Ceramics Industry
I want to ask the Minister about the auction price that the Energy Secretary set today for offshore wind, which I understand is £120 per megawatt-hour. That sounds very high to me.
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Operation Valour
I welcome the Minister for Veterans and People to his new role. He will be interested to know that my Gosport constituency has the highest proportion of veterans in the country. A lot of them are saying that Operation Valour has good intentions when it comes to improving visibility and triaging access to care services, but it does not invest in services like housing and healthcare. The new Conservative administration that has just taken over Gosport borough council has inherited a 541-strong waiting list for council houses, and the NHS waiting list for treatment has gone up by 17,000 across Hampshire, this year alone. What will stop Op Valour being more than just window-dressing? How will it invest in the services that our veterans rely on?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T2. My constituent Clint is a veteran who suffered blast-related traumatic brain injuries during his service. Clint and his partner, Carol, are campaigning to get the MOD to recognise such injuries and provide more support to veterans. What is the Minister doing to address this issue, and will he please meet me to discuss how services across Government can be more joined up to support constituents such as Clint and veterans up and down the country?
- Hansard source
Civil Service Pensions
Capita’s failures have caused significant hardship to retiring civil servants across the country. The Minister is right that the immediate priority should be to resolve the hardship caused to our constituents. Looking forward, it is also important that the Government—and I mean all Governments, not just this one—get much better at managing and overseeing third-party contracts, to prevent this and similar issues from happening in the future. Time and again on the Public Accounts Committee, we assess departmental oversight of third-party contracts; the commercial management is, frankly, not good enough. Will the Minister outline what the Cabinet Office is doing to improve commercial management throughout the whole of Government?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The defence investment plan is split into two parts: the near-term investment plan, which covers the four remaining years of this Parliament, and the long-term investment plan, which covers the following five years, up to 2035. This is a 10-year plan, but that clearly only adds up to nine years—the plan should also cover up to the 2035-36 financial year. Will the Minister confirm that it is a 10-year plan and, if it is, whether the final part of the plan assumes that we are already spending 3.5% on defence?
- Hansard source
Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation
Earlier this year I asked the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box about the case of Fabian Henry, a child rapist who was removed from a deportation flight in 2021 after the Home Secretary herself, then in opposition, signed a letter calling for the removal of people from that flight. Last October, I also asked the Minister for an update on Fabian Henry and whether he was still in the country, and he refused to tell me based on the fact that the Home Office does not comment on individual cases. Given that Fabian Henry could be removed from the country under current legislation in the UK Borders Act 2007, what confidence should any of us or any of the victims of Shabir Ahmed have that the Government are going to change the law in order to facilitate his deportation?
- Hansard source
Environmental Protection
We recognise that the current system for regulating those who transport and control waste needs to be updated to ensure the waste sector has a regulatory framework that delivers the safe and responsible management of waste and reduces opportunities for criminal activity without being unduly burdensome to businesses in the sector. The impacts of waste crime are significant, causing damage to our environment and natural habitats and imposing a cost to the taxpayer of nearly £1 billion per year. It undercuts legitimate businesses and undermines public confidence. I am pleased that the Government are attempting to tackle waste crime at source through this SI, but I have some concerns as to how it will be implemented and function, which I will address shortly. Before I come to that, I note that the responses to the consultation were broadly supportive of the proposal to move from registration to permitting, as this SI outlines, with 73% of respondents agreeing that the current waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime should be brought under environmental permitting regulations. The concept of proportionate regulation, in which higher-risk activities receive greater scrutiny while genuinely low-risk operators can benefit from exemptions, is one that makes sense and that we would support in principle. However, recognising the need for reform does not mean burdening legitimate businesses with ever-increasing costs. I want to raise some concerns with the Minister in a constructive manner, in the hope that she can reassure the House that the Government have struck the right balance between stronger regulation and the burdens being placed on businesses already under considerable pressure by the costs and consequences of other policies brought forward by this Government. Over the appraisal period, businesses will face almost £187 million in permit fees, more than £50 million in familiarisation costs, significant application and audit costs, and well over £190 million in additional training and technical competence requirements. The Government are banking on the fact that those costs, which are very significant, will be outweighed by the benefits of reductions in waste crime and of creating a fairer marketplace for legitimate operators. However, as the Minister will know, the impact assessment showed an overall negative net present value from this policy of £340 million over the appraisal period. That is substantial. Even given the potential for a conservative estimate of reduced waste crime and other potential non-monetised benefits and wider social