partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

   VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes

   I begin by welcoming the Government’s decision at the start of the summer to pause the application of VAT on medicines donated for free to patients through compassionate access, early access and related schemes. The health charities, patients and industry bodies that I have worked with are grateful to Ministers for recognising that this issue needs to be addressed, and in particular for the ministerial statement setting out the Government’s intention to introduce a new approach to VAT on free-of-charge donations of medicines. I know that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and previously my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, have both worked a great deal on this issue. I thank them for their commitment to find a resolution. Without a permanent solution, however, pharmaceutical companies do not have the legal certainty to fully re-engage with early access programmes. Although, to date, only Bayer has withdrawn from these schemes outright, I have heard from a number of other companies that tell me that the uncertainty is causing them to reconsider, drug by drug, whether they can afford to continue offering free access, for fear of creating open-ended VAT liabilities. Tragically, the people who are paying the price for the delay are patients. I know that the Government recognise the consequences for patient outcomes, which is why they have committed to bringing forward a new approach, either through changes to VAT rules or through a reimbursement scheme. I welcome the fact that the new approach, once introduced, will apply to donations made on or after 23 June 2026. However, a pause is simply not good enough to resolve this issue fully. I called for this debate to ask the Government to reconfirm their commitment to find a permanent solution and to ask them to move forward as quickly as possible in determining that comprehensive solution.

   Hansard source
2. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

   VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes

   I thank my hon. Friend for that. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medicines and medical devices, I have heard those stories far too often. I completely agree that we should be removing every single barrier.

