigations under consideration throughout the development and implementation of the SPR. Therefore, although we agree with the aim of the amendment, we do not consider it necessary. Indeed, it would duplicate work that has already been done.
Helen Morgan
We have not seen a full design of the single patient record yet, but it is difficult to envisage what it would looks like for somebody who does not have access to the internet. It is not just older people; it is obviously a significant problem in deprived areas as well. Can the Minister elaborate on what that might look like for somebody who does not have a device or does not have broadband or mobile access? How will they be able to access their medical record? We might need to understand that before we move forward.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Part the difficulty is that the powers in the Bill that enable the Government to bring forward a single patient record are separate from the secondary routes whereby we describe and work through the detail of regulation. All those considerations have to be very clear. The hon. Lady and I have spoken regularly about the lack of broadband access in her community, which remains a huge problem. All those considerations need to be worked through with the team. They are varied and multiple, and we need to bring parliamentarians and the public with us in doing that, as we bring forward secondary regulations.
NHS England’s digital inclusion framework, as currently, supports the delivery of the 10-year plan by addressing those particular connectivity and skills issues, as well as confidence and accessibility. That work is already partly in train through NHS England. We need to build on that and bring it forward as we come forward with the regulations. I visited the team up in Leeds around some of the digital inclusion they have already been doing from the app. It is very impressive how much they are doing with people to develop the app. I think people would agree that we can take some of that learning forward, because it is about making sure that digital transformation is inclusive and aligned with the ambition in the 10-year plan to personalise care, reduce inequalities and create a health system that works for everyone.
In addition, as set out in the “Managing health services for others” guidance, since February 2026 the NHS has had a process to allow proxy access to the app, which should also support people who, for example, do not have the skills to do it for themselves. Alongside those improvements, it is policy to undertake an inequality and health inequalities assessment prior to hosting anything new on the app. Again, that helps to identify, mitigate and monitor unintended negative impacts on vulnerable and marginalised populations before implementing new policy, services and procedures, as raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. That process should identify and consider the mitigations for the groups identified in the amendment.
I hope that Members can see how seriously the Government have taken the development of digital access so far. We absolutely recognise that we have to get it right to enable this record, which the public and population so desperately want to see. That work has already been undertaken and it will continue. For those reasons, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Helen Morgan
The importance of the amendment is that it requires this problem to be monitored in an ongoing way. Monitoring something usually makes the situation improve, so I will not withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gregory Stafford
On a point of order, Ms Lewell. Are we not voting on amendment 49?
The Chair
We will vote on amendment 49 later if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham wishes to.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 47, page 36, line 1, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations may not be laid under this section unless the Secretary of State has published a plan setting out the measures to be taken to prevent clinicians and other persons involved in the provision of health care or social care from accessing patient information made available through the system otherwise than for the purposes of the care of the patient concerned (an ‘inappropriate access prevention plan’).
(4B) The inappropriate access prevention plan must include—
(a) a description of the technical controls to be applied to restrict access to patient information to those with a legitimate care relationship with the patient;
(b) the system of audit logging to be applied to record each instance of access to patient information, including the identity of the person accessing the information and the time and circumstances of access;
(c) the sanctions applicable to persons who access patient information without lawful authority or without a legitimate care relationship with the patient;
(d) the arrangements for detecting and investigating suspected cases of inappropriate access; and
(e) the role of the Care Quality Commission, the Information Commissioner and any other regulatory body in enforcing compliance with access controls.
(4C) The Secretary of State must lay the inappropriate access prevention plan before both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a plan to prevent inappropriate access by clinicians and other care workers has first been published and laid before Parliament.
Amendment 48 would prevent the Secretary of State from
“making regulations to establish the single patient record unless a plan to prevent inappropriate access by clinicians and other care workers has first been published and laid before Parliament.”
This is about trust. It is about people being able to trust that the records that will now be more widely available will remain confidential and be looked at only by those who need to look at them.
We have seen that people can be uniquely nosey when it comes to accessing medical records. For example, 48 staff members at the University Hospitals of Liverpool Group were found to have looked at the records of those involved in the Southport attack without any medical basis to do so. Almost a dozen staff members were sacked from the Nottingham University Hospitals trust because they had looked at the records of the victims in Nottingham. It is important that we address this, because it is happening already and needs to be tackled.
Paul Arnold, the chief executive of the Information Commissioner’s Office, said that trust is being “jeopardised”. The amendment seeks to ensure that proper thought goes into making sure that people cannot access records they should not be able to look at—for example, those of the Prime Minister or members of the Royal family—before the single patient record is live and can be used. We have Public Department 1 for HMRC; is there an intention to have something similar to close off records to reduce their accessibility where the public may be particularly nosey, either because of the person’s job or because of an event such as a terrorist attack, where we have seen people look at records when they should not have? There were reports that staff at The London Clinic, a private clinic, had been trying to sell records of the Princess of Wales online, so there are examples where this has happened before.
In addition, it is important that people know what the penalties are for deliberately misusing these records. My final question for the Minister is this. If a record has been viewed and there is a data log of it having been viewed, how long will that data log last for? Will it last for six months or a year, or will I be able to look back in 10 years’ time and see who accessed my records today? It is a case of understanding the Minister’s intentions and pushing the Government to ensure that these records are truly private to those who need to see them, not accessible to anyone who just happens to be curious.
Sojan Joseph
I declare that I am a registered nurse. I have worked in the NHS for many years, and I have used patient records throughout my career. The Nursing and Midwifery Council code requires nurses, midwives and nursing associates to respect patient confidentiality, share information appropriately and ensure that patients are informed about how their information is used. That is the existing system, and every nurse, midwife and nursing associate has to follow the code of practice. A similar code is there for the General Medical Council for doctors, and all other registered professionals follow those codes.
On top of that, information governance in the NHS ensures that patient data is handled legally, securely and ethically, providing a framework for data protection and confidentiality. We have numerous different digital systems in the health system currently. Before anyone gets access to those digital systems and patient records, they all have to go through information governance and data protection training. They are then given access to patient records. That is the existing system.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has just mentioned the Nottingham incident, which is a good example. It is a clear example of where those who accessed the records were able to be identified. There is a clear audit trail, and I have my own experience of taking people through disciplinary proceedings for accessing patients’ notes when it was not relevant to those staff. The existing patient data systems do have provisions to safeguard and monitor who is accessing patient records.
Dr Johnson
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, which is that there are processes in place already and that the fact that someone got sacked for looking at the records is a sign that the systems work to an extent. However, does the fact that they could look at them at all suggest that the systems are not working well enough? Because it is a computerised system, there are methods for identifying whether someone is likely to need to look at that record. By knowing the profession of the person looking at it, and the department they are in, the computer can help to limit the number of people who look at those records when they should not.
Sojan Joseph
I agree that we are never going to have 100% proof. There will always be people accessing records. What I am talking about is the existing system, which does have provisions. What we need to strengthen is the training and the audit trail. All staff who do the training are aware that they are not supposed to check patients’ records unless it is relevant to them. Those who access records inappropriately should be identified and action should be taken.
Just because we are moving to a single patient record system, it does not mean that everybody is going to access everything they want. People working in the healthcare system are given access based on their role. Not everybody is able to access everything. Systems are in place, and we need to strengthen those systems and the training. We should not be scaremongering by saying that, because we are moving to a single patient record, everybody will be able to see their records.
Edward Argar
The hon. Member for Ashford made his point very clearly about what happens when something goes wrong and someone behaves inappropriately—the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has highlighted some very concerning recent incidents—and was right to highlight the ability to follow an audit trail and take action. He is also right to highlight the importance of training.
However, taking action once inappropriate access is known, and then following the audit trail, deals essentially with the consequences rather than preventing it from happening in the first place. That is why amendment 48, and particularly proposed new section 250E(4B)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006, is important. It describes the technical controls. That goes beyond the audit process and what happens after something has gone wrong. It is about what can be done to build safeguards into the system to make it much harder for anyone to circumvent their obligations, and to build those technical safeguards into the overall design of the single patient record. That is a reasonable ask, because such incidents, while hopefully rare, as the hon. Member for Ashford alluded to, do happen and understandably cause concern.
The challenge is that there is potentially a lot more information in one place, rather than being held in different pots, trusts or GP surgeries. For those inclined to break their legal obligations and behave outside the rules, the potential opportunity to access a wider range of information is more significant. The design of the record needs to have those technical safeguards strengthened and built in.
Dr Johnson
If we use the example of Southport, the people who could access those records worked in the Liverpool trust, because that is where the records were stored. With the single patient record, as planned, people would be able to access those records from across the country, if they had a clinical reason to do so. However, someone behaving badly could also potentially do so, even if they did not have a reason.
Edward Argar
That is the challenge. The Minister knows her brief very well—if I may say, I hope that whatever happens in a few weeks’ time, she retains it. She is that rare thing among Ministers in Government: someone who comes to their position with a hinterland of knowledge, experience and interest, which she has demonstrated through her period in office thus far. I hope that she retains her role, because continuity of Ministers in Government is a good thing.
Can the Minister reassure us on the shadow Minister’s point, which is one that I have been seeking to make? Can she reassure us that the system will include barriers to prevent whoever builds and operates it—whether a third party or someone internal—from having inappropriate access to the records? The data must be ringfenced and protected, so that it does not go out of the country and cannot be accessed by those who are technically running or providing the platform. Even within the social care system, there must be very clear and technical restrictions on who can access the records for legitimate purposes, as the hon. Member for Ashford has highlighted. I think that would just reassure people.
As I said in response to previous amendments, I think the potential of the single patient record to improve clinical outcomes in care is very significant, but we need to bring people with us. I suspect that if anyone can reassure us on those points, it is the Minister.
Gregory Stafford
As my right hon. Friend has just said, this is a unique system that will have unique benefits, but it will also have unique risks. Almost in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford, I do not think there is anything—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. As Members can hear, there is a fire alarm. Can everyone return to this room as soon as possible, when it is safe to do so?
Gregory Stafford
Before I was rudely interrupted by the fire alarm—I am not taking it as a hint, much to the Minister’s disappointment—I was saying that this is a unique system and that with the unique benefits come unique risks. I was trying to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Ashford.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston have mentioned, we already know that despite the regulations, whether they are from professional regulators or the ICO, people will get round the system. One of the biggest concerns that patients will raise is not simply whether patient records will be accessed by nefarious people from outside, such as cyber-hackers, hostile states and so on, but whether they are secure from inappropriate access by people who have access to the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, those people could be situated anywhere across the country. Patient records should be accessed only where there is a clear clinical, professional need. The public rightly expect robust safeguards, strong audit trails and meaningful consequences where the rules are breached. Amendment 48 raises that important issue. The Minister should explain how inappropriate access will be prevented, how misuse will be detected and what sanctions will apply when the standards are not met.
My hon. Friends have already mentioned a number of cases and I pick another one: the unfortunate case of the three-year-old boy who was hospitalised after being attacked by a crocodile at a zoo. Cambridge University Hospitals trust is currently investigating 40 members of staff who appear to have accessed that boy’s medical records inappropriately.
While we would always hope that that would not happen, unfortunately it clearly does. This single patient record means that someone will potentially be able to look at patients’ records regarding anything and from anywhere in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham slightly generously described some people as “nosey”. Along with those who have an actual ulterior motive, that presents a real challenge. I say to the hon. Member for Ashford that just because the current system is in place to protect patient records as they currently exist, that should not be a bar to making sure that we make the system even more robust given its potential risks.
It goes directly to proposed new section 250F(4B)(b) of the National Health Service Act 2006, which is the system of audit logging to be applied to each record, so that every time someone accesses a patient record or part of that patient record, the identity of the person obtaining that information should be recorded. I believe that the patient should be able to easily see, hopefully in real time, who has been accessing their record and at what time.
We on this side have mentioned a number of big events: that poor boy with the crocodile, terrorist attacks in Southport and so on. I suspect that those data breaches have been identified because they were big events. People have gone out to check that nobody has been inappropriately accessing those records. I worry that every patient record will potentially be available to every single person, and I doubt that there will be an ability to check every single person proactively rather than reactively. That means patients need access themselves to look at their record and see who has been accessing it. If the name of the person who has accessed the record, or the organisation they belong to is available, patients can say, “Well, there is Mr Smith, my child’s paediatrician, and that is fine. However, who is this guy from elsewhere in the country who has looked at the record?” They can then raise that. That is absolutely vital.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. Does he also think that it is possible for the system to have some designs built into it that identify that someone from another area of the country, or from another department or different profession is unexpectedly looking at results? Perhaps AI could help with this.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is right. I will not sit here and propose a solution to this problem, but what her amendment does is ensure that the Government look at this and present a plan before both Houses of Parliament, before we get to a single patient record.
I have now touched on the nefarious and the nosey. I think there is also a case of inadvertent access. With this new system, despite what the professional regulators might think, and despite the best training from the Information Commissioner’s Office, there will be occasions in a new system where people do not understand the limits of what they are allowed to look at or the appropriateness of access. There could well be inadvertent access to these systems. Again, the Government need to have a plan and system in place to ensure that there is not inadvertent, non-nefarious access to patient records as well. That is why I am very supportive of amendment 48.
To make sure that this system is trusted by patients, we need to have the highest level of safeguarding possible, both from external attacks and from internal misuse. My hon. Friend’s amendment goes a long way to putting some of that trust in place.
Joe Robertson
Plainly, there is already scope for this to happen and sadly patient records are wrongly accessed, either inadvertently through mistake or deliberately in bad faith. However, from a technological and design point of view, the single patient record inevitably makes that easier and more likely, whether through mistakes or deliberate acts. That is just one of the many considerations and downsides of a single patient record that is otherwise beneficial.
It is incumbent on the Government to do what they can to mitigate against those inevitable structural problems that the record will produce, and amendment 48 is an entirely sensible way of achieving that. I am always slightly reluctant to use analogies from other sectors, because plainly there are differences, but in my former life as a family law solicitor, even within a small private law firm, there were structures in place to ensure that only people who needed to access data could do so, and much of it was arguably less sensitive than patient records.
That was the case in a small firm, and because we have a national system of healthcare in this country, which is a good one, the scale of fallout and harm that could arise from such mistakes or deliberate acts is so much greater. I urge the Government not to see the amendment as seeking to undermine their overall plans, but as a means of strengthening them.
Karin Smyth
This is another important discussion to have on the record to give patients and the public confidence as we introduce the vital single patient record. I start by stating that the security and privacy of people’s health data is paramount, and we will build the strongest safeguards possible into the record. Members from across the House have asked how those safeguards will be built into how the system is designed and operated, which is what we are doing.
It will operate on a roles-based access control model, similar to other NHS patient record systems where access to patient information is restricted to the authorised user only. The single patient record will go a step further by applying advanced cloud-based audit and oversight capabilities, enabling near real-time monitoring of system access and detection of unusual or inappropriate patterns. That will allow NHS security teams to track and detect access patterns, and to quickly intervene if specific records are accessed by staff who have no clinical relationship with the patient in question.
The single patient record will ensure that just because a clinician has permission to view a specific patient record, that does not mean they are authorised to do so without a clinical need. The security and access arrangements will be set out in the regulations themselves, which will be debated, rightly, in Parliament. Therefore, it is not necessary to set them out in a plan beforehand.
Furthermore, there are already existing enforcement arrangements that provide sanctions for inappropriate access to patient data, which will also include accessing the single patient record. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford for his extremely helpful intervention, in which he highlighted his own experience in this field. Some of the examples that we heard again today, including Southport, Nottingham, the recent case in Cambridge and others, are truly shocking to people. Clearly, that should never happen, but sadly it has. As my hon. Friend rightly outlined, there are provisions in place for training people on information governance and tracking when that happens.
Additionally, I want to be clear that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 makes it an offence to use a computer to access information in an unauthorised manner, such as a person accessing information without a legitimate reason. Inappropriate or unauthorised access to health records—often referred to as snooping—is a serious offence that can lead to severe penalties, including dismissal, criminal prosecution and financial penalties. Regulated healthcare professionals, such as doctors, nurses and pharmacies, can be reported to their respective professional bodies, which can result in them being struck off in serious cases.
The information commissioner also has powers to investigate and take action against infringements of data protection legislation, which can include monetary penalties, enforcement notices, undertakings, prosecutions and reprimands. Furthermore, patients have a right to access data that is held about them under the data protection legislation, and those rights will continue to apply to the single patient record. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her amendment.
Dr Johnson
We think this is an important issue, so we would like to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Privacy by design in NHS Single Patient Record and Federated Data Platform architecture—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that there is privacy by design as part of the delivery of the NHS Federated Data Platform architecture.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), privacy by design includes—
(a) patient data anonymisation outside its usage by clinicians and within the National Data Integration Tenant; and
(b) patient consent for the processing of personal information by NHS.”
New clause 8—NHS ownership of connection software—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that there is NHS ownership of any data connector software architecture used as part of the delivery of the NHS Single Patient Record or Federated Data Platform.
(2) In this section, a data connector means an interface or connection between the NHS Federated Data Platform and any other health system.”
Karin Smyth
The single patient record is fundamental to the Government’s mission to create a modern, joined-up NHS that puts patients at the centre of their care. The way we currently manage health records is letting patients down. That must change. Patient information is fragmented, so care is fragmented.
Local shared care records have demonstrated what can be achieved. The OneLondon shared care record is used by more than 100,000 frontline staff, with estimated monthly savings of £4.6 million, and around 45,000 patients are reported to have benefited from the Greater Manchester care record in March 2026, with 15 minutes of treatment time saved per patient.
Successful as some local shared care records are, however, they do not provide a uniform, comprehensive single record across England. The single patient record will allow people to have access to a summary of their full health record and provide relevant health and care providers with access to the health and care information they need to provide effective joined-up care.
This is not a new problem and patients have not been silent about it. For more than a decade, patient groups and organisations across the country have been calling for exactly the kind of change that the single patient record will deliver. As far back as 2013, National Voices captured it simply and powerfully:
“I would like to tell my story once.”
The call has only got stronger. Our independently delivered public deliberations found strong support for the single patient record. It was described as a long-overdue fix to fragmented care, while the survey of 2,000 people found more than three quarters in favour of a single patient record. The Committee has heard directly from a range of stakeholders about the benefits a single patient record could have for patients and their care.
Clause 47 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of creating and operating the single patient record. The purpose of regulations made under this clause is to bring together patient information and make it available to patients and their relevant health and care providers such as GPs, hospital doctors, social care providers or others involved in their direct care. Only information concerned with direct care will form part of the system.
We have also included strong safeguards. The security and privacy of people’s health and social care data are paramount, and we will build the strongest of safeguards into the single patient record. It will be designed to protect personal data by default, with the highest standards of cyber-security and information governance ensuring that only the right people can access the right information, at the right time—and only for the right reasons. Permissions to access patient information will be restricted to authorised users only, with an audit trail of who has accessed a patient’s data. The Secretary of State must also consult appropriate persons before making regulations and must have regard to ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent misuses of data.
Dr Johnson
Clause 47 amends the existing legislation to facilitate the single patient record. We have heard about the many benefits that it may bring, for example for patients who find themselves telling the same story again and again and having to repeat themselves because caregivers cannot see the records that they need to see. That can be frustrating and sometimes very distressing for patients.
I caution the Minister against saying that the single patient record will completely fix that issue, because from a clinical perspective, particularly in certain presentations, hearing the story again from the individual can be helpful for a diagnosis, but the principle is a good one, and it will make things easier for clinicians, particularly if the patient is in an area away from home. Records may be kept in a particular geographical location or hospital, and if someone is away on holiday and they come in, we may not have access to their records. In paediatrics, we often give the parents of children with complex problems letters to carry that have the necessary information in them. That would not be necessary if the record were more accessible, so there are benefits to the single patient record.
There are, however, a lot of questions about it. One problem is that the single patient record has not really been designed yet, so we are being asked to approve something that is a hazy vision in the distance. On 1 June, the Minister said that
“although the Bill establishes the legal framework for the SPR, much of the detail will be in secondary legislation.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 957.]
I appreciate that it will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but we are being asked to make a decision now on something that is unfortunately very woolly.
Will the Minister reassure us that she will address the following questions in the secondary legislation? Who will have permission to edit the information in the single patient record? When will they have access to it? Will it tell us who has edited it—will there be a record of who, when and where? If the record is not accurate when it is edited, how will that be addressed? How will people know that it is inaccurate, and how will it be improved? In 2025, Healthwatch reported that 23% of adults who had seen their medical records reported inaccuracies or missing details, 12% said they had been refused treatment because of inaccurate information, and 10% said they had received inappropriate medication as a result. This is important. In recent years, there have been several incidents of patients dying after doctors used incorrect medical histories and prescribed medication that they should not have. This information needs to be available, but also accurate. I am interested in what the Minister has to say about that.
The other question is: what is going to happen to the records people have now? I am 48. I am sure the Minister is much younger than that, but we have records: our vaccination records, our childhood records, and records of any admissions or treatment we have had. Will those be added to the single patient record, or will the SPR start from day zero and go forwards? If it does, how will people access their historical records? If it goes backwards, what provision has been made to ensure that the data that is input is accurate, and for the cost and personnel required to do it?
Is the intention that the SPR will be one-size-fits-all? The Secretary of State talked about people not being asked to have a one-size-fits-all but being able to access the various systems around the country, but there are so many different systems. In my own practice, if I want to look at the notes of somebody I am caring for, I go to Evolve, where the notes are scanned in and I can look at the pages one at a time. If I want to look at blood results, I go to ICE, which is a different system where I can see the test results. If I want to look at the films of an X-ray, they are on a different computer system again. If I want to follow the patient’s pathway through the hospital, see when their next appointment is with me or see who is next in my clinic, I go on to e-Track. There is a different system for maternity, and there is Symphony in A&E.
Each hospital trust has a lot of different computer systems and information, and they do not all use the same systems, as I know having rotated through a number of hospitals during my training. How will the single patient record work with that? Will people be able to access all those different systems, and will they need to be trained to use them, or will there be a homogeneous system—and if so, what does the Minister envisage that looking like?
The Government say the single patient record will be more efficient, reduce the number of A&E attendances and hospital admissions, and make £20 million in annual savings to the NHS. Those are quite small margins compared with the scale of the project. Is the Minister satisfied that the savings will not be obliterated by the cost of the project running away?
The other thing is the public view of this. Polling published in January 2025 by the Tony Blair Institute found that 69% of people are willing for their anonymised data to be used to help plan NHS delivery, 71% are willing for it to be used for research into drugs and new treatments, and 75% are willing for it to be used for speeding up and making better diagnoses. There is an amendment—amendment 11—that make data available only for patient care, but patient audit and research can be quite important. Does the Minister have any comments on how audits and patient research might be used in a clinical context to improve care using anonymised or non-anonymised data?
Proposed new section 250E(3) of the National Health Service Act 2006 says:
“The regulations may provide that the processing of information in accordance with the regulations does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information.”
As one of my hon. Friends said earlier this afternoon, if the Government put a clause into a Bill, they normally have a reason for wanting to use it. Can the Minister expand on the circumstances in which they might want, in essence, to bypass patient confidentiality in pursuit of that provision?