benefits, there is significant uncertainty. In the current economic climate, will the Minister reassure us that there will be appropriate monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the significant costs for businesses do not escalate further and to check that the benefits are fully realised? In particular, how will the Government monitor the cumulative impact of these new requirements on smaller operators? We all want to drive criminals out of the sector, but we must ensure that we do not inadvertently make life disproportionately harder for responsible businesses. Businesses are already dealing with the consequences of this Government’s policies, from the jobs tax to increased costs and ever more burdensome regulations. Against that backdrop, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether businesses have been given sufficient time, support and clarity to prepare for these significant changes to the waste sector. Will the Minister provide further detail on the guidance that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency intend to publish ahead of commencement? What assurances can she give about the resources in place so that any permit applications will be responded to and actioned promptly? While we welcome the intention to strengthen enforcement, what confidence can the Minister give the House that enforcement activity will be genuinely targeted at rogue operators, rather than becoming an additional bureaucratic burden on compliant firms? Finally, the Government intend to evaluate these reforms through the wider resources and waste policy programme, with reporting due in 2029. Given the scale of these changes and the costs involved, will the Minister commit to providing Parliament with earlier updates on implementation, compliance costs and whether the anticipated reductions in waste crime are actually being achieved? Given the Government’s familiarity with U-turns, we may need to revisit this SI sooner rather than later if it is failing to work for the sector. If this SI is implemented well, it should protect the environment while enabling responsible businesses to thrive. We support the objective of modernising an outdated regime and strengthening action against waste crime, but we also believe Ministers must recognise the cumulative pressures facing businesses and ensure implementation is carefully managed. It is in that constructive spirit that we will continue to scrutinise the implementation of these regulations, holding the Government to account to ensure these reforms deliver the environmental benefits that Ministers promise without imposing unnecessary burdens on the businesses that are working hard to comply with the law.
- Hansard source
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents
I thank the Housing Minister for all his tireless work on these landmark commonhold reforms—I only hope he finds my constant lobbying not too tiresome. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her leadership on this issue. My parents and grandparents are in the Gallery today. I thank them for ensuring that throughout my childhood, I had a roof over my head. Thanks to their efforts, I have enjoyed the childhood tour around all the various property tenures possible under English law—from council, to private rental, to leasehold, to freehold and a brief interlude as lodgers in a community Christian church. When my parents moved to Earley, they bought a freehold house that was built in the 1960s. It came with no strings attached. If they had bought the same house on a new build estate built in the last two decades, it would have likely come with estate charges, standing charges for some, and often low-quality roads and communal infrastructure that will never have any route to adoption by the local council. They would have had a contract to pay these fees to a property manager—someone they did not choose and who they almost certainly cannot leave. Five million leaseholders also face similar fees, from ground rent to property management charges that are difficult to change. What has happened over those few decades since the 1960s to make things so much worse for young families moving into new builds today? The negotiations and relationships between developers and local authorities, as other Members have pointed out, have taken a turn for the worse. As a result, over a thousand constituents have been in touch with me, seeking advice for taking control of property management and breaking free of the monopoly held over them. The problems are not just about charges. In 2024, the average annual service charge bill rose by 11% to £2,300—four times the rate of inflation over the same period—so the average service charge now exceeds the average cost of all other utilities combined. In Shinfield, the impact on my constituents goes beyond that; they also pay a suitable alternative natural greenspace charge. Following negotiations that I instigated between the landowners and the residents, they are still waiting for a final agreed position. They also face a lack of transparency. Residents in Woodley, for example, have negotiated through me a service charge freeze with their managing agents, FirstPort, but there is still lack of transparency about the underlying charges.
- Hansard source
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents
One resident, June, said: “I’m afraid that all the years of bullying, alternating with being ignored by FirstPort on all levels, have finally taken their toll on my mental health”. It is time for better regulation.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Wolverhampton community radio—101.8 WCR FM—in my constituency provides a vital service for people across the city. It gives a platform to local voices, community groups, charities and volunteers, and keeps residents informed about the issues that matter to them most. I have been on the radio talking about knife crime and the Pride in Place programme. At a time when we have had reductions in local radio services following commercial radio mergers, will the Leader of the House please agree to a debate in Government time to recognise the invaluable contribution of community radio stations, such as Wolverhampton community radio, and the importance of providing sustainable, long-term funding for community broadcasting across the country?
