Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I will begin with Government new clauses 91 to 95. Many hon. Members will know that the current regulatory framework for medicines and medical devices is seen as overly complicated and difficult to navigate. It is also slow and burdensome to amend, limiting our ability to ensure that it keeps pace with developments. Maintaining the safeguards to public health is central to every decision we make. However, the regulatory framework currently slows down innovation and delays patient access to healthcare products. From a market growth perspective, it also places barriers to the UK market, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. These new clauses will deliver a more streamlined regime for making and updating secondary legislation. The ability to make faster and more responsive updates to secondary legislation will enable the Department and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to address the current barriers that I have highlighted in the regulation more quickly. New clauses 91 and 92 provide for changes with regard to powers to make “ambulatory references”, which are references in legislation to external documents such as technical standards and lists, which can be updated from time to time. These changes will ensure that the legislation continues to capture updated versions of those documents without the need for further regulations. International and domestic standards are crucial in the highly technical areas targeted by the change. It is important that the regulatory regime remains aligned with the technical, scientific and international framework that is designed to evolve over time. Currently, there are limited powers for medical devices regulations to refer to external international agreements or standards that change over time, and there are no such powers at all for medicines. Without the ability to make ambulatory references to those documents, legislation is needed each time the standards are updated. That is disproportionate and risks unintentional regulatory divergence that creates uncertainty for industry. The new clauses introduce a power for human medicines regulations to refer to external international agreements or standards that are updated over time. For medical devices, the provisions also extend the current ambulatory reference power to make reference to lists of countries subject to mutual recognition agreements, lists of devices or categories of device that are eligible for an international reliance pathway, and lists of British technical standards. Amendment 80 sets out that the extent of new clause 92 will cover England, Scotland and Wales. The provisions of new clause 93 enable a more flexible approach to consultations on regulatory changes related to medicines and medical devices, rather than the current one-size-fits-all requirement. Under the amended powers, the MHRA and the Department will still retain a legal duty to consult relevant stakeholders, and significant regulatory changes will continue to be subject to public consultation. The measure is designed to enable consultations that are proportionate to the scale of the change in hand. That will ensure that regulations can be updated more efficiently and in line with the needs of the health service. New clause 94 will enable certain technical updates to medicines and medical devices regulations to be made using the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. Specifically, it relates to changes that routinely arise as clinical practice evolves—for example, updating detailed lists of medicines or making limited adjustments to the professional groups who may prescribe, supply, sell or administer particular medicines. At present, even minor or time-sensitive changes of this sort can require a debate under the affirmative procedure, which is not always the best use of parliamentary time. New clause 95 is the final measure in the regulatory framework package for the MHRA. It is designed to streamline the process for routine fee updates made using powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by allowing the use of the negative parliamentary procedure for routine fee uplifts. That will bring the powers in line with those relating to fees in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, where uplifts to existing fees can be made with the negative procedure. That will also reduce delays in making and communicating such adjustments, while maintaining appropriate safeguards, including the requirement to set out the cost basis for any new uplifts with any legislation—whether it is made under the negative or affirmative procedure. The draft affirmative procedure will be retained for any substantive changes, such as the introduction of a new chargeable function. Finally, there are a number of consequential provisions related to those I have just discussed. Government amendments 80 to 82 primarily relate to the commencement period in which they come into force. In conclusion, the amendments will enable a faster and more responsible reform of the existing legislative framework, while preserving proportionate safeguards and necessary scrutiny. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. The purpose of the new clauses is to support our life sciences and medicine sector, in order to make that more streamlined. She will be aware of the proposals about the negative and affirmative procedure. If there were particular issues of scrutiny, normal parliamentary rules and processes would apply if Members wanted to raise any particular issue. Question put and agreed to. New clause 91 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 92 Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements “(1) The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/618) are amended as follows. (2) For regulation 1A (Schedules) substitute— ‘1A Schedule Schedule 2A has effect.’ (3) In regulation 2 (interpretation), in paragraph (1)— (a) in the definition of ‘mutual recognition agreement’, in paragraph (a), for ‘country listed in Schedule 2’ substitute ‘country specified in a list published by the Secretary of State from time to time’; (b) in the definition of ‘third country conformity assessment body’, for ‘established in a country which is listed in Schedule 2 and designated in accordance with a relevant’ substitute ‘designated in accordance with a’. (4) Omit Schedule 2 (mutual recognition agreements).”