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
I am disappointed at the hon. Gentleman’s statement. We are making the case strongly and our pledge to reduce energy bills still stands. He will know that renewables are the quickest way to reduce our energy bills. He will also know that the warm home discount is providing significant support to people in his constituency right now. Just this year, the number of people in his constituency receiving the warm home discount has more than doubled to over 5,000.
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. If we are to reach our clean power targets, we need heat networks on the system to be providing significant levels of clean heat. He will know that the green heat network fund is already providing significant support across the country, and we will of course look at what more we can do to support heat networks over the coming years.
I know the recent rise in energy bills will be very concerning for families across the country. At the last Budget, we took an average of £150 off energy bills, which is now factored into our bills for years to come, and we have also expanded the warm home discount.
We are preparing for every contingency and looking at the support that may be required in the autumn and winter. The significant increase in the warm home discount has obviously benefited households right across the country, not least in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The number receiving the warm home discount in York Central has increased from nearly 2,500 to over 8,000, to a value of £1.2 million in support offered to her constituents.
This is nonsense. That was set up by an arm’s length organisation set up by the previous Government. It is not something that the Government are funding. In so far as that refers to more affordable energy, we are obviously working at pace to make sure energy is affordable right across the United Kingdom, including whatever support we can offer in Northern Ireland.
I commend my hon. Friend and his constituents for their enthusiasm for the warm homes plan. They can already access grants through the warm homes plan, and they will soon be able to receive loans.
I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend is doing for her constituents on this issue. The most effective way to decouple our electricity prices from gas is to expand our renewable generation. Every wind turbine we turn on and every solar panel that we deploy helps to push gas off as the price-setter. We will continue to work in this way.
My hon. Friend is right that more people need to claim the support that is on offer, and I encourage them to do that in his constituency and across Scotland. My understanding is that just over £1 million of the £10 million in the fund has been distributed.
I will share details of that with the hon. Lady. We are also undertaking the cost allocation review, which deals with those issues.
Third-party brokers will rightly be regulated through the energy independence Bill, but the market is complex, and time-poor business owners still find it hard to find the right deal. Is the Secretary of State willing to explore measures to standardise business energy bills, and will he look at new data rights under smart data powers, so that small and medium-sized enterprise owners can take back control?
I was flattered to hear my comments on Second Reading quoted by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I think she has misunderstood me. My question to the Minister was and still is about how we maintain within the new arrangements the ability to speak up on behalf of others. Could the Minister comment on that?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Desmond. When I said this was likely not to be a particularly controversial piece of delegated legislation, I did not really expect that the shadow Minister would be racing in at the last minute—but he is here now. These draft regulations relate to the key route network of the West Midlands Combined Authority. Let me begin by setting out what the KRN is and why it matters. Under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, every strategic authority is required to identify the most important locally managed roads in its area. Those roads form the KRN. In practice, most authorities, including WMCA, already operate such a network. The purpose is simple: a KRN ensures that the locally managed roads that carry the greatest strategic importance are planned and managed coherently across the whole region. The Government published guidance in April 2026 to support authorities in deciding which roads should be included. The KRN should include those locally managed roads that are most important for delivering the priorities set out in the local transport plan. Authorities should consider issues such as traffic volume, bus use, active travel routes and freight movements. In mayoral combined authorities, the KRN is agreed by a resolution of the authority following a proposal by the mayor. In the west midlands, the KRN covers around 605 km of road. That is roughly 7% of the network, yet it carries half of all traffic. WMCA oversees the strategic direction of the network, but the constituent councils of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton remain the local highways authorities and retain responsibility for day-to-day management, maintenance and safety of the KRN roads. WMCA does, however, share certain powers with them, including those relating to agreements with National Highways, road safety promotion and street works permit schemes. The 2026 Act also gave mayors powers of direction over KRN roads. That is a carefully limited power, intended for use only when necessary to deliver measures already set out in an agreed strategy, such as the local transport plan. It ensures that strategic ambitions for the region can be implemented consistently across local boundaries. The benefits of a well-managed KRN are clear: smoother traffic