In addition, the regulations may make information
“available to people involved in the provision to patients of health care or social care anywhere in the British Islands,”
which means it will not all be provided in England, and it will not necessarily all be provided within the United Kingdom. Will there be reciprocal arrangements with the self-governing territories? If not, how will the Government ensure that the data is properly protected once it has been shared?
I also want to mention cyber-security. On 30 June—just earlier this week—it was reported that the UK healthcare sector experienced a tenfold increase in attacks during January to May 2026 compared with the whole of 2025, recording 264,000 individual events compared with just 27,000 in 2025. In June 2026, Bedfordshire hospitals NHS foundation trust revealed that data relating to 33,000 hospital patients was stolen and shared online two years ago. Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust reported the theft of 2,380 records in the same attack. The Secretary of State said earlier in June that
“the situation with the single patient record is…different from that of the federated data platform, because it is likely that we will let a series of contracts to de-risk the delivery of the single patient record.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 891.]
That suggests that the Government are aware of the problem but have not yet nailed down the detail of how to contract the delivery of the single patient record or worked out how they are going to keep data safe once they have. How can patients have confidence when their health data—their most personal data—is on the line and the Government have not yet made the key decisions for protecting it? Does the Minister have any comments on that?
What will happen to private providers? The Government are increasingly using private healthcare providers to try to improve the waiting lists, but will they have access to the single patient record? If they will, will they have to contribute to it financially or get it for free? How will the data be protected if it is not in NHS hands and not necessarily under the same regulation? What plans do the Government have to monetise the data? In December 2025, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, Innovation and Safety, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), was reported in the Financial Times as having said that the UK should make money from patient data for the
“benefit of the Treasury coffers”.
Can the Minister expand on her Department’s plans to monetise patient data? Can she guarantee that personal data will not be exposed or leaked?
Can the Minister give assurances that the tendering process for contracts to set up and run the single patient record will be fair and transparent? It has been said that companies that donated to Labour before the general election were awarded contracts worth almost £138 million during this Government’s first year. It has also been reported that Peter Mandelson had links to Palantir, which secured a £240 million deal with the Ministry of Defence. It is important that people have confidence in the contracts. Does the first person to get a contract get locked in? Once the system is set up with one provider, will it be prohibitively difficult to change provider? Will the contracts become more and more expensive as time goes on because of the difficulties in redesigning a system? Who will own the intellectual property of the system that is designed? Will it be the Government or the private company? If it is the private company, how will that work going forwards?
The other question is: can we trust this Labour Government to deliver this? In 2005, the previous Labour Government launched a digitisation project called the NHS national programme for IT. In 2007, the Public Accounts Committee found that the Government had not sought to keep a detailed record of expenditure and there was no evidence that officials had carried out an examination to see whether the benefits exceeded the cost. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), described the project as
“one of the biggest IT disasters of all time”.
Costs ballooned to more than £9 billion, leading a member of the PAC to say in 2013 that it was one of the
“worst and most expensive contracting fiascos”
in the history of the public sector. How will the Minister convince the House and the public that the contract is being provided fairly, that it will be useful, that it will deliver what it said it would at the prices it said it would, that the data will be held securely once it is delivered, and that provisions will be in place to record access, decide who gets access and limit access?
Who gets access to sexual health records is particularly important. At the moment, sexual health records are kept separate. If someone attends a sexual health clinic specifically for sexual health screening, those records do not appear in their general medical record, in order not to disincentivise people from attending those sorts of appointments. If everything will be in one single patient care record, will sexual health records appear within that record? That is an important issue; indeed, it was raised during the Committee’s evidence sessions, when it seemed that the Government had not yet made a decision.
Dr Chambers
I will speak to clause 47 and to new clauses 7 and 8, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). The sector has been calling for a single patient record for decades, and it is the single most impactful part of the Bill. It could be transformational for patient experience, care, outcomes, consistency of treatment and reducing errors.
Members have talked about the hassle of people having to tell their story repeatedly or recollect the history, which many people cannot do accurately, so the clause could be hugely impactful. Polling shows that nine out of 10 Britons want better access to medical records. Many assume that a single patient record already exists and are often quite surprised when they go to another hospital and find that it has no record of what has been done in the county next door.
Although the public are rightly concerned about the use of their data, especially outside of direct care and for planning and research purposes, we wholly support the idea of a single patient record. The plan is for people to be able to see their primary, secondary and social care records all in one place, all in the NHS app. It will be transformational, but patients should be in control of their data. They should be able to see who is accessing their records and should be able to opt out of sharing data. It is essential that there is sufficient control and guarantees around the sharing of data, whether for research or other reasons. The Bill does not go far enough to provide reassurances that patients will ultimately be in charge of their own data and how it is used.
Trust among medical staff, patients and the public is essential for this much-needed system to succeed, and we have only to look at the pushback on the federated data platform to see that. Sufficient guardrails are necessary to make sure that secondary uses of health data are allowed only when they deliver a clear public benefit. Rules need to be future-proofed so that they are not vulnerable to change depending on the political or economic situation. There should be meaningful checks, balances and transparency.
We want to make sure this technology is focused on enabling and delivering healthcare. We know that, in the US, Palantir is providing health data to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is then used to support deportations. We would be really concerned if people were too worried to come forward for medical treatment because they thought that their immigration status might be passed on to another Department.
There was a Westminster Hall debate recently on the concerns about Palantir and about the single patient record being abused. From an economic point of view, it seems a lost opportunity to have such a huge infrastructure project farmed out to foreign companies based abroad. First, this is a huge opportunity for companies in the UK to boost our economy, provide employment and drive innovation. Secondly, if we are reliant on foreign companies to deliver this service, we could lose our health sovereignty and their motivations might change depending on the political and economic situation of the country in which they are based.
There have been recent examples of NHS staff inappropriately accessing the private health records of the victims of the Southport and Nottingham terror attacks. The decision by the University Hospitals of Liverpool Group not to inform patients of the breaches understandably raised privacy concerns. The Government must therefore ensure that there are sufficient safeguards and guardrails, and that they are communicated clearly to the public to build trust.
The single patient record needs to happen, but in the right way. The issues with the FDP’s uptake have shown that patient and staff mistrust can significantly undermine a system’s effectiveness. The most important safeguards should not be left entirely to later implementation. They should be laid out in primary legislation at the beginning of the process. The Bill should be more explicit on who is responsible for decisions about access, sharing, liability and redress. That is why we have tabled various amendments, which we will get to later, most notably on our health data charter, setting out the key principles of how health data should be handled and a duty to prioritise domestic suppliers in technology procurement.
We welcome Opposition amendment 49, which we debated earlier—I believe it was echoed by the NHS Alliance—suggesting that a plan should be laid before Parliament for a minimum three-month public information campaign before the system goes live. The discussion on this needs to be constructive, not alarmist, to make sure that the SPR is rolled out in a safe fashion and so that we all get to feel the benefits.
Public involvement should be ongoing, visible and tied to real implementation decisions. Past NHS data reforms show that support depends on people feeling informed, heard and able to challenge decisions. Any red lines should also be clear. For example, there should be consented use for marketing or insurance purposes.
We also need to discuss the role of GP practices in this debate, given that they work within the NHS but are also private businesses. GP records are among the NHS’s richest data assets, and GP practices are to remain independent data controllers. I have spoken to three different practices in Winchester, and the practice managers are quite concerned that GPs will be required to share data much more routinely than they do now, but they will still carry the legal and professional risk and will likely act as the channel to explain to patients how their data will be used. GPs will need to be brought on side for the SPR to work, and that will depend on who decides, what safeguards apply and how burdens on practices are managed. Recent experiences show the sensitivity of the issue. The British Medical Association has stated that it may consider collective action on GP data sharing. The 2022 roll-out of automated prospective GP record access through the NHS app was paused after concerns about safeguarding and the burden on practices.
Will the Minister expand a little on the detail and on how all this will be implemented? What precautions will be taken to ensure that patient data is protected? Will she consider the Lib Dem proposal for a health data charter that sets out principles and responsibilities for handling NHS data?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I have listened very carefully to people’s speeches, and it is important to say that we are debating that clause 47 stand part of the Bill. The clause creates the single patient record and, while many Opposition Members have justifiably and understandably asked how we will do this right and what safeguards we will have, it is important that what we are debating is that the clause stand part of the Bill.
The clause creates the single patient record, and it creates the overarching ability for the NHS to use data better than it currently does. I am not a data scientist. I am a physicist by training, and I taught physics and worked in trade unions for a long time. Because of my training and my use of data, every group of people I have ever worked with invariably came up with nicknames for me, which usually boil down to “Data Dave”. There is something so valuable about being able to use aggregated values to tell us something that we do not already know.
One of the most valuable things we may get from this is that, when a clinician talks to a patient and they say or present something that does not match what is on the single patient record, it will raise a red flag that leads the clinician to realise something they would not have realised if they did not have access to notes previously taken elsewhere. I genuinely think that is one of the most valuable things that will come from this.
On a wider stage, the ability to aggregate data and properly track what is going on within the health service, and for people to be able to track what is going on with their care, with a wider view of what is going on, will be so valuable to clinicians and wider afield.
Dr Johnson
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that, in many ways, the NHS dataset will be one of the most valuable datasets in the world, not only to patients themselves—in terms of the value to them and their privacy—but in the ability to analyse it and perhaps understand parts of medicine that we do not understand at the moment and so improve patient care?
Dave Robertson
I am not entirely certain that I want to agree with “one of” the most valuable datasets in the world; I think it could potentially be the most valuable dataset in the world.
We know that the NHS is the largest healthcare provider in the world. We know that the data is potentially very valuable. Creating this will allow our NHS to be at the forefront of managing how it works, in a way that no other health system will be able to, and certainly to a scale that no other health system anywhere in the world will be able to. That obviously comes with risks.
I have been listening carefully, and it is important that we tease out those risks and make sure that we stay as red hot as we can on all the issues that hon. Members have raised. I go back to the salient point of whether this clause should stand part. I fully support that this measure should be part of the Bill and that we should be moving in this direction.
I have spoken about the more global ideas and the reasons why, intellectually, I think this is a good idea, but let me take an example from my home county of Staffordshire up in the west midlands. There are reports that one hospital in Staffordshire uses 450 different electronic systems, which is absolutely bananas.
For so long, we have not had a single patient record. We have not had one unifying system. Over a cup of tea with the Minister a couple of days ago, I got very excited and started talking about primary keys because, although I am not a data scientist, I like the use of data. I do not think we need to get into a situation where there is a single primary key that is instantly recognisable to everybody and where we are necessarily using some machine learning to assess that. That could potentially come later down the line. That is not what the clause is doing, and it would need a much wider discussion than we are currently having.
If we take the example of Staffordshire and its 450 different data systems in one hospital—I do not know that number for certain, although it has been reported to me by two or three colleagues—I cannot imagine the difficulties that the IT team has in trying to get that number of systems to talk to each other. It will be nigh on impossible. All it leads to is delays. All it leads to is people having to reproduce data from one system to another manually. By creating an overarching single patient record, we will force it to happen.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. A single patient record is not the same thing as mandating that 450 record-keeping systems become one. In fact, the single patient record will work as a theory on paper only if there is interoperability between different databases. That is a massive challenge that is not dealt with here. It cannot be dealt with here, in the real world, and the single patient record will not be realised until it is dealt with, which could take years. Does the hon. Member have a reflection on that point?
Dave Robertson
I appreciate the intervention, and it is nice for the hon. Member to get me back after I got him the other week. He is absolutely right. I do not think anybody in this room expects that after we have this discussion and the clause forms part of the Bill, and after the Bill goes through the parliamentary process and hopefully becomes an Act very soon, the next day there will instantly be this magical, ethereal thing called a single patient record and everything will drop into place immediately. I have a bridge to sell to anybody who thinks that.
What the clause does is put the NHS on a path to being able to deal with data appropriately, in a 21st-century way, by adding the ability and requirement for the NHS to use data appropriately. In terms of how that is done technically, I am very far from a computer programmer—I have done a tiny bit in parts of my life, and it always drives me absolutely wild—but there would be a number of architectures that could be used to make this work. I am not an expert and would not profess to be or to give anybody advice on that.
An advantage of the way the Bill is written is that things can be picked up by secondary legislation, which can go into a lot more technical detail. That is a real strength of how this is drafted. If we tried to mandate in primary legislation, in an Act of Parliament, far too granular a level of data science and information technology architecture, we would run a real risk of falling behind. Everybody is very aware of AI, and it is rare that I go a day without hearing people talk about it. Quantum is just behind it, and it is potentially much more disruptive and much more beneficial to huge parts of the economy, especially healthcare.
Trying to do everything through primary legislation is absolute folly. However, making sure we have primary legislation that allows us to drive the NHS into this space and to require and enable the NHS to stay on top of the proper use of data and to modernise its structures and practices can only be a good thing.
I close by saying that I absolutely support clause 47 standing part of the Bill. It has the potential to drive huge improvements in the NHS, both on a local scale and on a more global scale.
Joe Robertson
I will pick up where the hon. Member for Lichfield left off.
I make it clear that a single patient record is not a single electronic record-keeping system. Also, the single patient record is a theory, and it will remain a theory long after this legislation has been passed, as I am sure it will be, unless and until the electronic record-keeping databases and software in this country are able to speak to each other.
I have experience of working for a national nursing charity, and my role specifically dealt with the legal and governance issues of trying to embed community nurses in different settings. However, that work was beset by the problem of different databases—different electronic record-keeping systems—that did not speak to each other. Even those systems that were supposed to speak to each other did not do so. As the hon. Member for Lichfield said, sometimes there can be dozens, even hundreds, within even one NHS trust.
That should not be a problem today, but it is, and the Bill will get us no further on the technicalities and the technology problems we have. These systems are already meant to speak to each other, and we do not need legislation to realise that should be happening. Indeed, there are still paper record-keeping systems in many places up and down the country. The theory of a single patient record is a good one, but it will mean nothing in practice until those paper record-keeping systems have become electronic and then all the electronic systems speak to each other.
That makes me wonder whether a single patient record will ever be realised, regardless of legislation on the model that is supposed to exist. Indeed, the Bill does not mandate a single preferred electronic record-keeping system, and nor should it; there is a competitive market out there in which NHS trusts are free to engage and contract with different providers of electronic record-keeping.
I wrote to the local health bosses in my area after being made aware that the provider of one of their main electronic record-keeping systems had offered to extend the system further throughout the trust in order to save money. However, the trust has not yet responded. I am not in a position to say whether that offer is a better one, but on the face of it, it certainly looked like it would save money because it was a record-keeping system that the trust was already using; it just was not being used across all parts of the trust. That letter has gone unanswered for a year. It is not just a technological issue; there is also a cultural issue of the lack of nimble, joined-up decision making.
Some health bosses, not necessarily those in my area, are unable to take advantage of the financial benefits of changing or adapting to using new systems. Until that is resolved, a single patient record will remain ever wanted but never actually delivered.
To use an analogy, different companies provide the services on people’s mobile phones—the internet access, social media; software and even hardware. Most of us end up with a smartphone that does pretty similar things to every other smartphone and, broadly speaking, all the different apps co-operate with each other. Of course, the major global technology companies have faced legal action in the US, Europe, this country and elsewhere to ensure that their systems talk to each other, and primary legislation has been required to make them do that.
Dave Robertson
The phone analogy is really valuable. I am not an expert on the various architectures that make up phone operating systems, but I know a little about drivers and a little about computer programming languages. The hon. Gentleman is right that all the different bits of hardware in every single phone speak to themselves in a different language. Lots of them use different computer programming languages, and they all require drivers to translate that into whatever the operating system uses.
There are two or three major providers when it comes to mobile phones in the UK: Google and Android, and iOS. There is effectively a requirement on the phone companies that says, “If you want your app to be on our phones, it’s going to have to be able to use this language.” Depending on the operating system, the language will be slightly different, but the commercial requirement that apps must be able to use a certain language obliges the individual app producers and the individual pieces of hardware to have the driver to translate whatever language they use to talk to themselves into the one that works with the operating system.
Does the hon. Gentleman think there is a parallel in the Bill? Having a piece of legislation that requires a single patient record, whatever that looks like and whatever language it uses, potentially shortcuts some of the problems he is talking about with using a plethora of systems. Rather than having 450 systems, which could potentially use 450 languages, and trying to teach all of them all 450 languages, we create the requirement to use a specific language. We then teach all 450 one additional language and they will all be able to feed in—
The Chair
Order. This is a very long intervention. Will the hon. Gentleman please wrap it up?
Joe Robertson
That was a long intervention, but it was helpful. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the legislation is not seeking to require technology companies or the providers of electronic record-keeping systems to be able to talk to each other. It is trying to create the concept of a single patient record, which is good, but it does not mandate a way to achieve that. I do not particularly want to name companies, but a big provider that is already in the health space and that provides electronic record-keeping systems might say, “We can already provide a single patient record. It is for other providers to adapt and feed into our record-keeping system,” and there is nothing in the Bill that says one technology company must adapt to another.
The technological issue is completely unaddressed. I am not even saying that it should be addressed in the Bill, because there are all sorts of issues around competition law and state support for particular companies. It is not a criticism per se of the way in which the Bill drafted, but this is an opportune moment to make the point that absolutely none of the clause will be delivered until a major issue that the Government have not yet addressed is dealt with. That issue is the interoperability of different electronic record-keeping systems provided by the private sector. They are all in competition with each other to get a bigger share of the market; unless and until that is addressed, the Government are not going to realise any of this. I do not want that to be the case. I want the single patient record to be realised, broadly speaking.
Sojan Joseph
I wish to speak in support of clause 47. I spoke on Second Reading about my strong support for the introduction of a single patient record. I am not a tech expert like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—
Sojan Joseph
It really surprised me to hear my hon. Friend talk about his experience of 450 systems in the computer system in his local hospital. I was shocked, because as a clinician who previously worked in the NHS, I wanted a system that made patient records readily available so that we could care for patients.
My understanding is that the clause amends the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a system to make patient information readily available to patients and to those involved in providing health or social care in England. Under the current system, care and treatment across different parts of the NHS are not as co-ordinated as they could and should be. All too often, that means that patients have to repeat their medical history every time they see a different medical professional. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about how that can sometimes be useful for getting the diagnosis right, but it can be very traumatising for someone to have to explain the same story again in such a short period of time.
Speaking in the Chamber, I previously gave the example of a mental health patient going to A&E on a Friday. They tell their story to the professionals there and they tell the same story later when a mental health professional comes to see them. When they are admitted into a mental health hospital, they have to explain the same story when going into the ward, and then again to the nurses. Having to repeat their story again and again is traumatising for most patients.
Dr Johnson
My point was that this can sometimes be beneficial. If a clinician sees a young lady who has collapsed at school, she might have fainted or had a fit. There are a lot of different potential causes, such as cardiac syncope, and lots of different potential diagnoses. A lot of the detail in making the diagnosis is in the history. The patient will probably already have been asked their story when they arrived at A&E, but it is still important for a senior clinician to ask for it again.
My caution was against presuming that we can, in all cases, prevent repeated asking of questions. There would clearly be a benefit when there are particularly sensitive pieces of information, about which we need not ask two, three or four times, but we cannot stop all cases in which a patient is asked for the same story.
Sojan Joseph
Absolutely; a single patient record will not stop professionals from asking the necessary questions of patients at any time. Each ward round, the doctors ask the patients how they are feeling. They will have that conversation; that will not stop. We are talking about repeatedly having to tell the story.
The point was highlighted when the Committee heard from Jacob Lant, the chief executive officer of National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities. In his 15 years of patient and public engagement, the most consistent theme is patients’ frustration at constantly having to retell their story, and the fact that medical notes are not available across different healthcare settings. Not only is that frustrating for patients, but it can also be deeply distressing. Kath Abrahams, the chief executive of Tommy’s, told the Committee that
“Women report constantly having to retell their story—highly sensitive or traumatic experiences of loss—and that repetition can happen across the early pregnancy unit and maternity services.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 66, Q108.]
As medical professionals, we are taught the importance of empathy and understanding, but if the absence of a unified patient record system is aggravating traumatic experiences for patients, we need to address that. The absence of a national unified report can also compromise patient safety and lead to clinicians making decisions based on partial or incomplete information, significantly increasing the risk of error.
We heard evidence of that from the chair of Healthwatch England, who highlighted the risk posed to patients with multiple comorbidities. He said:
“Without a single patient record, we can find that a consultant or a GP has access to only one part of that multiple comorbidity…That can lead to all sorts of unforeseen errors.”
That can result in poor health outcomes, increased hospital admissions and reduced patient trust, which is why he went on to speak about
“the great advantage that we can get from a single patient record.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 49, Q79.]
Experienced mental health patients often move between A&E, GPs and mental health services and have to repeatedly go through that traumatic experience.
I have spoken in the House previously about my deep frustration that the digital records available to me in mental health services in Kent and Medway were incompatible with those used in other parts of the NHS, both locally and across the rest of England. I know that that frustration is shared, so in advance of the Committee’s consideration of clause 47 I spoke to some of my former colleagues, as well as other healthcare professionals in my constituency, to find out what systems are used to record patient information.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Gentleman is making the point that I have been trying to. He referred to a number of companies that each provide an electronic record-keeping system. The Bill does not mandate those companies to speak to each other and create a single patient record; there is no requirement on those private companies to do anything. As they are in competition with each other, their answer could be, “We can provide the single patient record—we are already doing it—if you just use more of our system and pay us more money.”
I am not suggesting that this is the hon. Gentleman’s responsibility, but does he have anything to say about the practicalities of a single patient record as a theory and the interoperability of electronic record keeping—a practical thing not dealt with in the Bill?
Sojan Joseph
My patient record is currently kept by different organisations or providers, which cannot see each other. If I speak to the GP about my blood sugar and then end up in A&E, they cannot see that record. If I go to the mental health service, they cannot see what medication I was taking. When I get discharged back to the GP, he will not get the information on my medication. That is the clinical aspect I am talking about, although I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I hope the Minister will address some of those issues.
The responses I collected demonstrate how disparate and fragmented digital record systems are within just one local area. I do not think any of our constituents are aware that their data is kept in different places and that the services do not talk to each other. That is what the Bill is trying to address. All that information will be available for doctors, nurses and any other healthcare providers so that they can see patients’ history and medication and those patients will be more safe. Things will be more transparent. It will be easier for admission to discharge processes.
Dr Johnson
There is no detail in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East said, there is nothing in the legislation requiring the computers in his local area to talk to the computers in my local area.
Sojan Joseph
I hope that would be the outcome of this legislation. I will give an example. My constituency is very close to Dover. Lots of travellers go through Ashford, my constituency. We often get patients from Scotland, Manchester or Liverpool, for whom doctors cannot start a treatment because they have to wait 24 hours to 48 hours to get the information from the hospital where the person comes from. I am not saying that the story is the same across the country, but that is what we are experiencing.
Dr Johnson
In the event that someone from Scotland comes into the hon. Gentleman’s hospital near Dover and a doctor wants to look at their healthcare record, does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the doctor will log on to their local system and see the records from Scotland, or that they will have access to the Scottish system to look at the records directly there?
Sojan Joseph
I do not know whether there will be the same system in Scotland, but my understanding is that in the north of England doctors will be able to see the same system. Again, we can hear more detail from the Minister.