—(Karin Smyth.) This new clause would amend the definition of “mutual recognition agreement” in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (as it has effect in England and Wales, and Scotland) so that agreements are defined by a list published by the Secretary of State, rather than a Schedule to the regulations. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 93 Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations ‘(1) Section 45 of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (consultation) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), for “a provision of Part 1, 2, 3 or 4” substitute “Part 1 or 3”. (3) After subsection (1) insert— “(1ZA) Before making regulations under Part 2 or 4 the relevant authority must— (a) carry out a public consultation, or (b) consult such persons as it considers appropriate.” (4) In subsection (3), at the beginning insert “Where a public consultation is carried out”. (5) In subsection (4), in the words before paragraph (a), for “subsection (1)” substitute “subsection (1ZA)”.’—(Karin Smyth.) This amends the duty to consult in relation to regulations about human medicines and medical devices. It gives the option of consulting such persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate instead of a public consultation. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 94 Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure ‘In section 47 of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (regulations: procedure), for subsection (3) substitute— “(3) Regulations under Part 1 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure. (3A) Regulations under Part 2— (a) are subject to the negative procedure if they contain only provision of one or more of the following descriptions— (i) provision made in reliance on section 6(1)(a) (fees); (ii) provision amending the meaning of ‘appropriate practitioner’ or ‘approved country health professional’ for the purposes of Part 12 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (see regulation 214 of those regulations); (iii) provision amending any of the following provisions of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012— • regulations 217C(3) or 217CA(3) (original pack dispensing for products containing relevant substances: definition of ‘relevant substance’), • Schedule 13 (prescription only medicines for which community practitioner nurse prescribers are appropriate practitioners), • Schedule 15 (requirements for specific products subject to general sale), • Schedule 16 (patient group directions and vaccine group directions), • Schedule 17 (exemption for sale, supply or administration by certain persons), • Schedule 18 (substances that may not be sold or supplied by a pharmacist without a prescription in reliance on emergency provisions), • Schedule 19 (medicinal products for parenteral administration in an emergency), or • Schedule 21 (medicinal products at high dilutions); (iv) provision amending regulation 250 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (restrictions on persons to be supplied with medicinal products: exceptions) for the purpose of changing the products to which any exception from time to time provided for by that regulation applies; (v) provision that is consequential on provision of a description mentioned in any of sub-paragraphs (ii) to (iv); (b) are subject to the made affirmative procedure if they— (i) contain only provision that is made in reliance on section 7 (emergencies), (ii) contain a declaration that the person making them considers that they need to be made urgently to protect the public from an imminent risk of serious harm to health, and (iii) are not within paragraph (a); (c) are subject to the draft affirmative procedure if they are not within sub-paragraphs (a) or (b). (3B) Regulations under Part 3— (a) are subject to the negative procedure if they contain only provision made in reliance on section 12(1)(a) (fees), and (b) are subject to the draft affirmative procedure if they are not within paragraph (a). (3C) Regulations under Part 4— (a) are subject to the negative procedure if they contain only provision of one or more of the following descriptions— (i) provision made in reliance on— • section 17(1)(a) (fees), or • paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 (supplementary provision about civil sanctions); (ii) provision amending or revoking regulation 1ZA of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (expiry of certain provisions) or consequential on such provision; (b) are subject to the made affirmative procedure if they— (i) contain only provision made in reliance on section 18 (emergencies), and (ii) contain a declaration that the person making them considers that they need to be made urgently to protect the public from an imminent risk of serious harm to health; (c) are subject to the draft affirmative procedure if they are not within paragraph (a) or (b).”’—(Karin Smyth.) This changes the parliamentary procedure for certain regulations from the draft affirmative procedure to the negative procedure. The changes all relate to regulations about medicines and medical devices (although the procedural provisions relating to certain other matters are restated in the amendment). Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 95 Medical devices etc: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations ‘In Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (regulations), in paragraph 12— (a) in sub-paragraph (1) for “relate to altering the amount of a fee or charge to reflect changes in the value of money” substitute “fall within sub-paragraph (1A)”. (b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert— “(1A) Provision falls within this sub-paragraph if it relates to— (a) altering the amount of a fee or charge to reflect changes in the value of money, (b) altering the amount of a fee or charge to be charged in connection with the exercise of a function which a public authority has by virtue of provision made under section 8C in connection with the EU medical devices Regulations, or (c) altering the amount of a fee or charge to be charged under the Blood Safety and Quality Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/50). (1B) In sub-paragraph (1A)(b) ‘the EU medical devices Regulations’ means— (a) Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC, or (b) Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU, as they have effect from time to time by virtue of Article 5(4) of the Windsor Framework.”’