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

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mark Pritchard

   NATO Summit

   While it is always great to see the Foreign Secretary, it is convention that the Prime Minister comes to the House to give the statement after a NATO summit. When she goes back to Downing Street, perhaps she can remind the Prime Minister that the country expects him to govern as Prime Minister for the 11 days he still has in the role, and this House expects him to come to the House on important matters such as the NATO summit. What discussions did the Foreign Secretary have with her counterparts on improving missile defence for Ukraine, whose hard-pressed civilian population are still being bombarded every single day? In particular, Patriot missile systems may not be available, whether through cost or availability, given their redeployment to the middle east, but are there not systems in Japan and South Korea that could be used? Although there are some issues around the Japanese and South Koreans exporting some of that technology, where there is a political will, a way can be found to help the Ukrainian civilian population.

   Hansard source
2. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Kit Malthouse

   Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

   It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), and it is always a pleasure to hear the gentle Yorkshire accent of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) raised in fierce defence of peace, justice and international law. Colleagues, let us make no mistake: while this country does need to rebuild its physical defences, in the end our defence lies in international law and the set of rules that we created after the second world war to decide how countries should peaceably settle their disputes. At the heart of the problem of international law at the moment sits the plight of the Palestinians, and if they sit at the heart of the problem, so do we. This debate is so important today because it is not just about the Palestinians; it is also about we Britons, the world we live in and the way we want the world to operate when it is in dispute. As has been illustrated in the debate so far, nobody in this Chamber believes that the way the Palestinians have to live at the moment is acceptable. Nobody who has stood in the middle of Hebron and seen Palestinians living in cages or watched them being dragged from their homes, their olive trees uprooted, run over with cars and detained without charge; nobody who has seen the guns, the checkpoints, the walls, the UN signs saying where people can and cannot go or the enormous so-called settlements—that makes them seem somehow quaint, like “Little House on the Prairie”, but they are fortresses, forcibly invading and stealing other people’s land; and more recently, nobody who has watched these psychopathic settlers, though they are more like terrorists, roaming across the west bank, terrorising innocent Palestinian families on a daily basis and setting ablaze entire villages, can think that this is acceptable. Yet our country still sells them bulldozers, buys their goods and sells them financial services, and by those means, we financially support and help sustain this appalling situation, while hiding behind the fig leaf of complexity. Therein lies a mystery that, I must confess, I have not been able to understand over the last couple of years. A third of the Labour party has put its name to a letter calling for a ban on trade with the settlements, yet the Government still do not move on this. Other countries across the world are instituting, or have instituted, bans. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, the complexity argument falls away when we look at Crimea. A ban is not too complex for Spain, Ireland or other countries. Presumably, it was not too complicated for the civil servants who drafted the ban on trade with Crimea, or any of the other trade bans we have used, with effect, over the years. As the Trade Minister will know, for other reasons to do with trade, we have insisted on the labelling of goods. We have even gently warned businesses off goods from settlements. We heard stentorian words in the last statement—“Take care in trading; there may be legal risk”—but the Government have done everything except the obvious, which is to just ban that trade. The question I am left asking is: why? Why the reluctance? Why the hesitation? Nobody is buying the complexity argument; we do not buy it in any other circumstance of trade. If we want to ban modern slavery, or goods produced by forced labour, we oblige businesses that are importing to prove that they have not acquired goods produced in that way.

   Hansard source
3. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Kit Malthouse

   Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

   Strangely enough, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is probably the first time in our political careers that we have agreed. He puts his finger on the point that I am trying to make. This dispute involves our own security. We do not have to be pro-Palestine or pro-Israel to take that view, just pro-British, which everybody in this House should be, first and foremost. That involves being pro-international law, pro-peace and pro-justice; the dispute goes to the heart of that. He put his finger on the point that I was coming to. Nobody is buying the idea that the argument is practical, Minister.

   Hansard source
4. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Kit Malthouse

   Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

   I know, but I ask the Minister not to patronise us all by standing up at the end of the debate and pretending that this is all too complicated, which I am afraid is what his ministerial colleagues have said to us before. We know that the argument against a ban is not a legal one; that has been proven time and again. Indeed, we have supported resolutions at the UN and used our position on the Security Council to say that it is not a legal issue. I am left with the only other option, which is that the decision must be political with a capital “P”. I am afraid that is the most appalling thing to contemplate. Either we fear consequences from other countries, such as the United States or whoever it might be, or we believe it is in our national interest to recognise that Palestinian self-determination and Palestinian lives are disposable in the face of that political decision. Even worse, it may be that we just do not care. It may be that at the higher echelons of political command, whether it is in No. 10 or the Foreign Office, they really just do not care. They think, “If we squint a bit, make some statements from the Front Bench and have a couple of sanctions here and there, in the end, the caravan will move on, and nobody will care.” I am afraid that until Ministers realise that this is not some kind of complicated chess game across the world, but a matter of our security, our interests and our morality, we will not make any progress.