A single patient report has the potential to transform patient experience and safety by ensuring continuity of care, by reducing unnecessary repetition, by enabling better informed clinical decisions and the smoother discharge of patients, and by creating a more efficient and joined up healthcare system.
Gregory Stafford
I thank all those who have spoken so far in this debate. I have never seen the hon. Member for Lichfield so animated—Data Dave is clearly alive and well.
As we have discussed, the clause creates the legal power for a single patient record in the UK. It is important to say, as others have, that the Bill does not create the system but gives the Secretary of State the power to create it later through regulation. That does not mean, however, that we should not have a debate about some of the issues that we have raised.
I should state at the start that I support better information sharing when that helps patients receive safer and better care, and I think that the single patient record could well do that. Anyone who has worked in healthcare, as I have, knows the frustration that results from the records not following patients between services. Clinicians can lose valuable time in searching for information, if they can get it at all. As others have said, patients are often asked to repeat the same details over and again—not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East rightly said, because it gives a richer experience but simply because people do not have the information. Better joined up records have the potential to improve care.
We have, however, been here before. I was a lot younger—we all were—but back in 2002, the national programme for IT, under the last Labour Government, was a £10 billion unmitigated disaster, which the Public Accounts Committee described as
“one of the worst and most expensive contracting fiascos in the history of the public sector.”
I want to make sure that there are safeguards, from both a contracting and a data safety point of view, so that we do not go down that route again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East clearly outlined, creating such a record is fiendishly complicated from both a technology and patient information point of view and from a data sharing and data protection point of view.
The record could contain some of the most sensitive information about people, so Parliament has the responsibility to make sure that the legal framework is right. We also know that the record will work only if the data in the single patient record is worth the electronic paper that it is electronically printed on. As I am sure the Minister knows from her time in the NHS, the information is getting better but continues to be patchy across the country. Different trusts and organisations record things in different ways. I take my hat off to those who work in clinical coding, as they do one of the most difficult jobs in a trust. Again, we need to make sure that the data is accurate. Someone mentioned AI earlier; I think AI could help with that, but we are still some way off.
I want to canter through my concerns about the breadth of the powers being given under the clause. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing the system and to decide how it operates. Those regulations may require or authorise the sharing and processing of patient information, decide who can access the information and create enforcement powers and financial penalties. Some of those important questions are not answered in the Bill. Parliament is being asked to approve a broad framework before seeing some of the detail.
My second concern is that the Bill says little about patient choice. There is no clear statement about whether patients will have the right to opt in or out and no explanation of whether patients can restrict access to all or part of their records. There is no mention of whether someone could choose to limit access to particularly sensitive information, such as mental health records, sexual health information or information about substance dependence. There are major questions for public trust but those are left, I would say, entirely to future regulations. We need clarity about them now.
My third concern is the scope of the information that may be included. The definition of “patient information” is extraordinarily broad. It covers information about physical health, mental health, diagnosis, treatment and care, including social care. The definition of “patient” includes people receiving social care or having their care needs assessed. What we do not know from the Bill is exactly how that data will be presented. Will it use language that a patient can understand? Will it talk about having a heart attack, or will it use medical information that a medical professional will need to assess? Or will it include both, so that the patient knows that they have had a heart attack, for example, but the medic can see the precise detail on what sort of transient ischaemic attack it was. We need to understand what the data is recording and at what level of detail.
Dr Johnson
If it is to include both, who will translate it into the simplest form and how much will that cost?
Gregory Stafford
Precisely. These questions need to be thought about when the Government are creating this system.
As hon. Members have described in their speeches and in their amendments, the system could contain much wider information, including highly sensitive information about disability, safeguarding, care assessments, addiction, pregnancy, military service, caring responsibilities and many other personal matters. This is not simply about a hospital record; it is about bringing together health and social care information. That makes it even more important—indeed, essential—that safeguards be clear and robust.
That leads me on to my fourth issue, which is confidentiality. The Bill says that where information is processed under the regulations, doing so will not breach any duty of confidence. I think that that is a significant legal challenge and change. Confidentiality has been one of the foundations of healthcare. Of course there are already situations in which information can and should be shared, but where Parliament is creating a new legal basis for disclosure, it is reasonable to expect strong safeguards alongside it.
That brings me to my next concern. The Bill says that the Secretary of State must have regard to the need for “adequate safeguards”. That is welcome, of course, but the Bill does not say what those safeguards are. There is nothing in it about role-based access controls, audit logs or whether patients would be able to see who had looked at their records. There is nothing about minimum cyber-security standards, about how inappropriate access will be detected or about independent oversight. Those matters may appear later in regulations or in guidance, but they are not guaranteed in the Bill.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for his clear summary, at the start of his speech, about what we are discussing, which is the regulations. He and other Members have rightly pointed out many issues that need to be resolved, but does he agree that the proper way to work through this very detailed and very real concern is through the regulations, which will come with expert advice and ensure that we cover all these points properly?
Gregory Stafford
On the hon. Lady’s specific question, I agree: the regulations will answer these questions. But I think it is entirely appropriate to have them asked here and to have a statement of the principles, at least, on a number of these things from Ministers, so that within a broad scope we can ensure that the Bill is appropriate. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, for example, seek to do so. They were clearly within the scope of the Bill; otherwise, they would not have been accepted.
The next issue is geographical scope, which I do not think anyone has touched on yet. The Bill allows information to be made available to people involved in
“health care or social care anywhere in the British Islands”.
That naturally raises questions about governance across different health systems. How will information be shared between England and the devolved nations? I think my hon. Friend mentioned some of the self-governing territories. I assume that she meant the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and places like that—Crown dependencies. What rules will apply? How will accountability work where different organisations operate under different arrangements? Again, the Bill does not answer those questions.
Helen Morgan
The cross-border point is really important. A number of people will come into England from Wales to have their secondary care delivered, because that care is not available in Wales. The single patient record will presumably not be available to the clinicians in the hospitals in England who are dealing with the patients. I wonder whether we should consider how that will work when we get to the regulation stage, because other systems will clearly be needed to deal with the people who are coming from outside England to be treated in English hospitals and other settings.
Gregory Stafford
I read the clause differently. I am sure that the Minister can provide an answer, but my reading is that the single patient record could be—but not necessarily that it must be—used in Wales and Scotland as well. I do not know whether it has to be used, but the clause, as I read it, suggests that it would be. If a patient is travelling from Oswestry to somewhere in Shropshire or vice versa—
Gregory Stafford
My geography A-level has clearly departed me. If a patient is travelling from somewhere in Wales to Shropshire, the single patient record would be used. That also presents challenges the other way, if Wales and Scotland are using different technological solutions and systems and operating under different legal frameworks. That is especially the case for Scotland: it has quite a different legal system from England and Wales, so there could be issues.
Dr Johnson
The clause says that information could be made available
“to people involved in the provision to patients of health care or social care anywhere in the British Islands”.
That implies that the English system will be used to share information with people outside England—in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—but it does not imply that those areas will necessarily have the same systems to share information with us.
Gregory Stafford
That is an interesting question. I do not know the answer, but perhaps the Minister can pick that up.
The Bill also creates powers for financial penalties. It sets out a process for notices and opportunities to make representations and a right of appeal. Those procedural protections are sensible, but the Bill does not tell us who might be fined or what conduct would trigger a penalty, and it does not set out a maximum penalty level. Those decisions, again, are left to regulations.
It is also important to remember that the Bill does not replace existing data protection law, as I think the Minister outlined in her opening remarks. Organisations will still have to comply with the Data Protection Act and other UK data protection rules. However, the Bill would provide a new statutory basis for processing information through the single patient record. That makes the wording of the Bill especially important. Ultimately, public confidence will determine whether the system succeeds. People are generally willing for information to be shared when it improves their care, but they also expect transparency, security and accountability and expect to know who can see their information and why. Those expectations are entirely reasonable.
There are several questions that I believe the Committee should ask before these powers are granted. Will patients have a genuine choice about participation? Will they be able to restrict access to particularly sensitive parts of their records? Who exactly will be able to access the system? Will patients be able to see a record of who has viewed their information? What minimum standards will apply? How will misuse be identified and punished? What independent oversight will exist? Those are not technical details; they are central to public confidence.
In conclusion, the clause will create a legal framework rather than a system itself. It will give broad powers to establish the single patient record while leaving many of the most important questions to future regulations. Clearly most people support the goal of improving patient care, but because the system will involve some of the most personal information that people have, Parliament should ensure that patient rights, safeguards, transparency and accountability are clearly built into the framework from the beginning. It should ensure that questions are asked now rather than decided on later.
Karin Smyth
I turn first to new clause 7. Patient data is at the heart of the NHS, and it is important to help plan and run health and social care services; we have discussed that before, and a lot of these points have already been recorded in our earlier conversations. The security and privacy of people’s health and care data are paramount. To be clear, the Bill does not rewrite our data protection laws; it works alongside them, allowing the NHS to use existing, lawful frameworks to share information safely and legally for the direct care of patients. Article 25 of the UK general data protection regulation already applies to the federated data platform, and will apply to the single patient record. The new clause is therefore not necessary.
In the NHS, there are different ways in which patient information is used, and not all of them involve asking for explicit consent each time. For example, if a GP refers someone to a hospital, that person would not expect the clinician reviewing the case to ask their permission before looking at their medical record; their agreement is understood as part of seeking care. That is called implied consent. Although a national data opt-out exists, it applies only to data used for secondary purposes such as research and planning.
The single patient record is expected to operate roles-based access control, whereby permission to access patient information is restricted to authorised users only, with an audit trail of who has accessed the patient’s data. Inappropriate or unauthorised access to health records, often referred to as snooping, is a serious offence. There are mechanisms to manage that, including prosecution and fines.
In 2025-26, we invested £75 million across health and social care, building on the £375 million invested since 2017. Through our ambitious cyber improvement programme, we are tackling the changing cyber risk head on, expanding protection and services to better protect the health and care system. The single patient record system is expected to be assessed as critical national infrastructure, with the highest standards of cyber-security and information governance to meet our existing duties to keep personal data safe under the data protection legislative framework.
I turn to new clause 8. No decision has been made about who will be the IT suppliers of the single patient record. It is expected and intended that it will be delivered through contracts with multiple suppliers, which will reduce dependency on a single supplier. Furthermore, no decision has been made as to how, if at all, the single patient record will link to existing infrastructure such as the federated data platform. As hon. Members will expect, I would not support using the Bill to try to rewrite the contract for the federated data platform.
Hon. Members have discussed a wide range of issues relating to this area. They probably know that negotiating the intellectual property in relation to software in digital services is complex and often contentious. The new clause would make it a condition of any single patient record IT supplier contract that the NHS owns the intellectual property in data connector software, regardless of the circumstances. In practical terms, that would be likely to disincentivise suppliers from offering their services if they were required to sacrifice the IP of a product. It is unnecessary to impose such a condition, as there are other ways in which the NHS can ensure that software is reusable, such as broad general licences to use the data connector software in whatever manner, requirements to use industry standard code and interfaces, and information standards.
The recent changes to the NHS information standards in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 make relevant IT suppliers accountable for meeting information standards and enable the Government to monitor and enforce compliance with information standards by IT suppliers. We wish to see a vibrant UK market in digital and technology, while ensuring that patients get the best technology to improve care outcomes and to keep the NHS financially sustainable. That will give the NHS more choice and help to improve standards while supporting economic growth.
We have had what they call a wide-ranging discussion on some things that are not actually in the clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that it is absolutely right, and we have heard some excellent examples from Members with clinical experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will now be forever known as Data Dave—sorry about that. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has clinical experience and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has NHS experience, as do I. That experience is really valuable. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments and had a long list of questions, most of which are addressed in various pieces of information that we have put forward. However, I take the point about the intellectual difficulties of what the clause does. We all agree with it, as does the country, and patients think it already happens.
We are an outlier in this sphere. The Government are going to change that situation. However, these questions and concerns are the reason why we take through secondary legislation, which is something that we all understand but the outside world does not. We need to bring people with us. Our officials have come to talk to Members of Parliament about the Bill. I am open to suggestions from Members about the best way to address the issues, and particularly about the best way to inform Members on behalf of constituents. These discussions are important to building public trust and security.
I will finish on a broader point. I commend clause 47, which gives an enabling power, but let us be very clear that patient information will still be held in the system in which it was originally created. These bodies, whether GPs or hospitals, will continue to be responsible for ensuring that the data is handled securely and lawfully and is accessed for valid reasons only. As I mentioned earlier, we have shared systems operating already. Some parts of the country and some of our constituents are already experiencing some of the benefits of a shared system. We will use that experience and learn the lessons of the past, under whichever Government, to build for the rest of the country the shared systems that some people have already. We will come on later to provisions on devolution arrangements, on working for the future and on operating more efficiently across devolved areas.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for clarifying that the data will continue to be stored and held in the databases in the electronic record-keeping system where it is currently kept. I am not looking for her to give me a detailed solution on the spot, but does she accept that unless there is seamless interoperability across all those systems the single patient record will not be realised, and that we are still an awfully long way from seamless interoperability across England, let alone the UK?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to spend the next hour talking about the shocking state of the capital and infrastructure systems that we inherited from the previous Government, but I will not. Of course they do not work: that is one of the biggest issues around staff morale. We saw through the 10-year health plan, particularly with clinicians having to log on to nearly 10 different systems, how that impedes progress and efficiency at a local level. Where it is rolled out, the federated data platform helps to make systems more efficient, particularly in local hospitals. We heard in our evidence sessions about maternity and frailty, which are the areas in which we will be testing and rolling out this approach to make the best use of it on the ground. Alongside that, the work to make systems more interoperable and efficient at a local level continues. I commend clause 47 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Information about health service products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Karin Smyth
Clause 48 will make amendments to the health service products legislative information gateway to allow the Government to continue to disclose certain information concerning the pricing and supply of health service products, which are items that include medicines that are used in the NHS. We recognise the importance of the effective flow of information between central Government about the pricing and supply of health service products to the NHS. Data sharing is governed by a clear legal framework defining who can access it and under what conditions. That supports the controls that the Government are able to exercise in relation to the pricing and supply of health service products.
Clause 48 will maintain the current safeguards for confidential and commercially sensitive data, ensuring continuity as NHS England’s functions are redistributed to the Secretary of State and integrated care boards. It will achieve that by enabling the Secretary of State to share pricing and supply information with people who provide services to them, such as primary care providers. That is essential to preserve the sharing of information and operation of the service that they provide for patients where that process is currently managed by NHS England.
As a consequence of the changes being made, the Secretary of State will be able to share relevant information with third-party service providers, such as providers of the software that primary care service providers use. They will be able to receive relevant data to make lawful disclosures of that information for specific purposes, those being the provision of certain services to the primary care service provider. This will ensure that there is no disruption to how data flows across the system.
This change will simply enable those who receive essential data to continue to do so following the abolition of NHS England. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Health and social care information: delegation of functions
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 50 stand part.
Amendment 6, in schedule 7, page 96, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—
“For section 255 (power to request NHS England to establish information systems), substitute—
‘255 Powers to request the Secretary of State to establish information systems
(1) Any person (including a devolved authority) may request the Secretary of State to establish and operate a system for the collection or analysis of information of a description specified in the request.
(2) A request may be made under subsection (1) by a person only if the person considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the person to have in relation to the person's exercise of functions, or carrying out of activities, in connection with the provision of health care or adult social care.
(3) The Secretary of State must comply with a mandatory request unless the Secretary of State considers that the request relates to information of a description prescribed in regulations.
(4) For the purposes of this Chapter a request under subsection (1) is a mandatory request if—
(a) it is made by a principal body, and
(b) the body considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the body to have in relation to its discharge of a duty in connection with the provision of health services or of adult social care in England.
(5) Subsection (6) applies where the Secretary of State has discretion under this section as to whether to comply with—
(a) a mandatory request, or
(b) any other request under subsection (1).
(6) In deciding whether to comply with the request, the Secretary of State —
(a) must, in particular, consider whether doing so would interfere to an unreasonable extent with the exercise by the Secretary of State of any of its functions, and
(b) may take into account the extent to which the principal body or other person making the request has had regard to—
(i) the code of practice prepared and published by the Secretary of State under section 263, and
(ii) advice or guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 265.
(7) In this section “principal body” means—
(a) the Care Quality Commission,
(b) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and
(c) such other persons as may be prescribed in regulations.
(8) In this Chapter “health care” includes all forms of health care whether relating to physical or mental health and also includes procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition.’”
This amendment would enable the Care Quality Commission and NICE to continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system, following the transfer of NHS England’s functions.
Amendment 7, in schedule 7, page 100, leave out paragraph 14.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Schedule 7.
Karin Smyth
Clauses 49 and 50 explain our approach to the transfer of NHS England’s existing data and information functions to the Secretary of State. Slightly counterintuitively, I will start with clause 50 before turning to clause 49.
Clause 50 inserts schedule 7, which takes existing NHS England information functions and transfers them to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as part of a single centre for data and digital policy in the NHS. The schedule also includes changes to existing information functions. This will support the shift from analogue to digital and allow us to make the most of opportunities from data and AI, as set out in the 10-year health plan. The changes will not weaken the fundamental safeguards in place to protect health and care data, nor fundamentally change rules relating to how confidential patient information can be used.
I will now outline some key changes made by the clause. It will ensure that information systems for the NHS are set up, where appropriate, not just for the collection and analysis of data but for processing more generally. This will make it easier to support machine learning and artificial intelligence activities, among other uses of data.
The clause extends the extent of chapter 2 of part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to the whole of the UK, and provides for the Secretary of State to establish information systems in the interests of the health service or adult social care in England, or in connection with the provision of care across the British Isles, as NHS England currently can.
The clause enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance to health and social care bodies on the processing of information. It transfers to the Secretary of State NHS England’s powers to require and request information, and such requests will be able specify the form, manner and time within which the information requested is to be provided.
The clause also allows the Secretary of State to publish information obtained in the operation of an information system, including information about service providers. Where NHS England had a duty to publish such information, it is right that the Secretary of State should retain discretion in that regard. Obviously, there may be circumstances in which the publication of data would not be appropriate, and the clause does not give the Secretary of State complete freedom to publish personal information. The Secretary of State may publish personal information without patient consent only where it is for the protection of life or health, or for the protection of public safety or security. It is possible that there could be circumstances—for example, in relation to infectious disease—in which information is published that could lead to an individual being identified. None the less, the change simplifies the process of publication while maintaining a high bar for the publication of personal information.
The Secretary of State’s power to disclose information—for example, to health bodies—other than by publication will be slightly different from NHS England’s current power. The grounds for disclosing personal information will largely mirror the current grounds, with a few additions, including in respect of facilitating clinical trials or other research. This will help to address barriers to data access for research while preserving existing rules on confidentiality. As with his powers of publication, the Secretary of State will also be able to disclose information for the protection of life or health, or for the protection of public safety or security.
The Secretary of State will be bound by certain existing duties on NHS England, including a duty to have regard to any relevant advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group when publishing or disclosing information in accordance with his data functions. The Secretary of State will retain the regulation-making power to establish an accreditation scheme for information service providers, which will now include a broader range of providers, including public bodies.
Clause 49 permits the Secretary of State to delegate certain functions relating to health and care information. Currently, some of those functions can be delegated by NHSE via arrangements with third parties or under regulations. The clause will insert new section 251ZF, which allows the Secretary of State, by arrangement, to delegate to persons specified in regulations functions relating to information standards.
Information standards help to reduce fragmentation in digital and data services. They include mandatory requirements for how information is recorded, shared, governed and supported by IT. Increasing interoperability and consistency in digital and data is essential to increasing value for money, reducing the burden on staff and, ultimately, improving the quality of care. The continued use of information standards is key to the 10-year health plan’s aim of improving the interoperability of digital and data services across the health and care system. This will provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to delegate such functions to persons who have the required technical expertise, where necessary.
Clause 49 will also insert new section 277G, which enables the Secretary of State to direct public bodies to exercise a wider range of his information functions, defined as “relevant information functions”. This includes not only information standards but other information functions, such as the Secretary of State’s duty to establish and operate information systems. The measures will provide the Secretary of State with important flexibility to delegate such functions to persons who have the required technical expertise, where necessary.
In all, the changes are necessary not just to effect the transfer of data functions to the Secretary of State but to enable better data use for the benefit of the NHS now and into the future.
Dr Johnson
I have a couple of questions. In lots of ways the provisions derive from clause 1 and the abolition of NHS England. Schedule 7 refers to operating a system in the interests of the health service, which is not the same as operating it in the interests of the patients. Does the Minister have any comments on that? The Nuffield Trust has pointed out that schedule 7 would not pass over to the Secretary of State NHSE’s duty to report to Parliament. Is that because the Minister thinks that duty is duplicated elsewhere and is therefore not necessary?
Under the previous legislation, the Care Quality Commission was slightly stronger and could make a mandatory request that NHS England establish a system, and NHS England had to comply with that unless it related to an existing exception. Now if the CQC makes a request, it goes to the Secretary of State, and whether it is agreed to is then somewhat more optional. Will the Minister say why she needs to change that power?
Helen Morgan
I want to speak to amendment 6, which is tabled in my name, and amendment 7, which is consequential upon it. Amendment 6 would ensure that the CQC and NICE can
“continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system”,
as they currently can with NHS England. At the moment, NHS England has a duty to co-operate with the CQC and NICE, and that is often enough for a collaborative approach that allows the CQC to access the data it needs.
But the duty that applies to NHS England is not being passed on to the Department of Health and Social Care. The CQC raised the issue in written evidence to the Committee, saying that the duty
“has been an important mechanism”
that has
“supported receipt of patient safety incident reports…information sharing between regional teams, and the development of central data sharing solutions.”
The CQC went on:
“Without an equivalent duty, we would be reliant on there being sufficient capacity and willingness within DHSC to share information, with no statutory backstop. This could inhibit our ability to receive the information”
needed
“to keep people who use services safe. Challenges in this area are often cultural and rely on the subjective judgment of individual data controllers as to whether particular data sets can be shared, how these should be used and what the timeliness of sharing should be, leading to protracted piecemeal conversations and delays.”
As we have harrowingly heard over the past week, there is often reluctance to share data, particularly when there is a defensive culture in certain NHS institutions. Our amendment seeks to address the gap. I hope that what I have outlined is an oversight from the Government, not a deliberate attempt to reduce transparency or reduce regulator access to key data. The wider changes in schedule 11 will omit section 288 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Government are dropping this key wider duty in a schedule entitled “Minor and consequential amendments”. We do not think it is minor. It holds major implications for patient safety and transparency.
On a wider note, it seems counterintuitive that the CQC, as regulator, does not have easy access to the data collected nationally in the health service.
Karin Smyth
Let me respond to the hon. Member for North Shropshire on amendments 6 and 7. As she said, amendment 7 is consequential on amendment 6, so I will take them together.
I think we can all agree that the CQC and NICE should have access to the information they need to undertake their important work. Amendment 6 is not required to ensure that. Clause 50, and the associated changes in schedule 7, maintain the current ability for any person, including NICE and the CQC, to request the establishment and operation of an information system. However, NICE and the CQC will not be able to make the equivalent mandatory request they used to be able to make to NHS England because NHS England is to be abolished.