—(Karin Smyth.) This allows regulations altering certain fees in relation to medical devices etc to be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. At the moment those regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 1 National Maternity Commissioner “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, appoint a National Maternity Commissioner, situated within the Department of Health and Social Care. (2) The functions of the National Maternity Commissioner are to— (a) oversee NHS maternity services; (b) act as an independent voice for women and families; (c) ensure lessons are learned from identified failures and that the recommendations of maternity reviews are acted upon; (d) promote consistency, safety and accountability across NHS maternity services; and (e) advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the safety, quality and provision of maternity services in England. (3) The person appointed as Commissioner must— (a) be a person with knowledge, expertise and experience relevant to the discharge of functions of the role; (b) have first-hand experience of working in maternity services, so far as reasonably possible; and (c) not be a sitting Member of Parliament.”—(Helen Morgan.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to appoint a maternity commissioner within the Department of Health and Social Care to oversee national maternity services. This person should be someone with experience and expertise of maternity services, and not a political appointment. Brought up, and read the First time.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for bringing this discussion before the Committee. I put on record our thanks for the work she has done in this area and for her engagement with me, and indeed with officials at the Department, to help us understand it more clearly, particularly in the light of the new clause. Hon. Members across the Committee are committed, as are the Government, to ensuring that women, families and babies receive the care and support they need. We know that the vast majority of births are safe and that there are outstanding examples of care in the NHS. However, where things do go wrong, it can have a devastating impact on women and their families. That is why the Government launched the national investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal care, chaired by the noble Lady Baroness Amos. Baroness Amos brought the findings from past reviews, local rapid reviews and new evidence from families and staff together into one clear national set of recommendations, which as we heard was published last week. The Government also launched the maternity and neonatal taskforce, chaired personally by the Secretary of State, which will translate Baroness Amos’s recommendations into action. As we heard, Baroness Amos recommended the appointment of a statutory maternity and neonatal commissioner. We have accepted that recommendation, and I know there is support for it across the House. To be clear, the Secretary of State stated last week that we are committed to putting the role on a “statutory basis” as soon as possible. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member for North Shropshire a more detailed timetable at the moment, because we are currently looking at options to legislate at pace, including potentially through this Bill, subject to discussions through the usual channels, while also—this is crucial—giving the taskforce the opportunity to shape the scope of the role. That was one of Baroness Amos’s urgent actions, and we accept it as a crucial first step in overseeing systemic improvements to care and outcomes and earning back the trust of women and families. The maternity and neonatal commissioner will champion the voices of families and drive forward that necessary change. The Secretary of State will remain accountable to Parliament for maternity services. The role will be discussed urgently with the taskforce and will have a relentless focus on driving those improvements, which will include co-chairing the taskforce. As the Committee knows, these are complex matters. The Government, having accepted the Baroness Amos’s recommendation, intend to legislate as soon as practicable. Our immediate priority is to work quickly through the taskforce to define the scope and responsibilities of the role. I know that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will not press the new clause, but I commit to keeping in touch with her and other hon. Members as this work progresses.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I am sorry, but I did not get the end of that sentence. However, I think the hon. Lady was saying that the Bill essentially abolishes NHS England. Again, as I have said repeatedly, nobody is opposing that. As is well known, the recommendations on the maternity commissioner have come through a separate process. Given the need for public assurance and to earn back the trust of women and families, as well as—I think the hon. Lady said this herself—the shocking revelations that have come through some of this work, Baroness Amos recommended a maternity and neonatal commissioner to drive through these changes and give confidence to the system. That is why we are going to accept her recommendation. Accountability for maternity services obviously remains with the Secretary of State, who will be co-chairing the taskforce. I hope that addresses the comments the hon. Lady made. On new clause 13, we know that the vast majority of births are safe, but the devastating trauma experienced by many through failures in care must be brought to an end. The CQC has an important role in assessing whether patients are receiving safe, effective and high-quality care, and it is essential that it can do that objectively and independent of Government. It is therefore not appropriate to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure particular ratings.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling these new clauses. I recognise the concerns behind them. Contracts involving NHS data, digital services and technology must be subject to proper scrutiny. Patients expect their medical information to be protected, and NHS staff expect the systems that they use to be safe and reliable. The Government agree that Parliament should be entitled to test how those protections work. I also want to be clear that the Government want British businesses to win more public contracts and build stronger UK capability in digital and technology. The Government are already using procurement to support British businesses, jobs, skills and national security. More than 90% of UK public contracts are currently awarded to UK suppliers, and the Government have set out reforms to make procurement do more to support British industry and supply chain resilience. I do not think that new clause 3 is the right way to achieve proper scrutiny. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to conduct and lay before Parliament a risk assessment of all contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside the United Kingdom. That would include contracts regardless of the value—we heard a little about that from the Opposition—and of the services being provided, the type of data and whether there is evidence of any sort of concern. Risk is driven by the nature of the data involved, not just where the supplier is located. That is why the Government’s approach is based on targeted assessment and proportionate control. We already have the tools we need in the Procurement Act 2023, which gives contracting authorities the powers to exclude suppliers and terminate contracts where the legal tests are met, including on national security grounds. They may also refer suppliers for a debarment investigation. The National Security Unit for Procurement supports Ministers in assessing suppliers on national security grounds, working closely with Departments and the intelligence community. In health and digital contracts, those procurement powers sit alongside data protection legislation and data protection impact assessments, in line with the digital, data and technology playbook. That is not an argument for complacency; we should continue to identify risks before procurement begins. A broad duty of the kind in new clause 3 would risk becoming a reporting exercise and would not necessarily make the highest-risk contracts safer. It could, however, draw time and resource away from the assurance activities that matter most. The right approach is to strengthen the targeted controls, not to create a single statutory risk assessment covering every non-UK supplier. Similarly, on new clause 4, a blanket “buy British” rule would not be the right test for NHS data contracts, although I hope that I have assured the hon. Member for Winchester that home-grown domestic products are absolutely what we are trying to focus on. The UK must treat suppliers from countries with reciprocal procurement access fairly. Our international obligations matter and are an important driver of the UK economy, including the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement, which gives British businesses guaranteed access to £1.3 trillion in public procurement opportunities overseas annually. As the hon. Member will understand, new clause 5 would require the Government to commit to a new programme of work to develop domestic capability, to reduce reliance on overseas suppliers of IT services and technology. The strategy would also require us to set out an approach to managing the risk associated with our current use of technology provided by overseas suppliers. I welcome the notion of encouraging domestic innovation to ensure the security and resilience of our IT infrastructure. However, ensuring the security of our data and the resilience of our systems is already embedded in everything we do. The new clause is therefore simply not necessary. Hon. Members will accept that we want to see continued growth of digital and tech industries in this country; it is one of our real success stories. However, it will not be achieved by cutting across procurement law and not seeking the solutions that provide the best value for our money and the right service for the NHS. Our approach to securing the best IT and tech solutions should always be to seek the best on offer in a diverse, global market, not to prioritise based on location. Prioritising domestic providers means making a decision on grounds other than the quality, integrity or value for money of a solution. I understand the concern behind new clause 43, which the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham spoke to. However, where public money is used to provide NHS services, there should be proper transparency about the contract, the service being delivered and the use of public funds. Patients and the public are entitled to expect that information is not placed beyond reach simply because a service is delivered through a contract. I do not think the new clause necessary, and I am concerned that it could create confusion about the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Act already deals with information held by another person on behalf of the public authority. The key issue is not where the information physically sits. It does not matter whether it is held by the authority or by one of its commercial partners; what matters is whether it is held for the public authority’s purpose. The Government agree with the principle of transparency, but new clause 5 would not improve the existing framework. It would risk duplicating duties that already exist, cutting across standard contract terms and creating uncertainty about patient information, which is rightly protected. For all those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to press the new clauses. Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Winchester that we have already debated the single patient record. Public trust is key, and there will be multiple suppliers. We are bringing patients and the public with us and will continue to do so. The hon. Member asked about the FDP roll-out. I do not think it was about the supplier. I think it was about the money. It was about inertia in rolling out some good technology that provides good efficiency. It was also about capacity, capability and an attitude to productivity, which we absolutely need to drive more of.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
Order. Members might like to know that I aim to call the first Front-Bench spokesperson at about 3.35 pm.
- Hansard source
Essential Energy Guarantee
The warm home discount is a great initiative to help households cut their bills, but one thing we could expand to do more in this space is our heat network programme, and we may be getting a heat network in Derby. However, there is often a lack of awareness, particularly in some public sector organisations and businesses, of the opportunities that heat networks offer. It may be that winding down the public sector decarbonisation scheme is not enabling as many as we would like to sign up. Could I ask the Minister to look at our engagement with business, the public sector and housing providers to make sure that as many people as possible can benefit from heat networks?
