What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
It is almost two years since Harshita Brella was murdered in Corby, her body dumped in the boot of a car. An arrest warrant was issued for Harshita’s husband, who fled the country. Will the Minister raise Harshita’s case with other relevant Departments, and give her family the reassurance that all is being done to bring Harshita the justice that she and her family so desperately deserve?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice: Access and Unfair Practices during the Recognition and Derecognition Process. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The code of practice was laid before the House in draft on 6 July. I will explain to the Committee why we are bringing the code for consideration. In our plan to make work pay, we made a commitment to simplify the trade union recognition process. The Employment Rights Act 2025 updates the legal framework on statutory trade union recognition, so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. That includes having removed, last April, the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that a majority for union recognition is likely, and having removed the requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit in support of union recognition. The 2025 Act also makes changes to provide better access arrangements for unions and it aims to deal more effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition processes. The Government are therefore updating the 2005 version of this code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how the legislative changes on access and unfair practices affect them. We consulted on the revised code between 4 February and 1 April. The consultation sought views on the clarity of changes made to reflect the updated legal framework, structural amendments to reflect the legislative changes made under the 2025 Act, and other changes made to the code, including updating the guidance within it so that it accurately reflects modern working practices and language. A number of revisions were made to the existing 2005 code following the consultation. Previously, the code applied only to the recognition or derecognition ballot phase. Now, the draft code reflects the changes made by the 2025 Act to access and unfair practices and it applies from the point where the Central Arbitration Committee accepts an application for recognition or derecognition. The code also reflects a clear timetable for negotiations on access: 20 working days from the point that the CAC accepts a trade union recognition application. If no agreement is reached, the CAC will have 10 working days to determine a reasonable access agreement. The code has been revised to reflect the fact that the 2025 Act allows five working days after the close of the recognition ballot for complaints to be submitted to the CAC where an unfair practice is alleged. Where such a practice is alleged, the Act makes it easier to determine the complaints by only requiring the CAC to consider whether an unfair practice has occurred, without considering the effect that it may have had. The updated code also increases the suggested access meeting frequency and minimum length of meetings to once every five working days and 45 minutes, respectively, during the access period. The changes will provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement between the union seeking recognition and the workers within the bargaining unit. That will allow union representatives to answer any questions that the workers may have, before the balloted workforce decides whether to agree to statutory union recognition. Employers will of course have similar opportunities for engagement with their workers throughout the duration of period. In addition, we have sought to reassure employers, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, for example by clarifying that the statutory recognition process does not apply to employers that have fewer than 21 workers and that nothing in the revised code will require employers to breach general data protection requirements. The draft code also provides guidance on what constitutes a good access agreement. It establishes a structured framework covering key areas, such as who may be granted access, how and where access should take place—including digital options—and arrangements relating to timing, frequency, privacy and communication. Finally, the Government have taken the opportunity to bring the code up to date with changes in digital communications. The code now provides significantly more detailed guidance in this area, including guidance on digital access. The draft code in Committee reflects the updated legal framework for statutory trade union recognition. Together with the 2025 Act, the changes strengthen the collective voice in the workplace, enhance worker representation and help to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers. I therefore commend the code of practice to the Committee.
I welcome the shadow Minister and thank him for his speech and questions. The Government are committed to simplifying and improving the recognition process so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. I am not going to spend this time going back and forth over ideology and principles, why the Employment Rights Act is the right thing to do to drive up the quality of work across every area of this country so that people have the rights that they should expect in the workplace, and that we are updating employment rights legislation so that it is fit for the 21st century. We have spent a lot of time doing that, so I will bring my remarks back to the code that we are discussing today. The revised code supports part of our wider ambition. It supports the Employment Rights Act to deliver better access arrangements for unions and deals effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. As I said in my opening remarks, we listened carefully to views that were expressed during the consultation earlier this year, and I am happy to respond to the particular questions that the shadow Minister raised today. The Government carefully considered the consultation responses and recognised the concerns that were raised about operational impact. However, we believe that workers should have a meaningful opportunity to hear from union representatives and ask questions before making a decision about recognition. That is why we have retained the proposed frequency and duration of meetings alongside guidance intended to minimise disruption and support those practical arrangements, and amended the code to try to aid clarity and support practical use as far as possible. We think it is right that we provide a level playing field. Employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. Granting the union access to the workplace from the point where the CAC accepts the recognition claim enables the union to also have access to the workplace from the start of the recognition process, at least once the terms of the access are agreed or determined. We think that that is a fair approach. The costs and benefits in the recognition process and the changes that the shadow Minister referenced in his speech were laid out in the impact assessment; the Government expect the cost to be very low, estimating the annual net cost to business at £0.3 million. The code is statutory guidance; it does not impose further costs on employers beyond what we discussed at length during the passage of the Employment Rights Act. Turning to the shadow Minister’s questions around unfair practices, the legal definition as to what constitutes an unfair practice has not changed, as he referenced, in the Employment Rights Act: “Unfair practices are actions by an employer, union, or worker intended to influence the outcome of a recognition ballot. These include bribery, coercion, threats, or actively interfering in union management to sway worker decisions.” We have clarified in the code some issues to consider around some actions during the recognition process. As he referenced, amending the definition of an unfair practice would require separate legislation, and our priority has been to implement the reforms to the recognition process as soon as possible and on the October timeline, as we promised throughout our road map since the introduction of this legislation. We want to give time for the reforms to bed in and, should it be necessary in the future, we will bring forward further proposals to amend the definition of an unfair practice in addition to our planned additional unfair practice in relation to e-balloting in recognition and derecognition ballots. This code is a key part of our approach of providing increased worker voices in the workplace, improving pay, conditions and productivity, which enables us to protect workers from the unfair practices that we are discussing today, and improving employer-employee relations in the kind of country and workplaces that we are fighting for and want to build. It makes sure that recognition is fair in terms of the access period. It needed to be updated since that 2005 legislation in line with the ambitions that we have for legislation and the Employment Rights Act. This is a key part of that agenda, and I believe that the code before colleagues on the Committee today will assist unions and employers in complying with the new statutory requirements on access and unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. That is why this code is necessary, and I hope that colleagues can support it today to enable that vision and for this to work practically in workplaces. Question put.