Amendment 6 seeks to maintain the current position when, in reality, mandatory requests were practically never made under the current arrangements. They were thought necessary when a separate arm’s length body had responsibility for collecting data about healthcare. There is no need for the Secretary of State to be subject to the same mandatory requirement as they are responsible for oversight of the entirety of the NHS and the adult social care system, and for its effective regulation.
Furthermore, the CQC has a statutory power, under section 64 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to require the provision of
“documents, records (including personal and medical records) or other items”
the CQC considers “necessary or expedient” for the purposes of its regulatory functions, from a range of health and social care commissioners and providers.
On amendment 7, the Government agree that a code of practice setting out strict standards for how health and care organisations must handle confidential patient information is an important component of a healthcare system that uses data safely and effectively. That is why clause 50 allows for the insertion of new section 252ZA into the National Health Service Act 2006, to transfer to the Secretary of State the duty to publish a code of practice on confidential patient information. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire not to press amendments 6 and 7 to a vote.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about duplication. I think the answer to her question is yes, but if that is not correct, I will make sure that I respond to her accordingly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Health and social care information systems etc
Amendment proposed: 6, in schedule 7, page 96, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—
“For section 255 (power to request NHS England to establish information systems), substitute—
‘255 Powers to request the Secretary of State to establish information systems
(1) Any person (including a devolved authority) may request the Secretary of State to establish and operate a system for the collection or analysis of information of a description specified in the request.
(2) A request may be made under subsection (1) by a person only if the person considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the person to have in relation to the person's exercise of functions, or carrying out of activities, in connection with the provision of health care or adult social care.
(3) The Secretary of State must comply with a mandatory request unless the Secretary of State considers that the request relates to information of a description prescribed in regulations.
(4) For the purposes of this Chapter a request under subsection (1) is a mandatory request if—
(a) it is made by a principal body, and
(b) the body considers that the information which could be obtained by complying with the request is information which it is necessary or expedient for the body to have in relation to its discharge of a duty in connection with the provision of health services or of adult social care in England.
(5) Subsection (6) applies where the Secretary of State has discretion under this section as to whether to comply with—
(a) a mandatory request, or
(b) any other request under subsection (1).
(6) In deciding whether to comply with the request, the Secretary of State —
(a) must, in particular, consider whether doing so would interfere to an unreasonable extent with the exercise by the Secretary of State of any of its functions, and
(b) may take into account the extent to which the principal body or other person making the request has had regard to—
(i) the code of practice prepared and published by the Secretary of State under section 263, and
(ii) advice or guidance given by the Secretary of State under section 265.
(7) In this section “principal body” means—
(a) the Care Quality Commission,
(b) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and
(c) such other persons as may be prescribed in regulations.
(8) In this Chapter “health care” includes all forms of health care whether relating to physical or mental health and also includes procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition.’”—(Helen Morgan.)
This amendment would enable the Care Quality Commission and NICE to continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system, following the transfer of NHS England’s functions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Karin Smyth
Clause 51 makes changes to section 42 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, which governs how information collected at the registration of births, deaths and other life events may be shared for specific purposes. That information plays a vital role in supporting public services, including health service planning, population analysis and the delivery of care. The UK Statistics Authority may already share this registration data directly with a range of public bodies, including the Secretary of State and integrated care boards.
Clause 51 adds NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in England to that list, providing a clear statutory route for sharing statistically codified registration data with trusts and foundation trusts responsible for delivering services on the ground. The clause is not about expanding the type of information that can be shared or widening the purposes for which it may be used, and does not create new datasets or weaken existing safeguards. All information sharing remains subject to the same statutory controls and protections that already apply. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Arrangements with devolved authorities etc about information services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Karin Smyth
Clauses 52 to 57 are vital. The Committee has discussed our relationship with colleagues in the devolved authorities; these clauses ensure that arrangements with devolved authorities and the Crown dependencies can continue following the abolition of NHS England.
Turning first to clauses 52 to 54, although healthcare is devolved in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the devolved Governments currently make arrangements with NHS England to deliver a number of functions on their behalf. Clauses 52 to 54 enable those existing arrangements to continue following the abolition by giving the powers to the Secretary of State. The policy intent is not to impact or reach into devolved competencies, but to secure continuity and legal clarity through existing cross-border and UK-wide arrangements involving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is about making sure that the current expertise and resources of NHS England remain available to devolved authorities once these functions merge with the Department of Health and Social Care.
The clauses will not give the Secretary of State any ability or power to do anything in relation to devolved authorities other than as mutually agreed. Arrangements will be fully voluntary and do not create a power for unilateral action; rather, they ensure that, where co-operation is wanted, there is a proper legal basis for it.
Under clause 52, the Secretary of State takes on the data functions of NHS England and, on request from the devolved authorities, to make arrangements for the provision of information services. Clause 52 additionally applies to Crown dependencies. There are a number of such arrangements already in place between NHS England, the devolved authorities and the Crown dependencies.
For example, NHS England provides the NHS login service for the NHS Wales app, as well as the electronic prescription service for Wales, and NHS England collects and analyses data for audits that span multiple devolved authorities, such as the national audit of pulmonary hypertension. These provisions will support continuity of those arrangements. We are making sure that, if it is appropriate, data functions that are transferring to the Secretary of State can be delegated. Proposed new section 294B of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 will allow that power to likewise be delegated to an appropriate public body.
Clause 53 provides a clear statutory basis for the Secretary of State, by agreement with the devolved administrations’ health bodies, to make commissioning arrangements for the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland health services. This clause will help to ensure continuity for patients across the United Kingdom, reducing the risk of disruption, and support the effective commissioning of services where cross-border work remains the right approach.
Clause 54 enables the Secretary of State, by agreement with a devolved authority, to exercise certain education and training functions on that authority’s behalf and to provide services or facilities in connection with those functions. Education and training arrangements often work best when they are co-ordinated efficiently and supported by shared systems. At a time when every part of the health service needs a strong pipeline of skilled staff, it is vital that useful joint arrangements can continue with clarity and confidence as responsibility is transferred from NHS England to the Secretary of State. The clause updates the statutory framework and helps to ensure that shared arrangements supporting recruitment, training cycles and workforce planning can continue following the abolition of NHS England.
Clause 55 relates to clauses 53 and 54. The agreed arrangements are effective only if they can deliver in a practical and efficient way, which is why this clause enables the Secretary of State to direct a public body to exercise some or all of the Secretary of State’s functions under arrangements made with the devolved authorities in relation to commissioning or education and training under section 295 or section 296A of the 2012 Act. In short, it provides a mechanism to ensure that functions under agreed commissioning and education and training arrangements with devolved authorities can be exercised by the most appropriate public body in England. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to direct the public body in how those functions are to be exercised, including in relation to information obtained in the course of exercising them. It also requires directions to be published. Those features support both operational clarity and accountability.
On clause 56, public authorities in the Crown dependencies may seek expert advice or practical assistance from the health system in England. Following the abolition of NHS England, this clause transfers the existing power from NHS England to the Secretary of State, and provides a clear legal basis for the Secretary of State or ICBs to provide that advice and assistance for purposes connected with the provision of healthcare. The clause also makes clear that advice or assistance may be provided on such terms as a provider considers appropriate, allowing support to be given in a practical and transparent way that is tailored to the circumstances of the case, whether that involves technical advice, specialist expertise or other practical assistance in connection with the provision of healthcare.
Finally, on clause 57, clarity and consistency in legislation depends on clear definitions, particularly where a group of provisions are intended to operate together as a coherent scheme. This clause does not create any new powers or duties; rather, it provides the necessary interpretive framework to support the operation of the preceding clauses and ensure legal certainty and clarity. As a group, these clauses play a vital role in ensuring that existing arrangements with our devolved authorities and the Crown dependencies can continue following the abolition of NHS England. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 53 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Gentlemen may take off their jackets off if they wish.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of reducing levels of premature deaths from heart disease and stroke.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank hon. Members for attending the debate.
Cardiovascular disease remains one of the United Kingdom’s biggest killers and one of the greatest public health challenges facing our country. It devastates families, communities and livelihoods in every corner of the UK. It has touched countless families, including my own. My challenge is not cardiovascular disease but a congenital heart defect— a silent killer that was diagnosed last year following a routine health check. I am still completely symptom-free, but will have to have open heart surgery to replace my aortic valve at some point. I am, however, in the very safe hands of the NHS.
Today is about ensuring that the voices of those living with cardiovascular conditions are heard in the House, but it is also about something even more fundamental. For the first time in more than half a century, we have seen progress on cardiovascular disease moving in the wrong direction. The question before us today is simple: are we willing to accept that, or are we prepared to tackle it? With the right political will and the right action, we can once again make the UK a country in which fewer people die young from heart disease and stroke.
The debate also comes at a significant moment for the British Heart Foundation. That charity, which was founded in July 1961, marks this month 65 years of funding lifesaving research. I am pleased that representatives of the foundation are here with us today, and I thank them all for the crucial support that they continue to champion and deliver day after day.
Let me move on to the scale of the challenge that we face. CVD is responsible for about 170,000 deaths each year in the UK—that is more than one quarter of all recorded annual deaths—with one life lost every three minutes. Put simply, while we hold the debate this afternoon, about 30 lives could be lost to CVD—let that sink in. More than 8 million people across the country are living with CVD, with many waiting for vital care, and many more living with conditions that increase their risk of CVD or a cardiac event. Yet much of that burden is not inevitable; it is preventable. About 70% of CVD cases in the UK are linked to modifiable factors such as obesity and smoking, alongside manageable risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.
While I am on the subject of diabetes, it is great to see one of my closest friends, Mr Jared Fox, sitting in the Public Gallery. This is also very personal for Jared, a type 1 diabetic who, back in 2018, suffered three heart attacks linked to his diabetes, resulting in his undergoing a triple heart bypass. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as the saying goes, and Jared is sitting with us now and smiling away, but I believe that, as a diabetic at higher risk, he should have undergone screening, not been left to get almost to the point of dying, unaware of the increased risks that he faced.
British Heart Foundation analysis shows that, despite decades of progress, premature deaths from CVD have been rising again for the first time in more than half a century. That should concern every single Member of the House. The cost is not just measured in lives; CVD also has a major economic impact, costing the UK an estimated £12 billion in direct healthcare each year and costing the wider economy about £30 billion.
CVD is also a stark reminder of health inequalities in the UK today as well. People in our most deprived communities are still far more likely to die prematurely from CVD than those living in the most affluent areas. That is just not acceptable.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important and passionate speech, especially in the light of the personal circumstances that he mentioned. I agree with him about deprivation. Does he agree that access to fresh, affordable food is incredibly important, particularly in the most deprived areas? In Castlemilk in my constituency, it is much easier to get a bottle of vodka than it is to get a banana. Does he agree that fixing that is part of the solution?
Mr Foster
I absolutely agree. If we could get fresh food to more of our communities and young people, it would have a massive positive effect on dealing with CVD—that must be dealt with.
This debate could not be more timely. The Government have rightly identified CVD as one of the UK’s biggest killers, and have set a welcome ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% over the next decade. Parliament has a responsibility not just to welcome those commitments, but to scrutinise how they will be delivered.
The forthcoming CVD modern service framework for England, which Ministers have said will be published soon, presents a rare opportunity to reset our approach to heart health, but the real question is whether it will be equal to the scale of the challenge before us. This debate is also an important opportunity to press the Government on what the framework will contain, how it will be implemented and whether it will deliver significant improvements in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. Although the framework will focus on England, the challenge of CVD knows no borders. This is a UK-wide challenge, and the lessons, opportunities and ambitions that we discuss today must resonate across all four of our nations.
Let me move on to the role of research and innovation. If CVD is one of our greatest challenges, research is one of our greatest opportunities. The remarkable progress made over the past six decades did not happen by accident; it happened thanks to charities such as the British Heart Foundation, great universities, researchers, clinicians and patients, who all worked together to transform outcomes. People like Jared are alive today thanks to research breakthroughs that were once thought impossible.
The life sciences sector plan recognises the UK’s potential to be a world leader in research and innovation. Cardiovascular health must be at the heart of that ambition. From artificial intelligence and technology that can prevent and enable early diagnosis to the development of cutting-edge treatments and medicines, the United Kingdom has an opportunity not only to improve outcomes here at home, but to lead the world in tackling cardiovascular disease.
I respectfully ask the Minister not to simply restate the Government’s ambition, but to detail how that ambition will become reality for the 8 million-plus people who are affected daily by cardiovascular disease. Let me ask some specific questions. First, when does the Minister think the modern service framework for CVD will be published? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the framework is backed by clear delivery plans, accountability and measurable milestones, especially during a time of great challenge and change for the national health service?
Thirdly, what action will be taken to improve prevention, early diagnosis and management of major risk factors such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and atrial fibrillation? Fourthly, how will the Government ensure that action on CVD reduces health inequalities? And fifthly, how will the Government work with devolved Administrations, researchers, charities, clinicians and patients to deliver progress across the entire United Kingdom?
The UK has made significant progress on cardiovascular disease before, and we can do so again, but progress is not inevitable. It requires leadership, sustained investment and a laser focus on delivery. This is a pivotal moment, and we should all look to support the Government in their delivery of their cardiovascular ambition and to drive progress in heart health once more. I thank the Minister for setting out for us how the Government will turn their cardiovascular ambition into measurable action, tangible progress and, ultimately, the saving of thousands of lives.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate about preventing premature death from heart disease and stroke. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing the debate and introducing it so ably. It is courageous of him to talk about the medical challenges that he has faced, and I am sure that the whole House wishes him the very best of luck on his journey. It is also nice to be with him in Westminster Hall, having spent five months debating with him in the Armed Forces Bill Committee. Stockholm syndrome kicked in, and we even started to like each other by the end, so it is doubly pleasurable to follow him in this debate.
It is great to see the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—a man I have always respected—in his place, and to see the Minister, whom I also respect. I have bumped into her in the Portcullis House lifts many times down the years, and it is wonderful to see her in a ministerial position.
I wish to declare two interests. First, I am a long-time supporter of the British Heart Foundation, which does great work to research heart disease and improve the technology and techniques to combat what is still, I am sad to say, one of Britain’s greatest killers. I pay tribute to that wonderful charity. I also wish to pay tribute to my wife Olivia, who has worked in the NHS for some two decades now, and who revels in the title of lead neurointerventional radiographer. That is a bit of a mouthful, but if someone has a stroke, she is the girl they need. I say that because she works in the specialist neurointerventional radiography department at Queen’s hospital in east London. As the Minister will no doubt know, there are 26 specialist units around the country, and her team at Queen’s is very ably led by Mr Tufail Patankar, an internationally recognised surgeon and an absolute expert in his field. He has built up that team over time at Queen’s, and, from what I hear, he leads it very well indeed.
The technique that the team uses is called mechanical thrombectomy. It is an emergency procedure for treating acute-onset stroke caused by a blood clot blocking a large artery in the brain—that is effectively what a stroke is. During the procedure, the interventionist neuroradiologist —the surgeon—passes a thin tube through an artery. It usually enters the body through either the groin or the wrist, goes up into the brain, finds the blocked blood vessel and then extracts the clot, which can sometimes be a couple of millimetres long—not an easy target to find. When it is withdrawn, blood flow is restored to the affected area of the brain, helping to reduce permanent disability, particularly if the procedure is performed quickly.
The department has a mnemonic: “Time means brain”—the quicker the operation can be performed, the more damage is averted and the greater the likelihood of recovery without complications. This was, admittedly, an exceptional case, but the team performed one of those operations on a man in his 20s within 90 minutes of the stroke occurring. He lived locally, and he basically walked out of the hospital a few hours after the stroke none the worse. That is what that relatively new technique can achieve.
As the radiographer, my wife guides the surgeon to the target. I call her the “bomb-aimer”. Last year, Queen’s had a “bring your hubby to work” day, and I was taken to work. The hospital has two operating theatres back to back, with an observation area in the middle, so we could stand there and watch the operation taking place on a large screen. We could see the instrument going up into the brain towards the clot, at which point it attached itself to the clot and withdrew it. I have to say that it was not for the faint-hearted; I was there with the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and we stuck it out and saw the whole thing.
It is a very odd procedure to watch, because the patient is lying anaesthetised on the operating table. One would think that all the activity happens around their head, but it does not. The surgeon stands by their groin, where they have gone in, and then uses a very fine guiding device—almost like a gaming console—to control the instrument, taking their lead from the image on the screen that is provided by my wife, the bomb aimer. That is how it works.
Last year, the department at Queen’s performed something like 300 of those operations. It operates 24/7, so over the weekend the staff are on a cover rota, or on call, as they say in the NHS. If my wife is at home and the bat-phone—as I call it—goes, she has an hour to get from our home to Queen’s, get scrubbed up, fire up all the equipment and be ready to receive the patients, some of whom may be coming from as far as Norwich and some of whom arrive by air ambulance. When the bat-phone goes, there is no time to grab a cup of tea and a slice of toast; she is in the car and gone. Can I just say that the sooner they finally sort out the chronic mess at Gallows Corner, the quicker and easier that journey will become? But I digress.
There are only 25 hospitals in the country that perform the procedure. The reach of the department covers Essex and goes out some way into East Anglia, at which point it hands over to Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge. The department also has friendly rivals who do the procedure at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, which tends to cover Kent and south London, but that is on a rota. When the Royal London is off for a given week and Queen’s covers all the areas, it is responsible for a potential patient population of over 5 million. That is a tremendous responsibility, which is why we obviously need to have 24/7 cover.
The service is also growing. Anecdotally, I can say that the bat phone rings more than it used to. On one level that is a good thing, because the technology is advancing all the time and patients can now be treated who could not have been treated a few years ago. However, that obviously puts pressure on Olivia, Dr Patankar and the team.
I will make a plea to the Minister, if I may. I understand that the Government are evolving their strategy for stroke, as part of the 10-year plan for the NHS. Olivia and her team are keen to see that work evolve, but they are particularly keen to know what role there is for mechanical thrombectomy in the overall strategy. I have literally seen it at work for myself. It is a wonderful, lifesaving technology and technique that the NHS has been doing for barely a decade, and we are getting better and better at it all the time.
I pay tribute to the team at Queen’s, as well as all the other teams that do this work around the country, including, for the record, at the Royal London. Most of all—I hope the House will forgive my indulgence—I pay tribute to my wife. Being a Member of Parliament can sometimes be a time commitment, but being the husband of a woman who does this work can be a bit of a time commitment, too. Sometimes, when we are making plans to see people or go to dinner parties, I am not the long pole in the tent. I am very proud of what she does, I am very proud of what her team do, I am very proud of what all the people who work at Queen’s do and I am very proud of the national health service. For the record, I am also proud of the stroke unit at Southend hospital, which provides a very good service, although it does not do mechanical thrombectomy; it defers to Queen’s on that.
Well done to everyone who works in this area. I thank the House for its patience and indulgence. God bless all the people who work to save lives from stroke.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for securing this important debate and for his opening remarks on his own health. We all wish him well.
My speech today will focus on heart health. I am a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cardiac risk in the young, where unknown heart conditions among young people are discussed. Keeping hearts healthy carries a broad message around prevention, lifestyle and early intervention, but what tools are we giving people? Diet is a key example, and it starts with our young people.
We cannot talk about reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke without talking about the environments in which people live. As an active member of the APPG on school food, where I was proud to serve alongside the Minister, I know how important it is for school food to meet nutritional standards and build healthy lifestyles and eating habits from an early age. Last year, 34% of year 6 children in my constituency were classed as obese. Meeting them where they are at with healthy habits when they are young is crucial. That is why I am so pleased to see free breakfast clubs rolling out across the country—I have two in my constituency—as well as plans to overhaul school food standards for the first time in over a decade.
It is now about convincing parents that school food is healthy and nutritional for their children, particularly when under 2% of packed lunches meet the current school food nutritional standards. Will the Minister outline what steps will be taken to change the perception of school food, in line with the valuable work the Government have been putting in to change it?
Meeting people where they are at with lifestyle changes is also crucial when we look at exercise. The majority of my constituents work in logistics, manufacturing and retail, doing physically demanding jobs that are often shift-based, which can make it really hard to maintain regular diet and exercise routines. Will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that infrastructure in semi-rural constituencies like mine can support walking, cycling and everyday physical activity, as well as allowing access to good, nutritious food? For example, my constituency is home to the heart of the national forest, a beautiful green space that encourages physical activity and exploration, but the only way to get there is by car, which seems counterintuitive.
On a positive note, the recently announced £8 million investment to improve community healthcare and access to weight management services across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland through the Government obesity pathways innovation programme is greatly welcome. Having served on the health scrutiny committee for five years as a county councillor, I have seen at first hand the impact that providing easier access to support can have on improving people’s health outcomes and reducing pressure on our NHS later in life. That investment will make it easier for people to access the support that they need in their own communities, whether that is advice on healthy living, behavioural support or clinical support where needed.
Like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I pay tribute to the service of our colleagues in the NHS. We are incredibly proud that the children’s heart health facility provided by Glenfield hospital is still in the east midlands.
Although ambulance times have improved nationally, the east midlands is still a little way behind national standards. As of May this year, we have the second highest average ambulance wait time across England for category 2 responses, which would include a suspected heart attack or a stroke, at 36 minutes. That is 11 minutes longer than the current national target, and twice as long as the target set pre-pandemic. For those who are aware—I thank the British Heart Foundation for its continued support for me in my role here—every minute counts. Every minute that somebody suffering a heart attack spends away from crucial health advice can mean a 10% lower chance of survival. It should therefore not be a surprise that as of February last year, the survival rate among people who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the east midlands was only one in 14. Will the Minister set out what further action her Department is taking to bring down wait times, focusing on regions such as the east midlands, which is far behind the rest of the UK average?
As the former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cardiac risk in the young, I want to highlight the importance of cardiac health screening, of which I am an avid champion, as the Minister knows. Screening is a crucial way to target premature deaths. With the National Screening Committee consulting on whether to expand the recommendation of screening to people below 39, now is a pressing time to engage with it. In Italy, which introduced such screening in the 1980s, cardiac deaths among young people have dropped by 85%. We know that early detection through cardiac screening allows timely interventions that can save lives.
In my constituency, we have also been trying to build resilience. Rural communities are so much further away from main hospitals and health services, so we have been looking at how we can ensure that people know where their nearest defib is. We will now be doing an annual defib dash to encourage people to recognise where the defibs are. We have also been increasing CPR training and access in my community. The British Heart Foundation and the ResusReady campaign have been key to helping me deliver that.
Ultimately, reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is about building a system and building the resilience that supports people at every stage, in every area of our country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject that affects all of us. As always, I will give some stats for Northern Ireland, where unfortunately we seem to have a particular problem when it comes to premature deaths from heart disease and stroke. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease, which has looked at the subject in some detail.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well; she seems to be in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am, but with much more authority, I have to say. She and I have been friends for many years. I always start looking forward to her contributions the day before I hear them, because I know she will work incredibly hard to give us the answers we wish for; I thank her for that in advance.
It is also nice to see the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) in his place. He was a busy man when he was in Government and is now a busy man as a shadow Minister. He is always approachable, always dedicated and always dependable. We thank him for his commitment to the subject.