   Hansard source
3. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

   VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes

   I agree that we do need to find a permanent and comprehensive solution. Hopefully we can air those issues fully today. Fundamentally, the principle underlying this issue is very straightforward: if a pharmaceutical company is willing to provide a lifesaving medicine to a patient free of charge because that patient has a serious or life-threatening condition and has exhausted the available standard treatment options, the tax system should not make access to those lifesaving drugs more difficult. That reflects the points raised by the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge). Pharmaceutical companies already operate these schemes at a loss. For example, over the last four years, AstraZeneca alone has given more than 2,500 patients access to innovative, lifesaving medicines free of charge, costing millions of pounds. This is clearly not a commercial transaction. It is a moral, compassionately motivated decision and programme, and in my view that means it should be supported, championed and facilitated by Government, not blocked, disincentivised, or made administratively more burdensome—but unfortunately that is exactly what has been happening since HMRC started charging VAT on those donations. This is not just a line on a tax return, impacting on the bottom line; the impact is also having real-world consequences on patient groups. The consequences of this delay are gut-wrenching and deeply frustrating for clinicians, patients and their families. Every day, every week and every month that we wait for a permanent solution to move forward, more severely ill patients are denied access to drugs that could save or extend their lives, at no cost to the NHS. It is also important to note that patients with rarer cancers are disproportionately affected by this issue, as they generally have fewer treatment options. In August, I was contacted by Emma and her husband Ian. Ian and Emma are currently watching this debate online from Ian’s hospital room at University College hospital, as they could not be here in person. Ian has an advanced, rare and aggressive bile duct cancer. Following his latest chemotherapy, his consultant Professor Bridgewater recommended regorafenib as Ian’s next treatment. Regorafenib was previously supplied free of charge by Bayer through a compassionate use programme. However, since Bayer became liable for VAT on the medicines it was donating, it withdrew from the programme, meaning that Ian lost free access to this potentially life-extending treatment. Ian and Emma are now urgently trying to find the money to pay privately for Ian’s treatment, and the cost is thousands of pounds per month. It goes without saying that many families cannot afford to pay thousands of pounds, each and every month, for treatment. Working with Sarcoma UK, I have also heard from Dr Robin Young, a consultant medical oncologist at Weston Park cancer centre. He reported that a 62-year-old patient with metastatic leiomyosarcoma, whose disease had progressed through all the standard chemotherapy options, was also denied this drug in January 2026 because of Bayer’s withdrawal. That patient subsequently self-funded an alternative treatment at a cost of £3,500 for one month, before deciding that he could not afford to continue with that treatment. These are heartbreaking decisions for patients and their families. I have also heard from Dr Alex Lee, a consultant medical oncologist at the Christie NHS foundation trust, who has reported that two patients with advanced osteosarcoma were refused access to the drug earlier this year, with Bayer citing the VAT position. Tragically, one of those patients has since died. She was just 20 years old. I hope these stories make clear the urgency of resolving this issue as soon as possible. This would not only enable Bayer to re-engage, but ensure that existing participants could continue to access their drugs through the programme and enable potential new drugs to enter early access and compassionate access schemes in the future. On paper, this might be a niche and complex part of tax policy, but in real life it is a desperately ill patient, it is a family and it is a clinician having to explain why a medicine that had previously been made available can no longer be provided. I shall turn now to the position of the pharmaceutical industry. Patients, clinicians and the Minister will be pleased to hear that the pharma companies are keen and willing to re-engage with compassionate, early access and other similar schemes once a suitable solution has been finalised with Government. However, I have heard concerns from the industry about the pace and scope of negotiations since the Government announced the pause. The first issue is about the breadth of the definition of the products that will be exempted from VAT liabilities. The definition used to determine any VAT exemption should include the full range of schemes that pharma companies engage in to provide these medicines free of charge. These include: compassionate use, where a clinician requests a specific medicine as a last resort once other options are exhausted, usually off-licence; early use, for new patients immediately after a trial; post-trial provision, for patients who responded well during a trial and need to continue; and bridging prescriptions, for patients where a drug has been approved but is not yet funded on the NHS. However, I have been told that the definition initially suggested by HMRC during negotiations has been too narrow to cover all those uses. I encourage the Minister to look again at this, given that compassionate use of off-licence drugs accounts for a substantial proportion of the patients who benefit from donations to the programme. I understand that the Government may be now moving to a better position on this point, and I would welcome confirmation of that from the Minister. The second issue I have heard is that HMRC is considering attaching two conditions to any VAT exemption: first, that the patient must be treated on the NHS rather than by a private clinician; and secondly, that medicines must be supplied directly by the company to the NHS. I am sceptical of the merits of both those points. First, patients should not potentially lose access to a lifesaving free treatment, which is at the cost of industry, just because the clinician recommending the treatment is a private doctor. On the second point, I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how such an arrangement would work on a practical level. We know that the NHS can refer to private clinics and that clinicians can, particularly for specialist issues, work regularly between NHS practices and private clinics. The fundamental question must surely be whether the medicine is clinically needed and whether it is free at the point of use for the patient. The third issue raised by pharma pertains to the question of historical liabilities. My understanding is that many pharma companies have already paid VAT for historical liabilities, and it is important to say that we do not expect that they will be able to recover that in full. However, given the upcoming changes, it would be helpful if the Government provided some clarity on the legal position on historical liabilities before the pause. I urge that settlements should be negotiated constructively and with understanding based on the nature of these liabilities. Closely related to the issue of historical liabilities is that of co-ordination between Departments on this issue. AstraZeneca has told me that, despite ongoing negotiations with HMRC and the pause announced in July, it is currently being pursued by His Majesty’s Treasury for accounts by the end of September, which it has been indicated should include VAT liability on compassionate access—a position AstraZeneca is not confident is consistent with what it is hearing from HMRC. Business needs certainty to prepare accounts. I encourage the Minister to ensure that HMRC and the Treasury are working from the same hymn sheet. On the method and pace of resolution, my understanding is that the Government are looking at creating an exemption for the compassionate donation of medicines through a legislative change to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. However, have the Government considered issuing a business brief from HMRC to clarify the new position, given that this could be a faster and more effective route? I would be grateful for the Minister’s perspective on that. As well as the patient benefits, there is also a key strategic opportunity for us as a country to be a global industry leader in life sciences research. Many other countries have complex schemes in place, and sometimes charge VAT or the equivalent on such things. However, I understand that although liabilities technically exist in the Netherlands, they are not enforced in practice. If the UK were to fully resolve this issue and put it beyond doubt, this would be a genuine point of competitive advantage in attracting life sciences investment, research and clinical trials to this country, at a time when our overall competitiveness in the sector is under pressure from other directions and policies. It would also encourage the participation of innovative new drugs and potential wider patient applications of them, driving forward potential research opportunities and improving healthcare practice. To sum up, my questions to the Minister are as follows. First, can he confirm that a permanent solution will define eligible products as widely as possible, to include the full range of schemes that are currently used? Will he reconsider the proposal to restrict eligibility to NHS-treated patients only? Secondly, the Government have said that they will act as soon as possible, but for a patient with a life-threatening disease, that phrase can feel like a very long time. Will the Minister set out a clearer timetable about actions and next steps, and when the consultation with industry is likely to conclude? Will the Government decide to bring forward a reimbursement mechanism? Can the Minister explain why a business brief route has not been preferred, or whether one can be explored? When is detailed guidance likely to be published and operational? Finally, what is being done to repair the relationships with industry, which have been damaged as a result of this policy? Where a company such as Bayer has withdrawn, I hope that it will be strongly encouraged to re-engage as soon as possible, so that the patients we have heard about today can gain access quickly. Will the Treasury work with the Department of Health and Social Care to engage industry and be in direct communication with clinicians to help to identify which patient groups have been most affected, so they can be notified as soon as possible that the treatments may become available again? This is, on paper, a narrow, technical issue of tax policy—not always the thing that makes the front pages of newspapers or the most engaging social media videos—but in practice, a clear and quick resolution to this issue is a life-and-death issue for many thousands of people. It is the difference between a patient like Ian fighting to save thousands of pounds a month—just to be able to focus on his health and his loved ones— or not. It is the difference between a clinician having to explain why a medicine that was available last year is not available now, and being able to provide that innovative and lifesaving drug to them and many more patients besides. It is the difference between a pharmaceutical company that wants to do the right thing, providing drugs to patients for free or at a low cost, and it withdrawing its drugs completely because the costs become significant. Once again, I strongly welcome the ministerial statement and the pause from June. I thank the Minister and his predecessor considerably for their work to date, which has made a difference. I know that he is committed to engagement on this issue and to finding a way forward.