That is very kind of you to encourage me, Mr Stuart. What are the timings now?
Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I want to try to get back to most colleagues. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate, and all Members who have spoken about the experiences of patients, because this is absolutely about the experiences of patients, families and the NHS staff in all our constituencies. When an NHS trust underperforms, however we define it, the effects are very real. Patients wait longer, staff work without the stability and support they need, and public money is not used as effectively as it should be. Since becoming a Minister, I have made it clear that I think Members of Parliament should be part of conversations with local trusts. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for hosting his trust in the way he has and seeing an improvement in his constituency, as he outlined, with mental health being considered as well as acute services. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), spoke about her work in supporting her local trust and seeing those improvements. It can and does happen. Many of the trusts that have been discussed today have faced problems built up over many years. In fact, I remember some of them from being a manager in the health service over the past 20 years or so. There is rarely one cause or a quick fix. There are varying problems, whether they be workforce shortages, poor estates, weak leadership, organisational change or rising demand, and some of those can reinforce one another. Let us be clear for patients and members of the public who are paying attention and for all our constituents: this Government will not accept poor performance, and we are determined to accelerate the recovery, particularly in the most challenged trusts. I will just clarify some of the rules. Everyone knows that NHS England is an arm’s length body. That was a decision taken a number of years ago by my good friends the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when we were in opposition. The Health Bill, which is progressing through the House of Lords, changes that arrangement to put the NHS together with the Department of Health and Social Care. The Bill was not opposed in principle by any political party, because we all know that the arrangement has not worked. As we bring the two bodies together, it is important to maintain the distinction between running large trusts and running the system as a whole, with operational performance oversight. It is a skilled job. It is hard to run a big trust. It requires good clinical and operational managers, and good leadership and knowledge. The complete separation of the Department and Ministers from NHS England meant that the oversight and what we could see in our constituencies as Members of Parliament was not linked up under the previous Government. That is one thing that will improve. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) just said, of course Ministers will not be micromanaging. It is a skilled job. The complete separation that removed oversight from local trusts has been a dysfunction of the system over the last decade. To be clear, I regularly meet teams and Members of Parliament in my role. I want to share how some of that operational oversight works. I will highlight two major areas. One is the oversight framework, which provides a clear and consistent assessment of every NHS organisation. In her expertise, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham recognised that there are many ways to judge performance, but the new framework looks at what matters most to patients and taxpayers: waiting times, quality of care, use of staff and money, and leadership capability in order to have good-quality patient care. They cannot be separated in my view. I have made sure that it is transparent for the public and Members of Parliament. That is quite controversial; some people do not like what they call league tables, but I think it is important that people can see that.
I will move through some of these points for the moment. For providers with the most entrenched financial, operational, leadership and structural challenges that impact patient care—that is what these trusts are about—we are taking a more holistic approach to that enhanced support because, as the shadow Minister asked, how do we choose? They are the most challenged long-term systems. At a national level, the intensive recovery programme is providing short-term, intensive support for organisations to help strengthen their immediate operational and financial stability while developing an organisation-owned plan for long-term sustainability. We cannot keep going round in this circle; at the end of the day, these organisations need to be well run and well led, and local systems need to own that problem. That is also part of our wider devolution agenda. I think I outlined that in my letter to the hon. Member for Chelmsford in September, but I am very happy to meet again and go through that in more detail if that is helpful. The first IRP cohort includes Hull, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, East Kent, North Cumbria and Mid and South Essex. Each faces very different circumstances, so there is not a one-size-fits-all response. I will touch on some of them, for hon. Members have raised their own issues with them. There is interest in Hull and Northern Lincolnshire and Goole. Following an independent review, the decision has been taken to dissolve the Humber health partnership arrangements. In Hull, the focus is on strengthening core hospital services, making the best use of specialist services, improving productivity and reinforcing clinical leadership and accountability. For Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, the priority is to move more care into neighbourhood and community settings, reflecting the demands in those areas. There are good signs of progress. The hon. Member for Chelmsford and others who intervened highlighted Mid and South Essex. The 2020 merger of those three trusts has not delivered the planned benefits for 1.2 million people. Staff culture and morale remain a serious concern, with little improvement, as was highlighted in those terrible survey results over the past five years. We have heard those. The trust has long-standing performance problems linked to how demand is managed across the wider health system in that part of Essex. Work is under way to improve the long waits, improve patient flow, strengthen governance and make better use of the estate. I shared the analysis in productivity packs with everybody earlier in the year, and I am sure that everybody looked at them in detail, but I am very happy to go through them again. It identified more than £122 million of productivity opportunities. It is not simply about saving money. Better organisation across sites and stronger clinical integration should improve patient experience, reduce delays and raise quality for patients. The clinical strategy will make greater use of neighbourhood and community care in line with our 10-year plan and focus on maternity and planned care treatment. This is backed by £80 million for Southend hospital’s long-standing structural estate problems and support for a neighbourhood health centre in Maldon.