   Hansard source
5. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Lamont

   Pig Farmers

   Will the Minister join me in praising all of our fantastic pig farmers—including Adam Marshall from Berwickshire—who do an incredible job in very difficult circumstances? The National Pig Association believes that independent pig producers are currently losing as much as £50 per pig, which is clearly not sustainable for any business. What consideration has the Minister made of the adequacy of the 2025 Regulations, especially regarding imbalances in power and price abuse?

   Hansard source
6. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·John Cooper

   NATO Summit

   Scotland stands ready to play its full role in the defence of Britain with many fine young men and, increasingly, women in our forces. We also have a huge array of industrial companies working on defence contracts. There is a problem, however, which is the Scottish Executive. In a remarkable display of overreach, they have blundered on to the world stage and refused to put vital public funds into defence firms that have legitimate commercial relationships with our ally Israel. What can the Government do about a fifth columnist First Minister in Edinburgh, John Swinney, who is damaging British security and thereby NATO, too?

   Hansard source
7. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

   Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has set out the arguments clearly; I will just add some of my own views. As he stated, the single patient record provides a unique and special opportunity to improve efficiency across the whole health and social care space and to empower patients, but it faces significant challenges. As I said in an earlier sitting, perhaps one of the biggest challenges is ensuring that it means something in practice. In a previous debate, the Minister helpfully clarified that the data currently held on a great variety of databases and electronic record-keeping systems in the NHS will remain on those wide and disparate recording systems. It seems that the advantages will be realised only if those systems are able to speak together and are fully interoperable. I know from a previous time in my career that, in reality, many such systems are not interoperable or are only part-interoperable, and that, even where they do speak to one another, the data is collected and recorded in different ways. Simple things—someone’s name, their age or the principal field of the issue for which they are presenting to a clinician—are recorded, but because the systems are not standardised, that data cannot be transferred between them easily. The advantages of the single patient record will be realised only when all those systems are unified in some form, but the Bill does not address that directly. I am not necessarily suggesting that it should, but I do not see the Government acknowledging anywhere that systems are contracted and provided by private providers through procurement processes at a local level, and asking, “How do we knit that all together?” It seems that somebody somewhere will have to produce some gateway software or system to allow the single patient record to be accessed. If every other existing system needs to be able to feed into that, the public sector will have a huge role, and the private sector will sit behind it to try to deliver that. It seems a huge project that could be fraught with difficulty, it could take many years before the single patient record is established, regardless of when the Bill is passed—although I am sure it will be passed fairly soon. New clause 6 seeks to address another significant issue with the single patient record: security and the control of data. The single patient record, if fully realised, will make it easier for data to be accessed and shared. Its very purpose is to ensure that systems and services are more integrated and data flows more freely, to avoid the ridiculous situations in which a GP fills out a patient note but cannot share it with a secondary care provider, so must print it out for the patient, or attach a PDF to an email, so that somebody at the other end can input it to their database. One issue with making it easier to share data—including personal data of the most intimate kind—is that once it has been accessed by bad-faith operators, it is easier for them to run riot and cause an awful lot of damage. It is also much easier for wider access to be shared accidentally, because the whole system is lubricated by the single patient record. I therefore understand the reason for the health data charter as a cure for potential ills. New clause 6(3)(b) states that the charter must “include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation”. That is a fantastic goal that we all support, but I do not necessarily agree that the measure will achieve that. It is an added layer of bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon asked a rhetorical question about the bureaucracy and effectiveness. I endorse that question and hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will answer it. I am minded not to support the proposal, though I agree with what it tries to achieve. If the Minister does not support the new clause, will she explain how its aim of protecting people’s privacy will be delivered by the Bill? There seems to be great scope for the undermining and abuse of privacy, not just deliberately by bad faith actors, but inadvertently. A second issue aim of the charter is the balance between the security of personal data and the recognition of the value of anonymised data gathered by the NHS for research and development. Fully anonymised data that cannot be unpicked through reverse engineering is of huge value, both commercially and for the public good. Commercial value and the public good are not necessarily opposed to each other; in fact, they often come together. The NHS should be able to exploit the value of that anonymised data—“exploit” is probably seen as a negative word—for the public good. How do we balance that with people’s right to privacy? Again, there is the possibility of inadvertently using for a wider public good data that was intended to be anonymised but in which people can be identified. The charter tries to get to the heart of that issue as well, which I welcome. Indeed, new clause 6(4)(a) states that the sovereign health data trust will “hold continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment”. The Minister may not agree with the new clause, but how will the Government’s proposals balance the security of an individual’s personal data while exploiting, for the public good, the value of the huge depth of anonymised data that the NHS holds and will hold? It could be used to drive so much innovative research and development, for the benefit of health delivery not only in this country, but across the world. Such a valuable commodity has commercial value that could deliver financial benefit to the NHS. I think we all agree that we have not yet exploited that area to the fullest. There is an opportunity to do so with the single patient record—if it is done properly, with all the necessary safeguards.