- Hansard source
Historical Forced Adoption
I am really grateful to the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and apology. As a man of faith, I struggle to see what possible religious justification there could have been to take babies away from young mothers just because they were not married, and I have to feel a sense of shame that religion could be used in such a way. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all the mothers, campaigners and members of trade unions, including members of my own trade union, the GMB, for their decades of campaigning to achieve this apology. One would have hoped that the apology could have come sooner, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing?
- Hansard source
Air Pollution
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for leading this debate and, as ever, for his gentle but decisive prose. Members will be pleased, I am sure, to hear that my remarks will be a bit shorter. Toxic air is a public health crisis—it is also an environmental crisis, but the health element, especially for our children, is what concerns me today. Air pollution can stunt the growth of children’s lungs, hamper foetal development and contribute to cancer, heart disease, dementia and even mental health conditions. Our air can become an invisible killer, but sadly, because we do not see it, we do not quite understand it. Every single year, an estimated 30,000 deaths are attributable to long-term exposure to dirty air, and, at one point, in Newham—one of the boroughs I represent—1.7 in every 100 deaths were caused by air pollution. In 2013, one of those 30,000 was a nine-year-old girl. We have already heard her name today: Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She died following an asthma attack. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of Ella’s mum, Rosamund, who demanded answers and pushed for justice for her daughter, Ella became the first person in the UK for whom air pollution is listed as an official cause of death. I know Rosamund from my time working for the Mayor of London, so I saw her tireless work at first hand—her advocacy has been incredible. It was a landmark decision: Ella was exposed to excessive levels of pollution. The toxic air cut her beautiful life short, and robbed a family of their sister and a mother of her daughter. Their lives have never been the same since. That is the price that our younger citizens paid for our inaction. If the air in Ella’s neighbourhood had been safe, and if she had not been exposed to toxic gases, she would have been in her 20s today—probably a trailblazer in her own right, but we will never know. That is the human cost of our negligence. No child should suffer as Ella did, and no family or mother should have to go through what they did. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by failing this generation of young people. It is clear that, with political will, creativity and resolve, we can turn the tide. I was there for the inception of ULEZ, and I am proud to have been part of the team who worked on it from 2016 onwards. In the five years since it came in, the Mayor of London’s bold approach has reduced London’s nitrogen oxide levels by over 40%—that is no small feat. It has reduced fine particulate pollution levels by around 30%. These are not pie-in-the-sky statistics. That work is driving down hospital admissions, protecting the health of children and pensioners alike, and easing the burden on our NHS.
- Hansard source
Air Pollution
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. For some Members on the right, particularly those representing outer London suburbs, that issue has become the newest punching bag. This should not be about party politics; it should be about cleaning up our polluted air. In just five years, we have seen the difference here in London thanks to bold leadership from our mayor, Sadiq Khan. Dirty air is deadly, but the future is in our hands. We have shown that progress is possible and that we can turn the tide. This should not be a controversial thing. Breathing clean air should not be a privilege reserved just for children in postcodes in leafy suburbs. We would never expect anyone to drink dirty water, so why are we accepting the breathing of dirty air? That is the simple premise behind Ella’s law, which I am very proud to support as a signatory. That legislation, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, makes one clear claim: every person has the right to breathe clean air. I welcome the fact that the Government have identified clean air as a priority for the 10-year health plan. In that spirit, I urge the Minister to take a fresh look at our national targets and our legal pollution limits, and to commit to introducing Ella’s law to tackle the serious air pollution challenges and cut down the causes of toxic pollution. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air, no matter where they live or who they are. That should be the thing that unites this whole House.
- Hansard source
Air Pollution
The Conservatives in City Hall called the whole of ULEZ “bewildering” and have objected to it at every turn. I read out the statistics earlier: there has been a 40% reduction in nitrogen oxide levels and a huge positive impact in London from ULEZ. The Mayor of London won two decisive elections after its introduction. London has also been recognised as a global leader by the United Nations. The Secretary-General himself invited the Mayor of London to the United Nations to speak about ULEZ and London’s climate action. Should the hon. Member not congratulate London for its climate action and decisive air quality improvements, and actually support that good work?