[Official Report, 20 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 9WC.] (Correction) I will touch on North Cumbria because, for the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and for Yeovil (Adam Dance), the work going on there really highlights what can and needs to be done in rural healthcare. I remind hon. Members that hospitals in some of those areas are additionally funded to cope with some of those rurality issues. We highlighted that in our 10-year health plan. We absolutely understand that across the country, there are different issues with regard to rurality. I will not talk about Kent, because it has not been raised, but again, it has very different issues. That is why those areas have been chosen. They have long-standing and deeply entrenched problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised ambulance handover delays. I did not know she was going to raise that today, but to assure her, the continued problem with the ambulances was raised with me in my oversight meeting with the team yesterday. Those issues are flagged by NHS England and its operational management across the country. They are long-standing issues, as she knows, but I gently disagree with her. She is absolutely right in her assessments of history, but this issue is not a failure of oversight and accountability. Good co-operation, collaboration and management are the responsibility of the services locally. The oversight has worked. We know that this is a problem. We and her constituents can see that. We very much want the services to work together to resolve that flow so that the ambulance handover works much better. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) highlights, sadly, her constituency’s downward improvement trajectory. She asked to meet me, and I am very happy to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) did the incredibly difficult job of raising the terrible distress for women in her constituency. She highlighted a terrible case, and I will make sure that she has a meeting with the Minister to go through how that can be supported on behalf of her constituents. I know that she will work closely to make sure that they are served better. We are seeing early improvements through the IRP, but we need to demonstrate progress through safer care, better operation and financial performance. We have clear milestones and credible plans for stronger organisations. Support nationally is time-limited but proportionate, because trusts ultimately have to stand on their feet. Intensive oversight is not about naming and shaming. Staff in challenged trusts are working in exceptionally difficult circumstances. As we need to encourage people to work there, we must show them that it can be better. The purpose is to remove barriers to improvement, provide the right expertise and hold boards and NHS leaders to account for results. The Government will continue to work with NHS England. I am committed to keeping Parliament informed of significant developments. We will judge our approach by its effect on patients and staff, not by the creation of more processes. The oversight framework and the intensive recovery programme provide a clear route from identifying the risk to taking targeted action. There is much more to do. It can only be done in local circumstances with co-operation and transparency, including working with Members of Parliament. Where we hear examples of trust chief executives not doing that, I am prepared to call it out. It is not acceptable. There is more to do, but we want practical, safer and more timely care, and stronger organisations. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to debate this issue today. It is important for MPs to be part of the discussion. We want to improve all trusts, but we are focusing on those with long-term issues, sometimes having been affected for decades. The people in those areas deserve better, and we are determined to make sure they get it.
There is an immediate five-minute time limit.
With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer.
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He has successfully put his point on the record, and I am sure it will have been noted by Members on the Treasury Bench, who can make the relevant Ministers aware.
Q13. It is now nearly 10 years since the Grenfell Tower fire. I welcome the recent progress on criminal accountability, but from Hillsborough to infected blood to the Countess of Chester hospital, too often inquiries and inquests make recommendations that sit on a shelf, leaving victims chasing answers and avoidable harms continuing. Will the Prime Minister give his support to an independent national oversight mechanism to sit alongside the Hillsborough law, and ensure that when tragedies like Grenfell do occur, the state is held properly accountable for change?
This has been an important debate on one of the defining challenges of our time. Our constituents rightly expect immigration to be fair, controlled and free from abuse. For too long, it has been none of those. When this Government entered office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos, with criminal gangs deciding who could come to this country and hundreds of hotels being used to house vast numbers of illegal immigrants at immense cost to the public. It was unfair to the genuine refugees left waiting more than a year to have their case heard and unfair to the British people being asked to shoulder an ever-increasing burden in their taxes and their communities. From day one, we began the hard work of fixing our asylum system and restoring order and control to our borders. The statistics show that we are making progress. Asylum decision making is up and returns are up, while small boat arrivals are down, and we remain on track to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, although we know there is a long way to go. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to tackle the people smugglers who value profit above human life and to remove those who have no right to be here. At the same time, we are ensuring that asylum seekers are housed in the fairest, most cost-effective way. We have seen the stress and strains of hotel usage. We are ending that scandal and we are moving asylum seekers to more appropriate accommodation. Former military bases, which are secure and contained, provide one of the best solutions. They allow us to minimise the impact on the local community with services brought on-site, 24/7 security and CCTV. We will always listen to concerns and work with the community, but existing sites, including Wethersfield, have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributed to their operation. We do not need to leave the ECHR to restore order to our immigration system.
No, I will not give way. Winston Churchill proposed the establishment of the European convention on human rights at the 1948 Congress of Europe, and the UK was the first country to ratify it in 1951. It came from Churchill’s experience of dealing with the Nazis before and during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, unprotected. The European convention on human rights defines what we mean by never again. How those rights are interpreted and applied is important, and that is why the Home Secretary committed last year to oversee reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age. The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in your own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. These principles remain essential. Which two countries have chosen to stay out? Russia and Belarus. Perhaps we should ask opposition leaders in Russia and Belarus about that. They have been falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the state. That is what we are talking about. By leaving the ECHR, we would throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.