flow, reduced congestion, and the ability to introduce targeted interventions that improve infrastructure and bus reliability. It is a tool designed to help places to plan for the future and to respond to changing travel patterns. The Committee will be aware that travel patterns have changed, particularly since the pandemic. It is prudent for all strategic authorities to keep their KRN under review and to update it when the existing list of roads no longer reflects local priorities. For other authorities, updating the KRN is straightforward: they simply revise the list on their website. However, WMCA faces a unique challenge. Its KRN was written directly into legislation, the West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017, in which the roads are described as combined authority roads. That was, of course, under a previous Government. In 2017, embedding the KRN in legislation provided clarity and stability, since WMCA was then newly established; but nine years later, the rigidity of having the KRN set out in legislation is a barrier to change. West Midlands Combined Authority is preparing a new local transport plan and wishes to update its KRN accordingly, yet doing so currently requires WMCA to ask the Department for Transport to legislate each time it wants to make a change. No other strategic authority faces that constraint, and I am sure the Committee will agree that it is not an efficient way of doing things. Following discussions with my officials, WMCA has written to the Secretary of State, requesting that the Government bring forward this instrument. A public consultation was held and 69% of respondents supported the proposal. The regulations remove the list of KRN roads from the 2017 order; once they are approved, WMCA will be able to update its KRN in the same way as every other strategic authority, allowing the region to respond more flexibly to evolving travel patterns and to deliver better outcomes for road users. This is a practical and proportionate change that supports devolution, improves processes for WMCA and ultimately benefits road users. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
I am delighted to hear that the shadow Minister finds the speeches of my noble friend the Rail Minister so unmissable, but I am also delighted to see the hon. Gentleman now in his place, and I thank all hon. Members for being here today and for their consideration of these draft regulations. Let me take this opportunity to address the points the shadow Minister made, although perhaps I will not try to address the points he made about low traffic neighbourhoods in London, because those will not be a matter for the key route network. They are not the sort of roads that we are talking about—high-volume roads that connect key centres of employment or key international gateways, or that carry large volumes of freight. Obviously low traffic neighbourhoods are very local roads in very built-up areas.
I hear what the hon. Member says, but the point is that local highways authorities are best placed to make decisions about the roads in their area, and mayors and combined authorities are empowered to make decisions about their key route networks. That is the point of this instrument: it is simply to put the West Midlands Combined Authority in the same place as all other combined authorities when seeking to address the key routes in their area. To come on to the second point that the shadow Minister raised, the benefit for road users is ensuring that people enjoy safe, smooth and seamless journeys, that they are not beset by congestion, that they are able to travel safely, that that applies to all road users, whether they are motorists or cyclists or pedestrians or motorcyclists, and that buses can operate effectively. Things that key route networks look at include the suitability of very high-volume bus routes, where we know that large numbers of people are travelling using those key public transport routes, or indeed where large freight volumes are using the key route network. The shadow Minister raised a concern that perhaps this change might provide less oversight of future changes to the KRN, but I disagree. This measure streamlines the process and simply places West Midlands Combined Authority in the same position as all other strategic authorities. Deciding which roads should constitute the key routes has always been a matter for the combined authority; it is still a matter for the combined authority and it must be agreed by a majority of the constituent members, which means all those councils that I previously referred to, and the mayor. I hope that this instrument, which makes an important change, will simply simplify things for the West Midlands Combined Authority.
Thank you, Sir Desmond. I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question without straying too far. This measure is about combined authorities. It is about the key route networks. It is about making sure that they have a strategic overview of the road network in their area and that they can work with the local highways authorities, their constituent members, to provide benefit for road users and ensure that traffic—whether that is public transport, private transport or freight transport—can move about seamlessly. It will not only simplify things for West Midlands Combined Authority, by putting it on a par with all other combined authorities, but improve life for road users in the west midlands. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these draft regulations. Question put and agreed to.
I am the chair of the water, sanitation and hygiene all-party parliamentary group and a big champion of WaterAid’s “Time to Deliver” campaign. One million mums and babies lose their lives each year because of a lack of access to water during childbirth. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in looking at humanitarian and global aid, we should make sure that remains a basic provision and a priority?