- Hansard source
Historical Forced Adoption
I thank the Prime Minister for his moving statement and the formal apology today. We have heard the heartfelt personal experiences of Members across the House and the experiences of their constituents, and it has been deeply moving. I know that all our thoughts are with the mothers, babies and families separated and with everyone in England who has lived with this trauma. The shame was never theirs, and this apology recognises that. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) promoted a Bill, Philomena’s law, that I was honoured to co-sponsor. It would ensure that victims of mother and baby homes in Ireland would not lose care support for accepting compensation that they are rightly owed. In the spirit of the statement today, will the Prime Minister reiterate this Government’s commitment that the social care entitlements of survivors of Ireland’s mother and baby homes will be protected? Will he ensure that we continue to work closely with the Government of Ireland to ensure that British survivors abroad are also supported?
- Hansard source
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents
Residents in Stratford and Bow tell me that some of their monthly service charges have now reached almost £600. It is driving them to the financial brink, and many of their neighbours are now facing legal threats for falling behind. I have had to intervene on several occasions, calling public meetings with management agents that are behaving terribly and treating residents as cash cows. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute disgrace that leaseholders continue to be pushed about by unregulated property management agents who are profiteering from our constituents, and that the Government must bring forward robust measures to protect leaseholders as quickly as possible?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
More than 70 organisations and novelist Irvine Welsh are backing the community-led bid for Leith to become the first ever UK town of culture. Can my right hon. Friend put in a word for Leith with Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and will he make arrangements for a written statement to update us on the timetable of the UK town of culture 2028 competition?
- Hansard source
Historical Forced Adoption
As an adopted person born in 1972, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. I have no idea if my birth mother felt forced to have me adopted, but I do know that prior to the birth, she was in a Church of Scotland mother and baby home. My adoptive parents have since died, but I am sure that they would not have wanted to adopt any child who had been forcibly removed from their mother. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that mothers should be supported by the state to look after their children and not forced to give them up?
- Hansard source
Distillers
Distilleries in my constituency—I count nine of them—overwhelmingly rely on kerosene heating oil to make their product. Since President Trump’s folly in Iran, they have seen costs rise by 18%. It is not just the distilleries; seaweed manufacturing, chemical processing at Callanish and the iconic Harris tweed industry all rely on kerosene heating oil to make their products. Domestic consumers in the islands are helped by generous support from the Government, but can the Minister outline what the UK Government can do to help these energy-reliant industries that keep hundreds of jobs in Na h-Eileanan an Iar keep on going?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the 2nd Wednesfield scout group on its upcoming 100th anniversary? I give particular thanks to Steve Rogers, better known as Codge, for 50 years of service. He has shown incredible dedication to so many young people, over many generations, in and around Wednesfield. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Codge and all involved in our scout groups in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the country?
- Hansard source
Historical Forced Adoption
I must start by thanking the victims and sufferers who came to the Education Committee and shared their harrowing, first-hand lived experiences. It was extremely difficult to hear but—my gosh—it must have been unimaginable to actually live those experiences. But again and again, the victims were put through processes where they had to relive their trauma in an unacceptable struggle for the justice they deserve. I thank the Prime Minister for his unreserved, heartfelt apology, but does he agree that this must be just the beginning, with survivor-led support, specialised counselling, improved access to records and help to reunite families living with this injustice?