We cannot shy away from what the British Heart Foundation has rightly called a “ticking timebomb” on heart health. Across the United Kingdom, cardiovascular disease claims a life every three minutes. This debate will last for about an hour and a half, so the mathematics are quite clear: 20 people will have passed away between the start and the end.
I must do what I always do in this Chamber, which is to bring a specific perspective from Northern Ireland, where the crisis is acutely felt. It replicates the rest of the United Kingdom, in a way, but unfortunately the stats tell us that it is probably worse for us. The stats for Northern Ireland are indeed scary: an estimated 225,000 people are living with heart and circulatory diseases. To put that into context, because it is important that we do so in this Chamber, our total population is 1.95 million, so one in 10 of our citizens are fighting these conditions. When I walk up the high street in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford, every 10th person I see will potentially be affected by heart disease, stroke or circulatory disease. That concerns me greatly.
The statistics from the British Heart Foundation’s Northern Ireland analysis are also deeply alarming. Cardiovascular conditions are responsible for 24%—nearly a quarter—of all deaths across Northern Ireland. That concerns me greatly, too. Even more heartbreaking is the fact that one in four of those deaths are premature, which means that the person could have been saved if they had had their checks or if help had come earlier. Because of my age, I can remember many occasions when someone has had a stroke or a heart attack and has died instantly. That includes some friends whom I have known over the years and who are not here any more.
It is also heartbreaking that those premature deaths are stealing the lives of people under 75. In a single year, we saw some 4,227 deaths due to cardiovascular disease. That means that every single month, 350 families in Northern Ireland are losing a loved one to a heart attack or a stroke. To put that into perspective, that is 350 empty chairs at the dinner table and 350 families left grieving. Sometimes, when we look at the stats, we think of the people who have passed away, but we must also think of the families on whom there is a significant impact.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is, as always, generous with his time. We all fully appreciate the slant that he brings from Northern Ireland. Would he agree that there is also the issue of regional inequalities within England? We see in Yorkshire and the north of England some of the worst rates of survival when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Does he agree that we need to do more to close the gap when it comes to people from more deprived backgrounds and the poorer health outcomes that they face as a result of heart disease, stroke and other CVD?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman always sums up the thrust of the debate in his interventions; he has outlined that there is sometimes a postcode lottery. He is also right to underline that in areas with deprivation where the emphasis on health is probably less, the issues and the number of those with heart disease rise as well.
I must also declare an interest: I have lived with type 2 diabetes for over 20 years. To put that into perspective, I could call myself a big fat pudding—I was 17 stone at one time. I am now 13 and a quarter stone. I have done that through a bit of willpower, but also by trying to cut out the sweet stuff. I am not always successful, but I do try very hard. My diabetes is controlled by medication, and I thank God every day that we are able to control it that way. I know first hand how closely linked diabetes and high blood pressure are. I take a tablet for blood pressure; I cannot speak for anybody else here, but when hon. Members come to a certain age, they probably will as well. Along with high cholesterol, those two things increase the risk of a catastrophic stroke or heart attack.
I was recently at the diabetes event in the Churchill Room. The lady in charge told me that people with diabetes must always get a check at least once a year—have their heart checked and ensure that their blood pressure is under control.
Tom Gordon
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, I should say that we have been pushing to make sure that, when people with diabetes have those diabetic care processes, those are better linked with other comorbidities and ancillary services. Does he agree that we need to see more of that to get better outcomes for people with those comorbidities?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do; the hon. Gentleman and I most definitely agree about that.
The tragedy is that so much of this premature loss of life is entirely preventable; if it can be prevented, then we should be doing more. The British Heart Foundation reports that half of all strokes and heart attacks are linked directly to high blood pressure. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has again underlined that, as I have likewise tried to.
Right now in Northern Ireland, over 42,000 diagnosed hypertension patients are not being treated to clinical guidelines. That is unfortunate. Furthermore, 66,000 high-risk individuals are missing out on statins to control their cholesterol. There are things that can be done and prevention strategies that we should focus on. My hope would be that those will improve. If we optimise care, we can save hundreds of lives almost immediately. Surely if we can do that, we should be doing it. If we can treat blood pressure properly over the next three years, we can prevent 380 strokes and 260 heart attacks in Northern Ireland alone—the place I am bringing the stats from.
The issue is not just about statistics, of course. It is about early detection, standardising care and addressing health inequalities. I look to the Minister to outline what direct, co-ordinated action the Government are taking with their devolved counterparts: the hon. Member for South Ribble referred to that in his speech—I thank him for referring to the devolved Administrations, because this issue is about us all.
I know the Minister is always very responsive; has she had a chance to talk with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, to ensure that the good things done here are exchanged with him? What can be done with devolved counterparts to tackle the missing patients? They are missing patients, but if they are missing then it is time to put them on the list, to ramp up the diagnostic screenings and, please, to defuse this ticking time bomb before it claims any more of us in this Chamber, or our constituents.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my near-neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing this important debate. I wish him well. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on achieving the childhood ambition of having his very own bat-phone. I am, as they say, well jel.
Mr Francois
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, not least as he is being so kind to me, but for the record it is my wife’s bat-phone, not mine.
Patrick Hurley
It will have been very important to place that on the record once the right hon. Gentleman gets home this evening, I imagine.
The Government’s aim to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% over the next decade is welcome, ambitious and absolutely necessary. Cardiovascular disease remains one of the biggest public health challenges that this country faces. Across the country more than 8 million people live with cardiovascular disease. As has been mentioned, despite decades of progress, we now see a worrying reversal.
Premature deaths are rising again for the first time in over half a century. One thing I have personally been doing to reduce my chances of being a victim of cardiovascular disease is walking more. During the recent Makerfield by-election, I was very lucky—not just to be part of the wonderful campaign to return a new Member to this House but to undertake almost half-a-million steps around the streets of Wigan over the course of 17 punishing days. I am celebrating not only a new Member for Makerfield but having lost four pounds.
For those of us who represent communities in the north-west, the challenges around cardiovascular disease are particularly acute. Health inequalities remain stark. People living in some of our most deprived communities are significantly more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and more than twice as likely to die prematurely from it. Behind every one of those statistics is a family changed forever. There is good news, though: many of those deaths are preventable. Up to 80% of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease can be prevented and 70% of cases are linked to modifiable risk factors such as smoking, obesity, poor diet and inactivity. That is why prevention should be at the heart of the Government’s approach.
We need to continue to drive down smoking rates, to make healthy food more accessible and to design our communities and the places where people live around cycling, walking and physical activity. We need to recognise—it is a cliché but only because it is true—that prevention is better and simply cheaper than cure. It keeps people healthier and more independent for longer, and allows people to fully participate in social life.
Early diagnosis is equally important. Millions of people are currently living undiagnosed with high blood pressure. We know that identifying and treating conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol and the like earlier can prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes. I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood health services. Taking screening and checks into communities, making better use of pharmacies, using data more intelligently and increasingly using AI technologies are all real opportunities to narrow the health inequalities that can scar our communities.
We need to stop treating conditions in isolation. So many people with cardiovascular disease are also living with other long-term health conditions. Patients do not just experience heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease or obesity separately; they experience them together. Our health system must increasingly treat the person rather than the condition.
Finally, while prevention is crucial, we cannot ignore access to treatment. There are long waits for cardiac care, and there are increasing and continuing pressures on ambulance response times, meaning that too many people are still waiting too long for an emergency response. The forthcoming modern service framework for cardiovascular disease represents a significant opportunity—it must be ambitious. It should be focused on prevention and early intervention, tackle inequalities head on and ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, can access timely, high-quality care.
If we get this right, we will not only save lives but reduce pressure on the NHS, strengthen our economy and create a fairer, healthier country. Even without a bat-phone of my own, I look forward to supporting the Government in delivering their ambition.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing this important debate and thank him for sharing his story. Like so many families across the country, mine has its own history of heart disease, either with tragic, early death or, for my father, a triple heart bypass in 2012. He celebrated his 80th birthday this year.
Reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is one of the defining public health challenges facing our country. It is also one of the greatest opportunities. We know what works and where the risks lie; the question is whether this Government are prepared to invest in preventing illness rather than simply responding to it once people become sick. Cardiovascular disease remains the second biggest cause of death in England; every day, around 390 people die from a heart attack or stroke. Heart and circulatory diseases are responsible for one in four premature deaths, while more than 6.4 million people in England are living with cardiovascular disease.
It is particularly concerning that progress has stalled. After years of improvement, premature mortality from cardiovascular disease has begun to rise again. The latest figures show that rates have returned to around where they were over a decade ago. Behind those statistics are families who have lost loved ones far too early; many of those deaths could have been prevented.
Perhaps the greatest injustice is that outcomes are not evenly distributed. People living in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease as those in the least deprived areas. If we are serious about reducing premature deaths, we have to be serious about prevention. Too often, prevention is spoken about warmly but funded poorly. We hear Ministers say that they want to shift healthcare from hospital to community and from treatment to prevention. Those are welcome ambitions, but ambitions alone do not reduce blood pressure, identify atrial fibrillation or prevent strokes.
The reality is that the NHS and local government continue to struggle to fund many of the programmes that are proven to save lives. Freedom of information data published earlier this year reveals that more than 70 local authorities are limiting the number of NHS health checks that GP practices can carry out because of financial pressures. The programme designed to identify people at risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease, which is credited with saving hundreds of lives every year, is being rationed because councils simply cannot afford it. That is the direct consequence of years of underfunding in public health.
A straightforward first step would be restoring the public health grant to its 2015 level, which would give local authorities the resources they need to expand NHS health checks and deliver wider prevention programmes that reduce smoking, improve physical activity and help people to manage the risk factors that lead to cardiovascular disease. The Liberal Democrats have also proposed widening access to blood pressure checks by making them routinely available in community settings such as pharmacies and libraries.
An estimated 7 million people are living with undiagnosed high blood pressure. Many of them have no idea that they are at increased risk of suffering a devastating stroke or heart attack. Detecting hypertension earlier is one of the simplest and most cost-effective interventions available. However, prevention is about much more than screening alone. If we want to tackle heart disease properly, we must also be far more ambitious in addressing obesity and the wider causes of poor health.
The evidence is clear that obesity is closely linked to deprivation. A poor diet often begins in childhood, and families facing food insecurity are more likely to rely on cheaper foods that are higher in fat, salt and sugar. That contributes to stark inequalities in health outcomes later in life. That is why we believe that more children living in poverty should receive free school meals. We would also do more to protect children from the relentless marketing of unhealthy food, including supporting councils to restrict outdoor junk food advertising and maintaining stronger protections on television advertising.
For those already living with heart disease or recovering from a stroke, continuity of care is equally important. The Liberal Democrats want everyone living with a long-term condition to have a named GP. Continuity improves outcomes, reduces unnecessary admissions and ensures that patients receive co-ordinated care over many years, rather than fragmented treatment from multiple clinicians. Recovery following a stroke also deserves much greater attention. Around 60% of stroke survivors leave hospital with a disability. Rehabilitation cannot be treated as an optional extra. Every stroke survivor should have access to personalised, high-quality rehabilitation services that help them regain independence and improve their quality of life.
Finally, I want to touch on emergency care. When someone has a stroke, every minute matters. Rapid assessment and treatment can mean the difference between a full recovery and lifelong disability. I pay tribute to Olivia, the wife of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for the work that she and her team do at Queen’s hospital. I pay tribute to all practitioners carrying out the same work across the country.
Ambulance delays and overcrowded emergency departments continue to place patients at unnecessary risk. We know that too well in my village, where, a few years ago, we lost a dear friend far too young as a result of a slow ambulance response time. We need action to reduce ambulance handover delays, expand staffed hospital bed capacity, improve social care so that patients can be discharged safely, and ensure that every A&E waiting room has a qualified clinician able to identify patients whose condition is deteriorating while they wait.
Preventing premature deaths from heart disease and strokes will require action across the whole health system. It means investing in prevention rather than allowing it to become the first casualty of financial pressures. It means tackling the inequalities that leave poorer communities carrying the greatest burden of disease. It means strengthening primary care, community services, rehabilitation and social care rather than focusing solely on elective waiting lists.
The Darzi review warned:
“Care for cardiovascular conditions is going in the wrong direction.”
That warning should not be ignored. If the Government are serious about achieving their ambition to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes, they must match warm words with sustained investment in prevention, public health and community care. The best way to reduce premature deaths is not simply to become better at treating illness; it is to prevent people from becoming ill in the first place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing this important debate and talking about his personal circumstances. It is always a very moving moment when colleagues talk about things that are so very personal to them. I also pay tribute to the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for the work that she and her team do. It was fascinating to listen to my right hon. Friend. There may have been a bit more detail than I would have wanted to hear, but it told us a lot about the importance of that treatment.
I share an ambulance region with the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), so I know exactly what she is talking about and how important it is. I thank her for her work with the APPG, and particularly for highlighting the issue for young people. It is important to remember that heart disease and stroke affect all age groups.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his work on the APPG and for his kind words. I visited his constituency when I was a Minister. If only I could have as much love as he gets from his constituents—he is hugely respected.
I feel like we will all have to club together to get a bat-phone for the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley). He made some incredible points, particularly about smoking. I confess that I gave up smoking in February. It was hard, but I know how important it is.
I declare an interest. I, too, want to pay tribute to the British Heart Foundation, which was the first charity I worked for in my charity career. I saw at first hand the incredible work it does, particularly on research. I thank it and all the other charities and organisations that are active in this space.
As we have heard so often today, heart disease and stroke continue to take people from their families far too soon. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke so powerfully about the 350 people in his area who are no longer around the table. Behind every statistic is a life cut short and a family left grieving, in too many cases in the knowledge that earlier action might have changed the outcome. A person’s chances of surviving heart disease or stroke should not depend on their postcode, income, sex, ethnicity or ability to navigate the health service. If we are serious about reducing premature deaths, the focus must be on prevention, earlier diagnosis, timely treatment, reducing inequality and proper support after the patient leaves hospital.
We must begin with prevention, because high blood pressure and high cholesterol can exist without obvious symptoms. People may feel perfectly well while living with a condition that substantially increases their risk of heart attack or stroke. By the time somebody becomes seriously unwell, an opportunity to intervene may have already been lost.
Prevention cannot simply mean advising people to live healthier lives. It means identifying those at risk, ensuring that NHS health checks reach the communities that need them most, and making full use of GPs, primary care teams and community pharmacies. Those services need the workforce, the time and the technology to identify risk and manage it properly. Detecting and treating high blood pressure and raised cholesterol must be regarded as core NHS work. The Government inform us that the NHS health check programme prevents about 500 heart attacks and strokes each year, which really is welcome, but the question is whether it reaches those at the greatest risk, including people in deprived areas.
We must also recognise the close relationship between cardiovascular disease and kidney disease. Kidney disease affects an estimated 7 million people in the UK. About 60% of kidney patients are diagnosed only in the later stages, when their cardiovascular risk is highest. About 20,000 kidney patients die from cardiovascular disease each year. Early testing for people with diabetes, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease can identify kidney damage before it progresses. Indeed, Kidney Research UK suggests that less than one in five patients with chronic kidney disease receive SGLT2 inhibitors, despite their potential to reduce major cardiovascular events. Will kidney disease therefore be explicitly included in the modern service framework? What action will the Government take to improve early diagnosis and equitable access to proven treatment?
Early diagnosis is just as important for heart valve disease. In the UK, 1.5 million people live with that condition. Again, however, symptoms such as breathlessness, fatigue and dizziness are too often mistaken for the ordinary effects of ageing. That can mean that diagnosis comes only after the disease has become severe, and after irreversible heart damage has begun. Listening to the heart with a stethoscope remains a simple and low-cost first step. Where heart valve disease is suspected, patients need timely access and a clear route to specialist services. Will heart valve disease be explicitly included in the framework? And will the Government consider a single point of access for referrals to specialist valve services?
We must also confront the inequalities experienced by women. Cardiovascular disease kills more than 80,000 women in the UK each year, yet women are less likely than men to have their risk factors assessed, slower to receive a diagnosis, less likely to be referred to a cardiologist and also less likely to receive cardiovascular medicines or interventions. Women’s symptoms may simply be dismissed or attributed to stress, hormones or ageing, and women have been consistently under-represented when it comes to cardiovascular research.
The Government’s renewed women’s health strategy recognises some of those problems, and the commitment that publicly funded research should properly consider sex-based differences is really welcome. However, such recognition must translate into practice. Will the framework include measurable action to reduce sex-based inequalities in prevention, diagnosis, referrals, treatment and outcomes? And will women’s specific cardiovascular risk factors, including pregnancy history, gestational diabetes, menopause and autoimmune disease, be considered more consistently in NHS health checks and other assessments?
As we have heard, every minute matters for stroke patients. The speed of recognition, ambulance response, brain scanning and access to thrombolysis and thrombectomy can profoundly affect a person’s chances of survival and recovery. However, 24-hour coverage has still not been achieved, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford mentioned. The Government say that progress is being made, but patients need to know when every part of England will have reliable access to this life-changing treatment. Will the Minister set a firm date for that full 24/7 coverage, and will she explain how progress will be maintained while NHS England’s responsibilities are being transferred?
Mr Francois
For many years, stroke units have had access to thrombolysis—or “the shot”, as it is known in the trade. However, that is a very rough way of doing it, and it can have side effects and impede a patient’s recovery. Mechanical thrombectomy is a far more accurate way of solving a stroke problem, and with far less risk of subsequent side effects. That is why we are so keen to see its use grow, and I second my right hon. Friend’s request to the Minister.
Stuart Andrew
My right hon. Friend is so right. When he was describing its importance, I was thinking about one of my very dear friends who suffered quite a debilitating stroke. I thought, “If only that had been available for him, how different his life might be now.” I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that.
Care should not end when a patient leaves the acute ward. Someone who has survived a stroke might need to relearn how to walk, speak, eat and carry out other basic daily tasks. Rehabilitation and continuing community support are essential if people are to regain their independence and reduce the risk of another stroke. The same is true after a heart attack. Cardiac rehabilitation, medication reviews and support to manage risk factors can prevent further illness and save lives, yet access to rehabilitation remains uneven and too many patients experience a cliff edge between hospital and community care.
The Government have committed to reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% within a decade. That is a serious ambition, and, where they are taking practical actions to achieve it, they will absolutely have our full support, but it is important that that ambition is matched by a credible plan. In a letter dated 28 May, the Minister said that the framework we are expecting would be published in the spring. That deadline has now passed, so, like others, I again ask when that will be published. Will it contain clear milestones against which that 25% commitment can be judged? Will the Minister commit to regular, transparent reporting to Parliament so that Members can see whether earlier diagnosis, access to treatment and premature mortality rates are genuinely improving?
There is much on which Members across this House should agree. We all want fewer families to lose someone they love before their time; we all want patients to receive help before a manageable risk becomes a medical emergency; and we all want NHS staff to have the tools and capacity to provide the care their patients need. Reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is achievable, but only through earlier identification of risk, faster diagnosis, timely treatment and rehabilitation that is available wherever a patient lives. Targets matter, but patients will judge success by whether they receive the right care in time, and that must be the measure of genuine success. They and their families deserve nothing less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I also commend him on sharing his own personal experience with his diagnosis of a congenital heart defect. I thought, as he was speaking, that it just goes to show that we should never judge solely based on how someone presents on the outside, because we never know what is going on inside; I know he served in the Royal Engineers, and he is also very fit and active. He rightly highlighted why this Government are determined to tackle cardiovascular disease head on through earlier prevention and diagnosis, because that is what is really going to make the difference.
I also thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions this afternoon. It is clear that far too many lives are still being cut short by cardiovascular disease. In recent years, heart disease and stroke caused around 33,000 premature deaths per year, and it is the second leading cause of death in England after cancer.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a powerful speech, bringing this issue into stark focus with regard to Northern Ireland. I have to say, I share his pleasure in spending so much time in these important debates in Westminster Hall; he and I are usually the common denominator. I want to refer to some of the things that he said, specifically about the ticking time bomb that cardiovascular disease can be. He mentioned that 225,000 people—one in 10—in Northern Ireland live with heart and circulatory conditions. That was very sobering; this is not a niche condition at all. He said that it accounted for 24% of deaths in Northern Ireland—one in four—and that most of those were premature. As always, I will commit to ensuring that key learnings and best practice are shared between both our health services and, indeed, with the other devolved Administrations. I always learn a lot from the hon. Member’s contributions, so I thank him for them. That is why, as part of our 10-year health plan for the NHS, we have committed to shifting from sickness to prevention and to ensuring that fewer lives are lost to the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease.
I have made so many notes, but the trick is now whether I can find the right note for the right person and not just forget about them all; I am trying to be too clever for my own boots here. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) who speaks for the Lib Dems, spoke a lot about prevention and about the shift from treatment and sickness to prevention. She asked me whether the public health grant would go back to 2010 levels. I cannot commit to that. Obviously, something did happen in 2010 and, as much as I like and admire the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), there were big cuts to the public health grant—although I think the biggest cut was in 2015. However, we have provided the first three-year public health grant settlement in over a decade. That will give surety and confidence to the local authorities and public health directors in all our areas for the three years.
Alison Bennett
For the record, my request was that the public health grant be restored back to 2015 levels, not 2010 levels.
Mrs Hodgson
Right, the hon. Lady said 2015. I am being too clever for my own boots. I wrote down 2010, but of course, as I said in correcting myself, the big cut was in 2015. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has corrected the record for us all.
As I say, we have set an ambitious goal to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke in the under-75s by a quarter in the next 10 years. As part of the first wave of the new generation of modern service frameworks, we will publish a cardiovascular disease modern service framework soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about that, and I shall move on to answer his questions. He asked when; the answer is soon. The Department and NHS England have engaged widely to consider a range of conditions that are most likely to drive progress on the Government’s ambition and the CVD MSF—if Members do not mind me using the acronym to save words—will set out 12 high impact priority action areas, descriptions of how unwarranted variation should be addressed and a road map for the next 10 years. The framework will be backed by clear accountability and routine monitoring of progress using existing NHS performance and oversight arrangements.
To support the delivery of the framework across the system, we will launch a series of ambitious strategic partnerships between Government, the NHS, industry and the voluntary sector. We thank the British Heart Foundation for its support and participation as a task and finish group member for the CVD MSF.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about type 2 diabetes. I pay tribute to and thank his friend Jared, who is with us today, and who I am aware is a type 1 diabetic. Type 2 diabetes is very prevalent in cardiovascular disease. We are taking steps to reduce overall prevalence of type 2 diabetes by supporting programmes such as the NHS health check and the highly effective “Healthier You” NHS diabetes prevention programme. I will talk more about obesity prevention and the obesogenic environment if I have time.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked me about cholesterol. We know that addressing raised cholesterol is key to preventing CVD. Statins cut CVD risk in just four to six weeks, and are readily available and quite cheap, as interventions go. As of December 2025, 85% of people with CVD were being treated with cholesterol-lowering therapy, including statins, across England. He also asked me about arterial fibrillation. The Government recognise the importance of optimising arterial fibrillation treatment. As of December 2025, 92% of those with high-risk arterial fibrillation were being treated with anticoagulants, which was an increase from 87% in March 2020.