   Hansard source
4. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Danny Beales

   VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes

   The Minister is being very generous in giving way, as ever, and I appreciate his response about the limitations of the business brief process. If amending the VAT Act 1994 is the right route, does the Minister know roughly how long that would take to find a resolution? I fully his support his point about Bayer re-engaging. The Government have moved in good faith, and I hope Bayer will, too.

   Hansard source
5. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Zeichner

   Topical Questions

   I welcome the Government’s plans to deepen devolution, but can the Minister reassure me that they will mean no alteration to the commitment to a Cambridge development corporation?

   Hansard source
6. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Zeichner

   Local Government Reorganisation

   Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right. Does the Secretary of State agree that any new structures that emerge should be based on economic growth and dynamism, rather than having to be built on existing districts? Those building blocks were established in a very different economic era.

   Hansard source
7. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Health Bill

   I rise to speak to amendment 32 and new clause 39 tabled in my name, which seek to address the problems facing community equipment and wheelchair services across the country. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for wheelchair users and for access to disability equipment. As the parent of a wheelchair user, I know just how important getting such services right is for disabled people and their families, and the consequences and long-term impacts when it goes wrong. Evidence gathered for an inquiry by the APPG for access to disability equipment last year found that one in three equipment users who responded to our inquiry are waiting a significant time for equipment, with one in five waiting over two months, and 55% stating that they do not have the equipment they need for their long-term needs. At a time when we are rightly focused on reducing waiting lists and improving patient flow, it makes little sense for somebody to remain in a hospital bed simply because the equipment they need to return home has not arrived. Some 74% of professionals and equipment providers report that patients experienced delayed hospital discharge because essential equipment was not available at home, increasing pressure on hospital beds and placing further strain on services. The current system is fragmented, inconsistent and lacks sufficient accountability and national oversight. My amendments would introduce two things that the system lacks: a clear expectation of how long people would wait, with clear, set timelines and accountability when things go wrong, and they would ensure that patients have a clear pathway for hospital discharge. Amendment 32 would require ICBs to provide community equipment and wheelchair services within 18 weeks of the date that a person is assessed. I know from experience of my daughter’s case when she was eight that the 18-week deadline was missed on two occasions, and she was without an adequate wheelchair for 21 months. These issues simply shunt costs to elsewhere in the NHS. The APPG for wheelchair users heard evidence from consultants within the NHS about the quality of assessment, interventions and aftercare. We heard that delays led to children receiving a wheelchair that was no longer fit for purpose by the time they received it. The following are quotes that we heard: “There is the additional care to consider as well. Poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores, increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector.” “In terms of inequity of care, when asked for information it is always the same eight or 10 ICBs who respond. The ones who don’t, are probably the ones we should worry about.” “There is a level of bureaucracy in the NHS that stops things happening. Disability is not considered as important as other things in health parameters.” The data available shows that the wheelchair deadline is being missed by many ICBs, and 29% of ICBs are not meeting the target of providing over 25% of wheelchairs in 18 weeks.

