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
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech, and for bringing his personal experience to the Chamber. I am sure that he will agree with me that the ‘H’ in EHCP stands for health; we need to see the health service doing its part. Does he agree?
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech, and for all the work that she does in this regard. These long waiting times are particularly difficult when children are involved, because a child's life is so attenuated. If a parent is waiting for 18 months, that amounts to one and a half or two school years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to prevention is to ensure that these matters are dealt with as quickly as possible?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. However good the intentions of those bringing forward this petition for affected parents are, and I do not question them, any loosening of the surrogacy laws would be a serious mistake. The text of the petition says that the current law is “outdated” because the woman giving birth to the child is recognised as the legal mother “even with no biological connection or intention to parent the child.” Just think about how cold and clinical those words are: “no biological connection”, when that woman carried that child in their body and brought that child into this world. That is the commodification of women’s bodies. To carry a child for nine months, share your body, feel new life kicking inside you and endure the trauma and joy of childbirth—those are experiences that create a profound, undeniable biological connection. What of intention? The principle behind the petition is that the matter of parenthood would be settled in favour of the commissioning parents according to an intention formed before the child was born. But we all know that an emotional bond, and indeed a physical one, grows as the pregnancy develops. New mothers say that they feel a bond with their newborn that they have never felt before. They often do not want to spend a moment away from their baby when it is born. The petition asks the law to privilege an arrangement made before pregnancy and birth over the women who actually give birth, many of whom go on to deeply regret their role as a surrogate mother.
I cannot answer that specific question, but I will reference a case later on, and I have personally met such mothers here in Parliament. Pregnant women are not factories, and babies are not goods to be ordered. I believe this is crossing an ethical line, where human life is treated as a business transaction. The child must have the right to know where it has come from and how it came to be in this world. When a newborn is handed over not because of a tragedy, but because that separation was arranged before the child was even conceived, that child has become a commodity, which it should never be. These children are removed from their birth mothers, and it is simply wrong to treat children in this way. Implementing the demands of the petition would seal the commodification of mothers and babies through surrogacy, and we need only look at the global surrogacy industry to see where that leads: wealthy couples exploiting desperate women; international human trafficking rings; and exportation and erasure. That is the end destination when we start from the principles implied in the petition. Even in Britain, where commercial surrogacy is banned, women suffer the consequences. Marie Anne, a surrogate mother, told her story at a conference in Brighton. Recalling the chilling moment after she gave birth, she said: “They had the baby. They were happy. They didn’t need me anymore so they told me to go home.” She describes doing a handover in a hospital car park. She also describes the impact on her life, saying: “I have been diagnosed with complex PTSD…I have a deep fear of hospitals, children and babies…The damage done to me will never be repaired.” France, Germany, Spain and Italy have all banned surrogacy outright. As President Emmanuel Macron said, surrogacy is “not compatible with the dignity of women”. I therefore conclude by urging colleagues to reject both the commodification of babies and mothers implied by the petition and the loosening of surrogacy laws in Britain.