Jim Shannon
There are indications that the weight loss injections and tablets available on the NHS are very effective, but there is some concern about the side effects of weight reduction programmes. Has the Department ever looked at addressing side effects for those who want to lose weight but face other problems because of it?
Mrs Hodgson
As with all medication, it is obviously up to GPs to consider side effects when prescribing. Some side effects might be apparent sooner rather than later, but they are definitely conversations that patients need to have closely and quickly with prescribers and GPs. I encourage all constituents to be cognisant of side effects and not just hope that they will go away or that they do not matter. They should always be raised with their GP.
The modern service framework, which is coming soon, will identify and set standards for the best-evidenced interventions to support consistent, high-quality and equitable care across the cardiovascular disease pathway. It will set out an ambitious vision for the future, identifying areas where further progress is needed to build the evidence base or to accelerate innovations to deliver best outcomes for patients. We know that there are unacceptable inequalities across CVD prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. That is why the CVD MSF will set out strategic priorities and a clear direction on what health and care systems should focus on to drive improvement and outcomes and to tackle unwarranted variation.
A number of hon. Members have highlighted prevention issues and I will address their questions at this point. We know that around 70% of the CVD burden is preventable and due to risk factors that can be modified by behaviour changes, early identification and management, so the early detection of risk factors is key. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made a short but colourful point about access to fresh food and food deserts. He mentioned that in some parts of the country, it is easier to get vodka than a banana. I have used a similar analogy with regard to blueberry vapes versus blueberries. We all know of places like that across our constituencies.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, also mentioned access to healthy food for young people living in poverty and free school meals being extended to those children. The Government are extending free school meals to all children of families on universal credit from September, and that is very welcome. We are already extending breakfast clubs so that they are universal. That will be reaching all children; not all children take advantage of them, but there will eventually be access to them for all children in our primary schools.
A lot of the work that I have been doing in the Department since taking up this post has been around my passion. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) mentioned the work that we have done together in the all-party parliamentary group on school food. That group was set up in 2010—I know the date, and I am not going to get it wrong, because I set it up. Healthy food is so crucial. As we are rolling out breakfast clubs and rolling out free school meals to all children of families on universal credit, we want that food to be as healthy as can be.
That is why we had the consultation on new school food standards, which closed in June. They will be in force from September 2027. They will be a lot better, a lot more stringent, than the current standards. I hope that, when they are made public, all hon. Members will be able to buy into them and therefore encourage the perception to change. I think my hon. Friend also said that the perception of school food needs to change, and I totally agree. Come next year, school food will be so much better—it already is in so many of our schools.
As a local MP, I am a bit obsessive about going into my local schools, or whatever school I happen to be in, so much so that it got a bit embarrassing—I will tell this quick anecdote, if I have time. I was visiting a school, and it said that it would get me some sandwiches from a well-known store—I will not advertise the store, but this was pre-packed sandwiches from a nice, upmarket supermarket—because my secretary had said, “Oh, make sure Sharon gets some lunch.” I had to point out to the headteacher that I did not want the nice sandwiches from Marks & Spencer, and that I actually wanted to stay for lunch with the children in the canteen.
I was there to visit and talk about whatever, or to meet the school council, but I would always do those things either side of the lunch break in order that, with my school food APPG chair hat on, I could stay for lunch. My lovely secretary at the time had not explained that bit, so the headteacher, on her way into work that day, had rushed to a well-known supermarket to buy me a selection of sandwiches. I was mortified, so I say to hon. Members that, if they want to eat on their school visits, they should please ensure that they are clear that they do not just want any old sandwiches bought, and that actually they want to sit and eat with the children.
School food is important. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. There is more good, and I hope that it will continue to improve, because good habits need to start early. I am talking about the prevention that we all want to see and the healthier lifestyles that we want for the next generation. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government to have the healthiest generation of children ever. That starts in our health service, but it also starts with prevention, and the move from sickness to prevention.
I think the hon. Member for Mid Sussex mentioned junk food advertising, and the other thing that I have been working on is the new nutrient profiling model. The consultation on that has just closed. We are going to be using the new NPM when it is agreed and announced. It will be applied to the junk food ad ban, which is already in place, and we will set out next steps with regard to that in due course. We are also planning work on monitoring and reporting on the healthy food standards. All that is in train, and I am very keen on continuing to do that work, but who knows what might come?
I will now turn to points from other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned walking and that he had lost 4 lbs during the recent by-election; it seems to me that maybe what we all need is more by-elections—or perhaps not. The serious point is that we all need to be walking more. If we are walking more, that is good, but we need to be walking briskly. We are supposed to get out of breath and a bit hot and bothered. It is also important that we are trying to eat healthier food.
Mr Francois
I am sure that the potential new Prime Minister will have noted very carefully the commitment of the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who mentioned that he lost 4 lbs during the by-election; I have a pound coin, and I am happy to make it up to a round fiver to help him get his money back, if that helps.
Mrs Hodgson
Very good. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for getting his constituency name wrong. I cannot read my own writing—I do know that Southport and Stockport are very different places.
Walking is important, but we must work hard to tackle the obesogenic environment, our propensity to eat ultra-processed food and the food deserts in our constituencies. Sadly, some of the most deprived areas are also the most health-unequal communities as well. That is not a coincidence; one leads to the other. That is an area of the Department’s work I am massively focused on.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke about his wonderful wife of two decades, who is a lead neuroradiographer—
Mrs Hodgson
Very good. She works at Queen’s hospital in east London, and I was very interested to hear about the “bring your husband to work” day, although I am glad she did not keep the right hon. Gentleman there. What he described sounded fascinating, although not for the faint-hearted, as he said. On behalf of the NHS and the Government, I thank Olivia and her team for the outstanding work they do every day and for their service and skill. It is such important work. He asked me about the role of mechanical thrombectomy, which he said has been used for less than a decade. The NHS is working to increase thrombectomy rates as a key intervention to improve patient outcomes, so hopefully Olivia is going to be as busy as ever. He is rightly proud of her, as I am sure she is of him.
Mr Francois
Yes—don’t tell my wife! I thank the Minister very much for what she says about Olivia, her colleagues and all the others who work in the NHS in that field. I will chance my arm and say that they are based about an hour from London; if ever the Minister had time to pop along and see what they do in person, I think she would be both very welcome and incredibly impressed.
Mrs Hodgson
My private office will have made note of that. I would be happy to pay a visit to the hospital and am interested to look at that work.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire asked about ambulance wait times. NHS England is working with East Midlands ambulance service to support improvements in response times, which will increase frontline ambulance availability, improve productivity and strengthen performance. I can assure her that that work is under way.
In England, the NHS health check for individuals aged 40 to 74 is designed to assess the top risk factors for cardiovascular disease and refer people to further support where appropriate. The NHS health check is wide reaching it engages more than 1.4 million people a year and, through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. We know that there is more to do to improve uptake of the health check. As part of our efforts to make the shift from analogue to digital, we are developing the NHS health check online and increasing the flexibility of the programme so that people can complete it at home at a time more convenient to them.
Finding and supporting people with undetected high blood pressure early is, as a number of colleagues mentioned, critical to preventing heart attacks and strokes. I think we can all remember the former shadow Health Secretary, Jonathan Ashworth. He had undiagnosed high blood pressure and recently had a heart attack. We cannot just assume, from what someone looks like on the outside, what is going on inside. It is so important that we all take up those health checks when we reach the grand old age of 40, which I have not yet reached myself—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) laughing; he must think I am over 40.
We have invested heavily in blood pressure checks in community pharmacy so that we take up those opportunities for detection in the community. Over the last year in England, 82% of pharmacies were delivering the service, with more than 3 million blood pressure checks taking place.
We are also committed to tackling obesity, and have made significant progress by restricting junk food advertising targeted at children on TV and online, along with banning volume price reductions on less healthy products. NHS England has expanded access to the NHS digital weight management service, doubling the number of people supported. Some 1 million adults in England with established CVD who are overweight or living with obesity are also now eligible for semaglutide—Wegovy—to reduce major cardiovascular events.
We have taken firm action on smoking, including the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which will protect future generations from the harms of smoking. To help people quit smoking, we have also ringfenced funding for stop smoking services in the public health grant, protecting at least £150 million per year.
Our work does not stop there. I have mentioned the shift from treatment to prevention, incentivising earlier identification and better management of CVD risk. The elective reform plan committed to modernising cardiology pathways, and we are working closely with clinicians to implement reforms, ensuring that care is delivered in the right place and at the right time. We have an ambitious target to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25%, and the CVD MSF will provide the tools required to achieve this.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry, raised the women’s health strategy. He is right to mention the disparity in women’s diagnosis and treatment. The renewed women’s health strategy sets out how we will redesign services, improve diagnosis and embed women’s voices so that care improves across all conditions. Priority examples where women are most poorly served are included, and progress will be judged against three overarching measures of success, the main one being to reduce the amount of time that women spend in poor health.
I will finish here so that there is time for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble to make some closing remarks. I again thank him for bringing this important matter to the House.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call Paul Foster to wind up, very quickly.
Mr Foster
I thank the Minister for giving me 50 seconds.
This is one of those very rare topics where we have cross-party consensus from every party in the House: we all want the Government to be successful in what they seek to achieve, reducing deaths from stroke and cardiovascular disease by 25%. I thank the Minister for a very detailed response. I also thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for giving up his time and again giving a very detailed response. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and join in the tributes to his wife Olivia. I thank all other Members, and I thank Jared for sharing his story with us; he is now in Hansard. Finally, I thank the British Heart Foundation—please keep up the good work—and I thank you, too, Dame Siobhain, for giving up your time to chair this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of reducing levels of premature deaths from heart disease and stroke.
Air Pollution
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. There is no safe level of air pollution. I will say that again: there is no safe level of air pollution. Of course, life is not risk-free. Every year, almost 250 people die from knife crime and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, almost 1,600 people die in road traffic accidents and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, approximately 43,000 people die prematurely from air pollution, yet there is silence. Well, no more—the public are finding their voice about this silent, invisible killer. This morning in Parliament Square, doctors, nurses, academics, carers, mothers and babies came together with the Healthy Air Coalition, the National Heart and Lung Foundation, Mums for Lungs, trade unions, and Asthma + Lung UK to demand that Parliament act. Eighty-two of them represented the 82 people whose lives are cut short by air pollution every day.
We have a public health emergency on our hands and the response from successive Governments so far has simply not been adequate. We have no co-ordinated national plan to get key pollutants down to safer levels that are aligned with the World Health Organisation limit values. Sadly, the annual data released this week shows that things are going in the wrong direction. Two days ago, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published new air quality statistics for 2025; note the words “air quality”—it should be “air pollution” statistics. It found that
“annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 showed an increase of 12 per cent at urban background stations and an increase of 14 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024.”
It also found that
“annual mean concentrations of PM10 showed an increase of 12 per cent for urban background stations and an increase of 8 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024”
and that annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide increased by
“3 per cent at urban background stations”
although they did show a 1% decrease at roadside stations.
I hope that everyone notices the irony that DEFRA insists on calling this “air quality” instead of air pollution. Let us be clear about the health impacts of air pollution. Polluted air is linked to up to 43,000 deaths in the UK every year. Let us imagine the reaction if a new covid variant was having such an impact. Imagine if knife crime was linked to hundreds of deaths every week, or if we saw 82 deaths on our roads every single day. Air pollution is the second leading risk factor for death in children under five and it is the largest environmental risk to public health, yet it remains the silent killer—the invisible killer—because it is often masked by other diseases that it has aggravated. We have had just one case where the coroner’s certificate reports air pollution as a cause of death: that of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, where the coroner concluded that Ella had
“died of asthma contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution.”
He said it “made a material contribution” to her death. I pay tribute to Ella’s mother, Rosamund, and to all those who have campaigned for clean air as a human right. Rosamund was in Parliament Square this morning with all those campaigners. The work that she has done to bring this matter to public consciousness should be respected by everyone in Parliament.
Scientists have found links between air pollution, almost every organ system in the body and the major diseases that affect them. That includes the brain, lungs, cardiovascular system, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract, bones, skin, reproductive system and even the central nervous system, where air pollution increases the chance of developing dementia. The current health evidence, based on more than 60,000 studies, links air pollution to more than 700 illnesses.
Although the scientific evidence base grows every year, we know more than enough to realise that current efforts fall far short of what is needed. Indeed, here is what we know about the state of air pollution in the UK: air quality targets and the legal air pollution limits are not sufficient to protect public health. There is no Government-wide action plan to bring down levels of air pollution to below World Health Organisation guidelines. Funding and resources for local authorities to deliver air quality programmes are inadequate, and public awareness of outdoor and indoor air pollution is far too low.
Seventy years ago this month, when the UK published the Clean Air Act 1956—the first Act of its kind—we really were a world leader in tackling air pollution. We can no longer make that claim. After the great smog that killed 4,000 people in a week—with a total death count estimated at 10,000 to 12,000 in the penumbra—the Government passed the 1956 Act. Politicians then rose to the challenge. Today, they must do so again. Other jurisdictions are moving ahead with more ambition and urgency. Before we consider doing that, we should distinguish between a target and a limit value.
The Government are fond of setting targets. A target is something that is aimed for. A limit value is a threshold that should not be crossed. In 2021, the WHO updated its guidance for one of the key pollutants: PM2.5. Its guidance is a level of no more than 5 micrograms per cubic metre. The UK’s legal limit value was set in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; it remains four times higher than the WHO value, at 20 micrograms per cubic metre—that is the legal limit.
The recent environmental improvement plan introduced a new date to achieve a target of 10 micrograms per metre cubed: 2030—it had been 2040. That sounds like good news, a target that will be achieved 10 years earlier, but do not be fooled. The target for PM2.5—that is, the aspiration rather than the legal limit—is still double the WHO guideline. It actually represents no progress at all. In DEFRA’s 2024 monitoring data, all but one monitoring site just met the 10 microgram target. Those are the sort of targets that DEFRA loves: ones where nothing has to be done to achieve them and everything can be left as bad as it has always been, but it looks as though action is being taken.
We need not a target, but a legally binding limit value that is the same as the WHO’s guideline of 5 micrograms per metre cubed. We need a wider plan to get PM2.5 exposure down across the UK to below WHO guidelines in the near future. The same and more can be said of the nitrogen dioxide target. On that, the WHO guidelines are 10 micrograms per cubic metre, but the UK lags behind with a legal limit value set in 2010 at an annual exposure of 40 micrograms. When it comes to nitrogen dioxide, the Environment Act 2021 did not even set a long-term target, so action on that key pollutant is not included in the Act’s delivery plan.
It makes no sense for the Government to treat nitrogen dioxide any differently from PM2.5. We should have a far tighter limit value and a far more ambitious plan for driving nitrogen dioxide levels down to below WHO guidelines. On our current trajectory, some parts of the UK will not be compliant with the current inadequate limit value of 40 micrograms until 2045. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be aware that the latest DEFRA figures show that Manchester has the worst nitrogen dioxide pollution in the country, with a level of 55 micrograms per cubic metre—more than five times the WHO guidelines. As a result, it is thought that air pollution contributes to one in 20 deaths in the region each year.
Moreover, national-level statistics can mask local authority-level data, as exposed by the work of Asthma + Lung UK. Its research found that local authorities are breaching the legal limits of nitrogen dioxide, even when national Government have determined them to be under such limits. That is because of the disjointed approach we currently take to air pollution, in which national data weirdly excludes local authority monitors despite local authorities being mandated by the Government to collect data.
So we have situations such as the one in my Brent West constituency, where three local authority monitors accurately record illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide despite the Government saying that Brent, and London as a whole, supposedly meet legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. At the corner of Wembley High Road and London Road, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 40.92 micrograms per cubic metre; at the corner of Wembley High Road and Ealing Road, it was 41.76; at the junction of Forty Lane and Kings Drive, it was 43.5. Each of those is more than four times the WHO guidelines, and each is right next to or in walking distance of a school. This is toxic, illegal air pollution that my constituents are exposed to, yet if they read what the Government say, they would not even realise it.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
This week, Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust declared a “critical incident” after prolonged extreme heat led to increased demand, with more patients suffering dehydration and heat-related illnesses. As my hon. Friend will know, hot spells often go hand in hand with poor air quality. Does he agree that there is an imperative to address poor air quality, and that that imperative is growing as a result of the changing climate?
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely right. The heat dome that we have been experiencing interacts with pollution and gives us extra ozone and causes huge health problems. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can tell us, if his officials are on the ball on this—just when the number of excess deaths caused by last week’s high temperatures will be known at a disaggregated level; it would be extremely interesting to get those.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I did not want to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech, but now that he has been interrupted, I might as well. He too is a west London MP, so he is aware that Heathrow, in my constituency, is one of the most persistent air pollution hotspots. In the previous Government’s assessment, any expansion at Heathrow would have a significant impact on air quality. The latest airports national policy statement says it will have “significant negative effects” on air quality. We are one of the worst areas for nitrogen dioxide pollution, so does my hon. Friend agree that Heathrow expansion cannot go ahead?
Barry Gardiner
How did I know that my right hon. Friend would be introducing that subject? I excised it from my speech because I knew he would. He is absolutely right, and he will have seen the assessment that came out just 10 days ago, which said everything he and I have been saying about the pollution caused by the third runway expansion at Heathrow. Whatever we think about the economy—as he knows, the assessment was not too hot on that either—it is a disaster for public health.
I do not decry the real progress on nitrogen dioxide that has resulted from the ultra low emission zone expansion. What the mayor has done has been really significant; the correlated reduction in admissions to hospital has been huge, and we really welcome that. But air pollution action must be targeted at hotspots. Even if the hotspots dipped below the 40 microgram legal limit, that would still be four times the World Health Organisation guidelines.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the Mayor of London, who has made substantial strides, but I refer him to the matter of emissions from buses and the only partial electrification of the fleet in London and elsewhere. Pollutants from diesel buses are a continuing problem, especially when buses are allowed to idle at bus stands close to residential property. That is of particular concern to my constituent Kate Hollis, whose 12-year-old son, Jack, tragically died from bone cancer, the spread of which the family believes was caused by pollutants from a bus terminus next to their house in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these issues and who, like me, is a London MP, share my and the Hollis family’s concern that electrification is going too slowly, with potentially dangerous consequences?
Barry Gardiner
I give my condolences to the Hollis family for the tragedy they have suffered. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the electrification of the bus system must go further and faster, but it is not just a London problem, as he knows: it affects areas across the country. It is absolutely vital that we roll out the electrification of vehicles. He knows—I will come to this later—that it is not simply the exhaust that is the problem with those large vehicles; it is also the particulate matter that heavier vehicles produce on the roads.
Although the focus is often on particulate matter and NO2, we are falling behind on other pollutants. Ammonia, which is highly reactive, forms secondary PM2.5. The UK is not projected to meet its 2030 reduction targets until at least 2035. We have made essentially no progress in ammonia reduction in 20 years. In the Netherlands, regulatory controls on agricultural ammonia contributed to a 64% reduction in ammonia emissions between 1990 and 2016. This is possible—other people are doing it— so the question is: why are we not?
Ozone—O3—levels continue to be higher in rural and suburban areas, with long-term objectives remaining off track. Alongside particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, ozone is the biggest contributor to outdoor air pollution, with higher concentrations on hot summer days. Achieving long-term objectives for ozone is not even legally mandatory.
There are two more categories of particulates that are of growing concern: ultrafine particulate matter—UFP—which comprises 90% of airborne particles, and black carbon, or soot, formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. There are currently no regulations on safe levels of UFPs, despite research linking them with an even wider array of health problems than PM2.5 and PM10.
The current official advice from the UK Health Security Agency that the health effects of UFPs are “adequately covered” by the particulate matter air quality standards is simply outdated. Black carbon is a major contributor to climate change and poses a significant health risk as a universal carrier for a wide range of toxic chemicals that find their way into our bloodstreams. We need a comprehensive monitoring system and specific targets for UFPs and black carbon as the evidence of their severe health impacts grows.
However, it is not just what we pollute; it is where we pollute. The focus to date has largely been on outdoor pollution, yet we spend 80% of our time indoors—in our homes, offices and schools, or commuting between them. Indoor air pollution is poorly regulated, with no legally binding national standards, and its key sources, such as wood burning, are woefully under-addressed. Indoor air pollution is absent from the recently updated environmental improvement plan, and we lack a comprehensive estimate of the health burden from indoor air pollution. Poor housing conditions that create damp and mould are deadly, as we know from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Far too many children experience prolonged exposure to black mould, and that can kill.
In some cases, concentrations of certain pollutants indoors exceed those outdoors. For example, biological aerosols, carbon monoxide and many volatile organic compounds are often present at significantly higher concentrations indoors. NO2 levels can spike in homes because of gas cookers and poor ventilation. Approximately 36 million people in the UK are exposed to dangerous indoor air pollution from gas hobs and ovens that exceeds limits of pollutants permitted outdoors.
Around half of all homes in the UK still use gas hobs for cooking, which for most people will be the biggest source of NO2 pollution in their home. Yet gas cookers and hobs have been left out of home decarbonisation policy, and are totally ignored in the warm homes plan. If we want to protect people’s health from air pollution in the home and fully remove their reliance on fossil fuels, we need a policy pathway to transition to electric cooking in the home, such as the one developed by Global Action Plan and CLASP in partnership with experts and academics.
Pollutants such as radon gas are linked to 1,000 lung cancer deaths annually. In not only our homes but our workplaces, we are exposed to dangerous levels of pollution, some of us much more than others. As it stands, the Health and Safety Executive’s workplace exposure limit for inhalable dust, which includes PM10, is 10,000 micrograms per cubic metre for an eight-hour exposure. The WHO guidelines for PM10 are 45 micrograms—not for an eight-hour exposure, but for a 24-hour exposure. The Health and Safety Executive limit is more than 650 times higher than the WHO guidelines.
This is a matter of not just public health, but inequality. Let us be honest: who lives on the busiest, most polluted streets? Who works in the dirtiest factories? Who lives in poor-quality housing? The answer is those who have no choice. They are trapped. Air pollution is an issue for this Labour Government because people who are poor are much more likely to die from it as they do not have the means of escape. It is a fundamental breach of their human right to breathe clean air.
Tackling air pollution is not just a DEFRA issue; it should span every aspect of our Government and every aspect of our lives, as air pollution does our homes, our schools, our travel and our work. We need a co-ordinated national action plan. At present, action on air pollution is structurally skewed towards urban NO2 sites, because those are where the Government have faced the strongest legal pressure. That means that progress on other pollutants, as well as indoor air pollution, has stalled.
We must bring forward legislative proposals on clean air that unify and update existing laws in a new clean air Act. That was recommendation 34 of the joint report, “Improving Air Quality”, by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Health Committee and the Transport Committee. That report published nine years ago, in 2017. All those Committees made that recommendation—in 2017. If it had been taken on, imagine how much further on we could be in tackling this issue and how much more progress we could have made.
That recommendation stands today, in the year that marks the 70th anniversary of the very first Clean Air Act. Just as we have the Climate Change Act 2008, under which the Government produce and can be challenged on legally binding carbon budgets, we need a clean air Act under which the Government set out detailed, thorough and demonstrably achievable plans to bring down the levels of pollutants. With legally binding pollutant budgets, the Government could set a graduated timeline by which the UK would have to meet the WHO guidelines for a comprehensive list of pollutants, building on the 2030 targets and with limit values for perhaps 2035 and 2040.
