partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

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

1. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

   Historical Forced Adoption

   It is barbaric that 185,000 babies were taken from young mothers across a quarter of a century until just 50 years ago, and the Prime Minister is right to say how wrong that was. In apologising on behalf of the state, he acknowledged that, of the children who were taken, some were raised in loving homes by adoptive families. Does he accept that it is possible to say sorry to birth parents and their children while simultaneously being grateful to parents who did their very best to adopt children over that period, many of whom did not know about the circumstances in which those babies were removed from their birth parents?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

   Historical Forced Adoption

   I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology, and we associate ourselves fully with all his remarks, including those about being united as one House in this apology. I pay tribute to all the mothers and children who have campaigned so bravely and for so long for this apology. Speaking as a mother, I cannot begin to imagine the trauma, agony and shame that they experienced and had to live with. The testimony that they gave to the Education Committee this year is some of the most powerful and harrowing ever heard in this Parliament. The mothers who gave birth were denied pain relief as “punishment” and then given just a few hours or days with their newborn baby before they were stolen away. The children only found out years or decades later what had happened to them, discovering that they were victims of this appalling scandal. That evil has been compounded by the long wait for an apology. It should have come long before now. It is a tragedy that Veronica Smith, whose daughter was taken from her 60 years ago and who founded the Movement for an Adoption Apology 16 years ago, sadly passed away before she could see her campaign succeed. This apology is a tribute to her and all who fought alongside her. I hope it gives them some sense of closure. I hope it helps them know that the blame does not lie with them, and never did, but with those who did this to them and those who allowed it to happen. That includes the Church of England, the Catholic Church, charities and, of course, the state. As the Committee heard, an apology in words alone is not enough; it has to mean action to help heal the trauma that this scandal has caused. I very much welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has announced today on adoption records, trauma-informed support and the testimonials project. Will that support include a specialist mental health pathway for all those who need it? Will he commit to a continuing dialogue with the survivors on any further support or redress that they want? Today’s apology is not the end. It must be the beginning of a better, more caring approach to these mothers and their children.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

   Advanced Manufacturing

   The largest employer in Woking is McLaren. It sells around half of its cars to the US, which, needless to say, has not been easy since Donald Trump took office. What are the Secretary of State and his Department doing to work with the US to lower trade barriers, so that we can continue to have high-quality advanced manufacturing jobs in Woking?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

   Topical Questions

   Last night this House debated the extended producer responsibility, which is seeing breweries, pubs and other businesses pay twice to recycle glass bottles. What meetings has the Department for Business and Trade had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to raise the economically damaging nature of this tax? If it has not raised concerns, will it?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

   Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

   Leasehold is a con. We are one of the few countries that still has residential leasehold, and because of that, people are being sold a lie on home ownership. As Woking’s MP, I hear countless stories about it, and I will not use my time going through every single one, but I impress this point on the Government: we need to regulate these bureaucratic con artists. People have been scammed out of home ownership in place of leasehold. It is fleecehold. Dreams of home ownership have stayed dreams—far out of reach, and fast becoming nightmares. We hear far too often of leaseholders who have been distressed by poor service. These bad actors hide behind paperwork and avoid responsibility. Major firms such as FirstPort have, for far too long, been allowed to deliver an appalling service without consequences. The new leasehold reform Bill must put in place a regulator with the teeth to sanction these rogue agents with meaningful penalties. When that happens, MPs can end the wild west of property management agents. To see why leasehold reform is so urgent, we need only look at how managing agents such as FirstPort treat leaseholders. I had a situation involving a retirement development in Woking. It should be a lovely place to live that gives peace of mind to vulnerable, elderly residents, but when people fell over, the safety systems that FirstPort put in place did not work. Elderly residents were left lying on the floor, having called for help. FirstPort should have fixed that, and it did not. People were left in those distressing situations, but because of the lack of regulation, we cannot hold those responsible accountable. FirstPort also managed the Clock Tower building in Maybury. It has spent years causing misery to leaseholders, because of the failure to deliver minimum levels of service, and people are trapped. I have written to the Minister on numerous occasions about that case. Leaseholders have few rights, and cannot sell their homes or control who manages the development. The leaseholders of Bramwell Place, another development in Woking, know those problems all too well. They are trapped in their homes, due to frequent stalling and lack of communication. The developer completed the necessary fire safety investigation a year ago, but refused to release critical reports, burying them in an internal review. Lenders have denied the people in those homes mortgages, buyers are walking away, and innocent residents are left struggling. I am on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I have been proud to work on its report that pushes the Government to go further, faster. I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her leadership, and our Committee Clerks for their excellent support. I hope the Government listen to our cross-party calls today. We recommended significant changes to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but does not deliver what we want. It is mind-boggling that the Bill does not deliver on the promises in the Labour manifesto. We recommended that the Bill deliver an independent regulator to end the wild west of property management agents. If we do that, FirstPort and others will not get away with the appalling treatment that my constituents and others face. It is heartbreaking that so many people in Woking and across the country have worked hard to get on the property ladder, but have seen their home ownership dream turn into a nightmare. Successive Governments have failed to tackle ground rents and leasehold reform. We want to put homeowners in control of the management of their buildings. I urge the Minister to implement the Select Committee report in full. Let us leave a lasting legacy on leasehold reform.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

   Hospitality Sector

   Harry Kane’s heroics last night mean that many England fans are looking forward to an early morning or a late night on Monday, depending on one’s perspective. That is a good thing, but pubs risk missing out on a real opportunity to get more money into the till if Ministers do not make a blanket extension to licensing hours. Will Ministers consider that with their colleagues in other Departments so that fans can enjoy the game in the pub?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

   Topical Questions

   The Secretary of State is aware of the importance of Cheltenham’s cyber-security industry, which is a key part of this nation’s defence efforts. I have good news for him: we are about to break ground on the Golden Valley development, bringing 12,000 jobs in cyber and tech to my town, as well as much-needed new homes. Would the Secretary of State and his colleagues like to come and visit this success story in due course, not for the ground breaking next week, but in the future? It will be popular with the incoming Prime Minister.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Manuela Perteghella