I am also a member of the APPG chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), and I have a couple of points to make. The first is about the cherished memories horseracing gives us, which I have had since I was a young lad. My mum’s cousin had the Prince of Wales pub at Newmarket, which was amazing, and we used to go and visit her. I have seen Desert Orchid finally get his head in front up that Cheltenham hill—the four-time winner of the King George, split by The Fellow one year, I think; Nicky Henderson, and Kauto Star and Denman fighting it out; Red Rum; and Frankel’s scintillating form in the Newmarket Guineas. Horseracing just brings so much wonderful passion and pride. It is also about patriotism and our country, because it goes back generations. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) will talk about Doncaster racecourse in a second, but I have the National Horseracing College in my area. We talk a lot about young adults going into new industries and about young adults with special educational needs and disabilities, as well as about the importance of 18 to 24-year-olds being able to find jobs that are not necessarily behind a desk or that do not require lots of theory. The National Horseracing College employs about 40 people and has 130 apprenticeships a year, and it is absolutely marvellous. This is also about the jobs and the industry, and what it can do to inspire young adults to get into a profession that is amazing as a career.
The hon. Member calls this an “ideologically anti-prison Government”, but in 14 years of Conservative Governments, there was a net increase of 500 prison places. In the very first Division post the King’s Speech in this Parliament, I remember voting to deal with that problem, and we had to vote to reduce sentencing times to deal with that mess; otherwise the criminal justice system would have collapsed. Does he not agree?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I heartily congratulate my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing this debate on the anniversary of the Settle-Carlisle railway, and I thank other Members for their contributions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents. This is a moment of celebration of our railways, but it is also a time to reflect on the present and the future. I welcome the opportunity to address some of those points today. The Settle-Carlisle railway, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, is, of course, one of the most historical and spectacularly scenic lines in the UK, with a long and colourful history of innovative engineering and dogged determination by the rail visionaries who fought to keep the line open against all the challenges it has faced—a legacy that my hon. Friend is certainly working hard to continue. I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that the future of the line is indeed secure. The introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer has brought thousands of new visitors to the line, investment at Horton-in-Ribblesdale station and secured the line’s invaluable role as a support route for the west coast main line. These all demonstrate the line’s ongoing importance to our network and this Government’s commitment to its future. I am pleased that there is such a strong community rail involvement with this historical line. Community rail is all about connecting communities to the railways, and at the heart of the community rail concept are community rail partnerships. The Settle-Carlisle Railway Development Company has done some wonderful work in this area. It has been an accredited community rail partnership for more than five years, working to support the local economy and benefit communities along the line. Its work includes organising station open days and art installations, running projects to support access to the railway and environmental initiatives with community organisations, as well as providing a range of services and products that benefit locals and visitors alike. The company achieves so much for the benefit of communities along this historical line. I congratulate it on its most recent reaccreditation, awarded in recognition of its community-centred projects and services provided across the Yorkshire dales and Cumbria. I also pay tribute to the work of the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust, which does so much valuable work in helping to restore, preserve and maintain the historical buildings and structures along the route, sparking the imagination and engagement of the public. The railways, of course, have changed so much since the first passenger trains on the Settle-Carlisle line, and I think it is appropriate to raise where this Government see the future of this railway. Rail reform will put passengers and customers back at the heart of the rail network. The Railways Bill, of which I know my hon. Friend is a keen supporter, is progressing through Parliament and will create Great British Railways, which will bring track and train together under one publicly owned and accountable body to reduce fragmentation and improve decision making. GBR will work closely with local mayors and local authorities to make sure that services meet the needs of their areas and better integrate with other modes. I now turn to Northern Trains and its performance as the main operator on the Settle-Carlisle line. I am pleased with the introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer, which links Greater Manchester and Lancashire to the Settle-Carlisle line and the dales. I also hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents are able to partake in Northern’s offer of discounted tickets between Leeds, Settle and Carlisle, in honour of the 150th anniversary. But that does not mean there is not more work to do. Northern’s performance leaves room for improvement. We have an improvement plan that outlines the steps that the operator will take to improve reliability, with a target of 90% of all its trains arriving within three minutes of timetable and cancellations below 2%. I am pleased that the latest rail period results show that cancellations on the Leeds-Carlisle route were only 1.24%, but we need to work to improve punctuality, with 77% of trains arriving within three minutes of timetable. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to improve services for both tourists in her remarkable area and her constituents. Northern is also in discussions with train manufacturers to procure new train sets to replace the oldest trains in its fleet. The procurement of up to 450 new train sets will offer increased capacity as well as more accessible trains for passengers. In January and April this year, the Settle-Carlisle route played a critical role in supporting passengers during several closures of the west coast main line for engineering work. To avoid lengthy replacement bus journeys, Avanti West Coast operated its bi-mode Evero trains over the historical route—the first time in more than a decade it has been used for that purpose. Feedback was incredibly positive, underlining findings from the rail watchdog, Transport Focus, that passengers prefer to stay on trains than take replacement bus services—that is certainly my preference, too—even if it involves a longer journey. Avanti hopes that the Settle-Carlisle route can continue to play an important role as a diversionary route over the next decade, especially when a significant volume of renewal activity is required on the northern section of the west coast main line. On infrastructure, Network Rail recently installed a footbridge with lifts at Horton-in-Ribblesdale station, allowing the closure of a high-risk level crossing and enabling a rail connection to the nearby quarry. The scheme was a mix of public and private investment, including a contribution from the quarry along with the Access for All fund. Connecting the quarry by rail safeguards the future of the facility while reducing carbon emissions by taking lorries off the road. The 150th anniversary of the Settle-Carlisle line is an opportunity not only to celebrate extraordinary railway heritage, but to recognise wider investment to ensure that rail continues to support communities, connectivity and economic growth for generations to come. That investment includes the £323 million west coast north modernisation programme, which is the biggest improvement programme on the northern section of the west coast main line in decades. Network Rail and industry partners are working together, in the spirit of Great British Railways, to keep passengers moving while replacing ageing infrastructure, particularly the overhead line equipment that powers electric trains. Over the past two years, Network Rail has renewed around 200 km of overhead wires on the northern sections of the west coast main line. The work will improve reliability and deliver a more resilient and better-connected railway for passengers and freight. From the Settle-Carlisle line to the west coast main line, rail remains a vital part of connecting people, places and opportunities across the north and Scotland. My hon. Friend will recall the Department’s investment of £13.5 million as part of the £38 million Carlisle station gateway project, part funded by the borderlands inclusive growth deal and delivered in partnership between Network Rail and Cumberland council. The scheme provides a new public square to the rear of the station, an enhanced Court Square to the front, new lifts and increased car parking capacity. Works are on site and the Scott & Brassey public house has now opened in the restored first-class waiting room, with passengers enjoying a selection of great local ales. I often travel up to Glasgow, and I will avail myself of those great local ales as soon as I make contact with Carlisle station. To conclude, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are firmly committed to honouring our railway heritage and improving services for passengers in rural communities across the north. She continues to be a resolute champion of the Settle-Carlisle railway, and the Government are committed to supporting her and her constituents as she continues to do so. Here is to the 150 years to come. Question put and agreed to.
My very first experience of employment was waiting at a van to try to get a day’s work, cash in hand, at the berries, which was what people usually did when they were aged 13 or 14 and looked a wee bit older. I hope the Minister is not proposing a return to those days, because I kind of got the impression from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), that that was the exact type of employment he was looking to return to.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend on his work before he came to this place; he was an international leader on this matter. This Government have put Britain back into leadership on international climate change. Last week, we welcomed 75,000 people to London, because our city is a leading mix of science, innovation, technology and investment. It was great to see Imperial College London, which is in his constituency, attending many of those events.
I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments on public support. Ultimately, pretty much everybody in this House cares about the people and places that we love. This issue comes up time and again at every school I visit, and I know that is the same for people from all corners of this place, because I get letters from people from all corners of this place. The Climate Change Act was campaigned for by David Cameron, introduced by the last Labour Government and championed by every single Conservative Prime Minister, because it is a sensible way of doing grown-up politics and policy. It is a long-term framework with flexibility to meet the moment. Serious leaders support serious policy in politics, and that is what you get from a Labour Government.
My understanding is that the Peak Cluster needs to develop the project itself; it is not a Government-backed project. This Government have made more progress on carbon capture and storage than has been made in the last 20 years. If the right hon. Lady’s colleagues and constituents want to hear more about it, please feel free to write to us, as we will be happy to look at it further.
The Secretary of State will publish an energy resilience strategy later this year. Last week, alongside the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, I launched a first-of-its-kind taskforce with external experts from security, the military and academia, to boost preparedness for climate change and nature loss.