- Hansard source
Air Pollution
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate all hon. Members for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate and for speaking with such characteristic passion about this issue. There is clear consensus that air pollution remains one of the most significant environmental risks to public health and I welcome the strength of feeling expressed today on the need to continue to make progress. I also welcome the ongoing inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee into air pollution. Scrutiny of that kind plays an important role in strengthening our approach and the Government have been keenly following the evidence received by the Committee. We look forward to engaging further with the Committee, and Ministers will give evidence to it in due course. The issue goes beyond environmental policy. As many Members have confirmed, it is about fairness. The dirtiest air sits over the poorest neighbourhoods. Black and minority ethnic communities and those on low incomes are far more likely to be exposed to air pollution while contributing the least to it. That is exactly the kind of injustice the Labour party and this Labour Government exist to tackle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) rightly mentioned, it is also about the NHS. We are the party that built it and protecting it means preventing illness, not just funding treatment. Dirty air contributes to about 30,000 early deaths each year, and it drives asthma, cancer, heart disease and dementia. An NHS fit for the future requires action not just inside hospital walls, but on the air outside their doors. I will certainly take the questions my hon. Friend has raised back to the Department. This issue is also about pride in place. Clean air underpins better neighbourhoods, safer streets, greener spaces and thriving high streets. Making a visible improvement that people can feel is at the heart of our mission to restore pride in the places that people call home. Let me be clear: the Government recognise both the scale of the challenge and the need for sustained, co-ordinated action. We have made substantial progress in recent years. Air quality in England has improved significantly and emissions of key air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, have reduced and are projected to continue to fall. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West mentioned the DEFRA statistics that came out this week, and they all show long-term improvement. The trajectory is promising, but, as I will go on to say later, we need to do much more. The improvements have been driven by major shifts in the United Kingdom, such as the transition from coal to natural gas to renewables in electricity generation, the tighter vehicle emission standards and improved industrial controls. However, there is much more to do to fully unlock the benefits for public health, the environment and the economy. That is why we are continuing to take action to reduce emissions at source, working closely with local authorities and partners across the health system. A number of Members have made remarks about targets. In December, we set more ambitious interim targets for fine particulate matter, including a concentration target aligned with the level the EU is required to achieve. Overall, our national performance is broadly comparable with the EU for many pollutants. Areas in England are already meeting levels like those that the EU is aiming for by 2030. We will keep other targets under review, but real world improvements need tangible action. As set out in the environmental improvement plan, we are taking practical action in a range of sectors, and that will deliver real benefits for communities across the country. A number of Members raised the issue of nitrogen dioxide, which remains a challenge, as we recognise. In 2024, five location zones exceeded the annual mean limit and some local hotspots persist. That said, committed policies to tackle nitrogen dioxide, such as increasing the share of zero-emission cars and vans by 2030 and moving to all new sales being zero emission by 2035, will make a significant difference. We will continue to work closely with our partners in local government to deliver nitrogen dioxide reductions. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West raised the matter of domestic burning. We recognise that it is responsible for a significant proportion of fine particulate matter emissions; it is comparable with road transport. We must act to reduce the impact of burning on the health of those in households who burn and their neighbours. However, we must do so in a way that does not put disproportionate costs on households or businesses. The policies consulted on earlier this year focused on reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel burning to ensure cleaner burning in the future, delivering health benefits. We received a significant number of responses, which we are considering, and the Government response will be published later in the year and will set out the next steps. We will continue to review our measures to reduce emissions from that source. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), mentioned the importance of communication and engagement with communities. The issue of air pollution is complex and often invisible. The challenge is not just about reducing emissions but about making sure that people understand the risks, know what action to take and feel empowered to act. That is why clear, trusted and accessible communications are so important. We have already taken positive steps, including updating the health advice accompanying the daily air quality index, which provides the public with current pollution levels, five-day forecasts and health advice based on pollution levels. Through a new air pollution awareness coalition, we are working with health and non-governmental organisation partners to deliver clean and credible messaging on air pollution. The coalition will deliver practical and trusted communications to improve public understanding of air pollution and support action to reduce harm. We have also commissioned a co-design project working with local authority officers and directors of public health to create a new air quality communications toolkit, supporting local authorities to disseminate cleaner, clearer and locally relevant air quality information. New resources are due to be published at the end of the calendar year.
- Hansard source
Air Pollution
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have launched a consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, which includes the requirement that the development consent must meet measures on climate change and air quality. Likewise, the Government have been clear that any expansion proposals must meet strict environmental requirements on air quality. I will certainly take his concerns back to my Department. In May, we launched the first iteration of a new alert system, allowing people to sign up for notifications when air pollution is forecast or measured to be high in their local community. A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), have made points about cross-Government working. Air pollution is not an issue any one department can solve in isolation. It requires co-ordinated action across transport, energy, planning, agriculture and health, and we are working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that our approach is aligned, evidence-led and deliverable. I can assure all Members that we recognise the importance of cross-Government working, working with our devolved Governments and in partnership with local authorities on these matters. On a clean air Act, the Government have no plans to implement new primary legislation at this stage, but we are committed to ensuring that there is cleaner air for everyone, backed by a strong legal framework that already holds Government to account and drives down harmful pollution. It is also important to recognise that as progress continues, the choices become more complex. Further reductions often require changes that carry wider financial implications for businesses, households and communities. Looking ahead, we will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders as we consider the best approach to review our air quality strategy. This is a complex challenge, but one where progress is possible and essential. The Government are working hard to deliver the commitments made in the environmental improvement plan, including through reforming our industrial emissions regulation, reducing emissions from domestic combustion and improving communications on air quality. We will keep progress under review.