   Hansard source
8. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

   Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an overarching issue here of public confidence in the safety of their data? That is not about one company or another; it is about ensuring that robust safeguards are in place for everyone and for every provider of a data and record-keeping system. If the public do not have confidence, they will understandably withdraw consent for their data being held. That will undermine the single patient record and the whole way in which health can be delivered efficiently in the best interests of patients.

   Hansard source
9. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

   Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity not to chunter from a sedentary position and to remark that this tedious rhetoric about the last 14 years—when all the public want to do is hear about plans for the future and how they will work—is the reason why we are in the state that we are. Will my hon. Friend continue and address the points that the public want, which he had already begun to do?

   Hansard source
10. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I find myself unequal to the level of analysis and detail that the hon. Member for Lichfield brought to public health in the Ministry of Defence. I will add just a few brief thoughts. The good intention of extending the life expectancy of the people in this country—although my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made the good point that it is about living well, not just for a long time—is not always best served by creating committees, and additional duties, reports and responsibilities in legislation. The hon. Member for Winchester argued—I paraphrase, but it is a matter of record—that he would like all Departments to have an eye on the health of the nation. That sounds sensible. There are other things that I would hope all Ministers have an eye on in everything they do, such as the wealth of the nation and inequality, but I would not advocate for embedding those things—I hope they would come with good governance, public duty and responsibility—in legislation as a duty, a committee, a set of meetings and a report. Indeed, it is things done with good intentions that lead to growing bureaucracy, which slows down decision making and requires more people to be employed to discharge those duties at a growing cost to the public purse. It is something that western democracies do all too well, and not always for the good. I would not want this well-intended set of new clauses to lead to growing bureaucracy with very little benefit. The benefit that the hon. Gentleman wants to see, which I agree with, can be best delivered in other ways.

    Hansard source
11. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, we on the Health and Social Care Committee heard from the Secretary of State yesterday. These new clauses were obviously drafted in advance, but the timing of their consideration is rather good. We had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State, who sits right at the top of the Department, some fairly basic questions about the deal that will apparently see the NHS pay 25% more for US drugs than it does currently. We asked, for example, how much it will cost. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, skewered the Secretary of State within minutes. A short while later, once the Secretary of State had had the chance to reflect on her queries, I had the opportunity to ask some even more basic questions. I asked not what the figure was, but whether one even existed or whether any analysis had been done. We ended up going backwards. We parliamentarians and the public still do not know the answers to some basic questions, even though a deal has been done. Do we know how much it will cost? Does a figure exist? Has an analysis been done? Are we talking about a figure or a bracket? On what basis was the deal agreed? We received absolutely no answers at all to those questions. To conclude, I posed a fairly obvious question: how on earth can we strike a deal to pay 25% more for drugs that we already get without knowing how much it will cost? No answer was given to that question either. It is no wonder that these fundamental questions have effectively come in the middle of the Bill’s passage. This is not the place for them, but in the absence of basic answers, I can see why the hon. Member for Winchester and others have raised these issues. I will ask the same questions of the Minister. If her boss cannot answer them, perhaps she can, as the Department has had 24 hours to reflect. How much will the deal with the US cost? Are there—even if the Government do not want to disclose them—a figure and an impact assessment? If the Government can confirm that a figure or bracket exists, why are they not willing to discuss them? If the Government can confirm that some sort of impact assessment has been done, when did it happen and why are they not disclosing it? Until we get those answers, so that people can see the fundamental considerations on which the Government base their decisions, this is a fairly unappealing way of going about securing investment for life sciences. The Secretary of State talked about the benefits of this deal, and I am sure that there are benefits. I do not disagree with the principle of paying more for drugs if it has benefits for research and development—I understand and support that principle—but I want to be able to see what those intended benefits are, in some form of document or analysis. I do not want bare statements that say, “Research and development is good.” We all know that; I want to see the cost. New clause 15 would also set a cost threshold of £100 million. The Government are not in a position to confirm whether the US deal would qualify under clause 15. It would at least force the Government’s hand. I suspect that the sum is far higher—into the billions—but we do not know. We are left to sit and speculate, despite the Secretary of State’s appearance before the Health and Social Care Committee. He must have expected that question to be asked. He was flanked by the permanent secretary of the Department and the chief executive of NHS England. By the way, he was a Treasury Minister prior to becoming the Secretary of State just two months ago. We had all the key people in the room to give some sort of indication about cost and benefit, yet none was forthcoming. Although I cannot back the new clause, because I do not think statute is the right place to ask these questions, I completely understand why it was tabled. She will not accept the new clause, but could the Minister at least answer some of the questions that parliamentarians and the public are asking?

    Hansard source
12. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    To strip this back further, can the Minister confirm whether a deal has been done?

    Hansard source
13. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    I think that the hon. Member has spoken very well, too, and I am grateful to him for airing this important subject through his new clause.