The Clean Air Fund suggested to the Select Committees that our target for meeting WHO guideline levels for most pollutants should be 2040. I do not know whether that is the best target; I would like to see it brought forward. However, if we set that as the goal, just as we have set net zero by 2050 as the goal, we could at least be making progress towards it. Co-ordinating a national action plan on air pollution under a new clean air Act would ensure that air pollution is no longer relegated to being just a DEFRA issue. In reality, it affects, and is affected by, every single Government Department.
Mr Efford, there is so much more in my notes that I could say, but I am getting exhausted and I can see that others in the Chamber wish to contribute. I welcome the fact that the Minister has stepped in for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy); she has spoken to me, so I know she was unable to be with us today for her own very good reasons, and I accept that. I am grateful to the Minister for stepping in for her today, but will he please go back to the Department with this message? I know he is a new Minister in the Department, but new Ministers come in with new ideas. They can come in and say to the boss, “For God’s sake, I’ve just been in Westminster Hall, and I can’t believe what it is that we are doing.” Will the Minister try to make the case for us and for the 43,000 people in our country whose lives are being cut short every year? Let us do something imaginative, something bold and something worth doing: let us pass a clean air Act.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I want to bring in the Front Benchers at 3.58 pm, so Members can work out for themselves that it is roughly seven minutes for each Back Bencher who is on their feet.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for raising this issue and, as always, for his passion for it—well done. As the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson, I am most interested in it, due to the serious and too often fatal effects that air pollution has on public health. It is great to see the Minister in his place. He was here last night in the fishing debate, and he is here again today, so well done. We thank him for his perseverance and his energetic commitment.
Air pollution is associated with 30,000 deaths a year across the UK. The question that we are all asking, and that the hon. Member for Brent West asked when he set the focus for the debate, is, what are we doing to prevent those deaths? The United Kingdom Government and the World Health Organisation have acknowledged that air pollution is the largest environmental threat to our health. Of course, its effects do not just stop at the lungs; the pollutants go on to be absorbed into the bloodstream and have the potential to harm every organ in the body. The harm is greater than just the breath we breathe; it can manifest itself as heart disease, cancer, dementia, stroke or diabetes—I declare an interest as a diabetic—and has even been linked to mental health conditions. In addition to the devastating human cost, treating the effects of air pollution is likely costing the NHS billions. The Royal College of Physicians estimates the cost at as much as an eye-watering £27 billion annually.
Cars and vans remain among the largest sources of harmful air pollution, but we must also recognise the impact of indoor air pollution. Poor ventilation, damp, mould and emissions from domestic heating all contribute to poor health and can be particularly damaging for children, older people and those with existing and complex health conditions.
Alongside efforts to reduce emissions, targeted support should be provided to the most affected communities. It is often those living in the most deprived areas who experience the highest levels of air pollution, as the hon. Member for Brent West said. They are more likely to live close to busy roads or industrial sites, and, as a result, they face a greater risk of ill health. Clean air is not just an environmental issue; it is also one of health inequality. Quite clearly, across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is much inequality.
As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, a largely rural constituency, I must raise concerns about the effects of ammonia, a major emission from agricultural production. Although we can reduce emissions, we must accept that they are often a by-product of farming and food production. It is essential that the farming community works with the Department to reduce emissions in a sustainable way. I ask the Minister whether there have been discussions with the farming community on reducing ammonia emissions in some way so that everyone in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can reap the benefits.
Evidence demonstrates that taking action can make a difference. In London, deaths linked to air pollution fell by an estimated 40% over five years from 2019. I put on record my thanks to the Government and the Mayor of London for that massive reduction over those five years—or seven years as it is now—which correlates with the introduction of the ultra low emission zone.
There is no safe level of air pollution, of course, but every improvement in air quality has the potential to reduce illness, relieve pressure on our health service and save lives. The hon. Member for Brent West set that out very clearly. The objective is to save lives; we are all greatly perturbed by the loss of life each and every year.
I know that the Minister will agree that more should be done to tackle air pollution, and particular attention paid to communities in the most deprived areas, whose health is at greater risk simply because of where they live—where pollution is particularly high, indoors and outdoors—and the houses they live in. This must be done hand in hand with the farming industry, not with a boot on its neck. There is work to be done, from industry and farming to individuals in their homes. Together, I believe that we must do the best we can to be good stewards of the world we live in.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for bringing forward this debate and for his powerful and passionate speech.
We know the effects of air pollution. In the previous Parliament, I was proud to serve my party as the shadow Minister responsible for air quality. As a consequence, I remain extremely passionate about this. Also, in a previous life—in my youthful life before this place—I was a physiotherapist, and I treated people with breathing conditions. I treated miners with pneumoconiosis and silicosis, people young and old with asthma, and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Those are very real symptoms of the environments that we live in today.
Scientific studies have shown that air pollution is a major cause of disease and premature death. Those exposed to dirty air face an increased risk of heart disease, respiratory deterioration and even dementia. Fine particles can enter deep into the lungs, affecting blood vessels and respiratory function. The link between air pollution and poor respiratory health was laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West in relation to Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died back in 2013 aged just nine. I was privileged to meet her mum Rosamund a couple of days ago—again, after a long break. It was really good to see her, and I pay tribute to her for all her campaigning to get this silent killer back on the agenda—it is really important that that happens.
I appreciate that the Minister is standing in today. We know a lot about water pollution—a great deal is made about it, and that is fine—but it does not kill thousands, as air pollution does. Air quality is a key social justice issue, because it is not uniform; its impacts are often felt most among those who are already vulnerable. It is our most deprived communities, who already suffer from the worst social determinants of health, who experience the worst air quality.
If this Government are to be defined by their breaking down of barriers to opportunity, tackling social determinants of health, such as poor air quality, must be a priority. We know that poorer people live near dual carriageways and busy main roads, which contribute to poorer health—the evidence is clear. Certainly, as a shadow Minister, I went on a number of walkabouts with a personal air monitor on. I could see the results there and then, and they were stark. I am not even going to mention the tube; it was very frightening. However, we do need to know where pollution hotspots are, because then we can do something about tackling them.
The clear, detrimental health impacts of continued exposure to air pollution led the World Health Organisation to revise its guidance in 2021, to state that there are no safe levels of air pollution. That is a fact: there are no safe levels. That updated guidance now means that UK air pollution limits, first adopted in 2010, are significantly out of date, with targets for nitrous oxides and PM2.5 emissions being four times those now adopted by the WHO. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration the Department has given the updated WHO guidelines, and what steps it is taking to align UK regulations with those standards.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the UK’s Clean Air Act 1956. Given the ongoing and pressing health emergency posed by air pollution, there is a clear need to update it. We need a new clean air Act that is fit for the present day. We know that local authorities play a critical role in delivering local improvements in air quality, but they need the funding, enforcement powers and clear national backing to do so effectively. A new clean air Act would really help them in their challenges. I pay tribute to one of my local councils, Newport city council, for its fleet of electric buses. It is doing its bit, but it needs help to do even more.
What steps has the Department taken to update the Clean Air Act, drawing on national and international best practice? Will the Minister outline what conversations the Department has had with the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on greater financial support for local authorities to take action to tackle air pollution hotspots?
This Labour Government are committed to protecting our environment, rebuilding our NHS and breaking down barriers to opportunity, but we cannot deliver on those targets if we continue to overlook the significant impact of poor air quality on people’s health, particularly the poor and the young. Tackling air pollution is an investment in the next generation. We cannot let our children continue to pay the price for continued inaction. We need a new clean air Act and we need it now. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline a timetable for its introduction.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for leading this debate and, as ever, for his gentle but decisive prose. Members will be pleased, I am sure, to hear that my remarks will be a bit shorter.
Toxic air is a public health crisis—it is also an environmental crisis, but the health element, especially for our children, is what concerns me today. Air pollution can stunt the growth of children’s lungs, hamper foetal development and contribute to cancer, heart disease, dementia and even mental health conditions. Our air can become an invisible killer, but sadly, because we do not see it, we do not quite understand it.
Every single year, an estimated 30,000 deaths are attributable to long-term exposure to dirty air, and, at one point, in Newham—one of the boroughs I represent—1.7 in every 100 deaths were caused by air pollution. In 2013, one of those 30,000 was a nine-year-old girl. We have already heard her name today: Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She died following an asthma attack. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of Ella’s mum, Rosamund, who demanded answers and pushed for justice for her daughter, Ella became the first person in the UK for whom air pollution is listed as an official cause of death. I know Rosamund from my time working for the Mayor of London, so I saw her tireless work at first hand—her advocacy has been incredible. It was a landmark decision: Ella was exposed to excessive levels of pollution. The toxic air cut her beautiful life short, and robbed a family of their sister and a mother of her daughter. Their lives have never been the same since.
That is the price that our younger citizens paid for our inaction. If the air in Ella’s neighbourhood had been safe, and if she had not been exposed to toxic gases, she would have been in her 20s today—probably a trailblazer in her own right, but we will never know. That is the human cost of our negligence. No child should suffer as Ella did, and no family or mother should have to go through what they did.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by failing this generation of young people. It is clear that, with political will, creativity and resolve, we can turn the tide. I was there for the inception of ULEZ, and I am proud to have been part of the team who worked on it from 2016 onwards. In the five years since it came in, the Mayor of London’s bold approach has reduced London’s nitrogen oxide levels by over 40%—that is no small feat. It has reduced fine particulate pollution levels by around 30%. These are not pie-in-the-sky statistics. That work is driving down hospital admissions, protecting the health of children and pensioners alike, and easing the burden on our NHS.
John McDonnell
In London, a large number of individual politicians, including the mayor, had a rough time introducing ULEZ. It is time that we congratulate him on that achievement and on the way in which he courageously faced down the opposition.
Uma Kumaran
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. For some Members on the right, particularly those representing outer London suburbs, that issue has become the newest punching bag. This should not be about party politics; it should be about cleaning up our polluted air.
In just five years, we have seen the difference here in London thanks to bold leadership from our mayor, Sadiq Khan. Dirty air is deadly, but the future is in our hands. We have shown that progress is possible and that we can turn the tide. This should not be a controversial thing. Breathing clean air should not be a privilege reserved just for children in postcodes in leafy suburbs. We would never expect anyone to drink dirty water, so why are we accepting the breathing of dirty air? That is the simple premise behind Ella’s law, which I am very proud to support as a signatory. That legislation, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, makes one clear claim: every person has the right to breathe clean air.
I welcome the fact that the Government have identified clean air as a priority for the 10-year health plan. In that spirit, I urge the Minister to take a fresh look at our national targets and our legal pollution limits, and to commit to introducing Ella’s law to tackle the serious air pollution challenges and cut down the causes of toxic pollution. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air, no matter where they live or who they are. That should be the thing that unites this whole House.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate.
Clean air is not simply an issue about health and the environment, but a moral imperative of our time. It is a challenge that requires urgency, with current legislation and frameworks lagging behind the science, alongside more joined-up thinking and action across agencies, Government Departments and devolved Administrations. I hope that the Minister can say something about the work that his Department is doing with others to take the issue forward.
Clean air is an environmental, health and social justice issue. Poor air quality is an environmental challenge. Many of our wild plants and much of our natural environment cannot tolerate high pollution levels, which can devastate grasslands, peatlands and moorlands, leading to a loss of pollinators and significantly harming biodiversity. That matters on a bigger scale, because the ecosystems that we depend on for air, water and a liveable planet are being damaged.
Poor air quality is a public health issue. It shortens lives and contributes to between 30,000 and 40,000 premature deaths every year. It increases the risk of diseases such as dementia, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. It affects all of us, but particularly the young, the old, pregnant women and their unborn children.
That brings me to air quality as a social justice issue. Clean air is an equity issue: those more likely to have underlying conditions are also more likely to live in environments that worsen them. The areas most exposed to pollution are often the poorest, where proximity to traffic and poor housing often go hand in hand.
That is why tackling the root causes is essential. Interventions can make a real difference. Air pollution was once widely associated with transport, but strategies—most notably, the shift away from diesel and the uptake of electric vehicles—have reduced transport’s impact. Alongside national action, local strategies matter. As has been mentioned, London’s ULEZ reduced NO2 levels by 40% before lockdown, and, since the clean air zone was introduced in Bradford, it is reported that GP visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems have reduced by 25%.
However, success in one area should not obscure challenges elsewhere. Wood burning affects air quality inside homes. There must be a focus on air quality indoors, where we spend up to 80% to 90% of our time, as much as a focus on air quality outdoors and on how we protect buildings such as schools, hospitals and community facilities. Yes, we need more ambitious targets and a stronger framework, but, just as importantly, we must secure buy-in from local communities. Although national targets set direction, local needs are best addressed locally. That means empowering not only local authorities, important though that is, but communities themselves.
Clean air cannot be delivered from the top down alone; alongside funding, we need expertise and partnerships so that residents, schools and community organisations can lead change. Community-led initiatives, such as local monitoring, clean transport and neighbourhood campaigns, would make the pollution issue visible, and give people a real stake in improving it. I hope that the Minister can say something about the involvement of communities in taking forward the important measures that are required.
Public engagement must be at the heart of our efforts. Clean air should be seen as essential to everyday health. By raising awareness, and giving people the opportunity to shape solutions, we can turn an invisible scourge into a shared priority. With national ambition and local action, we can become a world leader in air quality again.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate on the urgency and duty for policymakers to tackle air pollution—the silent killer in our towns and cities. I also thank all the Members who have contributed so passionately and movingly to the debate. Toxic, poisonous air threatens the community spaces that we all love and the people we care most about. It knows no boundaries, reaching our workplaces, homes, schools and other public spaces.
As other hon. Members have done, I would like to pay tribute to Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, mum to Ella Roberta. For over a decade, Rosamund has campaigned tirelessly for cleaner air through Ella’s law. I had the privilege to meet Rosamund last month when, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I visited communities to understand the physical and mental health impacts of air pollution on their lives.
Ella was a happy, playful and bright child, and she lived not far from the South Circular Road in Lewisham with her family. By the age of seven, she was suffering debilitating asthma attacks, which would see her cough and wheeze so much that she would fall unconscious. A few weeks after her ninth birthday, Ella died. She had suffered a fatal asthma attack. A landmark inquest in 2020 ruled that toxic air from traffic emissions contributed to her death, marking the first time that air pollution was officially recognised as a cause of death in the UK. Ella’s death was preventable.
Among other measures, Ella’s law would enshrine a legal right to breathe clean air, requiring the Government to meet stricter air quality standards based on the World Health Organisation guidelines. We must not let children like Ella and their families down when turning our attention to this urgent problem, yet in the UK, an estimated 500 people die of disease related to air pollution each week.
Air pollution is an invisible and insidious enemy. According to a recent report by the Royal College of Physicians, air pollution has been linked to 30,000 deaths and, as we have heard, it costs our economy more than £27 billion per year. Long-term exposure to emissions can cause heart and lung problem and increase the risk of a person developing cancers. Fine particulate matter from polluted air penetrates deep into the body, settling in our lungs. Recent research has also pointed to an increased risk of cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, which can affect the heart and blood vessels.
The public health burden is not shared equally: the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, those already facing deprivation, and babies and children are most at risk. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that a growing evidence base links maternal exposure to air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the introduction of a new clean air Act, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a dedicated air quality agency. The scale of the issue is such that we need strong, independent oversight to tackle pollution at its source and protect public health.
We must also transform how people travel, reducing dependence on the cars that spew noxious fumes into the air we breathe. The Government must work with local authorities to curb transport emissions. We need to invest in affordable, reliable public transport to ensure that fares do not rise above inflation, restore the £2 bus fare cap, and improve the passenger experience so that it is cheaper and better to travel by public transport. We must electrify our railways, embrace cleaner technologies and support active travel by creating safe cycling and walking networks across the country. For those who have no option but to rely on cars, especially those in isolated rural areas, we must make the transition to electric vehicles easier and more affordable by expanding charging infrastructure and reducing costs.
Finally, we must address the inequalities at the heart of the issue. By increasing the public health grant and empowering local communities, we can develop targeted solutions such as supporting healthier and better insulated housing, reducing traffic exposure and improving local planning. As some hon. Members have already stated, health experts recommend stronger controls on household wood burning and effective action to raise awareness of health harms from indoor air pollution, including damp and mould.
Children in the UK today have some of the worst asthma outcomes in the developed world. It is not right that so many lives are shortened by diseases that we can work together to prevent. Most importantly of all, there is no effective advice to help people to avoid air pollution if they have only one route to work or school, if they live near a busy road, if their care home or school is near air pollutant sources or if their house is poorly insulated. We call on the Government to recognise, in law, the human right to breathe clean air and to legally enforce air quality standards that meet WHO limits by 2030. We owe clean air to the baby born today, to the child coming out of school right now and to every child who will come after them.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate. He has spoken about the issue many times in this place, so I know it is one that he cares deeply about.
Air pollution is one of the greatest public health and environmental challenges facing our country today: it contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, worsens respiratory diseases, harms our natural environment and, as was outlined in the contributions of many hon. Members, places an enormous amount of pressure on our NHS. All of that reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. That is largely due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. When wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for, the economic cost of air quality not being addressed may be as high as £50 billion.
Air pollution also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities—13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% of people in the least deprived neighbourhoods. The health impacts of that are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. It can also cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous systems, as has also been mentioned by several Members. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lasting, lifelong effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the Chamber what targeted action the Government will be taking to address that gap in exposure to poor air quality.
The Conservative party has a proud record when it comes to improving air quality, but there is much more to be done, as outlined in today’s contributions. Air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. The levels of all the key pollutants, bar ammonia, have fallen by over 70%, with levels of PM2.5 and PM10 falling by 27% and 20% respectively between 2014 and 2024. The previous Government’s 2019 clean air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as
“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.
The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030 respectively.
The previous Government also passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in population exposure by 31 December 2040. Furthermore, the previous Administration’s 2023 environmental improvement plan set out a direction to support clean air, with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances in smoke-controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality, continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North sea emission control area to cover the Irish sea, reducing emissions from shipping.
The roll-out of any strategy, legislation, guidance or regulation that focuses on improving air quality must also take into account the economic, social and environmental impact, so that the best strategy is adopted and there is the best buy-in from residents and businesses. Without their buy-in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate that we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation that then has a wider detrimental effect.
That is why, as the official Opposition, we oppose the Government’s restrictions on wood-burning stoves. For many people living in rural areas, wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where mains gas is unavailable and the alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place.
We also committed to scrapping the zero emission vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. There should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress. It should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or the weakening of domestic manufacturing. Again, a balance must be struck if we are to improve air quality.
That is why a strategy of simply taxing motorists is just not the right approach. The Mayor of London’s expansion of ULEZ is having hugely damaging financial consequences on some of the poorest and most deprived residents and communities in London, as well as on many motorists and trade-related businesses.
Robbie Moore
I would like to explore what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube—the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) may be able to indicate this in her intervention, because I know she was involved—because there has been hardly any focus on that in the mayor’s strategy.
Uma Kumaran
The Conservatives in City Hall called the whole of ULEZ “bewildering” and have objected to it at every turn. I read out the statistics earlier: there has been a 40% reduction in nitrogen oxide levels and a huge positive impact in London from ULEZ. The Mayor of London won two decisive elections after its introduction. London has also been recognised as a global leader by the United Nations. The Secretary-General himself invited the Mayor of London to the United Nations to speak about ULEZ and London’s climate action. Should the hon. Member not congratulate London for its climate action and decisive air quality improvements, and actually support that good work?
Robbie Moore
I will specifically address that point, but I will use one further example before I do. The same approach as the ULEZ has been applied to the Bradford district, in which my constituency sits.
A clean air zone has been rolled out in Bradford, but it is a strategy that is again taxing motorists and some of the hardest-working people in our communities—including some of the most deprived communities, who are simply not able to afford the levels of tax imposed on them. Of course there are other ways of doing it, but before I come on to them I want to address the fact that if a resident or someone with a business on the outskirts of Bradford wants to travel into Bradford in a light goods vehicle, it now costs them £9 a day. That has a detrimental impact on business growth. It costs a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver £50 a day to take their vehicle into Bradford. That is also having a huge detrimental impact.
Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised. Of that, £9.8 million was raised through entry fees but £16.4 million was raised through penalty charge notices, the vast majority of which were for people who could not afford to pay, and who therefore had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them.
My point is that we cannot simply have a strategy that charges people if we want complete buy-in. That is why I use the example of the roll-out in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be, because when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester he opposed a chargeable clean air zone tax across Greater Manchester. Indeed, at the time, all five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also heavily lobbied the Government for a non-charging approach to be adopted. Such an approach was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment in electrification, upgrade grants and traffic control measures. Those were all rolled out in Manchester—approved by the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield—and they had buy-in at the local level.
I would therefore simply say in response to the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow that there are other ways of doing it, rather than simply having a taxing approach. Will the Minister outline whether he has had discussions with the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is likely to become the Prime Minister, about what the future clean air zone strategy will be under the new Administration? Will the Minister also outline the cost to the taxpayer of all the infrastructure that was put in place but not used for the roll-out of that clean air zone—a tax to the motorist—across the Greater Manchester area?
It is therefore vital that when we consider how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the Government work across Departments to ensure that there are no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed on our rural communities. I absolutely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent West: we cannot have a siloed approach across Government. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within DEFRA but will instead take a co-ordinated approach across Government.
Communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality. We must do much more, with buy-in from businesses and residents, and only if it is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads and elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Those are not abstract narratives; they are everyday realities for millions of people. We must, therefore, work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air.
To have a clean air strategy, we have to have buy-in from all and not just use a one-size-fits-all approach by taxing those in our communities who are most deprived. They are the ones who need to benefit from the clean air zone strategy because of where they live.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate all hon. Members for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate and for speaking with such characteristic passion about this issue.
There is clear consensus that air pollution remains one of the most significant environmental risks to public health and I welcome the strength of feeling expressed today on the need to continue to make progress. I also welcome the ongoing inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee into air pollution. Scrutiny of that kind plays an important role in strengthening our approach and the Government have been keenly following the evidence received by the Committee. We look forward to engaging further with the Committee, and Ministers will give evidence to it in due course.
The issue goes beyond environmental policy. As many Members have confirmed, it is about fairness. The dirtiest air sits over the poorest neighbourhoods. Black and minority ethnic communities and those on low incomes are far more likely to be exposed to air pollution while contributing the least to it. That is exactly the kind of injustice the Labour party and this Labour Government exist to tackle.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) rightly mentioned, it is also about the NHS. We are the party that built it and protecting it means preventing illness, not just funding treatment. Dirty air contributes to about 30,000 early deaths each year, and it drives asthma, cancer, heart disease and dementia. An NHS fit for the future requires action not just inside hospital walls, but on the air outside their doors. I will certainly take the questions my hon. Friend has raised back to the Department.