No, I will not. Sit down. Instead, we stand with Churchill. We will build a fair, controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. We will focus on matters abut which people are rightly concerned. The issue is not the existence of the convention, but the way in which it has been applied over time. We do not fix a fault by walking away; we sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended. That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chiinău political declaration in May, creating solid foundations for reform. The Government are now translating that into practical change, and we will see reform of the domestic application of article 8, restoring the proper balance between maintaining individual rights and protecting the public interest. This is a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants or foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protects all our individual rights and freedoms. It also provides us with responsibilities, and when people have been subjected to torture or the risk of torture, we have rightly provided them with a place of security and safety. I now come to some of the points made by hon. Members. [Interruption.] I respond appropriately to Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) wanted a timeline for the closing down of hotels in places such as Falkirk which were approved by the Tories when they were in power. The ambition is to end hotel use by the end of this parliamentary term. The number has fallen from 400 when we came into power to fewer than 160, and I will celebrate with my hon. Friend when we are in a position to close down the remaining hotel in his constituency. In response to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the introduction of electronic travel authorisations at the borders and ports and the use of visa penalties have given us much greater control over our borders. Disincentivising crossings through the introduction of new, strong control methods, including those employed by Border Security Command, cracking down on illegal working and introducing safe and legal routes for genuine asylum cases from some of the most dangerous countries in the world has also given us more power over our borders. The change in the way in which the ECHR is applied is critical to bringing back order and control. This Government share the concern on women’s safety, and I acknowledge the concerns of the women who are here today. No woman should live a smaller life, and this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within this decade. Ours is a cross-Government response, and we will work as hard as we can to achieve that aim. Home Office representatives have met the chief executive and the leader of Cherwell district council to discuss cohesion challenges linked to people’s concerns about the site, and they are listening to the concerns raised by women.
This is an imperative for the Home Office. The proposal contained in the planning application includes on-site 24/7 security and CCTV. We have already introduced those measures on other large sites such as Wethersfield, which has operated in that way for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) identified, safeguarding for the local community is an imperative. It is important and drives the management of the site. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised concerns about the planning process. It already includes an environmental impact assessment.
The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in. There were no objections from Natural England. The final cost of the site will only be known following the outcome of the procurement process. Concerns were raised about article 3. The Government accept that there will be genuinely exceptional medical healthcare cases in which article 3 prevents removal, but they must be exceptional. Article 3 was never intended to guarantee—
Cases are inherently fact-sensitive and must always be assessed on their individual circumstances. It is absolutely not for me to say in this House. Following the recent political declaration on article 3, we are working to secure stronger instant decisions, better prepared litigation and more consistent application of article 3. Further operational policy or legislative reform remain available where persistent barriers are identified. I say in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that she was in the Home Office when she approved large sites, including the one that was proposed for RAF Scampton. She knows that in-house services, 24/7 CCTV and security provide a greater level of protection for communities. This country is proud to offer sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It is the right thing to do, and it is a fundamental part of who we are, but that generosity depends on the support of the British public. They must believe that our asylum system is fair. For that, it must be capped and controlled, with decisions and appeals that are fast and fair, and those with no right to be here must be promptly removed. That is the imperative behind every decision this Government take. We are restoring order to our borders. We are making our asylum system faster and fairer, and in doing so, we will ensure that this country can continue to provide protection to those in need—today and for generations to come. Question put.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am incredibly grateful to be sitting on this Committee. Reforging cross-party consensus on the value of investing in the early years is essential, and the Bill helps us to get back to where we ought to be. It focuses on improving support for children and their families so that everyone can get the best possible start in life. I reiterate my thanks to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for introducing this important piece of legislation. I tabled an amendment to the Bill to make what is implicit in its intention explicit, and will describe why I have done so. To address the right hon. Member’s concerns about further amendments, it is always the case that where campaigners see an opportunity for further reform within the law, they seek to influence it. Many of us would like to see this legislation proceed and become law swiftly. I am sure that those campaigners will understand the need to make sure of the outcomes on inequalities, which speak to many of their aims with the legislation, and will want to see the amendment succeed. If we want to improve experiences at the beginning of life—recognising how determinative that period is for life chances—it stands to reason that this legislation should make explicit the inequalities of outcomes for babies and infants. This was a key requirement of the Childcare Act 2006, and it was part of the governing philosophy behind Sure Start, which, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found, had the biggest impact on improving outcomes for children in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. As it stands, the Bill relies on the Government reporting on the views of parents and carers and their prospective counterparts. Although that insight is incredibly valuable, it ignores those who cannot speak for themselves.