    Hansard source
14. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for introducing these new clauses and for the debate that that is allowing us to have. Unpaid carers are too often a silent and fundamentally unappreciated part of society, which the system could not cope without. They are family members who are thrown into the role of looking after their loved ones, which they did not expect to have to do. Most of them have no formal qualifications, but through love and family ties, they provide unpaid support, which in many cases has a negative effect on the financial wellbeing of the household and involves a huge amount of emotional toil. The crisis in social care has lasted for decades under different Governments, who have struggled to tackle it, and it is putting increasing pressure on family carers. Many do not see themselves as a carer—they see themselves as a husband, wife, daughter, son or friend—but they provide millions of hours of care and support, year in and year out. My former role was at a national nursing charity that seeks to support the families of those living with dementia. I saw for myself how much wraparound care can achieve in relieving pressure and unnecessary suffering, not just for the person living with dementia—it does not have to be dementia, but that is what I have experience of—long-term frailty or conditions that require support, but for their family and carer. Very often, the biggest care need for the person living with dementia is the biggest need their family carer has; if we can sort the family carer’s biggest need, they can go on and do so much more for the person they love. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for allowing us to have this debate. I urge the Government, if they do not adopt these new clauses, to do all they can to relieve the pressure on unpaid carers up and down the country and to provide support for them.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Joe Robertson

    Timms Review: Interim Report

    I thank the right hon. Member for his statement. What a shame he has been asked to look at this issue only now, when his party had 14 long years in Opposition to work out what they wanted to do. Given that he acknowledges the system needs reform—as every new Government acknowledge—does he accept that, in today’s world, a system of cash payments to some people with conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, where half the claimants are aged between 16 to 24, is not what they need most? Indeed, some of them have no financial needs at all. Does he accept that the money would be best saved—will he confirm that there will be savings?—and some of it invested in better health and community services, technology, and incentivising businesses to employ the six in 10 young people who are not in education, training or work?

    Hansard source
16. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Mr Speaker, I thank you for your gracious words, and I echo your thoughts and thanks to David Weir for all his service. Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

    Hansard source
17. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    What a sporting week this has been! Youth, vitality, incredible physical stamina in the most testing of environments—and that is just the Leader of the House, whose birthday it was yesterday. He has never begrudged me my own naivety and inexperience, and I know that everyone present will join me in wishing him a massively happy birthday. In other news, the England football team decisively defeated Mexico at the Azteca, and we look forward with keen anticipation to their taking on Norway on Saturday evening. We send our congratulations and commiserations to the United States of America on the tragic wrong turn it took towards independence 250 years ago. Edmund Burke famously said: “In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature”. Whatever temporary disagreements we may have, let us never forget this deepest of shared commitments. Kim Jong Un himself would admire the North Korean precision of the Labour leadership vote, which has opened today, with precisely one candidate on the ballot paper. How very different from the forthcoming by-election in Clacton, which appears to be a choice between a novelty comedy act with no real policies, and Count Binface. It is a long time since we had a count in the House of Commons, and when the time comes—as it surely will—we will have to leave to you, Mr Speaker, the delicate question of whether and how to suspend the rules on headgear in the Chamber for the new Member. On a more serious note, the House has already expressed its great sorrow at the recent death of Sir George Howarth. I would also like to draw attention to the very sad death on Monday of James Mackay, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at the age of 99. He was a brave, energetic and imaginative reformer of the law as Lord Advocate in Scotland, and then as Lord Chancellor. It is hard to think of a man more widely respected in public life. We send our very best to his wife Bett and their family. I have just one item of business today. It is related to the River Wye, which the House will know is not only a particular obsession of mine, but an issue of national importance. When the last Government cancelled the action plan for the Wye, it also cancelled the accompanying commitment to £35 million in clean-up funding, and replaced it with a paltry £1 million, supposedly aimed at research. I was very distressed to receive the news this week that only £115,000 of that £1 million will actually be spent on research, that even that tiny sum will be spent over three years, and that the balance of the £l million will be consumed by administrative costs. Will the Leader of the House instigate an immediate inquiry and ensure that Ministers clarify to me, my constituents and national campaigners on this issue that the full £1 million will be kept intact and used for the purposes for which it was intended?

    Hansard source
18. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Helen Grant

    Jury Trials

    At Justice questions last Tuesday, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services restated her total support for the Government’s attack on jury trials. She described it as “pragmatic structural reform”, and suggested that those who oppose it are burying “their heads in the sand”—[Official Report, 30 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 743.] She also said that it is a point of principle to limit trial by jury, and that she would pursue the policy regardless of the crisis in the courts. Whatever the practical concerns, are the proposed changes to jury trials also a point of principle for the Solicitor General—yes or no?

    Hansard source
19. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Helen Grant

    Jury Trials

    The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), likely the next Prime Minister, has said that jury trials are the “lynchpin of a fair society” and that the plans to curb them should be paused. When he takes over, can we look forward to the Solicitor General’s supporting the scrapping or watering down of the very same changes that she has robustly supported? Does she think that any jury would believe a defendant whose story changed quite as often as this Government’s?