This decision, to put it mildly, is frustrating for everyone in Lancashire who has been involved in the process, and I feel for councillors, council workers and all the service users for having to deal with that frustration. What are the legal reasons, so I can go back to my constituents and explain them? Having listened to this statement, I have nothing I can take back to constituents to explain why this happened, when the next step will be, or whether the boundaries that were just announced in July are going to change. Give us something to go back to people with, please.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State is new in post, so the issues that she has outlined today are not necessarily of her making, but I must tell her that this is extremely frustrating for people in Derbyshire, and that service delivery and business confidence will be undermined while this pause goes ahead. I am at a loss as to how it has proceeded so far without it being totally legally watertight. I would appreciate any assurances the Secretary of State can give me that it will not be torpedoed in the courts again. Crucially, we are going to be asking people to stand for the existing local authorities in Derbyshire next May—people of all parties; civic-minded, community-spirited people. How long will they serve for? I think we owe it to them to tell them how long their term will be, because they will be making professional and family sacrifices. If she could offer me that information, it would be very helpful.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Barker. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 30 June, makes an important change to the alcohol licensing framework in England and Wales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises with a certificate to accept digital proof of age for the sale and supply of alcohol where that proof is provided through a digital verification service that is independently assessed against the UK digital verification services trust framework and listed on the statutory DVS register, and where the relevant licensing conditions are met. The measure offers those fortunate enough still to be asked for ID—whether they regard that as flattering or frustrating—an additional way to prove their age. Where a licensed premises or club premises with a certificate chooses to accept it, a person will be able to use properly verified digital proof of age, rather than relying on a passport, driving licence or other physical documents. The mandatory licensing conditions currently require physical proof-of-age documents that bear a photograph, a date of birth and either a holographic mark or an ultraviolet feature. This remains a valid and important route for age verification. The draft order does not remove physical ID, does not require anyone to use digital proof of age and does not require a licensed premises or club premises to accept digital proof of age. It simply gives consumers and premises another option. There are clear, practical benefits. Many people do not want to routinely carry valuable documents, such as a passport or driving licence, on a night out, or they might forget to bring them. It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25-year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. There is also an important privacy and personal safety benefit: a driving licence may reveal a person’s full address when the only question that needs to be answered is whether they are old enough to obtain alcohol. Digital proof of age can confirm that threshold without unnecessary personal information being shared, which is particularly relevant for individuals who may feel uncomfortable disclosing their address in busy night-time settings. The Government consulted on this issue between January and March 2024, and 72% of respondents supported the use of digital verification in the sale and supply of alcohol. The approach taken in the draft order reflects that support, while ensuring that providers meet Government-approved standards and that safeguards remain in place. The Licensing Act 2003 is built around four licensing objectives, including the protection of children from harm. That objective remains central to this reform. Digital proof of age will be permitted only where it is provided by a digital verification service that is independently assessed against the UK digital verification services trust framework and listed on the statutory register. This is not about simply showing a picture on a phone. I also want to be clear about what the draft order does not do. It is not a national digital identity scheme. It does not create an identity card, make digital ID compulsory, give the Government visibility of alcohol purchases or permit the use of facial age-estimation technology for the sale and supply of alcohol. This is a targeted and proportionate reform that sits alongside wider work across Government on future age-assurance methods for other age-restricted products, while preserving physical ID, supporting licensed premises and club premises and giving consumers greater choice. The current rules were drafted before secure digital verification was available. The draft order updates the framework to reflect modern consumer behaviour and technological change, while preserving the safeguards at the heart of the 2003 Act. For those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
I am grateful for both Members’ contributions. This legislation supports the objectives of strengthening age-verification safeguards and preventing under-age alcohol sales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises to use secure digital methods to verify age, thereby giving consumers greater choice and reducing the need for people to carry and present important physical documents, or to disclose unnecessary personal information, unless they choose to do so. It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25-year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. It is also important to note that not everyone holds a passport or driving licence. Digital proof of age can be created using a wider range of evidence while still meeting the required standards, which may make trusted proof of age accessible to a broader range of people. The changes in the order are completely separate from the proposals for a national digital ID system, which are no longer being taken forward. Last year, the Government passed and commenced the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, establishing a legislative structure for the provision of trusted digital verification services and providing the statutory gateway for their use. Millions of people in Britain already use services that fall within that legal framework. The regulatory changes before us build on the existing regime. The purpose of this legislation is to remove an existing legal barrier that prevents secure digital proof of age from being used when people purchase alcohol. Physical proof-of-age documents will continue to be accepted. The legislation will not make digital proof of age mandatory. The Government are taking an enabling approach; the legislation provides an additional option rather than replacing existing forms of proof of age. Retailers remain free to decide which age-verification methods they accept, and consumers remain free to use physical proof-of-age documents. A digital PASS card could be used to buy alcohol if the amended mandatory licensing conditions—including that the digital proof of age based on information in the PASS card has been delivered by a certified and registered digital verification service provider—are met. The Government endorse all digital PASS cards to be used for age checks for the sale and supply of alcohol where the criteria set out in this legislation, and any relevant local licensing conditions, are met. The legislation includes safeguards for digital proofs of age—including technological verification that the proof of age is genuine and confirmation that it relates to the person presenting it—that do not apply to physical documents. Digital proof of age cannot be accepted based on visual inspection alone. Digital proofs of age for alcohol purchases must be provided by digital verification services that have been certified against the UK digital verification services trust framework and appear on the gov.uk register of certified services. This ensures that the services can be trusted to prove correctly and securely that the person is 18, or over such older age as is set out in the age-verification policy. I again thank the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Stratford-on-Avon for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed, and I hope my remarks have reassured Members that the Government have considered the issues carefully. This legislation will modernise the licensing regime, providing greater choice and convenience for consumers and support to businesses, while maintaining the safeguards necessary to protect children and promote public safety. I commend the draft order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
To help restore high streets across the country, we have announced measures to tackle organised crime, cut business rates for pubs and stop the spread of vape shops and gambling outlets. Later this year, we will publish a high streets strategy setting out a longer-term plan for bringing life back into our town centres.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing Putney and her high street, and for attending the roundtable. Councils need both the tools and the support to bring vacant properties back into use, which is why we introduced high street rental actions. To make powers as straightforward as possible, we have published guidance and templates and established a dedicated support mechanism for local authorities. We are reviewing new burdens funding to ensure councils are appropriately resourced, and have announced £10 million to tackle long-term vacancies and bring empty units back into productive use. On business rates, this Government are committed to reforming the system to create a fairer approach that fully supports investments and high streets such as my hon. Friend’s.