Indeed I have, and I will come to that in a moment. As I was saying, the Bill does not give sufficient voice to those who cannot speak for themselves—babies and infants. My amendment seeks to ensure that the Government will assess how successful services are in improving the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of infants, parents and carers and, crucially, will assess our progress in tackling inequalities in the early years. Although there is other legislation, such as the Equality Act, to guide secondary legislation, we know from bitter experience that future Governments could repeal legislation that has equality as its goal. Indeed, we are in difficult and divisive times in our country at the moment. There are those who would seek to repeal the Equality Act, thereby undoing any of the protective features that that Act would bring to this important Bill. To anticipate future Government policies, the Bill must make reporting on inequality of outcomes paramount, because significant inequalities exist in many of the most fundamental measures of babies’ health and development. Black babies, for example, are more than twice as likely as white babies to be stillborn. Babies in the 10% most-deprived areas are more than twice as likely to die as babies in the 10% least-deprived areas. Babies growing up in poverty are more likely to experience domestic abuse in their family and are less likely to be breastfed. At the moment, these inequalities, which are reported on by Government through auspices such as the Equality Act, might be identified, but in future there may be no requirement for that to be the case as part of the Bill. Simply showing that there is provision for babies, infants and their parents and carers could ensure that the Secretary of State is able to discharge their duty under the Bill, whether it actually operates to reduce inequalities or not. Under our current legislation, we still have deep inequalities, in part because the focus on reducing inequalities between areas has been lost—and lost deliberately. I think we ought to see whether we can return to making sure that that is the focus. As it stands, the Bill does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to look at outcomes for babies and their parents, or at what those outcomes may indicate about the quality and availability of services. Although the views and experiences of parents and carers are incredibly important in understanding need, they do not paint the full picture and we cannot rely solely on them to analyse successes and failures of services. The public deserve to know the realities of inequalities in early childhood, and Governments must welcome robust scrutiny of their policies to help support babies. The amendment also requires the Government to look at the wellbeing of parents. That is particularly important given the Maternal Mental Health Alliance report that said that one in four mothers experiences a mental health condition during pregnancy or after birth. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for women between six weeks and a year after giving birth. The amendment keeps the Bill flexible and streamlined, and I understand that it would not increase any financial cost of the Bill. It also clarifies the role of the Government in measuring success. The Bill needs to be future-proof—indeed, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure, on a cross-party basis, that our services genuinely lead to a change in outcomes for babies, infants and children throughout their lives. It must stand the test of time, regardless of the colour, priorities or whims of future Governments. I have absolute faith in this Government and their commitment to early years investment, including the wonderful growth of Best Start family hubs, but we all saw how quickly the consensus behind Sure Start fell apart with a change in Government and how a generation of children and their parents were disadvantaged by its collapse.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
When developing legislation, the core purpose that we want to achieve needs to be explicit within it, because otherwise it could get watered down. The right hon. Member is right that any future Government can overturn any previous Government’s legislation, unless bound by international law and so forth. Making the intention explicit makes it more difficult for future Governments to undo what has come before, because it allows the brilliant light of transparency to be shone where we might need it most in the future. To make the issue of equality explicit in the Bill, and for the Government to recognise its importance, would be a small but, perhaps in the future, important way of maintaining the integrity of the legislation. I am delighted that the amendment has the support of a number of children’s charities working in this space, including Start Strong, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children’s Bureau, Barnardo’s, the first 1,001 days movement, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Tessa Jowell Foundation.
Q5. The school of my six-year-old constituent Hollie does not allow siblings to attend school events. Her brother William has profound, multiple, life-limiting disabilities and needs 24/7 specialist care. He is also a delightful little boy. As they cannot bring William or leave him with a babysitter, this effectively means that Hollie’s parents must always stay away from school events, missing everything from parents’ evenings to Christmas plays and phonics workshops. Yet Catalyst Academies Trust, which runs the school, and its CEO, Tony Parfett, have repeatedly refused to make an exception to accommodate William or even to meet myself to discuss ways forward. Will the Prime Minister back my call for the Catalyst Academies Trust to do the right thing, and can he ensure that academy trusts are meeting their reasonable adjustment obligations to disabled children and their families?
We do not have a substantial Nepalese community in Cornwall, but I want to mention Mr Sharma and his family, who own Balti Curries in my constituency. They immediately launched an appeal and raised more than £2,600 in a short period of time. That shows how important the community is, even in places such as Cornwall.
I thank the shadow Chancellor for delivering a speech for which it was, this time, much clearer when it had ended. The Opposition motion invites us to speculate on the contents of the Budget. As right hon. and hon. Members will be used to me and my colleagues saying, the Government do not comment on speculation and the Chancellor will deliver his Budget in this House on 28 October. However, I am free to share with the House some of the context in which the Chancellor will take his decisions. The Budget comes amid unprecedented economic shocks, with conflicts in both the middle east and Europe hitting people here and around the world. However, we are not powerless. That is why we are giving families and businesses breathing space where we can and starting to make the big, long-term changes needed to create good jobs and growth in every postcode. Everything we do at this Budget will be built on fiscal stability. Our fiscal responsibility has been underlined by the IMF this week, and as it made clear, our country is forecast to have the lowest borrowing—that is to say, the smallest deficit—in the G7 from 2029. Our country is demonstrating strong resilience in the face of global challenges, with the joint second-fastest growing economy in the G7 this year. To deliver good growth in every postcode and to provide breathing space for families and businesses, we must continue to take responsible choices. That is why, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made clear, fiscal discipline will underwrite every promise this Government make to the British people. We will meet our fiscal rules at the Budget later this month with a buffer against uncertainty. We will control borrowing so that we can bring inflation down and reduce long-term pressures on our public finances. That is the right thing to do, because there is nothing progressive about a Government spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest, rather than on the priorities of working people. This Government inherited public finances that were in a mess and public services that were in crisis. Since the general election, we have put the NHS back on its feet, with the waiting list down by more than 250,000 since the Government came to power. Last year we delivered the highest number of affordable homes in a decade. We are lifting over half a million children out of poverty by scrapping the two-child limit and expanding free school meals. We are investing in Britain’s future, with an additional £120 billion of capital investment across this Parliament, and in Britain’s roads, rail, energy and other infrastructure that is so important to driving growth. Through reforms to how our country works, from planning to pensions and skills, we have helped to create the conditions for private investment to rise by almost 5% since the general election. We have always been prepared to take the responsible choices to fix the foundations of our economy, repair our broken public services and deliver the investment needed to support growth. That includes driving down waste and driving up efficiency in the public sector, with a 16% reduction in departmental admin budgets by the end of the spending review period. We are reprioritising spending so that taxpayers’ money is spent on their priorities, cancelling digital ID in order to remove VAT from household electricity bills, reprioritising Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spending to help tackle homelessness and bringing the national bus cap down to £2 for 2027, funded by savings from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We are reforming the welfare system through the Milburn and Timms reviews, while tackling welfare fraud and error to save over £14 billion by the end of 2030-31, and we have taken decisions on tax to ensure that we meet our fiscal rules of living within our means. Our decisions on tax reflect our commitment to sound public finances. We want to make sure that those with broader shoulders make a fair contribution. Although very few people, if any, want to pay more tax, we recognise that only a small proportion of the largest estates pay inheritance tax, and it makes an important contribution to the public finances. Inheritance tax is forecast to raise almost £15 billion in 2030-31 to help deliver public services, and it is currently payable on around one in 20 estates. Our reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief, introduced in April of this year, are expected to raise around £300 million per year, while offering substantial protection for family farms and businesses. Through a 100%—
The impact assessment, or tax information note, is published alongside the publication of the policy at the Budget. I want to just make the point that to protect family farms and family businesses, the threshold for the 100% relief goes up to £2.5 million per person, and above that there is a 50% rate, which means an effective inheritance tax rate of up to 20% above that. Furthermore, the repayments can be spread over up to 10 years interest free, so there are substantial protections in place for family farms and family businesses. That 100% relief on the first £2.5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets means that a couple can pass on up to £5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets free of inheritance tax between them, in addition to the existing allowances such as the nil rate band. These protections will support family farms as we work with farmers to build a sector that is productive, profitable and resilient for the future.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but the fact that we have a threshold of £2.5 million of qualifying assets over which the 100% relief applies, and that the 50% relief applies in an uncapped manner above that level, means that we are protecting our small family businesses and family farms while making sure that there is a contribution towards the public finances.
