What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
This could be worse for Torbay unitary authority. However, it is a catastrophic carve-up for Devon, led by Exeter and Plymouth—both Labour councils—and driven forward by a Labour Minister, which will result in a rural rump in Devon. Can the Minister please advise us on his belief as to the financial viability of this rural rump of Devon?
It is poignant that we are having the Sir David Amess debate today, particularly in the light of the shocking murder of Ann Widdecombe only a week ago. Ann was a Devon resident, and although I may not have seen eye to eye with her politically, she definitely brought authenticity into politics in spades. Ann would have benefited from Torbay hospital, which she could probably have seen from Dartmoor—there is an incredible view from certain patches of Dartmoor down to the fair constituency of Torbay. That hospital needs significant investment. Sadly, it has drifted down the performance league tables. It was promised investment under the Conservatives, but that was never delivered. There are fears of services being torn away from the hospital. Together with the Heart Campaign in Torbay, I am campaigning hard to protect those services and get investment. Like others, I believe that there is a lack of acknowledgment of our frail elderly population in Devon, where the finances are not following that particular challenge. You may be planning to visit Devon at some stage, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Torbay, we have an incredible hospitality offer, but it is really challenged at the moment with the national insurance hikes, the increases in utility bills and the failure by the Government to change our business rates. I implore the Government to reflect on our hospitality industry and to take a leaf out of the Liberal Democrats’ book and cut VAT by 5% for 18 months to support our hospitality industry, because that would give it a significant boost. Many people may be planning to visit the English riviera this summer, and when they do they may venture on to our coasts. I hope that the Minister will ensure that common sense prevails in appropriately recompensing our coastguards, who put themselves in danger’s way to support people in tragic circumstances. I hope that we will see a positive way forward there. As a Member who has a disability, I am delighted that this is Disability Pride Month. I am, however, really disappointed in the failure of my local council, Torbay council, to engage with me appropriately on special educational needs and disabilities issues. An MP should be there to champion his constituents, and I am now having to take this matter on to the ombudsman. In conclusion, I thank all the staff across the parliamentary estate for their sterling work. I also thank my staff for their sterling work supporting my constituents, whether in sunny Torbay or in even hotter Westminster.
Earlier this year the Minister for roads, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), wrote to me to say that Hammersmith bridge in my constituency would be a suitable candidate for the structures fund, but Hammersmith and Fulham council has just decided not to make an application on the basis that the structures fund is not suitable for repairs. Will the Minister please meet me as a matter of urgency to determine whether the structures fund remains a suitable way of funding repairs to Hammersmith bridge?
The Liberal Democrats supported the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, but we tabled amendments, in my name and in those of my hon. Friends, to increase the provision of scrutiny and transparency under the Bill. The Government voted those amendments down in this place, but then had a change of heart and supported them in the other place. Given that, it is extremely disappointing that a move of this magnitude has been made and no statement has been made to the House. On the change of heart in the Lords, was that merely a sticking plaster, or is there a genuine commitment to give parliamentarians scrutiny of the important decisions being made about the future of our steel industry?
Residents, local leaders and businesses in South Cambridgeshire have been left in limbo by the last-minute announcement that the Government cannot yet determine the optimal option for Cambridgeshire’s local government reorganisation. Does the Secretary of State understand the chaos that risks causing in one of the fastest-growing places in the country? Will he reassure me and local leaders that he will build on local successes, partnerships and the robustly evidenced proposals put forward, rather than on a proposal that smacks of irrational gerrymandering?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing a debate on this important topic very much in the spirit of end-of-term relaxation. I want to start with some of the positives of the new draft NPPF. My district councils locally have welcomed its structure, usability and the good aim, at least, of a more streamlined planning system and reduction of duplication. They also welcome the separation of plan making and decision-making guidance. Overall, the aim of speeding up the plan-making process to 13 months is welcome. Local plans take many years to be produced and involve a huge amount of resource. I am certainly interested to hear from the Minister whether he feels that the Planning Inspectorate has the resources to cope with an increase in the number of plans to examine and assess. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a very important point about the implications of local government reorganisation. Significant concerns remain about how the Government seem to be moving away from local decision making and community empowerment. As this new scheme of delegation will reduce the input of elected councillors in planning decisions, involving communities and needs specific to local geography become even more important, yet there are concerns that spatial development strategies will be agreed to far away from communities. More could be done to clarify the planning system and permissions for houses in multiple occupation. Such properties are often associated with parking and waste issues and, unlike larger HMOs, they may not be subject to requirements on parking provision, room sizes or amenity space, potentially resulting in poorer living conditions. Requiring planning permission for all HMOs for a single use class could help address those issues by ensuring consistent standards. The environment is a big concern. The NPPF has insufficient focus on our climate and environmental obligations, and certainly not enough on flood and extreme temperature resilience and standards for homes. As highlighted by Wildlife and Countryside Link, the draft NPPF would limit local ambition and powers by preventing local planning authorities from requiring biodiversity net gain above the statutory 10% minimum. That seems like a retrograde step. Finally, my biggest concern is one I have raised with the Minister many times and in many different forums: the Government’s ambitious housing targets are not being supported by the same focus on the infrastructure and public services that will be needed, which makes it harder to get local communities invested in the importance of more housing. In Oxfordshire, where the rate of housing growth has been extremely fast, the challenge is ensuring that infrastructure such as doctors, schools, public transport and affordable housing is available to support our growing population. Development should remain plan-led and be guided by evidence of local need, not by market forces alone. That is my biggest concern about both Government policy in general and the NPPF in particular. I hope the Minister will add to his previous comments on what the Government will do to ensure that our house building targets and population growth are supported by infra- structure and public services.