   Hansard source
8. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Health Bill

   I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I will come on to, there is an inconsistent set of data across the country. This inconsistency is not just between ICBs but, in the case of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), between neighbouring London boroughs, which may have the same ICB but different frameworks. I also welcome the support for the amendment from the Children’s Commissioner, who has said: “Across the country, children wait far too long for the right equipment that is essential for daily life. In recent research on children experiencing delayed discharge from hospital, the office was told that delays in getting equipment, and having equipment serviced, had led to children being stuck in hospital, away from family, friends and school.” This postcode lottery is not just cross-country—I know of a number of ICBs in which there are significant issues—but within ICBs. In my part of south-east London, one patient can be discharged, while another, in the same hospital with the same condition, living on the opposite side of the road, cannot be discharged. That difference arises because a borough boundary runs down the road. There are different contractual arrangements between different London boroughs in the same ICB. I know at first hand that pupils in the same school class, and in the same ICB, can have completely different service standards for their wheelchairs because one lives in one London borough while another lives in the neighbouring borough. I will speak briefly to new clause 85, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). Like me, she is the parent of a disabled child. We have fought these issues for many years, both as parents and on behalf of our constituents. In my case, I know that when Ofsted found that there were systemic failings in our SEND provision, we could hold our local authority to account, but we could not properly hold our ICB to account. The judgment was issued against the council, not the ICB.

   Hansard source
9. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Health Bill

   I absolutely agree, and I was a Labour councillor and leader of the council’s Labour opposition back then. I was also married to a special educational needs co-ordinator who was employed by the local authority. I was employing my own professionals to get through this process and ensure that the health aspects of the EHCP were upheld. The situation is absolutely abhorrent. Many parents who do not have the opportunity and insight that my wife and I had cannot ensure that accountability for their child. When my borough received that judgment of systemic failings, that issue really came to the fore. I would be grateful if the Minister or Secretary of State could outline how the Government intend to address the issues addressed by my amendment and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. My amendment intends to ensure that we deliver basic objectives, set clear expectations for how long disabled people should wait, set consistent standards, and ensure meaningful accountability for ICBs when services fall short.

   Hansard source
10. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Aldridge

    Health Bill

    I think the hon. Member’s point about health inequalities is really important. The number of cancer cases is expected to rise by about 30% by 2040, and England already has fewer radiotherapy machines per head than comparable European countries. Weston-super-Mare does not even have one, despite being the size of the city of Bath. Does he agree that that needs to come in conjunction with the rest of the investment he is talking about?

    Hansard source
11. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Damien Egan

    Topical Questions

    With the Kingswood area of my Bristol constituency currently being targeted by landlords of houses in multiple occupation, can the Minister set out the Government’s current thinking on how powers to restrict HMOs can be made more effective?

    Hansard source
12. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Housing Revenue Account: Council Houses

    13. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of housing revenue account debt on the ability of local authorities to maintain and increase council housing stock.

    Hansard source
13. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Housing Revenue Account: Council Houses

    My right hon. Friend is aware of the challenges with housing in my constituency and across London. Every home built that provides a foundation for people’s lives saves the state money as well, given the temporary accommodation costs that are saved when people are able to get that foundation in life. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to talk to Treasury colleagues about how to look at those maths, to make sure we understand that tackling issues with debt can save money in the long term? I recognise that it might be a long haul, but will he promise to start?

    Hansard source
14. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Economic Growth

    I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and her commitment that the British Business Bank’s new fund will not be interfered with politically, because when the Treasury Committee looked at the National Wealth Fund, we were very clear that it needed to be able to get on and do its job crowding in that private investment. There should not be a chop-and-change approach to the policy; it should not be a delivery vehicle for different Government policies, as Governments can change. I have spent my career backing devolution, but there is a challenge here, is there not? The Chief Secretary has to ensure that the money that taxpayers give to Government to spend is spent well, but there is a gap, with our regionally elected mayors, in the oversight and scrutiny of that public spending. Devolution is a good thing, but what is she going to put in place to ensure that those mayors and the devolved authorities can report back about how well they are spending taxpayers’ money, and if they are not spending it well, what will the consequences be?