Without commenting on individual tax affairs, even if hypothetical, if a farm were worth £3 million, the £2.5 million allowance for the 100% relief would cover a substantial portion of that. That is in addition to the existing nil rate bands and can be transferred between spouses. If that hypothetical farm were passed on via a couple to their descendants, £5 million would be covered. I want to emphasise that our work as a Government with farmers—who feed the nation, sustain rural communities and help to manage the land that shapes our countryside—ranges from immediate support, including the £65 million emergency package that we announced to help them cope with this summer’s drought, to opening new markets for British produce through trade deals and export opportunities.
As the right hon. Lady will know, I have been in a position in the Treasury previously in this Government, and I have had a large number of conversations with people affected by, and worried about, this tax policy. The tax policy introduced in April this year has a £2.5 million threshold for the 100% relief, and we are confident that that balances raising revenue for the public finances with giving the right protection to family farms, which we think is so important.
Much like his right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), the right hon. Gentleman refers to a £3 million farm. Again, that makes me confident that the threshold of £2.5 million for the 100% relief would cover a large proportion of those assets. As I said, that £2.5 million of qualifying assets means that a couple can pass on up to £5 million of qualifying assets, and that is in addition to the other existing nil rate bands. It is a similar point that his right hon. Friend made. The fact is that a £3 million farm would be covered by much of the relief and the nil rate bands. Our responsible approach to the public finances stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by the Conservatives. In government, they crashed the economy while the shadow Chancellor was in the Treasury, and they left us with billions of pounds of unfunded spending commitments. In opposition, they are showing that they have learned nothing from their general election defeat. They claim their changes to inheritance tax would cost £6 billion and that they know how they would pay for them, but when they say they would make savings to welfare and asylum, no one can believe a word they say when everyone knows the cost of both soared when they were in power. What is more, independent analysis by tax expert Dan Neidle suggests that the true cost of their changes would reach £10.8 billion a year once behavioural effects are taken into account. That is almost double the number the shadow Chancellor has been bandying around. Let’s face it: with the Conservatives’ policies costing double what they say and their so-called savings failing to materialise, they would either push up borrowing or do what Tories do best: make cuts to schools, prison places and our NHS. Let’s be clear: this policy would fail to help ordinary families across the country. That independent analysis has shown that 90% of the benefit would go to the wealthiest 20% of pensioner households; 40% would go to the wealthiest 5%; and 70% of the benefits would go to households in London and the south-east. The Conservatives’ policy stands in contrast to the fair decisions that this Government will always take. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will of course set out any future tax measures in the Budget in two weeks’ time. But let me remind the House of the decisions this Government have already taken to provide breathing space to families and businesses. For families rightly concerned about the cost of energy, we have removed VAT from electricity bills, taking around £45 off the price cap, and that is on top of the £150 removed from bills at the last Budget. For those paying business rates, the Government have introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion, with a further announcement in July taking an extra 20% off bills for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. These are some of our choices to help families and businesses across the country. Rather than helping ordinary families struggling with the cost of living, the Tories instead are prioritising some of those with the greatest wealth. In a world of difficult choices, they are choosing to direct billions of pounds towards some of those with the largest assets, while everyone else is asked to pick up the bill.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about politics being about choices and priorities. Indeed, in a world of difficult choices, the Conservatives choose to direct billions of pounds towards some of those with the largest estates, while everyone else is being asked to pick up the bill.
Without commenting on the circumstances of an individual taxpayer, the fact that we have a threshold of £2.5 million before any inheritance tax is due on relevant agricultural or business property assets provides substantial protection for people from those charges. As I said earlier, there is a 50% relief which is uncapped above that level, and payment is allowed over 10 years interest-free. The balance we are striking in the policy that was introduced in April provides protection for family farms and small businesses while ensuring a contribution to the public finances, underscoring our fiscal responsibility, which is so important for better public services and a stable economy.