   Air Pollution

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate on the urgency and duty for policymakers to tackle air pollution—the silent killer in our towns and cities. I also thank all the Members who have contributed so passionately and movingly to the debate. Toxic, poisonous air threatens the community spaces that we all love and the people we care most about. It knows no boundaries, reaching our workplaces, homes, schools and other public spaces. As other hon. Members have done, I would like to pay tribute to Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, mum to Ella Roberta. For over a decade, Rosamund has campaigned tirelessly for cleaner air through Ella’s law. I had the privilege to meet Rosamund last month when, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I visited communities to understand the physical and mental health impacts of air pollution on their lives. Ella was a happy, playful and bright child, and she lived not far from the South Circular Road in Lewisham with her family. By the age of seven, she was suffering debilitating asthma attacks, which would see her cough and wheeze so much that she would fall unconscious. A few weeks after her ninth birthday, Ella died. She had suffered a fatal asthma attack. A landmark inquest in 2020 ruled that toxic air from traffic emissions contributed to her death, marking the first time that air pollution was officially recognised as a cause of death in the UK. Ella’s death was preventable. Among other measures, Ella’s law would enshrine a legal right to breathe clean air, requiring the Government to meet stricter air quality standards based on the World Health Organisation guidelines. We must not let children like Ella and their families down when turning our attention to this urgent problem, yet in the UK, an estimated 500 people die of disease related to air pollution each week. Air pollution is an invisible and insidious enemy. According to a recent report by the Royal College of Physicians, air pollution has been linked to 30,000 deaths and, as we have heard, it costs our economy more than £27 billion per year. Long-term exposure to emissions can cause heart and lung problem and increase the risk of a person developing cancers. Fine particulate matter from polluted air penetrates deep into the body, settling in our lungs. Recent research has also pointed to an increased risk of cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, which can affect the heart and blood vessels. The public health burden is not shared equally: the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, those already facing deprivation, and babies and children are most at risk. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that a growing evidence base links maternal exposure to air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the introduction of a new clean air Act, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a dedicated air quality agency. The scale of the issue is such that we need strong, independent oversight to tackle pollution at its source and protect public health. We must also transform how people travel, reducing dependence on the cars that spew noxious fumes into the air we breathe. The Government must work with local authorities to curb transport emissions. We need to invest in affordable, reliable public transport to ensure that fares do not rise above inflation, restore the £2 bus fare cap, and improve the passenger experience so that it is cheaper and better to travel by public transport. We must electrify our railways, embrace cleaner technologies and support active travel by creating safe cycling and walking networks across the country. For those who have no option but to rely on cars, especially those in isolated rural areas, we must make the transition to electric vehicles easier and more affordable by expanding charging infrastructure and reducing costs. Finally, we must address the inequalities at the heart of the issue. By increasing the public health grant and empowering local communities, we can develop targeted solutions such as supporting healthier and better insulated housing, reducing traffic exposure and improving local planning. As some hon. Members have already stated, health experts recommend stronger controls on household wood burning and effective action to raise awareness of health harms from indoor air pollution, including damp and mould. Children in the UK today have some of the worst asthma outcomes in the developed world. It is not right that so many lives are shortened by diseases that we can work together to prevent. Most importantly of all, there is no effective advice to help people to avoid air pollution if they have only one route to work or school, if they live near a busy road, if their care home or school is near air pollutant sources or if their house is poorly insulated. We call on the Government to recognise, in law, the human right to breathe clean air and to legally enforce air quality standards that meet WHO limits by 2030. We owe clean air to the baby born today, to the child coming out of school right now and to every child who will come after them.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Manuela Perteghella

   Historical Forced Adoption

   We heard on the Education Committee harrowing testimonies of the cruelty that unmarried mothers and their babies were subjected to. They were shamed, coerced and separated from their babies, causing lifelong trauma for them all. The Government’s apology is welcome yet long overdue, because for many survivors, official recognition of this injustice is an essential step towards healing. Ensuring that survivors obtain information about their personal histories is fundamental, so will the Prime Minister set out a timescale for the national online resource to improve access to adoption records?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Sollom