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
The hon. Lady called out the record of the previous Government, and she was right to do so. However, I remember that in 2012 youth unemployment stood at 22%, 4% higher than it is now. Of course, her party was in government at that time. I am keen to work collaboratively, but it is worth just noting that.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition for calling this debate today, as it gives me an opportunity to talk about a survey of young people that I did last year. It was a broad survey and statistically significant, with more than 500 young people in Mid Derbyshire engaging on their work and education opportunities and sharing their views on their futures. Before I come to that, I will offer some reflections of my own experience of summer jobs, as that is the title of today’s debate. One such job was pulling out weeds for very low pay, which really taught me the value of hard work. I would go home from that job every day absolutely exhausted. I also spent some time during the university holidays pulling pints, which taught me how to deal with difficult people—a skill that I find myself using quite regularly in my current role. When I receive applications from people who want to work with me, I always think it is welcome if they spent their early career in hospitality, because workers can learn a great many skills in that industry that will serve them well in a great many jobs across the labour market. I also spent some time as a grave-digger, during the holidays when I was in the sixth form and at university—it perhaps serves as a metaphor for one or two things I have done subsequently. I understand that this summer there may be some jobs going with the new occupant of Downing Street. If the Minister could have a word on my behalf, I shall be waiting by the phone.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. My focus is on the people of Mid Derbyshire, but I am sure that the people of Clacton will hold their representative to account in the appropriate way. Of the young people who responded to my survey, 44% said that the cost of living was the biggest issue they faced, followed by housing and renting costs at 34% and employment and jobs at 33%. I want to read just one contribution from a constituent, which I found to be particularly profound. They said: “Life for young people especially isn’t just unaffordable—it feels completely unattainable. I’ve had a job for nearly 5 years and am on the minimum wage. There is no way, with the state of the housing market and general cost to live that I’d be able to sustain moving out, renting or even learning to drive/buying a car. My independence seems—and I imagine it does for a lot of young people—like it will never fully arrive.” That was mirrored in the fact that a great many of the young people who engaged with my survey were not optimistic about their futures. That is a moral and political tragedy.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
I spent most of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention trying to find out what is going on in Clacton, but perhaps the Minister heard what he said and will furnish him with a response in his summing up. The Government are doing a great many good things to support young people. There is more to do, but I will touch on some of the things we are doing. We have an unemployment rate of 4.9%. That is far too high, but we are outperforming many other major economies, including Canada and the EU. I particularly welcome the youth guarantee, the growth and skills levy and the other levers that we are introducing to reduce business costs, including on energy. We are expanding access to finance through the British Business Bank, and we are reducing red tape and licensing costs. On summer jobs, it is particularly important to highlight our support for hospitality, including cutting business rates for pubs and live music venues by 15%, which will be followed by a two-year freeze. We are also increasing the hospitality support fund to £10 million, which will really help those sectors. We have heard a little bit from the Opposition Benches today about wage increases and national insurance. On wage increases, when I go to food banks I often meet young people who are in work but tell me that they are still not making ends meet, and that point comes through from the survey that I did. That really is a tragedy. While I acknowledge the concerns that businesses have raised with me and that the Opposition have raised today, I do welcome the wage increases. We have to deal with this cost of living crisis. Young people should not be working as many hours as they can yet still not able to get by. The point about national insurance is quite interesting. The decision to increase employer national insurance was a difficult one. I would rather we had not had to do make that decision, but we did. Public services were failing so badly that that in itself was a brake on the economy. I note that the previous Government also effectively tried to increase national insurance by 1.25% in 2021. That was called the health and social care levy, but they did row back on it. The reality is that we have a long-term problem with public services, and it is holding back people’s lives and the economy. We have grasped the nettle on that, but I hope that sometime later in this Parliament we can revisit the issue. We stood by businesses in covid, and we are asking them to stand with us now as we rebuild public services. As the economy continues to grow, I hope that that option is on the table for the Government. There are a few things that I would like the Minister to bear in mind going forward. I very much welcome the Great British summer savings scheme, which offers VAT cuts to the visitor economy sector, which is a very important employer of young people, including in Derbyshire. Once that scheme ends, I would be grateful if a review could be undertaken to see how much economic growth and how many jobs it generated. My long-term aspiration is for us to be in a place where we can offer a VAT cut, particularly for the hospitality sector. After the financial crisis in 2008, the previous Labour Government cut VAT to 15%—it was subsequently put up to 20% when the Conservatives came in—and that was a real shot in the arm for the economy. If the Great British summer savings scheme shows evidence of being a real driver for economic growth, particularly in the important visitor economy sector that employs a lot of young people, we should see whether we can harness that and offer a different rate of VAT for the visitor economy and hospitality sectors. I believe that that would be good for the economy. It would also be good for our high streets and people’s sense of place and wellbeing.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
I really hope that it is a success. I know that in Cornwall—my hon. Friend’s part of the world—there will be a great many businesses and visitors benefiting from the scheme. Alan Milburn’s report, which highlighted that a million young people are out of work, is something that I am struggling to comprehend. It is a moral scandal that has been brewing for a very long time, and the Government are taking steps to address it. It is worth noting that while youth unemployment is appallingly high—now at 16.2%—it is lower than it was under the previous Government in 2012. We have a great deal of work to do to give young people a sense of hope and opportunity for the future—[Interruption.] Well, 2012 was four years after the financial crisis. We also effectively had a financial crash of our own to deal with after the mini-Budget. We do have a great deal of work to do, but I think the foundations are there to do something for young people and work, particularly the summer savings scheme. I would be grateful if the Minister were to take that forward and see if we can expand it into the future.