I was going to say that I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I am not sure it was meant in that tone. Being in government is about taking the right decisions for the future of the country, and I know that when taking decisions in the Treasury, the most important thing to start with is to ensure that fiscal stability and responsibility are the bedrock of all our decisions. If we look at the decisions that we as a Government have taken, and at the commitment of the Chancellor and Prime Minister, no one can be in any doubt that we will never return to the recklessness of the hon. Gentleman’s party in government. Labour Members know that to provide breathing space for families and businesses, and to fix our economy and country for the long term, fiscal discipline must underwrite every promise we make. That is why we will continue to meet our fiscal rules, with a buffer against uncertainty. We will support good growth in every postcode by getting power out of Westminster, and we will drive investment to boost innovation and create jobs. That is how we will bring back hope across Britain, not through the fantasy economics and unfunded spending commitments of the Conservative party but with a plan to unlock potential in every part of our country, so that wherever someone lives, they and their local community can thrive. I oppose the Opposition motion.
Q9. This summer I visited a holiday activities scheme, whose organisers told me they had to increase the size of the lunch portions because children were hungry, and with schools closed, it was the only meal some of them were getting. The Prime Minister has rightly talked about the need to tackle the cost of living crisis and bring people hope again, which is essential in my constituency. Will he join me, our trade unions and community organisations in prioritising the elimination of food poverty? No child in our country should go to bed at night feeling hungry.
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work, and I am proud to support him on this campaign. He is right that it affects my constituency—both businesses, which have to get goods through the key arterial route, and residents. The campaign has support across parties and from the local authority. Does he agree that the structures fund should be put towards it?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this important debate. Too many communities have paid a price for the failure of NHS trusts. In Ipswich, we know that all too well. Two trusts serve my community: East Suffolk and North Essex foundation trust, which provides our acute hospital services, and Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust, which is responsible for our mental health services. Unfortunately, both, but particularly the latter, have a history of patients enduring long waits, inconsistent standards of care and services that fall well short of what patients have every right to expect. Families were sidelined, and concerns went unanswered. For many years, NSFT has been synonymous with failure. In 2015, it was the first mental health trust in the country to enter special measures, and it was later put into an NHS recovery support programme. Two years ago, I stood in this very room and described NSFT as “arguably…the worst performing mental health trust in the…country.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 177WH.] That judgment reflected a litany of failings stretching back many years. It is important to acknowledge that genuine progress has been made. The picture today is markedly different from the one even just a few years ago. The number of patients waiting more than 18 weeks has fallen by over 80%, crisis services have improved, and more than 95% of patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis now begin treatment within two weeks of referral, which represents outperformance of the national standard. Although the trust is still rated “Requires improvement” overall, several services are now rated “Good”. That is testament in part to the leadership of NSFT, which brought stability to the trust after years of disruption. I am grateful to be hosting a quarterly meeting between NSFT and MPs in the region to ensure that progress is made. We can learn from the problems at the trust that improvement is possible even in the organisations with the most difficult legacies. However, we must not confuse progress with success; this is a first step and the beginning of a recovery that has a way to go. The Government’s reforms are finally starting to turn the page of years of failure. We have invested record-breaking amounts in our health service, reducing waiting lists, cutting ambulance response times in my area and expanding our workforce, so we should be tentatively hopeful. Neither NSFT nor ESNEFT, which I would talk about if I had more time, are yet where patients deserve and need them to be, but there are reasons to be optimistic. I make a plea to the Minister to ensure that we are fully funding mental health, as it desperately needs to be. Our trust never recovered from brutal cuts in 2014 and massive redesigns. We are on the path to recovery. We now have stability, and I recognise the progress made so far, but we must build on it and maintain a relentless focus on delivering the improvements that all our local patients deserve.
Q2. I am sure we were all incredibly moved by the Prime Minister’s tribute to his late father at Labour party conference, and I wish to pass on my personal condolences to him and his family. During the Prime Minister’s speech, I thought about my own grandparents, who were both former teachers with decades of public service, but when they needed looking after, they had to go through their savings and their pension just to receive the care that my granny needed.I am sure that that story will resonate with thousands of people in Ipswich and across the country, because we have a care system that puts profit before people, leaving behind not only the people who depend on this service, but the incredible people who work within it. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I ask our country’s first Labour and Co-operative Prime Minister whether he will consider the co-operative approach to social care so that we can finally put people before profit.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing and introducing this important debate. Over the years in my constituency, the nuclear power stations at Hunterston provided well-paid, skilled jobs and contributed greatly to the local economy. Hunterston A operated from 1964 to 1990, and Hunterston B from 1976 to 2022. Both contributed greatly to the UK grid. This year, Hunterston B became the first advanced gas-cooled reactor to be relicensed for decommissioning. Even now, during the decommissioning process, there are skilled and unionised jobs. They are not in the same numbers as before, but they are still highly skilled jobs that make a huge difference to the constituency and the local economy. Sadly for us, as we have heard today, in Scotland a “no nuclear” policy stands. We could have so much more with a change in policy. For example, Denmark is currently reviewing its 1985 ban on nuclear power and considering making small modular reactors part of its clean energy grid. Why will the Scottish Government not do the same? Scotland has the most expensive grid in the whole UK and spends £1.5 billion on balancing every year. That is five times more than it spent before Hunterston B was retired. Small modular reactors are advanced nuclear reactors that produce up to 300 MW per unit, which is about one third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear reactors. SMRs have many advantages linked to their design. They are physically smaller than conventional stations, have a smaller footprint and can be prefabricated and installed on site. Yet the SNP Government still refuse to move towards nuclear power, despite being the only party in the House of Commons with a blanket stance against nuclear. I was interested to read that 90% of the world’s economy supports expanding nuclear capacity as part of the clean energy strategy. The SNP are lagging behind the future of energy security both in the UK and worldwide. Scotland has lost out on nearly 5,000 jobs in the nuclear industry, and many Scottish nuclear industry workers are forced to leave Scotland to work in England or Wales at other nuclear sites. It is quite depressing to think how much talent and skill Scotland is choosing to lose to other parts of the UK. In my constituency, an investment in new nuclear would make a great difference, bringing new, highly skilled jobs to the constituency and beyond, and offering badly needed apprenticeships for local young people. The Hunterston site has so much potential. Scotland is missing out on a great opportunity for good jobs thanks to backward SNP decisions.