    Access to Further Education

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this important debate. Access to further education is access to opportunity. For most young people, and for a great many adults, it is the route to a job or back into learning. When that access works, it changes lives. When it does not, we fail not just an individual but their family, their local community, the economy and, over a lifetime, the public purse. We do not make it as easy as it should be to access further education. I will focus on two barriers: funding and transport, on which the Government are not going far enough or fast enough. Last year, in the skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised real-terms increases in per-pupil funding for 16 to 19 providers. Instead, per-head funding this year is going up by just 0.55%. That is a real-terms cut. Overall funding for 16 to 19 education now stands at around £4.7 billion, 30% below its inflation-adjusted high of £6.8 billion in 2003-04. Cambridge Regional College sits just outside my constituency of St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. Its principal, Mark Robertson, has been clear with me about the cost: there is a pay gap of around £12,500 between school and FE teachers. At a time when the college needs enough maths and English teachers to deliver resits for about 1,300 young people in each subject, those teachers could earn thousands more teaching exactly the same subject in a school down the road. Less visible but just as damaging is the fact that colleges are funded based on the previous year’s intake. This means that when demand rises—and it is rising—colleges have to enrol and teach students now, but must wait, often a full academic year, to be funded for them. Nationally, colleges took on around 32,000 additional 16 to 19 students in ’25-26 to meet that rising demand, and were left to absorb the costs themselves. That is not a funding system that supports improving access. I would just suggest two changes that might help. As the Minister will know, colleges, unlike schools, cannot reclaim VAT. That amounts to a tax on further education worth around £210 million per year. The Liberal Democrats would end that anomaly. We would also extend the pupil premium to post-16 learners, including those in FE, so that support for disadvantaged young people does not simply stop the day they turn 16. Of course, funding cannot reach colleges that are not there. I will give another example from my constituency: St Neots is the largest town in Cambridgeshire, but it has no further education college of its own. Despite innovative efforts to provide some provision in the town, many of our young people must travel to reach the courses that could change their lives. Of course, St Neots is far from being the only further education cold spot in the country. That brings me to the second barrier: transport. The law requires every young person to remain in education or training until 18, but it does not require any local authority to help them to get there. Once a young person turns 16, transport support becomes discretionary, rather than statutory—a cliff edge at exactly the point the law starts asking more of them, not less. The Association of Colleges tells us that some students face journeys of up to three hours a day to reach their course, and colleges are increasingly subsidising transport themselves out of budgets meant for teaching and learning. The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to fully restore the £2 bus fare cap—a change that hit rural passengers particularly hard, in exactly the areas where too many of our young people are trying to reach college. Perhaps the Minister could also explain in this debate why a more direct measure—a concessionary bus pass for under-22s, which was recommended by the Transport Committee—was rejected by the Government as unaffordable. To conclude, it is worth highlighting what it costs when access fails. The Milburn review puts a number on it: an average of £29,000 a year for every person who is not in education, employment or training, rising to a lifetime cost of £240,000. We spend £7,900 a year on a further education student—that is not a close call. This is a false economy on a national scale. There is a missed opportunity on our doorstep to prove that it does not have to be this way. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government plan to address those barriers to access.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 47, page 34, line 38, at end insert— “(6A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record. (6B) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must consult all stakeholders the Secretary of State considers relevant, including patient representation groups. (6C) In preparing a risk assessment under subsection (6A) the Secretary of State must have particular regard for— (a) those without access to a suitable electronic device, (b) those without access to suitable broadband connectivity, (c) those with physical and/or mental disabilities, (d) those belonging to groups considered socially excluded, and (e) those considered lacking digital skills. (6D) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the risk assessment under subsection (6A) before both Houses of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record.

    Hansard source
12. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Amendment 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a risk assessment on the potential for digital exclusion under the establishment of a single patient record. I declare an interest as the current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities. I hope that we Liberal Democrats have been clear that overall, we are supportive of the single patient record; it is important that every patient can access their own health records. Under the SPR, however there is a risk that people belonging to already vulnerable groups will be digitally excluded from accessing their health information. Research commissioned by Ofcom suggests that 2.8 million people—5% of the UK population—do not have access to the internet at all. Although age is a predictor for a person not having access to the internet at home, especially if they are over 85, more than half of such people are younger than 75. Amendment 70 would ensure that the Secretary of State assesses the potential for digital exclusion with relevant stakeholders, including patient groups, and that the assessment is laid before Parliament. It would also ensure that the Secretary of State takes into consideration the risk of exclusion for those lacking access to a suitable electronic device or suitable broadband connectivity, including people who have disabilities, who belong to socially excluded groups or who lack digital skills.