    Hansard source
20. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq. New clause 6 raises an important question on how we govern health data, which one of the greatest assets of the NHS. The development of the single patient record platform and database, and the wider use of the linked NHS data, present enormous opportunities. When used responsibly, healthcare data can support much more personalised care, improve NHS planning, accelerate medical research, enable earlier diagnoses and help develop new medicines and treatments. It can also improve efficiency and strengthen the evidence base for healthcare decisions. However, those benefits can be realised only if the public have the confidence that their data will be used safely, ethically and transparently. Public trust must be the foundation of any successful health data policy. NHS health data is currently overseen by NHS England, following the merger of NHS Digital into that organisation. With the Government proceeding with the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions elsewhere, it is right that we consider future governance arrangements. In principle, I agree that an independent body may be needed to ensure and maintain the security, integrity and responsible stewardship of NHS data. There is definitely scope for an independent body to oversee the management and regulation of the public’s health data. That proposal places patient privacy at its heart, and would strengthen safeguards against misuse, give patients greater control over how their information is used, and provide meaningful mechanisms to opt out of certain forms of data sharing. It also promotes the use of anonymisation and trusted research environments, allowing valuable research to take place while reducing the risk of inappropriate disclosure. We have discussed inappropriate disclosure by a malign actor, or even inadvertent disclosure, during debate on other clauses. The Liberal Democrat new clause also seeks to address a concern that has attracted significant public attention: where commercial organisations derive substantial value from NHS data, the NHS itself should share in that benefit. Although we did not support a number of Liberal Democrat proposals because of the inadvertent implications of their drafting, I still have sympathy with the overall thrust of what they were trying to achieve. There is a strong argument that the value generated from the data contributed by NHS patients should help to support future patient care and research. Transparency is another important feature. Publishing data-sharing agreements, increasing openness around decision making and consulting the public on significant new data initiatives would help to strengthen public confidence. The proposed trust would bring those principles together by overseeing data use, monitoring compliance with governance standards, ensuring transparency and, where necessary, suspending access for organisations that misuse their data. Of course, any new governance framework must avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or delaying important research. To reassure the Committee that the framework would not create a block or dampener, or insert inertia into the system, will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell us what evidence she found when drafting the new clause? If we are going to do something like this, the oversight should be proportionate, and it should complement, rather than duplicate or frustrate, any existing regulatory responsibilities. Ultimately, the new clause has potential benefits. It would establish a clear social contract for NHS health data, which would hopefully protect privacy, support research and innovation, maintain public trust and ensure that patients and the NHS share in the benefits arising from the responsible use of a very valuable national asset. In terms of what it could be used for, that data is probably second to none in the world, but I am concerned about adding extra bureaucracy and inertia to the system, when we want a vibrant life-sciences industry that is able to use the data for the benefit of British citizens and patients. What does the hon. Member for North Shropshire think would happen in that case?

    Hansard source
21. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I do not mean this as a cheeky point, but is it not the case that clearly, as with everything, the Liberal Democrats think that the European Union can do no wrong? They do not see the same problems of data that they have expressed in other clauses because they want to rejoin the European Union. Therefore, they conceive that it can have no possible harm to British subjects.

    Hansard source
22. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    Is that not part of the problem with the wording of the new clause? It is not clear, from the new clause, what is NHS data and what is the patient’s data, and who owns which bit of it. The problem with the drafting of the new clause is that it appears to cover every single piece of data held by the NHS, whether it directly relates to a patient or not. Additionally, if the Government were to collect any other sort of data, even if on an aggregate basis, it would come under this. That would be totally unworkable and put an enormous burden of bureaucracy on the health service.

    Hansard source
23. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    It is very important that we consider these new clauses and amendments carefully, not least because, as my hon. Friend has just outlined, the hon. Member for Worthing West, who tabled them, has considerable expertise, being a public health consultant herself. I have the pleasure of sitting with the hon. Member on the Health and Social Care Committee and she brings her expertise to every single sitting. I am sure that the Minister has welcomed her questioning when she has appeared before that Committee. It is really clear that, if we are going to make a success of the Bill, public health in all its guises needs to be at the forefront of our thinking about how we achieve better patient outcomes, better health and, more specifically, the Government’s stated aims in the 10-year plan to, first, shift care closer to home and, secondly, focus more on prevention rather than treatment. I am sure that across the House we agree with that ambition and therefore I can totally understand why the hon. Member for Worthing West has tabled these new clauses. I suspect that the new clauses are also a reaction to something that we have already discussed in this Committee, which is the dislocation and now the separation of local authorities from ICBs, with the removal of their statutory functions on those boards, to be given to strategic mayoral authorities. Some of those strategic mayoral authorities exist but, as we have discussed at some length in the Committee, many of them do not exist and might never exist. I can see why the hon. Member for Worthing West is trying to ensure that the vital work of directors of public health in local authorities for their population areas is somehow safeguarded and included in the Bill. That being said, I have some reservations about how these new clauses are currently drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has already outlined many of them. Although strengthening public health leadership is an essential objective, new clause 24 defines the statutory role and legal status of directors of public health in this context without providing sufficient clarity about accountability or governance, or about how these new powers would interact with existing NHS and local authority structures. Potentially, there is a risk of creating overlapping responsibilities, blurred lines of accountability and additional bureaucracy at a time when integrated working should be simplified rather than made more complex. Obviously, the hon. Member for Worthing West is not here to answer my questions. I ask the Minister this: if these new clauses are not pressed to a vote, or if they are but are not accepted by this Committee, how can she reassure me and the hon. Member for Worthing West that public health will still be at the forefront of the Bill, and that the removal of local authorities from ICBs will not have the impact that I think the hon. Member, who tabled these new clauses, is concerned about?