- Hansard source
Air Pollution
My understanding is that there is already a legal framework to deliver on the targets that we are committed to achieving. I welcome the scrutiny from this House and the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that the Minister responsible for air quality in DEFRA has been watching the debate and looks forward to contributing to future discussions, so that we can all work together to deliver cleaner air for communities across our country.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Tenth sitting)
I am very sympathetic to this amendment, and to the argument that patients and carers should have enough information about what they are providing care for. In the current system, carers get a copy of the care plan, which states what the patient’s care needs are, as assessed by health professionals. Does the hon. Member agree that carers need to see only the care plan for the patient, rather than the patient’s whole record?
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
My understanding is that the single patient record is just a single place where all of a patient’s medical records will be kept. It will not necessarily change the ways in which they access healthcare services, such as A&E, the GP or a dentist. Those ways of accessing healthcare will stay the same, whether we have a single patient record or not.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
I declare that I am a registered nurse. I have worked in the NHS for many years, and I have used patient records throughout my career. The Nursing and Midwifery Council code requires nurses, midwives and nursing associates to respect patient confidentiality, share information appropriately and ensure that patients are informed about how their information is used. That is the existing system, and every nurse, midwife and nursing associate has to follow the code of practice. A similar code is there for the General Medical Council for doctors, and all other registered professionals follow those codes. On top of that, information governance in the NHS ensures that patient data is handled legally, securely and ethically, providing a framework for data protection and confidentiality. We have numerous different digital systems in the health system currently. Before anyone gets access to those digital systems and patient records, they all have to go through information governance and data protection training. They are then given access to patient records. That is the existing system. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has just mentioned the Nottingham incident, which is a good example. It is a clear example of where those who accessed the records were able to be identified. There is a clear audit trail, and I have my own experience of taking people through disciplinary proceedings for accessing patients’ notes when it was not relevant to those staff. The existing patient data systems do have provisions to safeguard and monitor who is accessing patient records.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
I agree that we are never going to have 100% proof. There will always be people accessing records. What I am talking about is the existing system, which does have provisions. What we need to strengthen is the training and the audit trail. All staff who do the training are aware that they are not supposed to check patients’ records unless it is relevant to them. Those who access records inappropriately should be identified and action should be taken. Just because we are moving to a single patient record system, it does not mean that everybody is going to access everything they want. People working in the healthcare system are given access based on their role. Not everybody is able to access everything. Systems are in place, and we need to strengthen those systems and the training. We should not be scaremongering by saying that, because we are moving to a single patient record, everybody will be able to see their records.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
I wish to speak in support of clause 47. I spoke on Second Reading about my strong support for the introduction of a single patient record. I am not a tech expert like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
It really surprised me to hear my hon. Friend talk about his experience of 450 systems in the computer system in his local hospital. I was shocked, because as a clinician who previously worked in the NHS, I wanted a system that made patient records readily available so that we could care for patients. My understanding is that the clause amends the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a system to make patient information readily available to patients and to those involved in providing health or social care in England. Under the current system, care and treatment across different parts of the NHS are not as co-ordinated as they could and should be. All too often, that means that patients have to repeat their medical history every time they see a different medical professional. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about how that can sometimes be useful for getting the diagnosis right, but it can be very traumatising for someone to have to explain the same story again in such a short period of time. Speaking in the Chamber, I previously gave the example of a mental health patient going to A&E on a Friday. They tell their story to the professionals there and they tell the same story later when a mental health professional comes to see them. When they are admitted into a mental health hospital, they have to explain the same story when going into the ward, and then again to the nurses. Having to repeat their story again and again is traumatising for most patients.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Absolutely; a single patient record will not stop professionals from asking the necessary questions of patients at any time. Each ward round, the doctors ask the patients how they are feeling. They will have that conversation; that will not stop. We are talking about repeatedly having to tell the story. The point was highlighted when the Committee heard from Jacob Lant, the chief executive officer of National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities. In his 15 years of patient and public engagement, the most consistent theme is patients’ frustration at constantly having to retell their story, and the fact that medical notes are not available across different healthcare settings. Not only is that frustrating for patients, but it can also be deeply distressing. Kath Abrahams, the chief executive of Tommy’s, told the Committee that “Women report constantly having to retell their story—highly sensitive or traumatic experiences of loss—and that repetition can happen across the early pregnancy unit and maternity services.