As I am the one answering the hon. Member’s question, I cannot comment on those decisions. The OBR has put forward various reports to look at the impacts of climate change on our economy, and the value of investment versus the cost of inaction. The OBR has been incredibly helpful, as have various parts of our financial architecture across the City, which is looking at where the risks are. The taskforce that I mentioned will also look at the impact on finances and the economy.
I thank my hon. Friend for her contributions on climate change in the debate last week on carbon budget 7. The recent heatwave showed us for the first time the implications that we face across our country. For parents up and down the country, when many schools closed—not to mention other workplaces and hospitals—it had a catastrophic effect. We are looking at the issue across the board. We have an energy resilience strategy coming forward, as well as a wider taskforce, and I am working across Government with colleagues to ensure that any advice is updated, because this is sadly the new normal.
I can.
I thank my hon. Friend, who contributes to many of these debates. We want to ensure that we have a system that supports reductions in emissions, while also maintaining supply. I do not think that what my hon. Friend says is the case, but we do see a future for Grangemouth, and we look forward to continuing to work with him on that.
I would like to highlight three things that this Government have done to tackle climate change. First, we have brought forward carbon budget 7. I pay tribute to many Members of this House for the excellent discussion we had, with contributions from Members from Darlington to Devon, via Derby. Secondly, we have secured massive investment; since this Government came to power, we have secured more than £100 billion of private investment. Thirdly, we have been looking at where there is friction in the system, and at how to remove that friction, whether through working with communities to energise Britain—I was out in Manchester and Bradford yesterday—or by reordering the queue for our energy projects, to ensure that we are at the forefront of tackling climate change, are managing the risks, and are taking advantage of the opportunities.
I will absolutely congratulate Winchester city council on leading on this. Councils play a hugely important role, and I am looking forward to meeting many of them to discuss this issue when I visit the Local Government Association later this week. We have £1 billion of funding for community energy projects, and we are bringing forward more measures to accelerate progress, because this really is an opportunity to tackle the climate crisis, bring down energy bills and contribute to energy security.
I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue on many occasions in this House, and who is a friend of mine from across our great city. It is really important that we work at international, national and local level. Across our country, we all have a responsibility for the words and phrases that we use, and a responsibility to tackle misinformation and be honest about the challenges. That is not to say that we cannot disagree, but we could do so far more agreeably.
I thank my hon. Friend—another fantastic speaker in the carbon budget debate the week before last—and Ranelagh school students for presenting their ideas. They are not alone; this issue is raised at most schools that we visit, and we have to reassure students that the Government are taking action at international, national and local level. It is important that their voices are heard, which is why we are launching a youth scheme in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Clause 58 is about the time period for compliance with NICE recommendations on health and social care provision. As we have heard, it will enable that period to be determined by NICE or the Secretary of State. NICE’s technology appraisals and highly specialised technology guidance play a vital role in ensuring that patients in England can access treatments that are clinically effective and a good use of NHS resources. When NICE recommends a new treatment, the NHS is usually required to make funding available within three months. That means that patients can consistently benefit from innovative treatment. That said, there are cases where the three-month timeframe is just not realistic. That might be because of affordability pressures or practical challenges such as a stretched workforce. In those situations, a longer implementation period is needed to ensure that complex new treatments can be introduced in a safe way that does not disrupt services for other patients. For example, the period for NICE’s guidance on the drug Paxlovid for the treatment of covid was extended to 12 months to allow time for the NHS to put the necessary routine testing systems in place and train healthcare professionals. I do not think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised this issue, but the opposite is sometimes true, and the NHS issues guidance that provides swifter access to medicines and medical treatments. For example, cancer medicines can be funded from the point of a positive draft recommendation. At present, NHS England decides whether a NICE treatment is funded more quickly or in a shorter timeframe, while NICE determines whether the funding period should be extended, typically following a proposal from NHS England. The abolition of NHS England