The hon. Member highlights an issue affecting many town centres and high streets, which is that, for far too long, organised criminal gangs have been acting in plain sight and getting away with it, but now they have a Government who are ready to take them on.
I thank my hon. Friend for his work championing his high street. The Government have allocated £24.8 million to the Long Eaton town deal, which is funding high street redevelopment projects such as public realm improvements. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss what more we can do.
Since summer ’25, the Department has been working in partnership with the offices and partners in each nation to deliver the local growth fund in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are committed to ensuring that funding is spent on projects that really matter to local people. It is really important that every arm of Government, regardless of where it is in the UK, drives down on that investment so that local people feel empowered in the places where they live.
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we do not shy away from intervention when it is required. We also think that the Government ought to work in partnership with local government and that councils, where they need support, find a partner in central Government. He can be absolutely sure that, when it comes to value for taxpayers’ money and holding the sector to account, the right checks and balances are finally in place.
There have been lots of different views about reorganisation in my constituency, but one thing everybody is fully agreed on is that Kent county council is a failing organisation. It is too big to be effective, and it consistently lets down residents right across the county. It is critical that we get this right because it is residents who live with the results. While the pause is under way, how can we ensure that momentum is not lost in improving local services and ensuring that Kent and its different communities start to receive decent services? For instance, in my case, I am disappointed that we have lost the Thames Estuary growth board. How can we ensure that we will get the structures and powers we need to succeed and thrive?
I strongly welcome this landmark Bill, which will protect and strengthen our health service for decades to come, but for children with special educational needs and disabilities who are disproportionately impacted by not getting the healthcare that they need, I believe that it should go further. That is why I tabled new clause 85, which seeks to address the fundamental imbalance in the provision of health services for disabled children and young people. Currently, the statutory duty to deliver education, health and care plans—the legal mechanism by which children with special educational needs and disabilities can receive support—sits entirely with local authorities.
I do agree. The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point about the impact of childhood illness, not only on the child but on the family. I also agree that support for families is crucial. They are part of the care team for children when they are unwell, and that acknowledgment needs to be strengthened and acted on. As I was saying, the statutory duty to deliver EHCPs sits solely with local authorities. In practice, that means that councils are the only bodies that can be held legally responsible for providing the service that a disabled child needs to access education, including health services such as occupational or speech and language therapy. Health bodies are not subject to the same requirement, and I know from my work as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and a constituency MP, and as a parent of a disabled child, that that too often means that they are not at the table when it comes to delivering services for children with special educational needs and disabilities. There is a fundamental lack of accountability in the system. That, in practice, can force local authorities or families to procure privately, which can drive shortages in the NHS workforce or can mean that provision is substandard or non-existent. My constituent’s son Haider, for example, has an EHCP which outlines his need for speech and language therapy to gain full access to education. Despite his mother Qaila’s relentless efforts, that support was not delivered for months. Qaila tells me that she has been forced to watch while Haider has become withdrawn, anxious and isolated. My constituent Elizabeth has a similar story. She has been fighting to get occupational and physical therapy for her son William, but significant delays in securing assessments from healthcare professionals have resulted in inaccurate, unhelpful support arrangements.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Owing to the lack of early intervention for my constituent Elizabeth and her son William, he has missed countless hours and days and weeks of schooling at a critical point in his development. At a drop-in that I hosted last week, I met a woman called Annika. Her daughter Winnie has cerebral palsy, and her EHCP clearly states that she requires a physiotherapist, but the family have been forced to arrange that for themselves. Countless other families are in the same position. I think that every single Member in this House will have encountered similar constituency cases, and it is just not good enough.
