What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
My constituent Guy Smith runs Sky Birds Sales, which successfully imports budgies. The Animal and Plant Health Agency has drastically changed its approach to batch testing, which is devastating his business. Will one of the Ministers meet me and my constituent to discuss this issue?
Silverstone put Northamptonshire on the map this week with the best attended grand prix ever: 564,000 people visited over three days, which is amazing. The next date I want Members to put in their diaries is the Blakesley Show on 1 August. In its 141st year, it is the perfect opportunity for locals to celebrate our farming community. I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in encouraging people to come along and support our farming and agriculture.
Delinked payments dramatically reduced; SFI stopped and started and ultimately made competitive; targets to dramatically reduce livestock numbers recommended; the state given more power to buy farmland below market value; the fertiliser tax; the double cab pick-up tax; the introduction of family farm and family business tax; Natural England given more power; an EU realignment deal that is set to cost our farmers thousands and result in job losses; and the annual grant for young farmers removed for the first time—oh, but beavers have been released. Which one of those measures that the Secretary of State has introduced in the last two years does she think will support the long-term financial sustainability of our farming businesses?
Attracting the next generation of farmers is key to the long-term sustainability of the sector. I recently visited Great Smeaton young farmers’ club, and it was wonderful to see both their contribution to the local community and their commitment to farming. Groups like that are vital to engaging young people in farming. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Great Smeaton YFC and the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs for their important contribution to our national life?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if she will make a statement on Iran’s violation of the ceasefire.
The terrorist regime in Tehran has once again violated the ceasefire, illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and striking our allies in the region, including Bahrain and Kuwait. These new assaults in the strait on at least three tankers were the most in a single day since April, according to the UN International Maritime Organisation. Earlier this week, the Iranians said they targeted Salman port in Bahrain, where Britain and the US operate naval bases. What were the Government doing when British assets were in danger and our friends and security allies were being attacked by Iran? What exactly are the Government doing to help protect the thousands of British nationals in the region who once again find themselves under rocket fire from Iran? Our security allies once looked to the UK to be a reliable and dependable partner, but their confidence is increasingly shaken. How will the Government put that right? This is a time for action, not words. I have asked again and again what are the British Government doing, or what have they done to date, through the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement to support Bahrain? The NATO Secretary-General said that the strikes by the US were “absolutely necessary”—do the Government agree? We have had little of substance from the Government in recent days, other than the Foreign Secretary’s telly remarks when she said yesterday that she was “very concerned” by the Iranian strikes. The US Administration have announced that they are reimposing oil sanctions on Iran—of course, oil funds its terrorism. When will the Government stop the UK’s financial system being used to launder Iranian terrorist funds? What is the Government’s assessment about whether the ceasefire framework and the 60-day period in the agreement remain? Let us be honest: the fact that Iran continues to breach the ceasefire and threatens our interests on a daily basis demonstrates that the Government have failed to have a clear plan to get defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade, leaving our country exposed and our security at risk. While Ministers are putting their job security ahead of the defence and the interests of this country, this discredited Labour Government have failed to offer solutions to the most serious and significant conflict that the world has seen in decades or to be part of any negotiations. Britain has a huge stake in the future of the middle east, but under Labour our interests have been neglected and our standing in the world has fallen.