means that those roles and responsibilities will need to be reconsidered. The clause provides flexibility for the final decision on funding timelines to sit with either NICE or the Secretary of State, but it will not mandate which. To the point raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, the Government intend to set out further details of these arrangements in regulations using the enabling power granted by this Bill. Importantly, the clause will not reduce NICE’s independent role in assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of new treatments, nor will it weaken the NHS’s obligation to provide timely treatment. Instead, it will ensure that decisions on funding timelines remain flexible and sustainable, and that the system is equipped to respond effectively to future pressures. I will now speak to amendment 78, which was moved by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. I recognise the vital role that NICE guidelines play in improving quality and consistency of care across the NHS. NICE’s guidance is developed by experts on the basis of rigorous assessment of the available evidence and provides an important benchmark for best practice, including for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis. I know that the hon. Member intends to withdraw the amendment, but if she were to press it, the Government would not accept it. To be clear—again, partly to the point of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—it is a long-standing and deliberate position that NICE guidance is not mandatory, which reflects the role it plays in supporting patient care. Crucially, guidelines do not override the professional judgment of clinicians, and it is essential that clinicians retain the flexibility to determine the most appropriate course of treatment for individual patients based on their specific circumstances. It is also important to recognise that NICE guidelines are often complex frameworks for care that must be adapted to local service configurations and patient need. Requiring full compliance with the NICE guideline would remove the ability of local service providers to ensure that ME services are appropriate to the needs of their local populations. The hon. Member for North Shropshire made some important points about treatment of ME over the years, and many of us have encountered constituents with similar stories. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon for his work supporting constituents with the condition. To be clear, the Department fully recognises the need for more consistent implementation of the NICE guidelines on ME. That is why we are already taking forward practical measures. In particular, the Department and NHS England are developing a service template specification, aligned to NICE’s guidelines, to support commissioners and providers in delivering appropriate services for people with ME. We will continue to work with stakeholders, the industry and the NHS in doing that. Those steps will help to drive improvement in care without undermining clinical judgment or imposing inflexible statutory requirements. With that, I commend clause 58 to the Committee.
Clause 59 provides for the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body and the transfer of its functions to the Care Quality Commission. Under the new arrangements, the Care Quality Commission will assume responsibility for carrying out investigations into incidents that have or may have implications for patient safety. It is really important to stress that the core purpose of that function remains unchanged: to identify systemic risks, support learning and drive improvements in the safety of health services, rather than determine blame or liability. It is a central measure in strengthening the framework for patient safety investigations and ensuring a more coherent and effective system for learning from incidents across health services. With more than 70 types of channels or organisations through which patients or users can share feedback, the current landscape has led to fragmentation between investigation, regulation and improvement activity, thereby diluting the impact that insights from investigations might otherwise achieve. HSSIB has been isolated, undermining its efficacy. We will bring HSSIB into the mainstream as a core but distinct part of the CQC. That will enable HSSIB to use its functions more strategically, working in partnership with the national quality board. Clause 59 achieves that by conferring responsibility for those investigatory functions on to the Care Quality Commission through the provisions set out in schedule 8. In doing so, it embeds a comprehensive investigatory framework with an established statutory regulator. The CQC will be one organisation with separate functions—a regulatory function and an investigative function—to preserve the integrity of each. Within the CQC, HSSIB will continue to operate as a discrete unit and retain its independence from providers, allowing it to identify learnings and take a no-blame approach.
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I have met HSSIB and others on this issue, and it is a concern that staff are fearful of speaking up. That is obviously unacceptable, but we understand that it happens. That is absolutely the culture that we need to drive out, and we need to ensure that HSSIB’s learning about making sure there is a safe space to speak out, which I will come on to, is a core part of future work.