I agree that there needs to be better accountability in the health service. It currently does not work, and the mechanisms by which we can hold healthcare bodies to account are few and far between. I believe that it is most acutely felt in paediatric care and in the special educational needs and disabilities system, where a mechanism for holding public bodies to account already exists: EHCPs. The idea that the responsibility should fall entirely on local authorities is misguided, because roughly 50% of what a child with an EHCP needs in order to access education is healthcare, which should be provided by a healthcare service. There must be better accountability and transparency for parents, and for their children, when that does not happen. I know that parents often have to go out of their way and spend, on average, £8,500 a year on their child’s healthcare so that they can access education.
I will not, because I am going to run out of time. Roughly 40% of people have paid privately for therapies, and many are forced to fundraise for the vital medical equipment to which their child is legally entitled. It is worth noting that beyond the direct costs, many parents are forced to miss work because the right support is not available for their child to attend school. Around 40% report cutting back their hours, and 35% have left the job market completely. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I stopped work to become a full-time carer for my daughter. I do not regret that choice for a second, but it was a difficult and sometimes lonely period. Like many parents, I had not anticipated just how hard it would be to secure basic support for my child. Even to this day, I struggle to secure the basic healthcare support that she needs to support her education and her place at school. I am wearing a dragon for her today, and she will know why that is. I will not share it with the House, but if she watches this debate, she will see the dragon and it will make her smile. New clause 85 is intended to fix the inequality. It would place a statutory duty on ICBs to deliver the health part of EHCPs, matching the existing duty on local authorities. The fundamental concept that there must be a meaningful legal requirement on health services to deliver the support set out in EHCPs is critical. If we do not act and do not rightly demand that health services pull their weight, the status quo of young people missing out on education will continue, and I am afraid the planned SEND reforms will be doomed to failure. Disabled children are no less worthy of a decent education than their peers and are no less capable of thriving in school, but we are denying them access to the tools they need to succeed. I am grateful to the Health and Social Care Committee and the Education Committee for their support for new clause 85, and to the nearly 100 Members from across the House who put their name to it. I want to express my thanks to the charities involved for their continued campaigning efforts, and to the many parents who have contacted me. I sincerely hope that the Government will give the new clause the attention it deserves. If they cannot accept it in whole, I hope that they will give a commitment to deliver proper accountability.
11. What support her Department is providing to councils to help them use their housing revenue account to build council houses.
This Government have committed to council housing and taken steps to boost it, which is fantastic. Cornwall council’s housing revenue account has struggled to build because it has had to invest in repairs, meaning that it has had to reduce the amount of funds available annually for new homes. Of course, another of the barriers to delivering new council homes is debt; over £90 million of it is the result of self-financing arrangements dating back to 2012. If that debt were reduced, Cornwall council and others could do more. Will the Government consider options to write off HRA debt, or at least provide lower-cost financing such as that made available to registered providers through the National Housing Bank?
9. What steps her Department plans to take through local government changes to further devolve funding decisions to regions.
The Bakerloo extension line project would help to revitalise Catford, a town in my constituency. In fact, it would unlock thousands of new homes in the area. Will changes to regional funding allow the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority to make decisions to back the Bakerloo line and progress the project?