I apologise in advance for a lack of theatre or football analogies, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State’s announcement on Tuesday went into some detail on the arrangements for the UK and French borders, but it was somewhat lighter on the detail of the outcome of her discussions with the European Commission on how to achieve reliable flow through EU member country airports using the new entry-exit system this summer. What tangible and specific outcomes resulted from those discussions, and which of them will take effect in time for the imminent start of the school holidays?
The Civil Aviation Authority has reported that in 2024-25, 81% of passenger complaints that were initially rejected by airlines were upheld when independently reviewed, leading to £11 million of delayed compensation payments. Does the Minister support the idea of an air passengers’ charter, backed by independent regulation, to support airlines in providing improved customer service and consumer confidence?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the proposals by a lot of people, but many of the details add to an existing impression of chaos. We are finally getting sight of the detail just 9.5 months before many affected areas have elections. Councils have been forced into putting time and resources into coming up with proposals, many of which have been ignored. Councillors and officers have been uncertain about their future for the nearly two years it has taken to get to this point. Many communities will feel done to, not done with. The lack of notice and opportunity to scrutinise the Department’s decisions is also a huge concern. The Secretary of State’s suggestion that local identities are being considered will come as a huge surprise to my constituents in Culham and Clifton Hampden, which, although many miles from Oxford city centre and surrounded by countryside, will be incorporated into Greater Oxford. Many communities and council wards in Oxfordshire will also now be arbitrarily divided between the new unitary councils. Colleagues in Devon worry that rural communities have been ignored at the expense of new unitaries designed to benefit the needs of cities. There were endless changes of mind about Sussex elections and boundaries, and now, the fact that a decision has not been made about West Sussex has been met with disbelief. The Government promised to work in partnership with local authorities and rebuild the trust that was shattered over the past decade. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the long- term financial viability of the proposed unitary structures, given that several of the councils being merged risk being financially unviable?
9. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on transport delays caused by the EU entry-exit system.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the nationalisation of British Steel.
We have a duty to stand by our steel sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges such as President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are to foster a thriving steel economy, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, we cannot allow more jobs to be lost and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcomed the steel industry legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step specifically aimed at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector. I am particularly glad that the Government accepted many Liberal Democrat amendments to the steel industry Bill, even if they did not accept them in this place and they had to be tabled in the other place instead. Our amendments require the Secretary of State to have regard to the costs of nationalisation and to come back to this House for approval before tabling regulations. Furthermore, our amendments require the consideration of environmental liabilities in any valuation because, as we all know, public ownership without public accountability is not a plan. The changes we secured strengthened the legislation and direct the Act and the Government’s broader steel strategy towards a truly sustainable footing in the long term, while giving taxpayers true value for money. The Act is now law and the House has still not been told how any of this is going to end, so I have three questions for the Minister. First, Jingye has said it has started the process to seek compensation from the Government for nationalisation; will the Minister confirm what compensation Jingye is asking for, the Government’s assessment of the amount, and how the House will be able to scrutinise any compensation paid? Secondly, precision-engineering firms throughout the country have confirmed that they cannot buy the specialist grades of steel they need from the approved domestic supply list because they are not manufactured in the UK. Owning a steel company is not the same as having steel capability. What plan is there to widen the range of grades that British Steel can produce to support British industry? Finally, what process has been arranged for new private co-investors to come in to help to modernise the sites? Without them, the taxpayer is not the rescuer of British Steel but ends up being its permanent owner.