    Hansard source
13. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    We have not seen a full design of the single patient record yet, but it is difficult to envisage what it would looks like for somebody who does not have access to the internet. It is not just older people; it is obviously a significant problem in deprived areas as well. Can the Minister elaborate on what that might look like for somebody who does not have a device or does not have broadband or mobile access? How will they be able to access their medical record? We might need to understand that before we move forward.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The importance of the amendment is that it requires this problem to be monitored in an ongoing way. Monitoring something usually makes the situation improve, so I will not withdraw the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The cross-border point is really important. A number of people will come into England from Wales to have their secondary care delivered, because that care is not available in Wales. The single patient record will presumably not be available to the clinicians in the hospitals in England who are dealing with the patients. I wonder whether we should consider how that will work when we get to the regulation stage, because other systems will clearly be needed to deal with the people who are coming from outside England to be treated in English hospitals and other settings.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I want to speak to amendment 6, which is tabled in my name, and amendment 7, which is consequential upon it. Amendment 6 would ensure that the CQC and NICE can “continue to make mandatory requests to the Secretary of State to establish an information system”, as they currently can with NHS England. At the moment, NHS England has a duty to co-operate with the CQC and NICE, and that is often enough for a collaborative approach that allows the CQC to access the data it needs. But the duty that applies to NHS England is not being passed on to the Department of Health and Social Care. The CQC raised the issue in written evidence to the Committee, saying that the duty “has been an important mechanism” that has “supported receipt of patient safety incident reports…information sharing between regional teams, and the development of central data sharing solutions.” The CQC went on: “Without an equivalent duty, we would be reliant on there being sufficient capacity and willingness within DHSC to share information, with no statutory backstop. This could inhibit our ability to receive the information” needed “to keep people who use services safe. Challenges in this area are often cultural and rely on the subjective judgment of individual data controllers as to whether particular data sets can be shared, how these should be used and what the timeliness of sharing should be, leading to protracted piecemeal conversations and delays.” As we have harrowingly heard over the past week, there is often reluctance to share data, particularly when there is a defensive culture in certain NHS institutions. Our amendment seeks to address the gap. I hope that what I have outlined is an oversight from the Government, not a deliberate attempt to reduce transparency or reduce regulator access to key data. The wider changes in schedule 11 will omit section 288 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Government are dropping this key wider duty in a schedule entitled “Minor and consequential amendments”. We do not think it is minor. It holds major implications for patient safety and transparency. On a wider note, it seems counterintuitive that the CQC, as regulator, does not have easy access to the data collected nationally in the health service.

    Hansard source
17. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and her Select Committee colleagues for their excellent report and for securing this important debate. Members on both sides of the House have made important points, including my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who resolutely spoke up for their residents. The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a commonhold framework, the abolition of leasehold for new build flats and the end of forfeiture. Those are clear steps in the right direction, but they do not go nearly far enough. Liberals and Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for an end to unfair residential leasehold since the Liberal Government’s 1909 people’s Budget, and over 100 years on, progress has been woeful. Nearly 5 million households in England are living under this feudal system today. The Housing Secretary himself has called ground rent “money for nothing”, so why pay £250 for nothing for the next 40 years? For any of the 5 million leaseholders living under this system right now, the draft Bill does very little to help them gain enfranchisement, fix service charges or take control of how their buildings are run. The Government have said they are committed to bringing “the feudal leasehold system to an end.” Where are the goals and milestones that mean it will happen? A target date is needed by which all leaseholders have had an affordable opportunity to convert to commonhold and for the right to manage across the sector. As a first step to achieving those targets, the Government should enact all the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement, including cutting out the swindle of development value—recommendations that came out six years ago but, for some reason, remain unimplemented. The Government inherited that delay but then promised in the 2024 King’s Speech to enact them. Let me give the House a specific example of what the delay in implementing those recommendations means in practice. One constituent in Taunton and Wellington went through the right-to-manage process as it stands. It took him four years, and he told me it “felt like a full time job.” The delay meant that he kept paying an overpriced service charge, adding up to an extra £5,000. Residents were forced to set up two separate right-to-manage companies, duplicating costs, simply to manage two buildings in one estate. Once they had finally won the right to manage, they found no legal way to recover even the basic costs of the right-to-manage company because the costs were outside what the lease defined as a service charge. There was a similar story when they went to amend their leases. What links all three problems is that the Law Commission recommended they be fixed back in 2020, so why not implement them in the forthcoming Bill? Right to manage should not be a niche arrangement that only a determined minority can navigate their way into. Landlords and freeholders, who hold all the information and resources, should be required to offer right to manage through a ballot of residents, with a presumption in favour unless more than half of residents vote against it. In respect of leaseholders being enfranchised into owning their own home, and setting a target, the Minister should bring back the amendment he tabled in opposition on properly setting deferment and capitalisation rates. The Bill appears not to contain such a provision. Before I end, I want to say a word about “fleecehold” as it affects freeholders. They face exactly the same issues of moving in, then having no control over the fees they are forced to pay. Homeowners should be given the right to manage the estates they are contracted into having responsibility for. I understand that the Government have asked the Law Commission to look into this, which is welcome, but the track record on Law Commission advice being acted on is worrying. On 27 January, the Minister promised my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) that those residents would get protection in this Parliament, but that protection is not in the Bill. When will it be legislated for? In the meantime, councils should be given greater powers to adopt estates. Also, we need a property management regulator of the sort Lord Best recommended, which has the power to crack down on and cap the most exploitative service and estate management charges. Six years have passed since the Law Commission made its recommendations and seven since Lord Best reported. Forty-two years will pass before leaseholders are free of the scourge of ground rent. Yet we still have no goal from the Government on how long it will take for the majority of leaseholders to enfranchise or to gain the right to manage, or for freehold estates to be sorted out. In closing, therefore, I ask the Minister for three things. First, enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations, so that leaseholders get the support they need. Secondly, create a regulator as a matter of urgency, and give it teeth to end rip-off charges. Finally, set a clear timetable for enfranchisement and right to manage becoming the norm, so that people win control over their own home. Let us free people from the leasehold trap. The Liberal Democrats would do that without delay.