I thank the Minister for the Bill. I put it on record that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassaemia. I rise to speak to new clause 162. It is well known that the NHS commissions specialised services unevenly across England. I am confident that this Government’s ambition is to end the postcode lottery of specialised services, and I would like to hear more about that. New clause 162 is designed to do something simple: to ensure that Parliament can identify where inequalities exist, measure where they are improving and hold the Secretary of State to account when they are not. I will make the case for the provision through the experience of people who live with sickle cell. Sickle cell disorder is the fastest growing serious genetic condition in England. It causes episodes of serious chronic pain, spasms and a crisis that will continue if left untreated. It can damage organs and frequently requires hospital care. When the crisis strikes, patients have to attend A&E and wait for hours, often only to be seen by medical staff who may have little or no familiarity with their condition. Due to past experiences, many sufferers do not trust the NHS to meet their needs, and stories of sufferers who have died in hospital due to complications, such as Evan Nathan Smith, are well known. In 2021, the “No One’s Listening” report demonstrated that people with sickle cell need to be listened to. That report prompted NHS England to act. It initiated the sick cell and thalassaemia quality improvement programme, from which came seven pilot emergency department bypass units. These dedicated facilities allow sickle cell patients to avoid A&E and receive immediate care to bring a crisis under control. The service works, but there is a problem, which brings me to the new clause. When the APPG met last week, we heard from stakeholders that this progress is fragile. There are only seven bypass units across the country, and with the transfer of commissioning responsibilities under the Bill, there is a real and legitimate fear that what has just begun to be built will not be protected to continue.
I thank my hon. Friend. He could not have said that more clearly. This is absolutely about inequalities in the health service. He has explained and expressed that extremely well. I know that he, like me, will continue to advocate for people from ethnic minority and diverse backgrounds. New clause 162 would require the Secretary of State to do two things: first, to lay an annual report before Parliament on the performance of specialised services against national standards; secondly, to ensure the regular publication of data on quality and outcomes of the kind currently captured in the specialised services quality dashboards, which NHS England has maintained on a non-statutory basis. Without legislation, those dashboards could quietly disappear when NHS England does, and that must not happen. The new clause would make their continuation, or the continuation of something equivalent, a legal requirement. I want to be clear about the modesty of this ask. We are not asking the Government to build new services, ringfence budgets or second-guess local commissioning decisions. We are asking them to measure, publish and report, in order to ensure basic accountability for patients with rare conditions, and for geographically dispersed people, predominantly from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, so that they have services that work. The patients who rely on specialised services are often marginalised twice over: once by their condition, and again by a system that does not always see them clearly. New clause 162 would require the Secretary of State to identify them, and to report back to this House on what they find. I urge the Government to take this new clause seriously and to respond appropriately.
I have repeatedly argued with colleagues that LGR is extremely complex but extremely important. It therefore did not need to be a term-one priority for this Government, and I remain of that view, because for me our councils should be building council houses, tackling homelessness, strengthening trade standards and regenerating high streets, not focusing on administrative structures. Assuming that LGR still goes ahead in some form—I advise the Secretary of State to think deeply about that—will she please explain how the views of Rushcliffe and Nottinghamshire residents, many of whom felt ignored through the last process, will be fully considered in this new approach?
My right hon. Friend talked about good growth in every postcode, which I welcome, as well as the £150 million scheme with the British Business Bank, but there was nothing for the midlands, which was ironic given where the Chancellor delivered his speech. The truth is, the midlands is being squeezed from the north and from the south. Will she help me to revisit the limit, resurrect the previously canned scheme on the A46, and meet me to discuss investment in our region?
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing it, and for all his engagement and campaigning on this important issue. I know from my conversations with my hon. Friend that he cares deeply, as do I, about ensuring that patients can access innovative medicines, particularly when there is unmet clinical need. Free-of-charge arrangements play an important role in giving patients early access to medicines, as my hon. Friend so powerfully illustrated when he spoke about the patients and families who have shared their stories with him. I was moved to hear the experiences of those patients, and am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing them this evening. My thoughts, as I am sure every Member’s thoughts will be, are with those patients and families, including the family of the young woman who my hon. Friend told us had tragically passed away. I am sure that everyone in this House agrees that we must find a solution that means that those patients, and others like them, can continue to access lifesaving medicines. Before responding to the points made, I will first set out some of the context for the existing VAT treatment of donated medicines. This evening’s debate concerns the application of long-standing VAT rules to some medicines supplied free of charge. Under UK VAT law, some transactions where no money changes hands are treated as though a supply has been made, and these are known as deemed supplies. These rules help to keep the VAT system fair where a business has reclaimed VAT on its costs. These are not new rules introduced by this Government; they are long-standing features of the VAT system dating back to the early days of VAT, before the VAT Act 1994. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs wrote to the sector in 2023 as part of the process of ensuring that businesses pay the correct tax. However, the Government recognise concerns raised by pharmaceutical companies and patient groups about the potential impact of this treatment on free-of-charge access and, ultimately, on patients. That is why, as my hon. Friend mentioned, on 23 June, my predecessor announced that the Government would bring forward a new approach as soon as possible. As set out in the written ministerial statement on 2 July, the Government are considering either changes to the VAT rules or a reimbursement scheme. The new approach will be effective for donations made on or after 23 June 2026. Officials in the Treasury, HMRC and the Department of Health and Social Care have been working closely together and engaging constructively with the pharmaceutical sector to develop the detail of both options. That work must ensure that any approach supports patients while being legally robust, operationally workable and sustainable. We recognise that free-of-charge medicines are supplied through a variety of arrangements. Those include early and expanded access, post-trial access and arrangements that operate after Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency authorisation. My hon. Friend raised the question of which medicines would be in scope of the new approach, and the Government are considering this question carefully in collaboration with the sector. The solution must capture genuine patient access arrangements without creating unintended consequences elsewhere in the VAT or supply systems. It is important that we complete that work quickly, so that patients across the UK can benefit from innovative medicines as quickly and safely as possible. It is equally important that we get this right to avoid inadvertently omitting important avenues by which medicines are donated, or opening the door to abuse. That is why we are working closely with industry to craft the scope appropriately. My hon. Friend asked which forms of donation would be in scope, and whether the solution would apply only to donations to the NHS. He will appreciate that I am not in a position to announce any final decisions today, while work remains ongoing with the firms. However, I can reassure him that I have no desire to artificially circumscribe the scope of the new approach and unduly leave out genuine donation practices. My hon. Friend asked about timelines. I regret that as we are talking about a potential tax change, I cannot give further detail, beyond reassuring him that I have reiterated the urgency that we both feel, and the need to reach a swift resolution, and I have imparted that urgency to my officials. On historical liabilities, the new approach will apply to donations made on or after 23 June 2026, but I am happy to hear input from firms on that point as we go through the process. On co-ordination in the case of AstraZeneca, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the tax affairs of an individual taxpayer, but I would certainly encourage firms in the round to share the detail of any specific concerns they have with my officials. On whether HMRC could publish a business brief to fix this issue, as a matter of existing law, firms must account for VAT on donated medicines. An HMRC brief can communicate a change in policy only when the law itself has changed, or following a judicial decision requiring a change in law. A Revenue and Customs brief cannot itself make the change in law. Finally, I share my hon. Friend’s desire to see Bayer return to the early access scheme, so that patients can regain access to innovative medicines. We have committed to applying the new approach retrospectively to donations made on or after 23 June 2026, and I hope that Bayer takes confidence from that and rejoins the early access scheme as soon as possible.
As the changes we are discussing concern a potential tax change, I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend further detail about any timeline, but I reiterate that I have imparted to my officials in the Treasury and HMRC the urgency that I feel about this, and that my hon. Friend and others will share. I am glad he joins me in calling on Bayer to take confidence from what we have announced and to rejoin the early access scheme as soon as possible. I again thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and for the constructive way in which he has raised this issue, both this evening and in the past. In concluding, I would like to pause to reflect on the impact of continued access to medicines for patients. Individual Members have raised with me the importance that early access to medicines can have, especially for those in the most tragic of circumstances, who sadly have few other options. I have been moved in hearing those cases, and it is vital that we keep those medicines accessible. I am grateful to Members from across the House for bringing this issue the attention it deserves. I am also grateful for the constructive engagement that my officials have had with the pharmaceutical sector, and I know we have a common goal of resolving the issue swiftly. I look forward to setting out further detail once that work has concluded and when final decisions have been taken. Question put and agreed to.
First, I thank the councillors and council officers from East Staffordshire borough council and Staffordshire county council for the hard work that they have put into the process. The rapid review is essential to give residents and council workers the certainty that they need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said, it should be seen as being apart from mayoral devolution, which is the real prize for our communities; it will bring power out of this place and into Staffordshire. Will the Secretary of State commit to a meeting in No. 10 North with Stoke and Staffordshire MPs, so that we can talk about getting that deal in place?