Over the last year, Royal Mail delivered just 75% of first-class post the next day, against a target of 93%. Ofcom has fined it nearly £40 million across three years and has opened a fourth investigation. Constituents in Maidenhead are still missing hospital appointments and other important business because letters do not arrive. The posties are doing their best, but the system is set up to fail. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on Royal Mail’s performance, so that the new Prime Minister’s Government can tell all our constituents when their post will actually get delivered?
Cheltenham train passengers have a continual frustration with the turnaround time at Gloucester. There is also a new frustration: I wonder whether the Secretary of State or a Minister can tell me why so many trains due to terminate at Cheltenham unexpectedly terminate at Gloucester?
This summer brings good news in the Big Space Cancer Appeal, which Health Ministers are right behind. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the brilliant doctors behind the appeal, Charles Candish and Sam Guglani, and the many donors who are helping to pay for the £17.5 million new cancer centre at Cheltenham hospital? It would be a real boost for the campaign if the Leader of the House could get behind it and give a message to the council to get on with giving the centre planning permission.
The proposals are not the result that I wanted for my constituency or Gloucestershire. However, I am a reasonable man, and I am willing to take the Secretary of State at his word. Will he reassure me that the new Gloucestershire unitary will not end up coming to the Government with a begging bowl on day one, because the Government are not giving it enough money, including to fill the potholes that I am told about every day by my constituents? To prevent that, will he designate the Golden Valley in west Cheltenham an area for retained council tax? That would help Gloucestershire to become more financially sustainable by allowing us, as the incoming Prime Minister would say, to keep the proceeds of growth that we are creating in our area.
5. What steps she is taking to help improve bus services in Hampshire.
We know that buses are important to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). They are also important to my constituents in Eastleigh. The 61 and 46 bus routes were axed after Hampshire county council withdrew subsidies, leaving my constituents struggling to get to work, school and hospital. Will the Minister ask the new Prime Minister to ensure that everyone in Hampshire can access bus routes? Does he agree with me that the hours of local concessionary bus travel should be extended?
Seventeen-year-old Oakley Meer lost his life in a collision on Beachy Head Road in Eastbourne. Will the Minister meet me and Oakley’s family to discuss how we can improve road safety on that treacherous road?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. First, I thank the Minister for his assistance in progressing the local plan in my constituency. Horsham faced a unique problem with water neutrality, which the previous Government showed no sign of ever grappling with, and I am grateful for his personal involvement in that. However, when it comes to the national house building strategy, I have to be critical. Difficulty with obtaining planning permission is only one, and no longer even the most important, of the many obstacles to house building, so why do we obsess over it to the exclusion of all else? Local targets are set through a compulsory process called the standard method, under which an area that has high local house prices, but only modest local wages, will have steeper housing targets. That formula is a terrible way to assess local housing need in practice, but its worst aspect is how it destroys local authorities’ negotiating power against developers. Like most planning authorities, Horsham district council builds very few council houses directly, so the vast majority of its new housing stock must come from private developers. Developers are not stupid; they know that if a council has a target to build 1,800 homes each and every year—a target that Horsham may face—it will have to say yes to practically every site put in front of it, no matter whether a site was rejected the year before. Try explaining that to residents. Developers with options for the land bid against each other, with a price based on the highest possible outcome, but achieving that price means them having to build zero social rent homes and lots of highly priced, executive homes. That is a bizarre case of competition only ever driving prices up, not down. Incredibly, in Horsham, we would be better off if we negotiated a monopoly for a single company to develop the whole district. That is why we have the paradox of having a chronic housing shortage at the same time as 1.5 million unbuilt houses with planning permission. Meanwhile, as collateral damage in this process, we are ripping apart local democracy. Councils are forced, with zero local consent, to approve sites that are deficient in transport and water supply and that are mostly on greenfield sites. Local authorities have to take the word of statutory consultees as gospel; even where authorities know perfectly well that land will flood, if the Environment Agency says it will not, that is the end of it. I know that the Minister is committed to solving the national housing problem, and I wholeheartedly support him in that, but the current situation is all sacrifice with no benefit. The sites we approve today will sit on the housing market like a dead-weight for years to come. High land prices are being locked in for wasteful schemes that take up three times the land that they need to. We need a reset, so I hope the Minister will agree to meet me to consider alternative solutions.