    Hansard source
24. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I rise to support a lot of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston said. Across the Committee, I think we all agree that corridor care and care in other inappropriate settings should have no place in the NHS. No patient should be assessed, treated or left waiting in a corridor, in a cupboard or anywhere else because there is nowhere for them to go. We owe it to patients and our constituents to be honest about the scale of the problem and be serious about ending it. That starts with measuring it properly, because if we do not collect the data, publish the evidence and track progress, inappropriate care settings risk becoming normalised. In May, nearly 3,000 patients were in corridor care, which was a 2.5% increase from the same time last year. In the same month, 50,000 patients waited in A&E for more than 12 hours, which was a 17% increase from the same period last year. The Government continually miss their target on the 12-hour wait. I am not making a political point; this is a serious problem, and successive Governments are still struggling to ensure that it does not happen. We all know from our casework and our inboxes, and some of us know through personal experience or from loved ones, that too many patients are experiencing unacceptably long waits in A&E after a decision has been taken to admit them. That is bad for patients, bad for staff and bad for the wider functioning of our hospitals. New clause 56 in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire acknowledges that the causes of delays extend far beyond the emergency department itself, and I will touch on that in a moment. Challenges in social care, discharge processes, step-down provision and workforce capacity all contribute to bottlenecks that leave patients waiting longer than they should. Although there might be legitimate questions about the precise mechanisms proposed in the new clause, I do not think there is any disagreement among the Committee about the principle that patients deserve timely access to a hospital bed and that excessive admission delays should not be accepted as the norm. That is why I fully support new clause 84 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Publishing data on avoidable deaths associated with waits of more than 12 hours would help to ensure that we, as a Parliament and as policymakers, remain focused on outcomes for patients, not just performance indicators. I am particularly persuaded by the proposal to publish that information at ICB level, notwithstanding the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston, which I agree with entirely. It would at least give some allowance for those making decisions to look at the local variation and ensure that it is identified, however less local that will become. Hopefully, good practice will be able to be shared between different areas, and the areas that face the greatest challenges will be able to receive both appropriate scrutiny and appropriate support. Of course, collecting and publishing data will not by itself reduce waiting times, but we cannot effectively tackle a problem that we do not properly measure. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant in these cases, and greater transparency can be a powerful driver of improvement. At the heart, new clause 84 recognises the simple truth that every statistic represents a person, a family and a life, and if avoidable deaths are occurring as a consequence of prolonged A&E waits, we should have the courage to measure them, publish them and learn from them. That is why I support the new clause. As has been touched on in other speeches, and as I mentioned earlier, the issue of corridor care does not sit in isolation. In fact, it is not a cause of the problem; it is the symptom of many other problems within our health and social care network.

    Hansard source
25. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I respect immensely the hon. Gentleman’s experience. He described being a young doctor, but he is still a very young doctor/politician now. Of course, capacity is an essential part of this. He is a clinician, so I will not lecture him on this, but my suggestion would be that it is not about just capacity within hospitals. The Government’s shift is to try to get people out of hospitals and into community settings as much as possible, so it is capacity within the whole system that needs to be looked at. Going back and putting loads more beds into hospitals would not somehow solve this problem or create a healthcare system that is aligned with what the Government want, which is hopefully treating more people at home. On his general point, I accept that the more capacity there in the system as a whole, the more likely we are to solve some of the problem. That neatly moves me on to my next point, which is about the whole-system approach to this. As hon. Members have mentioned, we have a potential problem with ambulances waiting in carparks, and unfortunately, trusts gamify the system when targets are put in place—they do not admit people through the door because it will hit their targets. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston mentioned, that has a knock-on effect for the people sitting in the ambulances and those who are potentially not receiving an ambulance because the capacity is not there. Likewise, at the other end of the system—though I suppose it is both ends of the system—social care needs to improve significantly. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have pushed another social care review that is probably not going to report until 2028, which is kicking the can down the road. I think it is essential that we get social care correct.

    Hansard source
26. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member; she makes an interesting point. She talks about irony, and I respond in the same manner as that which she intervened on me with a gentle response, which is to ask why, if everything was going so swimmingly well, she and the rest of her colleagues got rid of the Prime Minister?