The 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which claimed the lives of 116 children and 28 adults, will be marked on 21 October. In the coming days, the community will mark the occasion with a range of events. As a precursor, this evening in Portcullis House the Lewis Merthyr band will perform a piece of music dedicated to the lost children of Aberfan. It was the most unimaginable horror that befell the village, and just how the community came together in the days and months ahead was, and is, testament to the spirit of the people of that community, who responded with such dignity and fortitude. It is fitting that the chair of the Aberfan memorial charity and a survivor of the disaster, Mr David Davies, is with us in the Gallery. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to those who were lost and to what Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II described as the most “indomitable spirit” of the people and community of Aberfan?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I appreciate the hon. Member for Stockport opening this important debate.
Sorry—and I apologise to my hon. Friend for giving away his job. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for opening the debate and for her commitment as a school governor for more than 20 years. Our school governors do such valuable work, and I can hear how passionate she is about these issues. We are, too. Investment in funding for education and schools is critical, and is a huge priority for this Government. As the hon. Lady set out powerfully, teachers do important work around the country. We want to back them. That is why we have prioritised investment in education by making a significant investment in the core schools budget in financial year 2026-27, with an extra £2.3 billion for schools. That means that the core schools budget will total £67.6 billion, compared with £65.3 billion in 2025-26. That is a significant investment that shows how important education and schools are to this Government. The hon. Lady also mentioned how important it is that wider infrastructure around schools continues to be funded. I was a council leader for many years and my experience of working closely with schools was that through the cuts we saw to local services—whether in support for young people or families—schools were increasingly picking up those wider pressures. That is why we are investing in all of the crucial services that sit around schools: Best Start in Life hubs, which deliver early intervention; Experts at Hand, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport talked about and which provide much-needed speech and language therapists and educational psychologists to support schools; or Families First partnerships, which bring back the early help and intervention that was cut. We are investing in addressing child poverty, whether through the extension of free school meals or the end to the two-child benefit cap. All that reduces pressure on schools and builds back those teams around schools. The hon. Lady also talked about the importance of supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities, and about stepping in to support teachers. That was one of the main pressure points, and we have deeply heard the extent of those pressures on families, young people and educators. That is why we are taking forward the reforms to special educational needs and disabilities. We have consulted widely on the future model, which overhauls the system to create one that invests a lot earlier and brings funding directly into schools so that they are able to meet those needs in the long term. We have started that investment ahead of a full reform. We are putting £4 billion into early intervention, some of which is going directly into schools through the inclusive mainstream fund, and some into councils through Experts at Hand. There is also a significant £3.7 billion capital investment in creating new specialist places.
I absolutely agree that it is not an acceptable performance. As a Department, we are determined to hold councils to account on their performance regarding children with special educational needs and disabilities. For too long, that has been on individual parents, as my hon. Friend set out, and for some parents, with all the challenges they face, that is incredibly difficult. We have asked every local authority in the country to develop a SEND reform plan and are monitoring the data within that plan quarterly. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out, we are supporting local authorities to relieve 90% of their deficit, and that money is contingent on delivery of those SEND reform plans. We are putting in capacity support of £200 million around the country to support that as well as, where needed, to support intervention. We will be working closely with Stockport council, and I am very happy to meet Stockport MPs to discuss that in greater detail. In terms of future years of deficit support, we have said that we will take a similar proportionate response to supporting local authorities, but that is contingent on them being proactive about reforming the system, supporting parents better and working with the authority. We have been clear on those expectations and how we will be holding them to account for delivery. More broadly, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked about the distribution of the national funding formula and how it allocates funding. As she set out, it allocates funding based on pupil numbers and pupil characteristics. It means targeting funding at schools that have the greatest number of pupils with additional needs. In 2026-27, 11% of the schools national funding formula has been allocated through deprivation factors and 18% has been allocated for additional needs overall. That corresponds to £5.6 billion for deprivation and £9.2 billion for additional needs. There is a focus on the wide range of factors relating to the individual needs of children and young people that sit within the formula across the board. We have committed to keeping both the NFF and high needs funding under review as part of the system changes that we are working on more broadly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, there is extra investment already going in for Stockport through the inclusive mainstream fund, Experts at Hand and the capital investment. We are also putting support into schools to better manage their budgets and support their collective buying power. There is our new energy for schools service, the supply teachers and education recruitment framework and a free banking comparison tool. We are also developing a national procurement framework for management information systems, helping schools to reduce costs and ensure that more funding is directed into provision for the children and young people that we want to focus on. We are seeing greater investment in education, but also in those wider services that support young people. We want to ensure that that supports early intervention and supports schools with the wide range of pressures that they are facing. I am committed to working alongside Members to make sure that this works in every part of the country. I am very happy to take forward that conversation about the particular challenges facing Stockport. Question put and agreed to.