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I know it was incredibly difficult to make, but I also know how disappointed and concerned local residents, businesses, organisations and councils will be—they have put a huge amount of work into this area, not least in the six months since the original decision was made. However, this issue is not just about looking to the past; it is about looking forward to the future. That is why so many people, including me, are championing Greater Ipswich or Ipswich and South Suffolk, alongside an East Suffolk council and a West Suffolk council. Just when we were on the verge of thinking that a new future was possible, this statement has changed everything. Will the Secretary of State offer some reassurance to all my local residents, businesses, organisations and councils that we are not going to go right back to the drawing board?
I rise to speak to my new clause 108, because the public rightly expect any company entrusted to operate within our national health service to meet basic standards of ethical conduct, both inside and outside the NHS. In my experience as parliamentary lead on the Hillsborough law, I regularly met members of the public who were shocked that a duty of candour that would compel public officials to tell the truth to the people they served did not already exist. I believe that many of my constituents will be equally shocked that the basic principles of ethical accountability are not already enshrined in Government procurement policy, but they are not. New clause 108 is not radical. It is a straightforward safeguard requiring the Secretary of State to review the NHS procurement framework and ensure that companies with proven involvement in violations of international law or breaches of internationally accepted standards of business conduct cannot be offered public contracts. Those standards include the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines on multinational enterprises. What exactly is there to disagree with? They ask the bare minimum of businesses: that do not contribute to harm, that they carry out proper human rights due diligence and that are transparent about how they handle the data of the people they serve. Yet we currently have a company operating at the heart of our NHS infrastructure, through the federated data platform, that fails to meet that basic standard. I am talking about the US tech firm Palantir. Palantir has consistently refused to publish a formal human rights impact assessment for its software used in Israel’s assault on Gaza, in violent ICE detentions in America, and in its use of NHS staff and patient data. Such a lack of transparency is not a technicality but a serious failure to meet the standards in the UN and OECD guidelines. I first raised concerns about Palantir’s NHS contract in a letter to the then health Secretary in August 2023, and these concerns have been echoed by many, many others. I am pleased that Parliament has started to push back, with calls from numerous Committees for Palantir to be dropped. I also fully support new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). Patients trust the NHS with the most sensitive information they possess.
I fully agree; I have signed the hon. Gentleman’s amendments and we have been in many Committees speaking on this issue. New clause 108 provides a proportionate and evidence-based mechanism to address this issue. The new clause does not name or target any individual company. It would establish a clear and principled test, rooted in international law and internationally accepted standards, that every contractor must meet. If a company such as Palantir cannot meet that test, it should never hold contracts in our NHS or with Government Departments. I have repeatedly urged the Government to trigger the 2027 break clause in Palantir’s contract to operate the federated data platform. I make that call again tonight. It is only through a measure such as new clause 108 that we can ensure that companies such as Palantir cannot operate in our public services again. It should be accepted, but the principle behind it should not end with the NHS. It should apply across every Government Department, led by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office’s report on social value and procurement, published last month, was welcome, but it contained a glaring omission: a clear ethical foundation. My clause would provide that crucial and much-needed safeguard, ensuring a legislative framework that prevents companies with records like Palantir’s from securing public contracts in the future. Last week, I visited the Vatican and spoke with officials about how the United Kingdom could lead the world in the ethical use of artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. Tonight, my Government have a real opportunity to put a marker down and demonstrate that Britain intends to be at the forefront of that global movement. I look forward to helping them achieve that if they adopt my new clause. Let us make it clear that scrutiny, transparency and respect for human rights are not optional extras in public procurement, but conditions of entry for any company seeking to serve NHS workers and patients. That is what new clause 108 calls for, and that is the change that will be welcomed in Liverpool West Derby, across our country and, indeed, in the halls of the Vatican. I look forward to the Government’s response.
I strongly agree with the Government’s policy on devolution and better technical and scientific education, but all that will be for nought if we do not do something about the cost of energy. We cannot grow and compete as an economy when we have higher energy costs than our major industrial competitors. We have closed more than half our oil refineries in the past 20 years, which means we are now importing a majority of our energy. Will my right hon. Friend do something about those destructive policies?
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time, which I very much appreciate. He and I share the desire for strict rules to prevent abuse of any kind, as I am sure everyone in the House does. I want to make a point relevant specifically to Scotland. In England, the suitability of intended parents is assessed by the courts and through a publicly funded system, but it is funded privately in Scotland, which means that intended parents potentially have to pay £2,000 or £3,000 extra of their own money to go through the process. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on the Scottish Government to find a reform to fix that system?