It is astonishing that the decision for West Sussex has been postponed yet again. I understand that local council leaders received the information only this morning, in a six-minute phone call during which they were not allowed to ask questions. There is a high degree of consensus about what to do, but the Labour group on the south coast wishes to gerrymander a coastal authority that would be unviable from day one—the very thing about which the Secretary of State professes to be concerned. Will he, or his successor, have a meeting with all local leaders before we commit ourselves to this disastrous decision?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 36 would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS trust and NHS foundation trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the Care Quality Commission, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It would also impose a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns about malpractice. New clause 37 would require the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to formally refer suspected health system failings, including systemic issues, directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care and HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It would provide legal protection for those making such referrals. The new clauses were tabled in the light of the Ockenden review into failings at Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust, which came out a couple of weeks ago, and other reviews, including the review of Mid Staffordshire some time ago, which showed that hospital management failed to spot, and more importantly deal with, systemic issues. Staff were dismissed, failures were hidden from regulators, and patients and their families were not listened to. In the case of Nottingham, the board commissioned a number of independent reports into maternity services, and when it did not see an answer it liked, it just commissioned another one. We feel strongly that those issues should have been referred onwards as soon as they were known about. The new clauses would introduce a mandatory duty and create a standardised framework within which such concerns could be raised. Coroners and medical examiners often spot trends or worrying failures in care that they think might hint at something systemic, but their main power is a regulation 28 order. When an order goes back to the hospital board, it investigates and reports back: “Everything is fine. We’ve dealt with the problem. There’s nothing to see here.” Coroners are often overworked and trying to get through huge court backlogs, so they do not have sufficient capacity to push back, even when they question the diligence of the internal review. We want to give them more powers and standardised routes to escalate concerns to the police, the CHC, the DHSC or the HSSIB , where they see fit. We need as many eyes on this as possible, because we have seen a defensive cover-up culture too many times. We tabled similar amendments to the Hillsborough Bill to achieve the same outcome. We all know that the NHS is under strain and overworked, but trust management need to be more transparent, open and receptive to staff concerns. Although I do not intend to push the new clause to a vote, I am interested to hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do to ensure that concerns are acted on more quickly.
I thank the Minister for outlining the existing statutory framework. I agree that it ought to be sufficient, but there are high-profile instances where it has not been, so I look forward to hearing more from her on Report about how the cultural change will be implemented so that further legislation is not necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 38 Single sex facilities “The Secretary of State is required to ensure that there are single sex— (a) changing rooms for NHS staff (b) toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff (c) wards for NHS patients (d) toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.) This new clause creates a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure certain single sex facilities are made available for NHS staff and patients. Brought up, and read the First time.
I rise to speak to new clauses 53 and 54, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and new clause 65, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). New clause 53 would give patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver that. It would also require the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on or around the time of World Cancer Day. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the Government to co-ordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. New clause 58 would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes that women face. In communities up and down the country, we have seen the devastating toll taken by the various and sustained failures to invest in and deliver better women’s health. Vital services remain understaffed and underfunded, while women and girls are going without the care they need. In 2022, we welcomed the first women’s health strategy, which promised to “listen more carefully to women, close gaps in care, improve research and tackle inequalities.” Those were all vital goals, but three years on, the problems remain stubbornly in place: long waits for gynaecology treatment, patchy access to services, women reporting that they are not listened to, pain not taken seriously and conditions diagnosed too late. Medical misogyny is a perverse and unacceptable norm in the health sector. Women are not offered pain relief when they need it. The side effects of treatment and drugs on women in particular are far too often overlooked and under-researched. More research is needed to improve medical and reproductive products for women. In addition, about half a million women are waiting for gynaecology treatment across the country. We just cannot keep failing women in this way. The current average wait for a diagnosis of endometriosis is nine years and four months. Tackling NHS waiting times, including for gynaecological services, must be a top priority for the Government. More needs to be done to tackle the backlogs. Waits for health conditions specific to women should not be so much longer than those for general health conditions. The former Secretary of State recognised that the NHS “has a problem with basic, everyday sexism and an appalling culture of medical misogyny.” We welcome that acknowledgment, but we believe that the Department of Health and Social Care should ask the same questions of itself. As I say, new clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. It would be a meaningful step towards parity and equality. As we know, in the NHS what gets measured gets done. The Government’s new women’s health strategy is welcome—it has more urgency and has the laudable goals of tackling medical misogyny, of faster diagnosis of conditions such as endometriosis, and of better pain management—but in comparison with the men’s health strategy that was released last year, it lacks teeth. Its goals are laudable, but it lacks a named academic network, a formal National Institute for Health and Care Research-aligned research mandate, a committed stakeholder governance group, a named condition-specific research investment at a comparable scale to that in the men’s health strategy and a formal accountability architecture with named organisations, governance structures and public reporting obligations. This time, we need to back the strategy with real investment in the services that impact women, which have been stretched to breaking point. New clause 58 would introduce an inquiry into the poor health outcomes faced by women. We hope that such an inquiry would achieve the same goal and shed a light on women’s health issues, which seem to get so little focus at the moment.