    Hansard source
18. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 43, page 30, line 35, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on Primary Care services. (2B) The increase in spending set out in subsection 2B must be in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.” This amendment would introduce the primary care investment standard, requiring integrated care boards to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Amendments 60 and 61 would introduce a primary care investment standard that required integrated care boards to increase spending on primary care services at least in line with the growth of their total programme healthcare funding. We have discussed the importance of primary care in previous sittings, so I will be brief now, because we have a lot to get through. The primary care investment standard would be similar to the mental health investment standard. It would set a clear benchmark to which to hold the Secretary of State. Primary care is the very frontline of a health service, and it is vital to stop the rest of the health system becoming overburdened, with issues such as corridor care and long ambulance handovers often a direct result of the system’s failure properly to shift resources and focus into primary care and community care, so that we can catch diseases early and prevent people from going into hospital. If people cannot get GP or dentist appointments, they turn up to A&E. That transfers the load to what is not only not the most efficient part of the NHS for dealing with routine issues, but the most expensive part of the NHS. That is hugely expensive, as well as not ideal for the individual. Although more than 90% of patients’ direct experience with the NHS is through primary care and GP practices, less than 10% of the NHS budget in England is spent on primary care. Despite years of all Governments promising to shift patient care out of hospitals into the community, the proportion of the NHS budget spent on general practice has fallen to its lowest point in the past 10 years. The Royal College of General Practitioners’ 2025 practice manager survey revealed that although 61% of practice managers said that they need to expand the GP workforce to meet their patients’ needs, 62% said that the lack of funding in general practice is a major barrier preventing them from hiring the number of GPs they need. It has been revealed that 22 out of 27 of the first round of neighbourhood health centres are already doing some of those functions; they are simply being rebadged and slightly expanded. We know that in the NHS, money is key, and there are constant important and competing demands for the limited amount of funding. Protecting funding streams for primary care would ensure that the Government actually provided the funds to back up their ambition of shifting care into the community. The benchmark that amendments 60 and 61 would set for the Government is modest, but it would have a huge impact if we could successfully transform the NHS by shifting care into the community. We hope that the Government will view this as a spend-to-save initiative as well. One question is always where the money comes from, but having fewer demands on A&E, the most expensive part of the NHS, would save money in the long run.