Of course, patient safety is what we need to get right. I will come on to that point, but there is a lot to get through with this clause. We can see its importance from the number of organisations and channels that exist. I have said that before, and I am sure we have all struggled as constituency MPs to support our constituents—either patients or staff—through the system and to understand the best route forward on patient safety. We all have the same aim, and we should be clear that the issue is how best to achieve that aim. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The test is about impact, learning and making the system and the culture change. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East asked me about confidence, and the fear that staff sometimes have about speaking up, which is obviously an important part of that landscape. We want to make sure that we take forward the learning on both those points into the new body. The new framework ensures that the essential characteristics of safety investigations are preserved. The commission will have a flexible power to investigate qualifying incidents that have or may have implications for patient safety, with a clear statutory purpose of identifying risks and improving systems and practices. We are maintaining the principle of safe space and introducing strong safeguards in the process, so that staff and the public can trust that they can speak of their experiences openly, without fear or favour, to provide learnings for the system. We have included protections for safe space materials and restrictions on disclosure, including within the regulatory functions of the CQC, and limits on the use of reports in legal proceedings. That is designed to support openness and candour, and to provide confidence in the impartiality and independence of patient safety investigations. There are clear mechanisms for transparency and accountability, including the publication of reports, requirements to respond to recommendations, and oversight through a statutory review of the commission’s investigatory functions. Clause 59 also provides the commission with the necessary powers to carry out investigations effectively, including powers to require information, enter premises and co-ordinate with other bodies while maintaining appropriate protections such as legal privilege and safeguards against self-incrimination. Although the commission will decide which incidents to investigate, the clause preserves a power for the Secretary of State to direct it to investigate a specific qualifying incident or category of incidents. That ensures that where issues of significant public concern arise, or where urgent scrutiny is needed or there is particular risk, there is a clear mechanism to ensure that issues are investigated. The struggles of the Care Quality Commission have been well documented. We will only commence these provisions when we are satisfied that the CQC has improved. The CQC has been supported and held to account to recover its effectiveness, and we will continue to support it and work closely with the newly appointed chair on its journey to rebuild. We will work closely with the CQC to ensure its readiness to receive the investigations functions from the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Maintaining a centre of excellence for investigations will be integral to the CQC’s culture. Without the clause, the opportunity to deliver the ambitions of the 10-year health plan would not be realised, nor would the broader patient safety landscape, as set out in the Dash review, be fully addressed. It is therefore a necessary and integral reform. Clause 60 makes provision for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Health Services Safety Investigations Body to the Care Quality Commission in connection with the abolition of the former and the assumption of its functions by the latter. It is a key technical provision to ensure an orderly and legally complete transition between the two bodies. Where functions are transferred between public bodies, it is essential that all associated assets, obligations and legal arrangements are also transferred in a way that ensures continuity and legal certainty. The clause provides the statutory mechanism to achieve that. The clause provides a flexible framework to enable the continuation of HSSIB’s actions and ongoing matters, including legal proceedings, and ensures that references to HSSIB in existing documents are treated as references to the Care Quality Commission to avoid legal uncertainty. The clause provides for staff protections equivalent to TUPE and allows for shared ownership or use of property where needed, supporting a smooth and effective transition. The overall effect of the clause is to enable a smooth, comprehensive and legally robust transfer of HSSIB’s property rights and liabilities to the Care Quality Commission, ensuring continuity of function and avoiding disruption to ongoing operations. Without the provision, there would be risk of legal uncertainty and operational disruption during the transfer process. Clause 61 is a necessary and practical provision. At its core, it provides a power through regulations for His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that transfers made from HSSIB to the CQC are delivered smoothly and on a tax-neutral basis. Like the equivalent provision for the NHS England transfer in clause 3, it allows the Treasury, by regulations, to vary the way in which relevant tax legislation applies in relation to anything transferred under a transfer scheme or anything done in connection with such a transfer. That will ensure that the tax consequences of the transfer can be properly aligned with the policy intention of a smooth and orderly transition. Importantly, the scope of the clause is limited to specified “relevant taxes”, including income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, VAT, stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax. As with clause 3, without this power there is a risk that the transfers could trigger unintended tax liabilities that would divert public money away from frontline services and undermine the policy intent of the legislation. Clause 61 therefore protects value for money and ensures that organisational change does not come with avoidable fiscal cost. Clauses 59 to 61 and schedule 8 are necessary to strengthen the framework for patient safety investigations and ensure a more coherent and, crucially, effective system for learning from incidents across health services to make all our constituents and patients safer. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This morning, we had really good and detailed exchanges about patient safety and learning the role of HSSIB. Often politics is confrontational and divisive, but I want to be clear that I take at face value that every single Member who has spoken and who I have met with, including people who do not want to see this change, have the best of intentions. They want to understand patient safety—in the long term we can talk about safety and quality of service, but let us focus on the safety aspects here—and they are trying to navigate something. They are seeing a change, which is always difficult, and we need to ensure we get that right. It is absolutely right that we do that in Committee, on Report and in the House of Lords. We will continue to take note of all the points made and seek to address them. I fortunately had the lunch break to reflect and do that a bit more carefully. For people here and those reading our deliberations, what is difficult about the Bill—we understand this as legislators—is that we are abolishing an organisation and moving functions. That stands within a wider framework of changes to the safety and quality landscape that the Government are seeking. When one focuses on things that are being abolished, it is very binary. I will try and locate some of that without veering too far from the matter in front of us. Among all the discussions, there are a couple of key questions that I want to address, including why I do this. Through the passage of the Bill, many people in the wider landscape have said to me, “Why are you bothering having a row about this?” I find that quite shocking as a riposte, because the answer is simple in the context. It is too important to not attempt to get this right and make changes to something that clearly is not working. I do not think I have heard anybody say that the current system is working. As the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston noted, I said during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022 that the functions of HSSIB are really important and must be built to the highest standard. I absolutely stand by that. It is not working; that is why we are changing it, but also why we are preserving the function within a new system, which we will seek to improve.