    Hansard source
15. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for his opening speech on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I am pleased to respond to this debate on the proposal, made by a petition signed by over 113,000 members of the public, to change surrogacy law to recognise intended parents from birth. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to his place and congratulate him on his appointment to that role. This is a well-attended debate, and there have been many valuable contributions. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) both spoke with great passion about the welfare of women and children, including in the international dimension of surrogacy. I wanted to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who is no longer in his place, that I was concerned to hear his intervention about his constituents who had a very poor experience going to Mexico with a certain company. The Department is looking into the allegations about My Surrogacy Journey. As part of that assessment, the Department will consider whether it is appropriate for that company to remain on the gov.uk list of agencies. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) talked about the rights of the child coming first. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) talked about the strength of motherhood and discussed the important issue of consent. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised concerns about the commercialisation of surrogacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about his personal experience of becoming a dad. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) spoke about the personal experience of Adam and Jamie. She made a strong speech for reform and also spoke about consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) talked about the ethics of surrogacy and referred to the approach taken by other European countries. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, made a typically thoughtful speech that set out the Law Commission’s report in some detail. It is worth saying from the outset that the Government recognise that surrogacy is a complex and sensitive policy issue where detail matters to all those involved in a surrogacy arrangement. The Government always recommend that anyone considering surrogacy should have a clear understanding of what is required for parenthood to legally transfer to the intended parents and should seek specialist legal advice before beginning the process. I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect on this area of law. The UK was, of course, one of the first countries to introduce a legislative framework for domestic surrogacy. The Government support surrogacy as part of a range of assisted conception options and recognise the important part it can play in supporting people seeking to start a family. In the Surrogacy Arrangements Act, Parliament decided that altruistic surrogacy arrangements would be legally allowed and that surrogates would be entitled to reasonable expenses. The Act was introduced to prevent surrogacy arrangements from taking place on a commercial basis. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for his informed contribution. He and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth set out the issues raised by the petitioners, Adam and Jamie, and shared their experience of starting a family through surrogacy and of the pathway to legal parenthood in the United Kingdom. The Government recognise the difficulties that intended parents may encounter when applying for a parental order. We are very grateful to those with lived experience of this matter who feel able to share their stories. I will set out the current legal position on parental orders. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the person who gives birth to the child—in this case, the surrogate—is the legal mother when the child is born and has parental responsibility until the courts put in place a parental order. A parental order makes the intended parents the legal parents and permanently removes the surrogate’s legal motherhood. We recognise that the application process for a parental order can be a difficult period for intended parents. Although the safeguarding assessments take time, they are necessary to support the court’s considerations of parental order applications. Each application is carefully considered by the family court on the facts of the individual case, although I note the issues raised about delays in the system. The debate has highlighted broader questions about whether the current legal framework in the UK continues to reflect modern family formation and contemporary surrogacy practice. The Government acknowledge those concerns and recognise the arguments on both sides—that the law should provide greater clarity, better support and a more streamlined pathway to legal parenthood while maintaining robust safeguards for children, surrogates and intended parents. There are many reasons why people pursue international surrogacy arrangements. It is a very complex area. The process to bring the child or children to the UK after birth can be long and complicated. Foreign Office guidance makes it clear that if people are considering surrogacy in a foreign country, they are strongly advised to seek specialist independent legal advice in the UK and the relevant country before making any arrangements. I hear loud and clear the calls for legislative change this afternoon but, given the limited parliamentary time available, the Government are not in a position to bring forward legislation on surrogacy reform immediately. We will, however, continue to consider options for future reform, and we remain engaged with the issues raised by stakeholders, parliamentarians and families with lived experience of surrogacy.

    Hansard source
16. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Diana Johnson

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    I am very happy to take that point away and write to the hon. Lady. Any future reforms need to protect the welfare of children and safeguard those involved in surrogacy arrangements, as well as to maintain public trust. As noted throughout the debate, the Department supported the joint project of the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to review the current surrogacy regime. The Law Commissions consulted widely on this topic, generating a wide diversity of views. The previous Government welcomed the Law Commissions’ 2023 report on surrogacy reform, and this Government will respond in due course as time allows. I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to both sides of the debate. The contributions made today have highlighted again both the strengths of the current surrogacy framework and the challenges that may be faced when navigating it. The Government are clear that the welfare of children born through surrogacy must remain paramount. We recognise the importance of ensuring that children are protected, intended parents are supported in having families, surrogate mothers are protected and surrogacy arrangements operate within a framework that commands public confidence. I am sure that the Minister in the Lords, who has responsibility for this area, would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this further. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for introducing this important debate and acknowledging the families impacted.

    Hansard source
17. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Health Bill

    I rise to speak to amendment 97 in my name, which would remove clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service. In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust said that clause 10 “seems to make it more possible for the Secretary of State to explicitly set out to increase private or public provision.” Why does the Secretary of State need this power? Introducing an extra level of nuance now, as clause 10 will do, has the potential to raise fears within the NHS that it could be abused in future. The clause has the potential to create unintended consequences. The explanatory notes for the Bill say that this new flexibility is necessary “where there may otherwise be a breakdown in provision of a health service.” Can we imagine a situation where the Secretary of State has concerns about a health service and that an approach to assist a local provider would be rebuffed? It is hardly likely to happen. The explanatory notes suggest that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State needs the power to direct local decisions, rather than to work with local health service providers to resolve any difficulties. How does the power to influence the proportion of public and private provision help in resolving a breakdown in service? Labour’s 2024 plan to make work pay set out a welcome desire to bring more essential services back into public control—something that is welcomed by health workers across the country, because so far the “biggest wave of insourcing in a generation”, as was promised, has felt more like a trickle when it comes to the NHS. The new Prime Minister and new Secretary of State have inherited the Health Bill from their predecessors, so hopefully they will be able to stamp their own mark on it before it becomes law. Removing clause 10 would be one way of making that mark. The concern for those who work for the NHS and those who support it is that the clause has the potential to be exploited in future by those who would seek to move away from the public provision of healthcare. There are ample powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene and resolve breakdowns in the provision of a health service. On clause 10, we must balance what it adds in those situations against its potential misuse by an ideologically driven Government that are determined to privatise our NHS. To remove any ambiguity and to protect the NHS from the possibility of the clause being abused by a future Secretary of State, I urge that it is dropped from the Bill.