This issue is also about pride in place. Clean air underpins better neighbourhoods, safer streets, greener spaces and thriving high streets. Making a visible improvement that people can feel is at the heart of our mission to restore pride in the places that people call home. Let me be clear: the Government recognise both the scale of the challenge and the need for sustained, co-ordinated action. We have made substantial progress in recent years. Air quality in England has improved significantly and emissions of key air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, have reduced and are projected to continue to fall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West mentioned the DEFRA statistics that came out this week, and they all show long-term improvement. The trajectory is promising, but, as I will go on to say later, we need to do much more. The improvements have been driven by major shifts in the United Kingdom, such as the transition from coal to natural gas to renewables in electricity generation, the tighter vehicle emission standards and improved industrial controls. However, there is much more to do to fully unlock the benefits for public health, the environment and the economy. That is why we are continuing to take action to reduce emissions at source, working closely with local authorities and partners across the health system.
A number of Members have made remarks about targets. In December, we set more ambitious interim targets for fine particulate matter, including a concentration target aligned with the level the EU is required to achieve. Overall, our national performance is broadly comparable with the EU for many pollutants. Areas in England are already meeting levels like those that the EU is aiming for by 2030. We will keep other targets under review, but real world improvements need tangible action. As set out in the environmental improvement plan, we are taking practical action in a range of sectors, and that will deliver real benefits for communities across the country.
A number of Members raised the issue of nitrogen dioxide, which remains a challenge, as we recognise. In 2024, five location zones exceeded the annual mean limit and some local hotspots persist. That said, committed policies to tackle nitrogen dioxide, such as increasing the share of zero-emission cars and vans by 2030 and moving to all new sales being zero emission by 2035, will make a significant difference. We will continue to work closely with our partners in local government to deliver nitrogen dioxide reductions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West raised the matter of domestic burning. We recognise that it is responsible for a significant proportion of fine particulate matter emissions; it is comparable with road transport. We must act to reduce the impact of burning on the health of those in households who burn and their neighbours. However, we must do so in a way that does not put disproportionate costs on households or businesses. The policies consulted on earlier this year focused on reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel burning to ensure cleaner burning in the future, delivering health benefits. We received a significant number of responses, which we are considering, and the Government response will be published later in the year and will set out the next steps. We will continue to review our measures to reduce emissions from that source.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), mentioned the importance of communication and engagement with communities. The issue of air pollution is complex and often invisible. The challenge is not just about reducing emissions but about making sure that people understand the risks, know what action to take and feel empowered to act. That is why clear, trusted and accessible communications are so important. We have already taken positive steps, including updating the health advice accompanying the daily air quality index, which provides the public with current pollution levels, five-day forecasts and health advice based on pollution levels.
Through a new air pollution awareness coalition, we are working with health and non-governmental organisation partners to deliver clean and credible messaging on air pollution. The coalition will deliver practical and trusted communications to improve public understanding of air pollution and support action to reduce harm. We have also commissioned a co-design project working with local authority officers and directors of public health to create a new air quality communications toolkit, supporting local authorities to disseminate cleaner, clearer and locally relevant air quality information. New resources are due to be published at the end of the calendar year.
John McDonnell
On the issue of messaging, I wonder whether the Minister could take a message back from this debate with regard to Heathrow: perhaps Ministers could read their own report on the health impact of airport expansion. I am particularly concerned about loss of life in my constituency. The Government’s own paper says that vulnerable groups in our area will suffer significant major adverse impacts from the expansion of Heathrow, which means that more of my constituents will die. The scheme will make things worse and therefore the message is: think again.
Stephen Morgan
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have launched a consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, which includes the requirement that the development consent must meet measures on climate change and air quality. Likewise, the Government have been clear that any expansion proposals must meet strict environmental requirements on air quality. I will certainly take his concerns back to my Department.
In May, we launched the first iteration of a new alert system, allowing people to sign up for notifications when air pollution is forecast or measured to be high in their local community.
A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), have made points about cross-Government working. Air pollution is not an issue any one department can solve in isolation. It requires co-ordinated action across transport, energy, planning, agriculture and health, and we are working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that our approach is aligned, evidence-led and deliverable. I can assure all Members that we recognise the importance of cross-Government working, working with our devolved Governments and in partnership with local authorities on these matters.
On a clean air Act, the Government have no plans to implement new primary legislation at this stage, but we are committed to ensuring that there is cleaner air for everyone, backed by a strong legal framework that already holds Government to account and drives down harmful pollution. It is also important to recognise that as progress continues, the choices become more complex. Further reductions often require changes that carry wider financial implications for businesses, households and communities. Looking ahead, we will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders as we consider the best approach to review our air quality strategy.
This is a complex challenge, but one where progress is possible and essential. The Government are working hard to deliver the commitments made in the environmental improvement plan, including through reforming our industrial emissions regulation, reducing emissions from domestic combustion and improving communications on air quality. We will keep progress under review.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is very brave to say that there will be no new clean air Act. I understand why he says that, but when the Clean Air Act was introduced, it saved thousands of lives; why would we not amend and update that Act?
Stephen Morgan
My understanding is that there is already a legal framework to deliver on the targets that we are committed to achieving.
I welcome the scrutiny from this House and the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that the Minister responsible for air quality in DEFRA has been watching the debate and looks forward to contributing to future discussions, so that we can all work together to deliver cleaner air for communities across our country.
Barry Gardiner
It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Thank you for giving me the nod earlier to curtail my remarks. It only goes to prove that we do not need to say everything: often, we think—at least I do—that we need to get everything in, but what was lovely about this debate was that I did not manage to get in everything that I wanted to say, but then all my hon. Friends did it for me.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who mentioned the £27 billion impact that this clean air Act could achieve, which would have come later in my speech. That is a huge impact on our economy. He talked about public awareness. The Royal College of Physicians did a poll with YouGov in which 95% of people did not know there was a link between air pollution and diabetes, and 85% of people did not know about the link between air pollution and stroke, heart disease or poor foetal health. The hon. Member was absolutely right to raise the importance of public awareness; it was an important contribution to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) spoke with deep knowledge from her days as a shadow Minister and as a medical practitioner, as she told us. She stressed the social inequality that toxic air brings, and the need for a new clean air Act with a national framework. That is really important—that it is a national framework for appropriate support to be delivered to local authorities. The point that she stressed was reinforced by what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said about the need to do this and bring it together.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who spoke of her work for the mayor and of the 40% reduction in nitrogen dioxide that has been achieved there. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who serves with me on the Environmental Audit Committee, spoke of the impacts on wildlife and nature, because that is absolutely fundamental. He also raised wood burners, but of course the Minister will know—if he does not, his officials will—that the DEFRA labelling standards, by DEFRA’s own lights, will reduce pollution by only 2%.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who spoke movingly about Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She mentioned the modal shift to public transport, and spoke about important things such as local solutions and school streets.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Obviously, this is meant to be a brief summing up by the hon. Gentleman—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
There is certainly not scope for giving way in his couple of minutes for summing up.
Barry Gardiner
Okay. I will be very brief, and I will not give way.
I really enjoyed it when the shadow Minister was on the Environmental Audit Committee with us. He made a very valuable contribution then, but he lost his way when he went over to the Front Bench. How can he at the same time extol the £27 billion that will be brought into the economy and then say, “But actually we can’t afford to do it”? He talked about a 35% reduction in population exposure—great, but he had no baseline when he did that, so he did not know what he was reducing by 35%.
I thank the Minister very much for standing in. The Secretary of State
“may have failed, and be continuing to fail, to comply with relevant duties under the”
air quality standards regulations
“to ensure that such plans are drawn up and implemented.”
That is not me, but the Office for Environmental Protection in January.
What is not to like? Clean air, less congested, safer, quieter roads, more active travel, better public transport, better insulated, less mouldy homes that run on cheaper energy, healthier workplaces, less cost to the NHS and £27 billion to the economy—for God’s sake, let’s just do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution.
Written Statements
Independent Reviewer of the Use of Non-corporate Communications Channels in Government
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
The Government are committed to maintaining the highest standards of information security, transparency, propriety, and record-keeping. These standards are essential to ensure public trust in how we make decisions.
In recent years, the way we all communicate has changed considerably, including across the public sector. I share the view of many Members that there is a need for greater clarity over the use of non-corporate communication channels—such as personal messaging apps—for Government business to remain secure and for decisions to be recorded appropriately. It is of course important that we strike the right balance between transparency and accountability, alongside operational efficiency and information security.
I am therefore pleased to confirm the appointment of Professor Sir Anthony Finkelstein CBE FRS FREng as the independent reviewer of the use of non-corporate communications channels in Government. Sir Anthony is a distinguished scholar and public servant, with deep expertise in technology, national security, and management.
Sir Anthony’s review will be wide-ranging. He will examine the human, organisational, legal and technical factors involved when officials, advisers and Ministers use non-corporate communication channels for work.
The review’s terms of reference will be published on gov.uk. The review will:
Define NCCCs within the context of Government business;
Cover the use of disappearing messages and similar auto-deletion features;
Identify security risks related to NCCCs, including risks of interception, where devices may be compromised and questions about where data is stored; and
Make practical and actionable recommendations concerning NCCCs to improve the Government’s record-keeping.
Sir Anthony will report his conclusions and recommendations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Security Minister in early 2027. The Government will publish the final report and will present our response to Parliament.
I have full confidence that Sir Anthony’s review will provide the clarity, guidance, and strategic direction needed to ensure our communications practices remain robust, secure, and appropriate into the future.
[HCWS176]
HMRC Transformation Road Map
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Today, the Government are providing an update on HMRC’s transformation road map, setting out the progress made in the first year of delivery and sharing HMRC’s transformation priorities for 2026-27.
Published in July 2025, HMRC’s transformation road map maps out a five-year programme to build a tax and customs system that works better for everyone, including over 100 commitments to enhance day-to-day performance, close the tax gap and reform and modernise tax and customs administration. Delivering this ambition requires sustained investment, bold reform and a willingness to do things differently.
Digital services are an essential part of how HMRC is improving the experience of its customers: 78% of customer interactions are now taking place digitally, with 2.8 million new HMRC app users in 2025-26—bringing the total number of unique users to over 7.6 million—and nearly 20 million people now using personal tax accounts. This is significant progress towards our ambition of at least 90% of customer interactions being digital by 2030.
The introduction of Making Tax Digital for Income Tax in April 2026 marked the biggest modernisation of the tax system for a generation, helping people to get their tax right first time and reducing error through digital record-keeping.
In laying the foundations for this digital transformation, HMRC has improved telephony performance with call waiting times almost halving over the past two years. As HMRC modernises its services, it is continuing to support customers who are in vulnerable circumstances, digitally excluded or have complex tax affairs, including through existing channels such as phonelines.
The Government have also acted to strengthen compliance, ensure fairness and tackle those who seek to break the rules. HMRC is making good progress in recruiting and training 5,500 new compliance officers and 2,400 debt management officers, alongside increasing HMRC’s use of artificial intelligence tools, strengthening the reward scheme for informants and using new powers to tackle dishonest tax advisers.
This year has also seen an important step in reform and modernisation, through the integration of the Valuation Office into HMRC. This brings together two organisations with a shared ambition to deliver a modern, digital-first service which protects the funding that underpins public services and frees businesses to focus on growth. As part of this update, the Valuation Office has set out how it will improve valuation services, speed up decisions, increase trust and transparency, and modernise the administration of property tax.
This first year of delivery represents an important step towards the Government’s long-term ambition for a tax and customs system that is simpler, more efficient, and better supports taxpayers and businesses, while ensuring that everyone pays the tax that is due.
HMRC will continue to build on this progress over the coming years, informed by engagement with stakeholders and customers and guided by our HMRC charter commitments. Further updates will be provided as delivery continues, including reporting progress against the commitments set out in the road map.
The HMRC transformation road map update can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-transformation-roadmap-progress-update-2026
[HCWS181]
Donated Medicines: VAT
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
In response to an oral question on Tuesday 23 June, I announced that the Government will take forward a new approach on VAT on free of charge donations of medicines, consisting of either changes to the VAT rules or a reimbursement scheme. I can now give the House further details on this announcement.
Under UK VAT law, some transactions where no money changes hands are treated for VAT purposes as if a supply has been made and so VAT is due—these are known as deemed supplies. These are long-standing VAT rules in place to keep the system fair if a business has reclaimed VAT on costs.
Pharmaceutical companies donate certain medicines to the NHS, such as through early access schemes. For many years, under these long-standing VAT rules, some pharmaceutical businesses have been paying VAT on donations of medicines. Other businesses have not, and in 2023 HMRC wrote to the sector to begin the process of making sure firms paid the correct tax.
The Government understand that any additional VAT burden on medicines provided free of charge has the potential to impact patient outcomes, and so the Government will bring forward a new approach as soon as possible.
Changes will be effective for donations made on or after 23 June 2026 and the Government will engage with stakeholders on these options.
[HCWS177]
Historical Forced Adoption
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today the Prime Minister has delivered an apology on behalf of the state for historical forced adoption practices in England. These practices, which predominantly occurred between 1949 and 1976, involved mostly young, unmarried women being coerced into having their babies taken from them.
The apology follows extensive engagement with campaign groups and individuals with lived experience.
Commitments to action and support
We know that, for many people, the consequences of these experiences have not diminished with time. An apology, while important, cannot undo the profound and lasting harm that was caused. Those affected have made it clear—powerfully and consistently—that healing and recognition require meaningful, practical support.
Today marks not an end point, but the beginning of a continuing commitment to address this legacy. The Government are determined to learn from this historic injustice and to improve access to support for those affected and their families. This includes improving access to records, strengthening specialist intermediary services, expanding trauma-informed support, and ensuring clearer routes to information and assistance.
We will continue to work closely with people with lived experience, experts and delivery partners to ensure that this acknowledgement is matched by meaningful and lasting change.
Today, the Government commit to a programme of measures worth £4 million over three years to support those affected. Initial steps will include:
Transforming access to and safeguarding of adoption records
Extending record retention
We will consult on strengthening access to historical adoption information by extending the retention period for existing pre-2005 adoption case records to at least 100 years, bringing them into line with post-2005 requirements and helping to ensure records remain available throughout the lifetime of those affected.
Making access to records simpler and more transparent
We will fund the further development of a national platform, led by CoramBAAF in partnership with the Archives and Records Association, providing a single access point to a comprehensive dataset of adoption and care records held by agencies, organisations and record offices.
Driving consistency and accountability
This will be reinforced through ministerial communications to local authorities, regional adoption agencies and voluntary adoption agencies, emphasising the importance of responding appropriately to information requests, and in line with the Government-funded and endorsed 2025 Adoption England practice guidance. This includes improving transparency around response times and reducing unnecessary redaction.
Expanding access to specialist support and reconnection services
Strengthening access to advice and information
Through FamilyConnect, we will expand the national advice line to improve access to information and services for adopted adults, their descendants, birth parents and relatives seeking information, support or reconnection. This will include advice on any funding that may be available to assist them.
We will also support the development of dedicated areas within the FamilyConnect website, providing tailored information, guidance and resources for adult adoptees, birth parents, relatives and professionals.
Funded intermediary services
We will provide funded intermediary services for historical adoption cases that took place between 1949 and 1976, in line with existing regulations, which allow prioritisation of adoptions before 12 November 1975, ensuring those with the greatest need are supported to access information, trace relatives and pursue reconnection safely and sensitively.
A national peer support offer
We will establish national virtual peer support groups for birth parents and adopted adults, improving access to ongoing, trauma-informed support regardless of where people live.
Strengthening access to trauma-informed NHS services
Improving access and clinician understanding
We will work with NHS England and those affected by historical forced adoption practices to co-produce practical tools and guidance that:
Recognise their experiences and help clinicians understand the impact of forced adoption.
Clearly set out the support that may be relevant and improve referral and triage pathways.
Support individuals to access the care most appropriate to their needs.
Improve consistency across GP services, NHS 111 and NHS talking therapies.
Recognise the implications of unknown family medical histories, including when considering health screening and referrals for genetic testing.
Better recognition within care pathways
We will improve clinician awareness and provide practical guidance to support the identification of forced adoption experiences within patient histories, helping to inform appropriate care, referrals and signposting. This will support affected individuals to access the full range of NHS services in a way that recognises and responds to their experiences.
Exploring the option of a health record marker
NHS England will explore how individuals can choose to have their experience of forced adoption appropriately recorded within their health records, where they wish to do so. This could help clinicians take that experience into account when considering:
Care and treatment decisions.
Family medical history.
Wider health and support needs.
Recognition and voice
We will commission a testimonials project to preserve and share the experiences of those affected by historical forced adoption practices, ensuring that their voices continue to be heard and that the lessons of the past are not forgotten.
We will also gather evidence on the effectiveness of the measures announced today and keep the need for further research under review.
Accountability
We will establish a reference group comprising people with lived experience of historical forced adoption practices to help review progress, and provide ongoing challenge and insight as these commitments are delivered.
Closing
We offer this apology and package of support in the hope that it brings recognition, understanding and a measure of healing to those affected.
Today, we acknowledge a profound wrong.
On behalf of the Government, we say clearly and unequivocally: what happened was wrong. It should never have happened. We are deeply sorry.
[HCWS179]
Human Genomic Data: Safeguarding
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
This is a joint statement made with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
Human genomic data drives medical and scientific breakthroughs that benefit people by helping to identify some of the underlying factors in who will develop diseases and how they progress, leading to the development of new treatments. It also contributes significantly to global scientific benefit and economic growth. The UK is a global leader in human genomic data, due to the scale, richness and diversity of its datasets.
However, we also know that human genomic data, if shared without due care, has the potential to present national, economic and biological security risks to the UK. The UK Government are committed to keeping human genomic data safe. Keeping human genomic data secure is also important in maintaining the trust of the public in how their health data is used, even more so when people have voluntarily shared their genomic data for research studies. While there are clear legislative requirements and regulatory frameworks that help protect people’s health data, there is no clear statement of the Government’s expectations regarding how human genomic data should be made available for research.
Therefore, over the last 12 months, we have been considering how to protect people’s privacy and security, while continuing to make human genomic data available for legitimate research. Today we are publishing new guidance for UK Government funded major holders of human genomic data that make data available to external users. This applies to Genomics England, Our Future Health, UK Biobank and NIHR BioResource. It sets out recommendations on how these bodies can make data available in a way that manages the benefits of global access and use of human genomic data, while managing security risks.
The guidance is in three parts:
The first part uses the Office for National Statistics’ “Five Safes” framework, which is widely regarded as best practice in protecting data when making it available to users.
The second part sets out a framework to support major holders of human genomic data when considering whether to make data available to users outside of the UK.
The third part sets out the expectations on protective security and the measures that holders should have in place to manage insider risk and protect their physical environment.
The guidance makes clear recommendations for how major holders of human genomic data should make data available using the Five Safes framework: safe settings, safe data, safe people, safe projects and safe outputs. It recommends that:
Human genomic data should be made available through one or more secure data environments, which have an appropriately robust “airlock” in place—the airlock places controls on the data and tools that are allowed into or out of an SDE.
Holders of human genomic data should have robust policies and processes in place to assess individuals who are potential users, and the organisation sponsoring the project to check access is justified before it is granted.
Careful consideration should be given where a user or their sponsoring organisation have a history of data breaches or misuse: the expectation is that a history means approval will not normally be given.
Access should be granted only for projects that are intended to benefit human health or deliver wider public benefit.
Access to data by users located outside the UK is considered an international data transfer. The guidance makes it clear that where a holder of human genomic data is considering access by a user located outside the UK, in a country or territory that is not covered by UK adequacy regulations, a transfer risk assessment must be completed before access is allowed. Adequate countries and territories are those that the UK Government have assessed as having a level of data protection that is “not materially lower” than that provided for by UK law. This allows personal data to be sent to those countries without the need for additional transfer mechanisms and safeguards.
As the guidance notes, the Information Commissioner Office’s TRA tool can help holders complete their transfer risk assessment. Given the potential significant personal impacts that could be associated with HGD, it is likely to be considered a “high harm risk” category of data transfer. GDPR requires supplementary measures to be put in place if, after risk assessment, relevant tests are not likely to be met. The guidance sets out some criteria that holders of human genomic data can use when assessing whether the data protection test is met.
The way in which human genomic data can be made available safely and securely for a range of research and other uses is rapidly developing as technology advances. We will, therefore, keep this guidance under review and will update it when required.
[HCWS177]
Southport Inquiry Phase 1: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
On 13 April 2026, the chair of the Southport inquiry, Sir Adrian Fulford published his phase 1 report. Sir Adrian sets out five fundamental failings, and makes 67 recommendations for central Government, and a range of national and local partners to consider. He concludes that the attack was foreseeable and avoidable.
I am grateful to Sir Adrian and his team for their diligent work in producing this comprehensive report. When I addressed Parliament on 13 April, I committed to publish our response by summer. Today that response has been published. The response has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper (CP 1623) and copies are available in the Vote Office and on gov.uk.
In the response, we recognise the five fundamental failings. We accept all the recommendations that are for central Government to deliver and set out how we are working at pace to implement these in full. There are recommendations that Government have already made progress against, or in some cases, completed. The pace of this work demonstrates the urgency with which Government are working towards meeting the outcomes set by the inquiry. I have committed to formally report to Sir Adrian again in a year’s time.
I am clear that Government expects other organisations to implement their recommendations. We have written to all organisations to highlight the findings of the inquiry and will facilitate and support on delivery as far as possible.
The Government have already acted across a number of areas.
We have published our halving knife crime plan with the ambition to halve the level of knife crime across 10 years. We have also taken the Crime and Policing Act 2026 through Parliament to significantly tighten the law on knives and other bladed articles. We have also recently held a public consultation about introducing licensing for sellers of knives and importers.
We published a youth justice White Paper setting out a comprehensive programme of reform to modernise the youth justice system, establishing a clear direction toward earlier intervention and taking action to encourage and strengthen the use of parenting orders.
The Government are introducing legislation this session to criminalise lone individuals planning an attack without an ideological motive, closing a gap and strengthening our ability to disrupt the most serious threats from violence-fixated individuals.
We have announced that we will ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s, in addition to new action to restricting their access to livestreaming and communication with strangers on services including gaming. We will also introduce legislation to tackle extreme violence content, to create a safer online environment, particularly for children and young people.
Alongside delivering the recommendations in phase 1, we will work with the inquiry throughout phase 2 to strengthen our understanding of the evolving threat from extreme violence and the effectiveness of different interventions.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, my predecessor appointed Lord Anderson as the interim independent Prevent commissioner and asked him to review the Southport attack along with the tragic murder of Sir David Amess. Today I am also publishing a letter accepting all the recommendations Lord Anderson made and setting out how we have delivered against them.
Today my thoughts remain with Alice da Silva Aguiar, Bebe King and Elsie Dot Stancombe, their families and friends, and the survivors. We owe it to them to act on the findings of these reports.
[HCWS178]
Machinery of Government
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
As part of the reforms the Government are making to nuclear regulation, I am today announcing that responsibility for the Office for Nuclear Regulation will transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. As the lead Department for civil nuclear policy, DESNZ will be best placed to ensure that nuclear regulation is proportionate and suited to deliver the UK’s long-term nuclear ambitions, supporting the Government’s broader response to the nuclear regulatory review 2025. The ONR’s statutory independence will be unaffected by this change.
This change will take effect from 1 August 2026.
[HCWS180]