- Hansard source
UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends
The hon. Gentleman raises the principal point that this money will go from aid to defence. The reduction will be £4.8 billion in 2026-27, and then £6.5 billion. We obviously appreciate the need for defence investment, but that money is being transferred to the most profligate and incompetent spending Department in Government: the Ministry of Defence. Those of us who have been here for a number of years can remember Nimrod, which cost £4 billion and was scrapped. The Bowman radio system cost £2.5 billion and was scrapped. The Daring-class destroyer went £1.5 billion over projected expenditure. The Ajax armoured fighting vehicle has cost £4 billion and probably cannot be used. The sale of married quarters lost £4 billion. We are taking money that is desperately needed to save lives and giving it to a Department that has wasted money time and again.
- Hansard source
Climate Change: International Discussions
3. What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on tackling climate change.
- Hansard source
Climate Change: International Discussions
I note the recent data showing that support for renewables in this country is now at 81% of the public. Certainly, in every visit that I make to meet young people, including students at Imperial College London, climate change is one of the first issues they raise; they are concerned about the future that they are going to inherit. Will the Minister comment on the impact of repealing the Climate Change Act 2008—unfortunately, this has become the position of some Opposition parties—on our standing in international negotiations, including our Paris agreement commitments?
- Hansard source
Community-owned Renewable Energy
12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of community-owned renewable energy on energy security.
- Hansard source
Community-owned Renewable Energy
There are amazing developments in community energy, particularly across my constituency with the Northumberland solar-powered community buildings project, which is purchasing and installing both solar panels and battery storage for community buildings, including village halls, in our most remote communities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the community energy specific need for a smart export guarantee, and greater support for community energy power-purchasing agreements?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T2. The Secretary of State will know that there is no legal duty for energy developers to co-ordinate when they are developing in the same area or place, or at the same time. In Suffolk Coastal, Europe’s largest energy project is being developed right now, alongside four other nationally significant energy infrastructure projects. Will the Government consider giving Ofgem more power to enforce co-ordination, so that people, communities and the environment do not suffer needlessly when developers are building projects that will drive forward this country’s net zero ambitions?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
There is so much innovation going on in my constituency for floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, including by companies such as Reflex Marine, but we need the test and demo models up in the Celtic sea to test the technology. The contracts for difference in the next auction will be crucial for offshore wind in the Celtic sea. Will the Minister commit to recognising that in future auction rounds?
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
The King’s Speech mentioned that mayors might have that power, but that foundation strategic authorities might also have it. Obviously, the approach has not been decided yet, but is that still the case?
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous. Of course there are zero-hours contracts that work for some people and not for others. For example, if it is the choice of the employee, then it is fair enough, but if someone’s work is cancelled when they are on their way in, that is not fair. The 2025 Act still allows people who are employed to say, “No, I do not want those average hours. I am happy to work on a zero-hours contract.” That optionality is still there.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
It is still the case that there is that differential, is it not? There is still about a £2 difference between under-21s and over-21s, so it is not actually having the impact that the right hon. Gentleman suggests it should. If there is still that differential, why is there that problem at the moment, when employers are not paying national insurance contributions for under-21s either? Considering that the differential still exists, why does the problem exist?
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
That is the important thing. The summer savings scheme could be really useful. I think the onus is on all of us as Members of Parliament to get out and spread the message to businesses across our high streets that they should make the most of it so that we can see how well it works.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)
The Minister will recall that in evidence, Dr Rosie Benneyworth, interim chief executive officer of HSSIB, spoke about the vital work of the organisation, especially with regard to investigations where vulnerable staff and workers do not feel confident about coming forward for fear of reprisal. HSSIB did great work in that area, and I am wondering whether the CQC will carry it on and take on board that learning.
- Hansard source
UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends
The right hon. Gentleman sits with me on the International Development Committee, so he will know as I do that, to date, the Committee has found that there is still no detail on how “poverty alleviation is prioritised and tracked” under the new model going from donor to investor. Does he agree that if poverty reduction is to remain a primary focus of ODA, we need to understand better how these things will be tracked?
- Hansard source
UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends
My hon. Friend mentioned multilaterals. I wanted to put on the record my concern, shared by a number of IDC members, that it will be much harder for us to influence the multilaterals when most of our money is going there, rather than to bilateral aid. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we need to resource appropriately to achieve maximum leverage within the multilateral system?