    Hansard source
18. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Webb

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I understand the limits on what my right hon. Friend can say today, but it seems that there have been real failures in the official process. The situation in many of our constituencies is being put on hold. She is taking accountability, even though she is not actually responsible for this. Will she assure me that she will investigate any failures of process that have occurred, and that have led to this situation, so that we can learn the lessons, and so that this does not happen again?

    Hansard source
19. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Ward

    Topical Questions

    T4.   Rough sleeping is a huge challenge in Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, so I am delighted that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are making it such a big priority, but will any of the very welcome additional funding go to existing schemes, such as the ending homelessness in communities fund—a brilliant scheme, but heavily oversubscribed—or charities in my constituency?

    Hansard source
20. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Ward

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. A pause in the review is clearly the right step, but my constituents—particularly those in East Saltdean, Peacehaven and Telscombe—will want to know what comes next. Will she answer two specific questions? First, will the review that she has announced look again at the precise boundaries announced in May, as well as the legal process that got to them? Secondly, how will my constituents have a chance to shape that decision? Will it be through MPs? Will there be another consultation? How can they feed in so that we can get this right and make LGR the success that we both know it can be?

    Hansard source
21. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Topical Questions

    T7. Having previously worked for a homelessness charity, Streets2Homes in Harlow, I welcome the Housing First approach that this Government are taking to tackle rough sleeping. However, would the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister answers the question, agree with me that, along with that housing, we must provide long-term support to ensure that people can keep tenancies securely?

    Hansard source
22. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Kane

    Economic Growth

    Like many parents all over the country, this month, my wife and I will drop off our child at university for the first time—in this instance, to begin an engineering degree. What assessment has the Minister made of the economic benefits of helping more young people into secure work? What assurance can she give all our young people starting in education or training this month that the Labour Government are alive to their fears about rising costs, technological changes and global uncertainty, and are working hard to ensure that economic conditions mean that they have a job when it is time for them to enter the jobs market?

    Hansard source
23. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Hinchliff

    Economic Growth

    I will ask a slightly different question from the one I originally intended to ask. Every time we come to this Chamber to discuss the economy, we spend a lot of time debating public spending, but we never seem to discuss our trade deficit. We have not been in surplus since 1998. What will the Government do to ensure that we start paying our way in the world again?

    Hansard source
24. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Curtis

    Economic Growth

    We are now on the fourth round of consultation on East West Rail, the latter rounds of consultation consulting on the outcomes of the earlier rounds of consultation. At the same time, we are in the middle of building the most expensive nuclear power station in the history of the human race because of the four rounds of consultation required for Sizewell C. When we tried to build the lower Thames crossing, the total consultation for the development consent order process was 359,000 pages. That is 250 times the length of “War and Peace”. It is right to go to war on these consultations, but can the Minister tell us how she will stop at nothing to ensure that we get infrastructure projects built more efficiently, so that we can save taxpayers far more money and drive economic growth?

    Hansard source
25. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Callum Anderson

    Topical Questions

    T3. The Government’s renewed commitment to devolution is welcome in Bletchley and Milton Keynes; we are eager to deepen our partnership with the neighbouring local authorities in Luton and Bedfordshire, with whom we share a strong labour market and a broader economic geography. In that vein, will the Minister meet me and parliamentary colleagues to discuss how we can create a combined authority, with a directly elected mayor, at the very heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor?

    Hansard source
26. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Callum Anderson

    Economic Growth

    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is right that the UK has a vibrant ecosystem of innovative companies, but too many are looking to go overseas to realise their scale-up potential and become globally consequential companies, so I very much welcome the focus on using the state as a strategic partner to help them do that. That was exactly the message I heard from the chief executive officers and founders of companies whom I met in the summer. How will the Treasury work across Whitehall and the wider public sector to help drive that cultural mindshift?