I am suddenly cast back to 31 years ago, when I was choosing my subjects for the final year of my history degree. One of the early modern history papers was provocatively entitled “Women and other deviants”. It was called that to draw attention to the fact that, despite making up 50% of the population, women are often treated as a minority group. I sincerely hope that we are not still in that situation, but women’s issues clearly still need addressing. I will take the Minister at her word, but I will keep pressing her on this issue as we go through the course of this Parliament. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 66 Puberty blockers ‘(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations which ensure that puberty blockers may not be prescribed, dispensed or supplied to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, in the United Kingdom. (2) These regulations must ensure that such drugs cannot be given out or used as part of clinical trials for the treatment of gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, unless that trial has specifically been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. (3) For the purposes of this section, puberty blockers means— (a) a “gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (‘GnRH’) analogue” which means a medicinal product that consists of or contains buserelin, gonadorelin, goserelin, leuprorelin acetate, nafarelin or triptorelin, and (b) any other drug which has the effect of suppressing or delaying puberty that the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint.’—(Dr Caroline Johnson.) This new clause would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations which prevent puberty blockers from being prescribed to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender incongruence, or clinical trials related to gender incongruence unless specifically approved by Parliament. Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) for tabling the new clause. She has asked me to speak about dental deserts in Surrey and East Hampshire, the area that she lives in and represents. The new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is adequate provision of NHS dental appointments in Surrey and East Hampshire, and allows us to raise once again the shocking state of dentistry in this country. As we have discussed on many occasions, more than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025—that is a stark reminder of what we mean when we talk about dental deserts. We have heard that DIY dentistry has become normalised, which is pretty horrifying. People are using pliers to extract teeth and superglue to reattach crowns, or attempting to fill cavities with household adhesives. Beyond those obviously shocking Victorian scenes, DIY dentistry is very risky and has, tragically, led to deaths from sepsis. That is all because people cannot get an NHS dental appointment and cannot afford a private one. The last Conservative Government pushed dentistry to the brink, and children and parents in particular are paying the price of that neglect. That is a national shame—one that we must fix. As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to highlight the issues in her part of the country. Surrey and East Hampshire is not the worst place in the country for access to NHS dentistry, but it does face serious issues. Some pockets of the population have been left unable to get an NHS dental appointment. The action taken so far by the Labour Government has not been good enough, but the fault for this dire situation lies solely at the door of the Conservatives. Their years of neglect have left our dentistry in a shocking condition. Healthwatch—once again showing why it is so important—has classified large parts of Hampshire as dental deserts. Equally, a Healthwatch report into dentistry in Surrey told us of ever-so-familiar themes: people cannot find a dentist accepting NHS patients, information about dentists accepting NHS patients is not up to date, and there are financial barriers to receiving dental care. Clearly, much more needs to be done for the people of Surrey and East Hampshire. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has specifically requested that I press the new clause to a vote because she feels so strongly about the issues in her area. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State “to publish a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation”. We increasingly see the impact of anti-vax and medical disinformation. Lower vaccination rates have been recognised as a growing threat to public health this year, and in February the NHS launched a new vaccination campaign following concerns about the declining uptake of measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations. Disinformation, including anti-vax conspiracy theories, is dangerous and leads to increased levels of preventable illness. The leader of Reform UK has platformed prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theories at his conferences, and Reform UK needs to be held accountable for its role in this. It is amplifying and importing the conspiracy theories and outright dangerous views of the US President and Robert F. Kennedy. The leader of Reform UK has refused to condemn Donald Trump’s medical conspiracy theories, including unfounded claims about autism and paracetamol. Those views have had a very real effect in the US, undermining and hollowing out important scientific and medical institutions to the detriment of the nation’s health.