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
I thank the shadow Justice Secretary for his opening remarks. This is a profoundly serious matter for all Members in this place, victims across the country—including those here in the Gallery—and indeed all members the public. Confidence in our law and order system must be maintained. We must all, therefore, recognise that we as a country face a challenge: to ensure public safety and protect victims while maintaining a functioning prison estate. I have no doubt that this is a priority for us all. To begin, it is imperative to recognise the genesis of the Sentencing Act 2026, its implementation and provisions and, ultimately, why we are debating these issues. On 5 July 2024, the Home Secretary, in her first day in office as the then Justice Secretary, was presented immediately with a criminal justice system in crisis. There were fewer than 100 places left in the adult male estate. A day one decision for her was the nature and scope of an emergency release scheme, not whether there should be one. We all remember the chaotic scenes that we saw in the weeks afterwards. There were similar scenes when such last-minute release schemes were implemented by the last Government: judges were told not to jail the most serious offenders due to a lack of prison places and criminals walked away, with a lack of time to provide the most robust community measures. The Conservative party released more than 10,000 prisoners early for a series of emergency measures taken to manage the capacity crisis they created. Those schemes were introduced at short notice, without the long-term reforms necessary to put the system on a sustainable footing, but there was no option but to act to prevent a collapse of the criminal justice system, which would have seen sex offenders and others able to act with impunity. A prison capacity crisis is not just a problem for our prisons; it means the unravelling of the criminal justice system completely, with courts unable to hear cases, police unable to make arrests and a grinding halt to law and order in our country. Therefore, in the aftermath, the Government rightly wanted to ensure that would never happen again. The Home Secretary—then the Justice Secretary—commissioned the right hon. Sir David Gauke to undertake an urgent review of how we sentence offenders. On its conclusion, Gauke found that under the previous Administration action was taken only when the criminal justice system was within three days away of collapse. We recognised then that a two-pronged approach was required. One part was to build more prisons, backed by capital investment. That is how we have been able to embark on the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 14,000 new prison places by 2031. Two years into this Government, 3,200 places have already been delivered—contrast that with just 500 extra places over 14 years under the Conservative party. In the 14 years of Conservative government, 23 prisons were closed. We would not be having this debate if those decisions had not been taken.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He has been consistent on this, although we do not agree on everything when it comes to criminal justice matters. The Government have looked at all options, including whether we can reopen those prisons closed by the last Conservative Government. I was struck by the shadow Justice Secretary’s welcoming of the suggestion that there should be new planning reforms around how we build prisons, because every time we try to build a new prison in a Conservative MP’s constituency, the Conservatives oppose it. It has happened time and again, with one thing being said at the Dispatch Box and their MPs arguing something completely different in their local media.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
What we will not do is put our head in the sand, which would lead to another prison capacity crisis, which would lead to another urgent, chaotic early release scheme as we saw under the last Conservative Government time and again. I cannot look victims in the eye and tell them that is good for them or for the country, and I will not do so. That is why, when the Home Secretary was Justice Secretary—
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
Let me make some progress first. The Home Secretary recognised that alongside prison building, there would be a need to reform sentencing, and for that be done above party politics. That is the principal reason why she asked Sir David Gauke, a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to undertake an independent sentencing review.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
Some Opposition Members still think he is a great man. I do not think that is a universal view on the Opposition Benches. Following publication of the review, the Sentencing Bill began its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent on 22 January this year. It was explained during its passage that many of its provisions would come into effect only in the autumn of this year. Any Government would continue to assess how best to achieve sustainability in our prison system, while ensuring public safety and confidence. Every decision that this Labour Government have taken has been based on keeping the public safe, protecting our criminal justice system and delivering justice for victims. That will continue to guide all future decisions, under this Prime Minister and the next Prime Minister.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
I understand. I meet victims all the time in my role at the Ministry of Justice. Before being elected to Parliament, I represented many victims of child sexual abuse every day in courts up and down the country. I understand the issues that victims such as his constituent face. I impress on the hon. Member that the Sentencing Act and the provisions that we are debating today have not yet come into effect. I am happy to speak with him outside the Chamber about that individual case, but I just put that in the context of the Sentencing Act and the provisions implemented by this Government. I will deal briefly with the specific cohort of offenders cited in the motion. The grooming gang scandals remain one of the gravest betrayals of our time. We are determined to get to the truth behind years of systemic failure on the issue. I am sure that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have so bravely spoken out about their ordeal. As I have said, before entering Parliament I spent the best part of my career representing just some of them. I know personally just how difficult it is for them to speak out.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