    Hansard source
27. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

    When a Reform UK councillor says that Nigerians should be “melted down to fill in the potholes”, and an ex-Reform councillor had to resign because they used racial slurs against a black family, I am disgusted at their overt racism. Does the Minister agree with me that the racist Reform UK and the ethno-nationalist Restore Britain are contributing to the scenes we have seen in Dover and Portsmouth?

    Hansard source
28. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Economic Growth

    On that note, after two decades of failed SNP governance, 29% of children in Clackmannanshire are living in poverty. The Labour Government have lifted the two-child benefit cap, which will reduce that figure and help life chances. Improving economic growth is, of course, laudable, but could we go for some classic Labour redistribution of wealth, and also look at taxing multimillionaires and billionaires?

    Hansard source
29. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Health Bill

    One of my concerns about the abolition of NHS England is that highly specialised services for treating the rarest and most complex conditions—of which there are only 79 in the country—currently sit directly with NHS England. It is not clear whether those services will continue to be commissioned centrally. Does my hon. Friend think it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that?

    Hansard source
30. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Health Bill

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Hansard source
31. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Coleman

    Health Bill

    I am also a member of the APPG, and I was also at that meeting. On the Health Committee, we raised the point about these short-term pilots, and we managed to get an extra year’s funding. I have to say—I will say this as the person I am—that I feel that if this was a problem that predominantly affected white people instead of black people, it would be taken a lot more seriously. I think that the Government need to reflect on that when they are deciding whether to accept this amendment and whether they wish to give sickle cell sufferers the full support that they need, which they are not getting.

    Hansard source
32. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ashley Dalton

    Local Government Reorganisation

    There is a real appetite for change in my constituency. We are not scared of it; we are eager for it. Only today, we have seen the former Reform Lancashire county councillor for Skelmersdale East defecting to the Labour party because he knows that Labour will deliver for Skem. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government will meet the ambition of my constituents, and keep pushing for change and a better system for Lancashire?

    Hansard source
33. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Apsana Begum

    Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

    We have seen pogroms in Belfast, riots in Southampton, and then, of course, the chilling incidents in Dover and Portsmouth over the weekend. What is difficult to contend with is that this appears to be becoming more frequent and normalised. We cannot normalise the activities of organised far-right gangs. Will the Minister condemn the racism that was at the core of the activities and actions that took place this weekend? What can she say to those who cover their face for religious, health or work reasons, and who will be feeling particularly vulnerable at this time, about the Government and police response?

    Hansard source
34. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Apsana Begum

    Health Bill

    I rise to speak to new clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). Countless numbers of constituents have contacted me about Palantir Technologies, telling me their concerns about the company’s involvement with Israel’s military and Trump’s ICE. Over 35 Members from across the House have signed my early-day motion calling on the Government to activate the break clause in the NHS federated data platform contract. The objection is not just about Palantir’s ethics, but about its operations under that contract. I share the concerns of many, including the National Data Guardian, about whether data identifiable to individual patients may be accessible by Palantir. The potential success of the proposals on the single patient record and whether it manages to gain the confidence of the British public depends on the Government listening to these concerns, and making sure that issues around data access and limits, patient opt-outs and the data controller are resolved. I note that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has tabled a number of other amendments related to data safety, which I support. I also wish to speak in support of amendment 10, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), on ICB financing. I am deeply concerned by the introduction of a duty under clause 48 for each of the constituent bodies of the ICB to achieve financial balance. In east London, we are currently fighting against massive, eight-figure cuts to the East London NHS foundation trust, where workers have been on strike amid cuts to jobs in much-needed mental health services, all of which are being justified by reference to new requirements for financial balance across the trust. Under the provisions of clause 48, matters will be made much worse and the ability to shift and adapt capacity across the system will be rendered impossible. One of the reasons that this is so regrettable, particularly in an area like east London, where the need for mental health services is acute and rising, is that cuts to these services will simply lead to greater costs arising elsewhere. For that reason, I also support amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, to place ICB spending on mental health services on a statutory footing. I also support amendment 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because I am concerned, as others are, about provisions in the Bill for the reorganisation of ICBs. The changes are among many aspects of this Bill that regrettably point towards a revival of marketisation policies from prior decades—policies that have now been largely discredited. To tackle the biggest health challenges that we face, we require partnership working, joined-up decision making between the NHS, local authorities and expert voices—a dialogue between providers and commissioners. Removing the potential for this type of dialogue appears to be a significant misstep, particularly for integrated care. Turning ICBs into purchasers alone appears to be being done for the benefit of reinforcing a purchaser-provider split—a split that experts have said time and again does not work, and does not deliver improved performance and outcomes, or even value for money. While I am relieved that the Government are tabling their own amendment 60 to reverse the scrapping of local authority ICB membership, I remain in full support of amendment 45 in order to ensure that NHS trusts, and foundation trusts too, retain their voice in commissioning and public health decisions. To conclude, the fundamental problem in the Bill lies in its adherence to a logic of marketisation. It is deeply regrettable that the Government are returning to the harmful public-private partnership model for capital investment and a rehashing of the private finance initiative disaster, the negative effects of which are still being felt across my east London constituency.