This has been a long process for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, where we have ducked and dived as best we can with the announcements that have come over the last two years. The thing that we really care about is devolution, because where the line is drawn on councils is important, but the real powers unleashed by devolution would make a real difference to my constituents. Can the Secretary of State give some indication of the impact on the timetable for moving towards mayoral combined authorities for places like Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, where currently the opportunity does not meet our aspiration?
Can I make a pitch to the Minister for a part of the country called the midlands, which I know that she knows well? Not everything is about the south or the north. There is a swathe of counties that form a band of engineering and manufacturing prowess in this country, from Shropshire through to Lincolnshire. They do not have the powerful mayors of the north or the economic growth that the south has had. In my constituency, the chemical industry talks to me about UK REACH double regulation, the steel manufacturers talk about the tariffs, and ceramics industry talks about access to the British industrial competitiveness scheme and the supercharger. If she wants good growth in every part of the country, including the midlands, how will we overcome those immediate challenges?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England is a priority for this Government. Nine years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Helping residents to feel safe in their homes and to move on from this issue is crucial work. The Government are committing £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to the costs of remediation, and the building safety levy is an essential part of the remediation funding package, which will protect leaseholders from costs and ensure that taxpayers are not further burdened. We estimate that the levy needs to raise £3.4 billion, likely over 10 years or more. The revenue target may be adjusted in accordance with the number of buildings requiring remediation and the costs of works. The levy regulations were made in November 2025 and will come into force on 1 October 2026. These draft amending regulations will clarify how the levy will work and are intended to come into force on 1 October. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. It is important to note that developers have known about the levy since February 2021 and about its rates since March 2025, providing a significant lead-in period to plan for and incorporate the costs into their projects. The levy has been designed to ensure that the tax base remains wide enough to fund essential remediation, while protecting housing supply. The impact on the viability of new development has been kept as low as possible with rates that vary by local authority, indexed to local average house prices. There is also a 50% discount for brownfield sites. Social and affordable housing is exempt, as are small sites with fewer than 10 units. The levy will start being charged on new applications from 1 October 2026. We have been working closely with local authorities, private sector-registered building control approvers, and IT providers to support implementation ahead of commencement. I turn now to explaining the changes that the draft regulations will make. The Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025 allow for development on previously developed land—often referred to as brownfield land—to benefit from a 50% discount levy rate. That recognises the higher cost of building on that type of land and protects the viability of development on brownfield sites. My officials received feedback that the definition of previously developed land was not clear. In particular, stakeholders noted that it was not clear that car parks and other areas of hardstanding that would appear as previously developed could qualify for the discount. Our intention has always been to support the development of sites with those features, so the draft regulations amend the definition to make it clear where areas of hardstanding can qualify. That will better reflect the original policy intention and will, I hope, make it easier for local authorities and developers to understand which sites qualify for the discount, reducing costly and time-consuming disputes. The draft regulations and updated guidance provide more information about how the changes will work, and the instrument also makes a small number of minor technical amendments and corrections. The regulations do not change the fundamental design of the levy but provide clarification on previously developed land and make a small number of technical amendments to support implementation. We will keep the rates and processes under review, and will report on them at least every three years. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
I thank the Opposition for their positive contributions to this debate. In that spirit, we need to continue to work across parties to address this important issue. The shadow Minister asked about viability, a key issue that continues to come up. As he mentioned, we both serve as London MPs and see the impact across London and right across the country. It is important to recognise that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply while also balancing the revenue required to make homes safe. The measures include variable rates to local authority levies and a 50% discount on developments on previously developed land, reflecting the additional costs of building on those sites. As I highlighted in my opening remarks, affordable housing is exempt from the levy, which should help to bring forward new housing supply. On average, the levy charge represents 1.1% of house prices on non-previously developed land, and 0.55% on previously developed land. It is therefore expected to have only a very small negative impact on supply. As I also mentioned, the levy was announced in 2021, so the sector has known about it for some time. We appreciate that many issues outside the sector and outside the Government’s control, whether locally, nationally or internationally, are having a big impact on developers, but it is important that they continue to price this work into the deals that they are doing.