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by recognising some of the positive commitments in the NATO summit communiqué, including the important reaffirmation of the alliance’s commitment to collective defence under article 5 and to the transatlantic bond, and the essential new defence procurement announcements. The recognition of Ukraine as a contributor to transatlantic security is overdue, and we back the reiteration of the alliance’s support for Ukraine. I share the Foreign Secretary’s disgust at the Russian attacks in Kyiv in recent days. The outcome of the Ukrainian war matters profoundly to NATO, as does our collective commitment to lead the world in helping Ukraine turn the tide in this war. We all know that the best deterrent against an invasion like this ever happening again is Russia’s expulsion from Ukraine. Now is the time to ramp up our support for Ukraine. Will the Government provide Ukraine with additional military capabilities or broker any new international packages of support, as we did so effectively at the outset of the war? Following the boarding of a Russian shadow fleet ship last month, will there be a sustained effort to disrupt the fleet’s operations? Will the Foreign Secretary commit to leading international pressure on the refineries buying Russian crude oil in order to cut the financial flows that are funding Russia’s illegal war? The NATO communiqué refers to the conflict in Iran and touches on the strait of Hormuz. As I said this morning in the urgent question, this despotic terrorist regime, which has been illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait and our allies, including Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman’s ships and territory, all while repressing its own people in the most brutal ways imaginable, must be made to feel the consequences of its actions. I put on the record our solidarity with Oman following the outrageous breach of its sovereignty by Iran. We understand that Oman has agreed to work with Britain and France to ensure that its territorial waters remain safe. Last week in a joint statement with the French, Downing Street said: “The UK and France also stand ready to deploy the wider Multinational Military Mission to support freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.” What does that mean in practice? Will there be a deployment? What will be the scale of the deployment? What will it consist of and over what timeframe? How will we reassure our strategic and security partners in the region of our commitment, so that they do not think we have stepped back, particularly given the rising tide of attacks from Iran? What opportunity will we have in this House to scrutinise and debate the Government’s plans? As Defence Secretary, my good friend Ben Wallace invested millions in the development of cutting-edge autonomous minehunters. In his previous role as Minister for Defence Procurement, the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), delivered Britain’s first ever defence drone strategy in 2024, which emphasised the use of uncrewed drones in the maritime domain, including for mine detection. Will either of those capabilities be deployed in the mission? It is vital that Britain has capabilities to operate in theatres around the world, and of course that requires cash now, which the current Labour Administration are refusing to provide. Britain is already spending less of its GDP on defence than Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, the United States, Denmark, Greece and Finland. How can we expect others to find more for defence when we are not leading by example? Because this Labour Government, in the words of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), have been “unable” and “unwilling” to provide the money we need to keep Britain safe, our country faces a huge shortfall in the years ahead. By the end of this decade, Britain will be nowhere near the 3% and barely ahead of where we are now, while all our allies continue to surge. I do not need to remind the Foreign Secretary of the numbers, but Germany is set to spend 3.7% of GDP by 2030, while Sweden has pledged to reach 3.5%, as have other countries. There will be a change of Labour leadership in the coming weeks. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been left to find £4.7 billion at his next Budget, and there is no serious detail about the billions of pounds of so-called efficiency savings that this Government have identified. As the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, the Polish Foreign Minister, said of Britain under Labour: “You’re spending something like £65 billion on defence and £360 billion on welfare. Lucky you, you must not feel any danger”. In reality, this Government are prepared to plough billions into welfare while short-changing defence. We want to change that, and I ask the Foreign Secretary again: will she work with us to make progress on this? This is a serious time—Britain is under threat—and we need to step up in a significant way. The Foreign Secretary also mentioned Sudan and the horrific situation in El Obeid. We know that words are not enough; action is needed. I agree with her on the need for the arms embargo to be extended, and the two warring parties must be pressed into a ceasefire.
Times have changed.
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I put on record my thanks to the 38,000 people and organisations who took part and responded to the call for evidence. Let us be honest about how we got here. This review was not born out of principle; it was born out of panic. Last summer, the Government brought forward proposals for £5 billion of welfare savings, but 126 of their own Members rebelled, and within days, Ministers had abandoned the lot. The Timms review is a fig leaf draped over that failure—a review commissioned not to fix the system, but to get the Government through a difficult week. A year on, what do we have? An interim report. Not a decision, not a reform, but a report about a report, with a promise of full findings in the autumn, and perhaps legislation at some later stage. Meanwhile, the welfare bill keeps rising. Spending on PIP alone is forecast to reach £43 billion a year by the end of this decade. Every month of drift is paid for by working people, and every month of uncertainty is endured by nearly 4 million claimants. The Opposition accept that the system needs reforming. That is why, last month, we launched the Conservative party’s review of disability and sickness benefits. It is a root-and-branch review of a failing system that will look into who should get help, how they should be assessed, what form that help should take, the conditionality of support and how to control the level of overall spending. It asks a much more fundamental set of questions than this review. It sets out to make savings, as well as to build a better system. The Government have now had two years, one abandoned Bill and two reviews, but they have not delivered a single lasting reform. The official Opposition’s position is clear. We would restore face-to-face assessments as the default, because decisions of this consequence should not be made down the phone. We believe that people with milder health conditions are better served by treatment and support to get them into work than by being signed off for a lifetime on welfare. We would restrict access to sickness and disability benefits for those without a long-term connection to this country. We would bring the welfare bill down, because a welfare system that is unsustainable is no protection for those in genuine need. Let me press the Minister on a few points, because there was very little detail in his statement. First, after two years of dither and delay, the Government have finally accepted what we have been saying all along: the welfare system is in urgent need of reform. Ministers boast about consulting nearly 40,000 people, yet they appear to have ignored the most important stakeholder of all—the British taxpayer. When will the Government actually take decisive action to get the system back on track? Secondly, the Minister told the Work and Pensions Committee in June that the review has the power to recommend reductions, and that he had personally asked it to consider conditions such as anxiety and depression and neurodiverse conditions. Will the interim findings address whether PIP is the right benefit for those conditions, and will he tell the House whether he is ruling them in or ruling them out? Thirdly, before this review began, we were told that spending would not rise beyond existing projections, yet those projections already build in £43 billion of PIP spending by 2030. Does the Minister seriously believe that this amounts to meaningful reform? Would it not be better for the review to focus on identifying savings and restoring the long-term sustainability of the welfare system, rather than rubber-stamping an ever-growing bill for taxpayers? Finally, the Milburn review concluded that the PIP system is failing to engage young disabled people in meaningful conversations about aspiration, challenges and the support that they need, yet the Government response appears to move precisely in the opposite direction by extending PIP award periods and reducing the frequency of contact between claimants and the system. Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental contradiction between Alan Milburn’s diagnosis of the problem and the Government’s proposed solution? Welfare should be a safety net, never a way of life, and a Government who cannot reform welfare cannot control spending. Disabled people deserve certainty, and taxpayers deserve value. The country cannot afford yet another year of dithering and delay, so I ask the Minister simply: when will the Government stop reviewing and start reforming?