    Hansard source
27. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public do not want to hear about the last 14 years or the rhetoric around them.

    Hansard source
28. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I will give way to the hon. Lady after I finish my sentence, if I may. The public want to know what the solutions are. I think we could look back through history at successive Governments since prehistory and say, “They got some things right, and they got some things wrong.” What the public want to know now is what the current Government will do.  On the point about social care, I was not a member of the last Government, but I stood on an election manifesto commitment, as the Labour party certainly did and I think most political parties did, that essentially said that the Dilnot review had decided how we were going to deal with social care, and we were going to get on with it. It strikes me as very strange that the last Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), decided to have another review; he has said himself in interviews since he resigned that it looks like the stalling on social care means that we will not get any movement on it before another general election. I do not think the public should put up with that.

    Hansard source
29. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I will do that. As I have already said, no party has necessarily covered itself in glory with this issue. It might have taken us four years to dump it; it took the Chancellor of the Exchequer less than two weeks.

    Hansard source
30. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

    I look forward to the new Prime Minister coming in and, I hope, providing a position where the hon. Member is able to achieve some of that. [Interruption.] I note for Hansard that that received acclamation across the Committee Room. Getting back to the Bill, as you have suggested I do, Dr Huq—I take your suggestions very seriously—the social care element is extraordinarily important. It is important to ensure that people do not enter the secondary care system if at all possible, especially through attending A&E. When I worked on the Getting It Right First Time programme, our accident and emergency reports put forward some interesting methods that could potentially help with that. Some of that has been implemented and some has not, but I recommend all hon. Members look at that report, because it contains a number of interesting proposals. This is not only about stopping people entering the system, but about ensuring that people come out of the system in a timely manner, freeing up the capacity we have just talked about. In my constituency, Haslemere hospital had 16 step-down inpatient rehabilitation beds. Unfortunately, last year, that service was “temporarily paused”—that is how it was described, but it has been over a year now, so it has essentially stopped. That service is not happening in my constituency, which is down to the fact that it was a GP-run service and the trust could no longer get a GP who was willing to run that service. Haslemere hospital and the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust that runs the hospital have some really fantastic ideas, very much in keeping with the Government’s push towards neighbourhood health, and I fully support those proposals, but it is a shame that we have had 16 beds sitting empty for more than a year, which could have been used for rehabilitation. We as a body politic should be looking at how we can improve and expand our step-down/step-up capacity, so that people do not have to go into acute settings. I turn briefly to the specifics of new clause 12. I am concerned about subsections (3) and (4), which talk about a tribunal system. I do not quite understand how that would work. The way it is set out almost gives it an adversarial, inquiry-type, case-by-case element. It would include patients, bereaved or affected families, and frontline NHS staff. I can see how that kind of body might work if one was investigating a failure around a single patient or at a single trust, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member for North Shropshire could expand on how she sees the national report coming forward and then a group of people being selected to interrogate it. It is also not clear what would be the consequences of the interrogation, or otherwise, once it has happened.

    Hansard source
31. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Like the shadow Minister, I will be relatively brief. [Interruption.] It was not clear whether that was a sound of appreciation or disappointment from the Minister. I will assume that she receives everything I say with the same noise and grace. Yesterday, the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I sit—and was questioned at some length by the Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), about the UK-US trade deal. It was striking that the Secretary of State appeared unable to answer the basic question of whether an impact assessment could be presented to the Committee—under whatever terms of secrecy or confidentiality the Department wanted to place on it—to allow us to assess the costs, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, and, one would hope, the benefits. The Secretary of State was very clear that there were benefits, but he was unable to outline what they were. He cited commercial confidentiality, which I do understand; there will be commercially confidential elements to the deal. What was really striking, however, was that even though the Select Committee was very happy to receive the information under whatever strictures he wanted to put on it, so that we could scrutinise it, it was not given. That is serious cause for concern. I understand what the hon. Member for North Shropshire seeks to achieve through new clauses 15 and 76, but there are some problems in their drafting. There will be commercially confidential elements to the deal, so laying it before the House essentially completely unredacted, as new clause 15 would require, might pose real problems. Likewise, I assume that the intention of new clause 76 is to focus specifically on the UK-US trade deal as currently formulated.

    Hansard source
32. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s penultimate point: we need to support home-grown clinical academics and the life sciences industry in this country. As he has drawn me down that line, I declare that my wife works in the life sciences industry in the UK. I entirely agree with him on that point. However, if he is saying that a corollary is that we should not do pharmaceutical trade deals with other countries, I do not agree, because UK patients need the best medicines no matter where they come from. If that was not what he was saying and I am putting words into his mouth, I apologise, but that is how it sounded to me. I agree that we should support the home-grown, but obviously we need access to medicines from around the world. That brings me to my concerns about new clause 76. I understand why the hon. Member for Winchester supports it, but the way it is written means that, for the lifetime of the Act, any trade deal with America would have to follow those strictures. Although I accept that he does not like the current deal or the incumbent in the White House, it seems odd that we are singling out in statute, and putting a stricture on, one country over every other. I still probably would not have voted for it, but the new clause might have been more acceptable had it referred to any trade deal with any country, or even a group of countries—I know he is a big fan of one particular group of countries. That might have made it difficult. It would be dangerous essentially for the Bill to put a stricture on a trade deal with one specific country—especially one that is probably our strongest ally. I think that sits very badly.