I am not sure which letters the right hon. Member is referring to, because none of the letters sent out by the Ministry of Justice has referred to people already being released. I understand the concerns that she raises. We take our engagement with victims incredibly seriously. The purpose of the letter is not merely for communication; it is also so that victims can have a say in licence conditions when offenders are released. Offenders are released as things stand. The Sentencing Act 2026 changes that for certain offenders, and there is a process in place by which probation ensures that the community is kept safe with robust licence measures. That will continue. We have improved the Probation Service’s powers. We are putting £700 million into the Probation Service, which is the biggest investment for a generation. I understand the right hon. Member’s concerns—I really do—but I gently suggest to her that criminals have been released from prison for a long time. There are measures in place, and we need to ensure that they are as robust as they can be.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
Absolutely. The hon. Lady’s call for us all to reflect on that will be taken up. I know that the Justice Secretary and the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), who is sitting next to me, will have heard that. There will be further correspondence; it was not a blanket correspondence by any means. The Government and the Probation Service want to engage with victims as much as possible to ensure that their voices are heard every step of the way. I am grateful for the intervention.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
As happened on numerous occasions under Boris Johnson and Theresa May, in Opposition day debates the Government are quite within their rights not to divide on an issue—an Opposition day is an Opposition day. This Government are dealing with the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. We are facing a situation where, if the Sentencing Act measures are not implemented, in October or November of this year we will be back where we were in July 2024. The Sentencing Act received Royal Assent in January and some of its measures are being implemented from September onwards. The Government will always balance making sure that we have a sustainable prison system and never going back to the crisis that we saw under the Conservatives with public safety and confidence in the system. That will continue under this Prime Minister and under the next Labour Prime Minister.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s kind words, personally, but I gently say that the Opposition party has no plan for how to deal with the prison crisis that its amendment would have brought about later this year—there is no plan; there is no suggestion; there is no idea of where they would put the criminals we are locking up every day. By the end of this Parliament there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before under a Labour Government. We are building more prisons than since the Victorian era. There is no plan from the Opposition. It is very easy and straightforward to bemoan the changes in the Sentencing Act, which received Royal Assent in January, but the Opposition have to come Parliament with a credible plan for capacity.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
I will not give way another time. Once prisoners are released, offenders will be subject to strict licence conditions. We are adding tougher restrictions as part of the Probation Service’s toolkit for managing offenders when they leave prison. That includes restriction zones, which can be used for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, pinning the offender to certain areas rather than restricting the movements of victims. We are ramping up tagging to monitor offenders in the community, with thousands more subject to 24/7 monitoring and curfews. We are already tagging at record levels, and we will invest a further £100 million to expand our ability to monitor even more offenders. That is the biggest expansion of tagging in history. Also, while on licence, offenders can be recalled immediately if they cannot be safely managed in the community. To carry out all that additional supervision, we need a Probation Service that is fighting fit. That is why we are increasing probation—
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
I understand my hon. Friend’s intervention. Let us be clear that many of the offenders we are talking about have been released previously and would continue being released but for the Sentencing Act. This is about what measures we put in the community to ensure that the community is safe, and that is why we are investing more than ever before in our Probation Service and why we have recruited a further 1,300 probation officers this year. We are refocusing supervision to devote more time to dangerous offenders so that we can better protect the public. This is ultimately the choice: either strict licence conditions in the community for those who have already served time in prison under the changes; or, simply put, the collapse of the system altogether, leaving sex offenders and others to act with impunity. I understand how distressing it can be for victims when an offender in their case is released. That is why we are taking steps, as I have already touched upon, to contact those eligible for and opted into the victim contact scheme to let them know how these changes will affect them, but I recognise that this will not cover all victims affected. That is why, through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we will for the first time provide a new dedicated route for all victims to request information about an offender. We must ensure that we get this right, which is why it is taking some time to implement carefully, but this is proper engagement with victims rather than the chaotic botched emergency release schemes that we had under the previous Government.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
Sentencing judges always consider dangerousness and risk to the public, as probation officers do. Every offender has a level of dangerousness, which is risk-assessed by probation as and when they leave prison. That has happened for the last 50 years and will continue to happen under the new Sentencing Act. I want to end again by reflecting on the horrific grooming gangs scandal, which lays heavily on our national conscience, and the women and girls, often young girls, who were systematically raped and exploited and then disbelieved by those who should have protected them. Those who prey on children must face the full force of the law, but in order to do that, we need a prison system with enough space. The previous Government left prisons on the verge of collapse. We prevented the disaster of running out of places altogether, and the breakdown of law and order it could have caused, but only just. Now we are ensuring that we never again return to that position, building prisons at an exceptional rate and delivering landmark reforms to sentencing to ensure that there is always a cell available for the most dangerous offenders and to end the cycle of capacity crisis.