    Hansard source
35. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Gelderd

    Topical Questions

    I welcome the Government’s focus on social and affordable homes. In South East Cornwall we really need first homes, not just second homes, as local people face an affordability crisis that is particularly acute among younger people. Cornwall is well placed and eager for a strategic place partnership with Homes England, so will the Minister meet me and other Cornish MPs to discuss that as part of a future devolution deal?

    Hansard source
36. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Health Bill

    I congratulate my hon. Friend and others on the Select Committee who did the work on strengthening local authority representation on integrated care boards. Does he agree with the sentiments of my new clause 106, which says that we need a stronger duty to co-operate, both within the NHS and between the NHS and local authorities?

    Hansard source
37. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Health Bill

    I worked as a civil servant for the coalition Government, and I saw at first hand some of the duplication and confusion caused when NHS England was set up, so I welcome this Bill and the decision to abolish NHS England. However, reversing the fragmentation caused by the Tories’ failed reforms of the NHS will not on its own create a more integrated and joined-up service for patients and carers. That is why I have tabled new clause 106, which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months of the Act passing on how well NHS bodies and local authorities are working together to integrate health and social care in England. Having worked in the health and care sector, I know how vital it is to have integrated services, and I know as an MP, as I am sure do others, and from personal experience how devastating unco-ordinated care can be for patients, their families and our NHS. One of my constituents, Ellerie Carroll, was diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, an inoperable brain tumour, in September 2024. Very sadly, she died in May this year, aged just nine. Ellerie and her parents, Freya and Christian, suffered in ways that are unimaginable, but it was a lack of co-operation between services that added to their suffering. To give just one example, after going for a MRI scan at Great Ormond Street hospital, Ellerie had to endure a repeated scan at Leeds General Infirmary in Leeds due to an inability to share results between hospitals. I hope that the single patient record, which the Bill also creates, will help to join up systems and reduce such problems. We see disjointed care within the NHS between hospital and community services, but also between health and social care. Another constituent, Roger, in his 90s, had a fall and serious head injury last year. After the acute hospital treatment in Leeds, there was a failure in the NHS to join up his care with Bradford social services, resulting in delays to his discharge. He developed infections and delirium. After nine months of being moved from one hospital to another, and despite his wife fighting to get him home with support, he died in hospital. These are the consequences when our health and care systems are not integrated. It is also expensive. Around one in 10 hospital beds in England are occupied by someone who does not need to be there, often because community care or social care are not available. Any reform of the NHS will ultimately fail unless we simultaneously reform adult social care. That is why I welcome the priority given to this issue by the Prime Minister and the commitment he made to bring forward the conclusion of the Casey commission. But even if we build a national care service, which we must, there is a risk if it does not work in sync with our national health service. It is essential that we place very clear obligations on all parts of the NHS to co-operate and integrate with social care. I ask the Minister to set out in her closing remarks how she and the Secretary of State will monitor the Bill’s impact on integration, and how they will ensure co-operation remains a critical priority for the NHS—not just on paper, not just in law, but in the way that we all experience health and care in a joined-up way.

    Hansard source
38. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Planning: Green Spaces

    rose—

    Hansard source
39. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Planning: Green Spaces

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to have been appointed Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and it is great to be back answering questions from this Dispatch Box—in fact, I like it so much that I thought we would do a statement straight afterwards as well. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), and his team for their hard work. Our new national planning policy framework strengthens support for green spaces by requiring local plans to set standards for green infrastructure and increase support for new and improved community facilities and public service infrastructure.

    Hansard source
40. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Angela Rayner

    Planning: Green Spaces

    My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of private management companies; I recognise the situation he is describing and how unacceptable it is. It is clear that the current system is not delivering for ordinary people, and the Government are committed to reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements and ending the injustice of fleecehold. We consulted on the proposals—I think that was in March—to increase the adoption of amenities and new estates, and we will respond in due course. It is the wild west at the moment, and the Minister for Housing and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), is undertaking important work to tackle it.

    Hansard source