I am going to try to go through these points because I have listened carefully to everybody’s contributions. If there is something outstanding, I will be happy to come back to it. To answer some of the direct questions that were put to me about the Dash review, I do not recall anybody particularly disagreeing with its findings when it was published or when we put it forward in our 10-year plan last year. I do not expect everyone to agree with every single recommendation or point made in that review. To an earlier point that was made by the Opposition, it was informed by a broad range of evidence and perspectives from across the health and social care system, including engagement with commissioners, providers, patients, families, and people harmed by poor-quality care, as well as charities, academics and national organisations. It looked really closely at what has not worked and why. I encourage hon. Members to go back to the work that Penny Dash was asked to do and the wider report. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston asked why the review covered only six organisations. The then Secretary of State authorised the Dash review to look at six organisations in this space that were directly overseen by the Department. Many other organisations in this space are not directly overseen by the Department, so they were not in scope of that review as they had their own regulatory landscape ecologies and so on. That is why those six organisations, which we oversee, were looked at. Last night at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), made it clear that the rationale for this change is not based on cost. It is not based on the recommendations being too expensive. Rather, as I am sure colleagues will agree, we have seen far too many recommendations regarding patient safety but too little action. Inaction is not helping to improve the patient landscape. Opposition Members referenced the view from the longest-serving Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), that the NHS will not change or adopt the recommendations. That is a profoundly depressing prospect. We cannot predicate our laws and the health landscape on the basis that the culture in the NHS cannot and will not change. This is not a party-political point, but because of what has happened in the last decade, we must move from a defensive culture into a culture of learning while keeping a safe space in which people can speak up. We have heard a lot about “perception” today. I accept that there is a perception of negativity that is damaging to patient safety and people speaking up, but that is what our wider reforms are seeking to address.
I thank my hon. Friend for that. He and others on both sides of the House with clinical experience, including the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, have shared live examples that can shock the layperson. It is important that those practices are changed clinically, and it is up to Government to make sure that the overarching legislative framework enables that.
I want to make some points first. I will pick up any outstanding points I do not cover. The abolition of HSSIB and the transfer of its functions to CQC is being done to strengthen the link between patient safety investigations and the action being taken on the frontline to simplify the patient safety landscape. We want to align the recommendations with action. Hon. Members quoted evidence that Dr Dash gave to the Committee. Let me remind the Committee of something else she told us, about how HSSIB’s functions can be better aligned as part of the CQC. She said: “by bringing HSSIB into the CQC, you can align the work of the two. For example, if the CQC is going round the country and spotting a particular problem with the way in which anaesthesia is being given or with managing patients post-surgery, the CQC could then say to HSSIB—that team of people with specific expertise—‘Can you go in and take a look at this? Can you do a detailed focus review of this particular area of care that we are spotting through our visits and which seem to be a particular challenge?’ It is that bit about enabling the CQC to identify a problem and then asking HSSIB to review it in detail, and HSSIB bringing its expertise in investigations into the CQC to enable the CQC to go deeper and then come back to the NHS”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 7, Q8.] to enable best action. These organisations can learn better from each other. Transferring investigation powers to the Care Quality Commission is an opportunity to strengthen the CQC. We have to move away from a defensive culture to a culture of shared learning if we are to improve patient care. The CQC can learn and improve from HSSIB best practice and take a more holistic approach to patient safety. Those executing the regulatory and investigatory functions can learn from each other and exchange skills, which would strengthen the links between learning, oversight and improvement, leading to real and sustained change across the system, driven by the CQC.