    Hansard source
33. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    Yes, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It would be a very slippery slope to write that into legislation. I understand the motivation—as I often do—behind Liberal Democrat new clause 76, but I do not think its drafting is appropriate in this context, and I cannot support it.

    Hansard source
34. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

    I rise briefly to speak on this as well. I should note for the record that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities. The hon. Member for Winchester, on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, made the case very strongly. I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we took evidence as he described. The lack of a statutory obligation in the current EHCP process is a fundamental problem. We need to ensure that the health elements are put on the same footing as the social care ones. As I am sure is the case in every hon. and right. hon Member’s constituency inbox, the number of children who are receiving or require support with special educational needs and disabilities, and the frustrations with the process both locally and nationally, are rightly something that we, as parliamentarians and policymakers, need to get a grip on.

    Hansard source
35. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    The beautiful River Wey runs through my constituency, but storm overflows from the Farnham sewage treatment works are increasingly polluting the river, affecting my residents and businesses and those further afield, including the Peper Harow Park fly fishers in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). What discussions is the Minister having with Thames Water about stopping the discharges from the Farnham sewage works?

    Hansard source
36. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Davies

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    I thank Members from across the House for their contributions today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate on trade—granted, of course, by the Backbench Business Committee. Before I turn to the specifics of what we are debating today, it is important to be clear from the outset that Conservative Members, like all Members who have spoken, want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. Israelis, Palestinians and people across the region deserve to live in peace with security, and it is my party’s long-held position that this can be best achieved through a two-state solution. We also want to see the Abraham accords expanded and wider regional barriers to peace overcome. At the same time, the official Opposition’s view is that settlements are not conducive to achieving long-term peace. We believe that the Israeli Government should firmly clamp down on settler violence, and we are against the expansion of settlements.

    Hansard source
37. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Davies

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. I will address the point that she raises later in my speech, but our shared aim across this House, which is peace in the region, cannot be achieved without Britain maintaining an enduring relationship with Israel and with our allies in the region. It is through engagement that we will be able to achieve the resolution we all want. Engagement is vital to achieving the peace that unites the House today. That is why I regret that, in my view and the view of the official Opposition, Britain’s influence has been diminished to such a degree due to a series of misjudged decisions. These include the decision to cancel trade talks while Hamas were still holding hostages after the 7 October attacks; the decision to impose export licence suspensions while Israel was burying hostages so barbarically taken from their loved ones; and the decision to recognise a Palestinian state when no formal peace process had been agreed. Of course we support a two-state solution, and it is right that we would recognise a Palestinian state, but recognition of a Palestinian state is only meaningful if it is part of a formal peace process. As my shadow ministerial colleagues have pointed out, the Government’s actions to date have left our relations with Israel in a deep freeze, with our ability to influence the situation in the region severely diminished.

    Hansard source
38. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Davies

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that we are saying we should do nothing. If Members remember, it was a Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2024 who imposed sanctions on the settlements. The House has heard me say from this Dispatch Box that the expansion of settlements is wrong. She is being unfair. What I am talking about is a point of execution. We have to engage with our allies—Israel is a critical ally of the United Kingdom—and that is not done by banning trade with Israel.

    Hansard source
39. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Davies

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    We can be critical of our allies and we can be critical friends—of course we can—but what I am saying is that disengagement is not a solution to achieving what the House wants, which is peace in the middle east.

    Hansard source
40. 9 Jul 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Davies

    Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

    I will make a little progress in the interests of time, because I know that Members will want to hear from the Minister. It is the official Opposition’s view that a proposed ban on the trade of Israeli settlement goods and services will bring about the same result as I have been talking about and will prove counterproductive and ineffective. Secondly, aside from the ineffectiveness of the policy, it is not even clear that it could be implemented, according to the Labour Government. The Government have repeatedly pointed out, as have many Members today, that a ban on settlement goods would be difficult to enforce. At the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said that countries imposing such a ban are encountering “technical difficulties”. Will the Trade Minister address that point when he responds to the debate, and confirm that the Government still hold these concerns about practicality? Labour Members have been questioning that. It is all well and good making a point and arguing for an action, but the Government say that it cannot be executed, and it needs to be explained. I realise that many anti-Israel campaigners will not be concerned with the answers to these questions that I am posing of the Minister. They may not care whether a ban is effective or having an impact, but only that it should be in place. By the way, I have heard nobody in this debate mention that one in seven medicines dispensed by the NHS comes from Israel. Those who have suggested that we should have an outright ban on Israeli trade have offered no solution to that point. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is vital that the Government take the full impact of any policy into consideration.

    Hansard source