I absolutely agree. My mother and grandmother both had polio, which nobody would expect to experience in this day and age. That same grandmother’s sister died of diphtheria, and her father had smallpox. That was all just over 100 years ago, so it was not too long ago that people were experiencing what we now consider to be antiquated and unthinkable diseases. The vaccination programmes that have been brought in over the past century have undoubtedly been game-changing for public health, not least for people growing up with working-class backgrounds, as my family would have been. That is why it is so important to deal with the disinformation that allows unscientific and dangerous anti-vax views to be communicated convincingly to the wider community.
It is really important not to blame people who have seen convincing information online or have been given convincing information by people who ought to know better—including at political party conferences. We need to battle the source of that information and ensure that accurate, factual information is available and communicated to everyone in an accessible way by people they trust. That is key to all this. As I have said before, ostracising or ridiculing people who have been given information in a very convincing way is not the way to resolve this problem. We need to tackle it in an understanding way by communicating the facts sympathetically and accessibly. It is important to note that concerns about vaccinations are not exclusive to a single group of voters. There is significant vaccine hesitancy across some ethnic minority communities and in hard-to-reach places across the country. We must do more to support doctors, nurses and the NHS to fight fiction with facts, or the long-term health of the country will suffer. That is what new clause 77 seeks to do. There is some great local work being done, but there needs to be a joined-up strategy to combat all aspects of disinformation, because a nice social media video telling people to get their jab will not beat it. Now that Reform UK has a greater presence in our local government, NHS leaders will have to handle more and more difficult conversations with anti-vax and conspiracy theorist councillors, and they deserve support to engage with those people effectively and constructively. The proposed strategy would provide just that. It would have to consider “support for medical professionals to build trust and engage with persons who are anti-vaccine…investment in public messaging to combat medical disinformation, including engagement with trusted online influencers…outreach campaigns focused on communities that are sceptical about vaccinations…introducing criminal liability for those, including online influencers and politicians, who profit from medical disinformation, and…a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional.” We must do more systematically to protect the NHS and our nation’s health from the growing threats of medical misinformation. We urge the Government to give this issue the focus it needs, and we hope that they consider this new clause one way to do that.
I thank the Minister for her response. I think it is important that we keep an eye on the power of medical misinformation or disinformation, and expand that consideration to things such as therapy chatbots. It is not just an online problem, but an AI problem—it is not just malign influences that cause the problem. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 81 Minimum service levels “(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may repeal or otherwise amend provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025, insofar as is necessary for the purposes of this section. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision for minimum levels of service by categories of NHS workforce staff, including all Agenda for Change staff but not doctors. (4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) When minimum service levels are in operation under this section, the NHS must set minimum standards of acceptable service to be provided by the NHS during periods of strike action, including mitigating any effect on appointments, medical procedures, acute services, midwifery, surgical procedures, and any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate. (6) With one year beginning on the day on which regulations are made under subsection (1), and within each period of a year thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on compliance with minimum service levels, including reasons for any failure by operators to secure the required thresholds, and actions the NHS is taking to improve performance to meet the minimum service levels.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which create minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action. Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), will place a duty on ICBs to collect and publish data on the number of patients who died while waiting for end-of-life care. This is a fairly self-explanatory new clause, so I will keep my remarks brief. We know anecdotally that palliative care provision is very patchy across the country and can be something of a postcode lottery, and that many people who die in hospital would have preferred to die at home with the support of hospice outreach services or in a hospice itself. The new clause would ensure that we understand how many of those people there are and where they are located, so that we can consider whether hospice provision is appropriately provided in the right places. I hope the Minister will consider the importance of the new clause, which would allow us to have a much more comprehensive palliative care service across the country.
I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
In terms of ICBs and their responsibilities to veterans, there are specialist veterans’ services around the country. One exists in my constituency, at the orthopaedic hospital in Gobowen, which has an excellent veterans’ centre. Yet the commissioning and payment for those services between ICBs is complex, messy and unnecessarily difficult. Would the Minister consider using the measures at her disposal to ensure that those things can happen more smoothly in the future?
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 68, page 47, line 27, leave out from “to” to the end of line 28 and insert “the affirmative procedure”. This amendment ensures that all secondary legislation as a result of this bill is subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 77 is a probing amendment in the light of our previous discussions in Committee about the extensive powers that the Bill transfers to the Secretary of State. It would make all secondary legislation under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will take into account the concerns that we have raised during these proceedings about the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking on board.