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate—the last debate of his that I contributed to was a few weeks ago on stoma care, when we managed to get some rather interesting entries into Hansard on the names that people give to their stomas, some of them quite inappropriate. An interesting point from that debate, which connects through to this issue, is the way conditions affect older people in different ways. Translating the very specific care needs that older people with stomas have, for example, into the context of a war zone or refugee camp gives an example of how that suffering would be greatened. As always, through referencing his constituent Margaret, the hon. Member brings to life the fact that, while we often talk in broad terms about statistics and facts in these debates, each of those represents a person with their own story to tell and their own suffering. I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and for her long-standing commitment. I have been in a number of debates where she has spoken, and while I have a different view from her on aid spending and I support the Government’s position, I recognise that she has long-standing and very sincerely held views on this subject. Debates such as this are where those views can be exchanged, and she has remained consistent in her views and advocated for them over time. I shall break the jolly consensus just to respond to one little point. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), brought forward the idea that we can use defence bonds as a magic answer for defence spending, and that that would avoid having to make any cuts whatsoever to the aid budget and get us back up to 0.7% without worrying. Borrowing costs are at their highest levels in decades, and the bond market is not a great place at the moment—and bonds still have to be paid back. We have not yet seen any understanding from the Liberal Democrats about how those bonds would be paid back, and how those ever-increasing borrowing costs would be factored in. The solution is not as simple as taking out a few extra bonds and then all will be fine with the international aid budget.
I hold Government bonds myself—as I am sure many people do—so I should probably declare an interest. As we know, the interest rate that all bonds are generally driven by is the headline interest rate and the bond markets overall. Otherwise, the Government would just borrow from the public every single time. It is not that simple, and there are knock-on effects of doing that. There is a reason why premium bonds are capped —because they are moving people’s money out of taxable savings into non-taxable savings, which hits the Treasury somewhere else. The issue is not as straightforward as it is presented. To get to the actual subject, it is evident that we are currently living in a more dangerous world than at any time in our recent past. Humanitarian crises in Africa are exacerbated by the actions of Governments; there is war in the middle east, with the terrorist regime in Tehran hellbent on causing chaos and instability; and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine signalled the end of the post-war peace dividend and brought the realities of war to Europe once again. Evidence shows that conflict disproportionately affects older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford has highlighted. Almost half the civilian deaths in the conflict in Ukraine are persons older than 60, despite that demographic constituting about one quarter of the population. Older people are more likely to remain in conflict zones because they have strong ties to their homes, lands and territories, or because they are physically more limited. With that in mind, we must seek to ensure that our overseas aid is targeted at those who need it most, with budgets properly scrutinised and value for money sought in every penny spent. Although many will want to discuss the size of the budget, it is equally important that we consider reforming the existing budget and improving the way it is spent. How can we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—for our national security, prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients abroad? With approximately 1.9 million pensioners living in the UK in relative poverty, we owe it to them to ensure that the money we send abroad is money well spent. That is why, throughout this debate, we must ask ourselves the best way to deliver for the needs of older people. We also must deliver a message to older people, both at home and in conflict areas overseas, that we see them, we hear them and we are here for them when needed. We have numerous reminders of older people’s vulnerabilities to conflict over recent years. In 2020, elderly Armenians who stayed in Nagorno-Karabakh were subject to summary executions. Indeed, older people made up more than half of all Armenian civilian deaths. We saw that trend again in Myanmar: older Rohingya who stayed in the face of advances were killed and tortured, and some people indicate that the highest rates of Rohingya deaths are among people aged 50 and over. It is no surprise, though it is never any less shocking, to see the suffering that Putin’s illegal invasion has caused to older Ukrainians. As I said, Ukrainians over 60 make up only 25% of their country’s population, yet they account for nearly half of civilian deaths and more than a third of injuries in frontline communities. The UN refugee agency polled older Ukrainians who remained in or near Russian-occupied areas last year and found that many stayed because they lacked an alternative. Indeed, 20% of respondents said that they would not evacuate because they felt helpless and did not know where to get the help they needed. Many felt that they would have nothing left if they evacuated. There is an opportunity to think outside the box on how we assist older people in conflict areas. For example, we know that many older people’s finances prevent them from evacuating. Ukraine and Poland have innovated and agreed a mechanism to allow refugees access to their pensions. Is the Minister discussing similar proposals with counterparts in war-torn countries elsewhere in the world where that could possibly be replicated? Many older people cited poor health as reasons for not evacuating their homes. After all, older displaced Ukrainians are more likely to report difficulties in accessing healthcare. I therefore ask the Minister how his Department is working with our humanitarian partners to make it clear to older people who want to evacuate how they can access that help. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that internally displaced peoples are able to return home when appropriate, rather than being forced to seek refuge in another country? Displaced older people in Sudan report difficulties in accessing information on essential services. Many older Syrians remained in war-torn areas in order to continue accessing healthcare. Some older Syrians are now returning to those same war-torn areas in search of more affordable and accessible healthcare. With that in mind, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that best practice on healthcare is shared? Of course, evacuating older people from conflict zones is only the first step. Those people can be vulnerable at every stage. Many older people are not mobile enough to reach official displacement camps. Some stop at unofficial locations, which are often overcrowded and have inadequate access to essentials. Some older people become separated from their families while evacuating, and they are vulnerable, particularly those with dementia, to becoming lost in institutional systems. Some evacuated older people struggle to register their presence at displacement camps. They often lack official documents, and registration points can be inaccessible. As a result, they may miss out on aid distribution and medical care. The international landscape is, sadly, defined by conflict and instability. Older people in conflict-threatened zones continue to be vulnerable. Problems accessing help, healthcare and finances persist. The Government have an opportunity to support older people affected by conflict. That will involve working with our partners to find new solutions and address the specific needs that older people have, as part of a wider programme of meaningful reform. I hope the Minister will explain how his Department is meeting the realities of our most dangerous world. I look forward to his response to my questions and the very detailed requests—as we would expect—from the hon. Member for Strangford.
On Tuesday morning, I, along with Members across the House, attended the national parliamentary prayer breakfast, which was a very uplifting occasion. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be an opportunity to thank the churches and faith groups across the country that provide so much support in our local communities? Will he arrange a debate in Government time so we can express our thanks and identify the many people up and down the country who contribute so much?
May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the reply she gave to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? By including some other admittedly vital services, she managed to come to a figure of 4% spending on defence. The reality, as we know, is that Europe is still heavily reliant on the US for its defence. Bearing in mind the President’s recent comments, will she acknowledge that further increases will have to take place over the coming years? It is an internal debate for Government whether that comes from the welfare budget, as the Father of the House suggested, or elsewhere.
I join the Minister in condemning Iran’s attacks in the region, but at some point very soon the UK will need to review its own defensive posture vis-à-vis UK armed forces responses in the region. Iran’s nuclear programme is diminished, not destroyed. Its ballistic missile programme is diminished, not destroyed. The Iranian regime is diminished, not destroyed. Meanwhile, the Iranian people continue to suffer—many of them have been executed in the last few days—and so do our friends and allies in the region, as we have seen over the last few hours. My constituents in Shropshire also continue to suffer, because of higher fuel prices. The United States has been around for 250 years; Iran—Persia—has been around for 2,500 years. Given that President Trump is supposed to be the great dealmaker, does the Minister agree that the Iranians are perhaps a little better at doing deals—or at not doing deals—than President Trump first thought when he set out on this adventure? Does the Minister also agree that it is perhaps time for the United Nations to get more involved?
This Saturday, we have the Newport agricultural show. Does the Leader of the House agree that agricultural shows are the lifeblood of many rural communities, a great showcase for the rural way of life and a great family day out? May we have a debate on the importance of agricultural shows, not only to Shropshire but to other counties as well? I also have a belated birthday present for him. If he would like to come to the Newport show—I do not know whether it will be the first time, but it may be the last—I invite him to get on and drive a tractor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By when?
6. What steps she is taking to support 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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
To strip this back further, can the Minister confirm whether a deal has been done?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
Oh!
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.