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 66, Q108.] As medical professionals, we are taught the importance of empathy and understanding, but if the absence of a unified patient record system is aggravating traumatic experiences for patients, we need to address that. The absence of a national unified report can also compromise patient safety and lead to clinicians making decisions based on partial or incomplete information, significantly increasing the risk of error. We heard evidence of that from the chair of Healthwatch England, who highlighted the risk posed to patients with multiple comorbidities. He said: “Without a single patient record, we can find that a consultant or a GP has access to only one part of that multiple comorbidity…That can lead to all sorts of unforeseen errors.” That can result in poor health outcomes, increased hospital admissions and reduced patient trust, which is why he went on to speak about “the great advantage that we can get from a single patient record.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 49, Q79.] Experienced mental health patients often move between A&E, GPs and mental health services and have to repeatedly go through that traumatic experience. I have spoken in the House previously about my deep frustration that the digital records available to me in mental health services in Kent and Medway were incompatible with those used in other parts of the NHS, both locally and across the rest of England. I know that that frustration is shared, so in advance of the Committee’s consideration of clause 47 I spoke to some of my former colleagues, as well as other healthcare professionals in my constituency, to find out what systems are used to record patient information.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
My patient record is currently kept by different organisations or providers, which cannot see each other. If I speak to the GP about my blood sugar and then end up in A&E, they cannot see that record. If I go to the mental health service, they cannot see what medication I was taking. When I get discharged back to the GP, he will not get the information on my medication. That is the clinical aspect I am talking about, although I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I hope the Minister will address some of those issues. The responses I collected demonstrate how disparate and fragmented digital record systems are within just one local area. I do not think any of our constituents are aware that their data is kept in different places and that the services do not talk to each other. That is what the Bill is trying to address. All that information will be available for doctors, nurses and any other healthcare providers so that they can see patients’ history and medication and those patients will be more safe. Things will be more transparent. It will be easier for admission to discharge processes.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
I hope that would be the outcome of this legislation. I will give an example. My constituency is very close to Dover. Lots of travellers go through Ashford, my constituency. We often get patients from Scotland, Manchester or Liverpool, for whom doctors cannot start a treatment because they have to wait 24 hours to 48 hours to get the information from the hospital where the person comes from. I am not saying that the story is the same across the country, but that is what we are experiencing.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)
I do not know whether there will be the same system in Scotland, but my understanding is that in the north of England doctors will be able to see the same system. Again, we can hear more detail from the Minister. A single patient report has the potential to transform patient experience and safety by ensuring continuity of care, by reducing unnecessary repetition, by enabling better informed clinical decisions and the smoother discharge of patients, and by creating a more efficient and joined up healthcare system.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The business for the week commencing 6 July will include: Monday 6 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security (State Threats) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026. Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day, second allotted day. Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced. Wednesday 8 July—Debate on a motion on UK rearmament and war fighting readiness, followed by general debate on corridor care in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee. Thursday 9 July—General debate on a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, followed by debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee. Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July includes: Monday 13 July—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day, third allotted day. Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced. Thursday 16 July—The Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee. The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 July and return on Tuesday 1 September.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Let me join the right hon. Gentleman in sending our congratulations to the England football team—we all look forward to the early hours of Monday morning. Before I respond, let me pay a personal tribute to my predecessor, Sir Neville Trotter, formerly the Conservative MP for Tynemouth for more than 20 years, who, unfortunately, passed away at the weekend. We had our political differences, but he was a much respected politician who dedicated his life to public service. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and friends. I congratulate Eve Samson on her appointment as the 53rd Clerk of the House. Eve has worked in the House for almost 40 years. She brings a wealth of experience to the role and will be a distinguished successor to Tom Goldsmith. She will also make history as the first woman Clerk of the House. This week, the youth jobs grant was launched. Businesses who take on jobless youngsters will be offered thousands of pounds in the latest boost to youth employment support. It is a practical step that helps business investment in young people while giving them the confidence, skills, experience and support they need to embark on their careers. Also this week, the outdated and harmful Vagrancy Act 1824 has been repealed, bringing an end to two centuries of legislation that has criminalised rough sleeping and begging. Repealing the Act is a vital step in ending a system that has failed to address the causes of rough sleeping. It shifts the focus towards prevention and long-term solutions. Many hon. Members, including the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), have raised the issue with me in this forum, and I know they will be pleased to see that the Act has finally been repealed. Let me turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I remind him that, since 2024, tough decisions have been taken, which is why inflation is lower and interest rates have fallen. At the same time, we have invested more in public services. However, we accept that the security situation has deteriorated—the challenges are there—which is why the Government brought forward the defence investment plan, and plans on how we will fund it. The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the situation internationally in 2010 was different—of course, it was—and that the then Government were reeling from the global economic crisis. Let me remind him that in 2024 this Government and the country were reeling from 14 years of Tory mismanagement. Let me return to the key issue of defence expenditure. The Government have already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war and surpassed the promises we made in our manifesto. Our plan provides funding to strengthen military readiness, accelerate drone transformation, boost fighter jets and strengthen our nuclear deterrent. At the same time, we will create nearly 60,000 extra UK industry jobs by the end of the decade. We inherited a situation where £54 billion a year was being spent on defence, but under this Government that figure will rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029. Any plan will have its critics, but I note that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and the Chief of the Defence Staff have backed our plan. We are on track to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The vast majority of this package has already been funded through the right and tough decisions to prioritise departmental spending. This will give the Ministry of Defence the certainty that it needs to get on with the job. The remaining £1 billion a year over four years will be confirmed in the usual way in the Budget. With regard to R and R, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any major project needs to be managed properly and that where taxpayers’ money is concerned, we must get value for money. In that regard, I hope to bring forward a motion shortly to allow the House a long overdue debate on the next steps with R and R. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is broadly a consensus in this House about the need to get on with restoration and renewal, and that message comes through in recent public polling; three out of four people want to see us get on and take the necessary action to restore this place. However, there is not consensus about how we will actually do it. I am very keen to build consensus and ensure that we have the right safeguards; the right hon. Gentleman and others are perhaps critical of some of the report that has been produced, but we want to build that consensus. I am very grateful to the NAO for its recent report and to the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to the Committee’s investigation, so that it can bring forward recommendations. I hope that, at the end of it all, the House can come together so that we can get on with this, because it is long overdue.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
My hon. Friend is a strong defender of the interests of her constituents, and I listen very carefully to her concerns. The Government are committed to improving maternity across the country. That is why we have set up a national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and we are very keen to get on with it. If she wishes to apply for an Adjournment debate, she could hear directly from a Minister about how her specific constituency concerns might be addressed, and if she wishes to seek a meeting with Ministers to make her case, I will help her to arrange one.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I am concerned to hear of a business closing, particularly one that has been around for such a long time and which has served a community. I am genuinely sorry to hear that. Small businesses are at the heart of our local communities and economies, and the Government are committed to supporting them in every way that we can, which is why our small business plan will save businesses time and money, boost access to finance and create new opportunities—but I do understand that for some businesses, there is an alternative scenario. We are also supporting a large number of businesses through a £4.3 billion business rates package. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about national insurance, but the change was made so that we could invest in our public services. He cannot have it both ways; Liberal Democrats constantly talk about the need for more spending on all sorts of things, and yet, when it comes to a difficult decision about voting for the money, they vote the wrong way.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
In short: yes, I do. Our thoughts should be with the victims of these appalling crimes. The perpetrators in grooming gangs and sexual abuse cases must face the full force of the law, whoever they are and wherever they come from—let me be absolutely clear about that. If the individual we are talking about breaches the very strict conditions that have been placed upon him, he will be locked up again immediately—I hope he pays heed to that—but I also know that the Government are exploring every option in this case.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving an update on what the Committee is planning, and I thank the Committee for its work. We were able to provide more time in response to the Chairman’s request last time, and it is good to see that coastal communities are getting a hearing. I am pleased to confirm, as I did in my statement, that the Sir David Amess debate is taking place, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words that it is a good opportunity for colleagues to raise any concern. I will give early notice, where I can, of plans for when we return in September. The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous campaigner on police pensions. The 1987 police pension scheme is now closed and has been superseded by the 2015 scheme, and there are no plans for further improvements to the benefits accrued under it. However, I will make sure that Ministers have heard his concerns; should he wish to raise them with Ministers personally, I will help him to arrange a meeting.