    Hansard source
20. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Hansard source
21. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 43, page 30, line 36, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State must give integrated care boards directions to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the change in level of their total programme funding.” This amendment would place the original mental health investment standard on a statutory footing, requiring integrated care boards to increase spending on mental health services at least in line with the growth in their total programme (healthcare) funding.

    Hansard source
22. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Amendment 9 would place the mental health investment standard on a statutory footing, requiring ICBs to increase mental health spending at least in line with the growth in their total programme funding. Amendment 10 would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply. New clause 27, tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), is similar. It is quite reassuring to see that the policies of the Liberal Democrats and of the Health and Social Care Committee are fairly well aligned. The Darzi report highlighted that 20% of the NHS caseload is mental health, yet at the time it was receiving just under 10% of the NHS budget in funding, and now it is receiving 8.4%. To put that in the context of real lives, when I was first elected in 2024, there were just over half a million children and young people on mental health waiting lists; as of last week, there were 1 million. While the Government have done commendable work in reducing waiting lists for physical conditions, mental health cases are increasing—and fast.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I would happily speak for several hours on the multifaceted reasons why young people in particular are struggling with mental health. One of my passions is ensuring that people get intervention and support before they require clinical care, but at the moment that is not happening. For a whole variety of societal reasons, including young people applying for 300 or 400 jobs and not even getting a response, more and more people are ending up on mental health waiting lists. The mental health investment standard has been widely hailed for bringing about positive change in the health service. It protects funds and provides certainty for services that are seeing dramatically rising demand and, importantly, it provides certainty about future finances. Placing it on a statutory footing in primary legislation would make it more transparent and prevent it from becoming a political football. It would also help to stop the watering down of targets that seems to have happened over the last few years. Claire Murdoch, NHS England’s national mental health director, essentially resigned over those changes. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the Milburn report and the report by the Children’s Commissioner this week showed that the number of children referred to mental health services in England has risen by over 10% in just one year—it is now at more than a million. The pressures on NHS services and funding are clear. If funding is not protected, there is a real risk that it will be cut due to competing demands. One thing I found when speaking to staff at Winchester’s A&E department is that when mental health patients turn up, having been unable to get support and often having already been on a waiting list, sometimes for more than 18 months, the average time they spend in A&E is more than 18 hours, during which some of them require constant supervision. So, we are badly supporting people with mental health issues in the most expensive part of the NHS. We cannot afford to let the mental health crisis in this country continue slipping out of control, and funding for NHS mental health services is an essential part of stopping that. New clause 33 would require the Secretary of State to “conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas.” Something I found interesting growing up on a farm and working as a vet is the almost unrecognised mental health issues in rural areas. That is partly because many people who work in rural vocations have minimal contact with people outside their workplace. Sometimes the vet and the postman might be the only people that a farmer sees in one, two or three weeks. There are a lot of questions about why disparities in accessing treatment in rural versus urban areas exist. Alternative approaches are needed, and some of the ideas floated have included mental health support officers for rural GP surgeries, or training vets up as mental health first aiders, because they might be a point of contact for a farmer and recognise when they are struggling. Different communities require help in different ways, and farming communities often feel overlooked. They are vital for keeping the nation fed and fit and healthy, but they have a job that involves working from before 5 or 6 in the morning until late at night. If services are provided that do not fit with that person’s lifestyle and job restrictions, they can often struggle to access them, which, when coupled with having virtually no mobile signal and poor broadband, means that people in rural areas are sometimes cut off in more ways than one. The Mental Health Act 2025 had a fairly limited focus on providing care to those with the most acute mental health problems. We need to look at preventive measures to ensure that people are supported through difficult times in their lives. These new clauses will require a report from local authorities so that we can ensure that they are providing tailored support to those in need. The Liberal Democrats strongly believe that early intervention and preventive services are key to tackling to mental health issues. These new clauses would urge mental health service providers to look beyond putting out the fire. This is about moving from crisis management to ensuring that people are supported in their local communities so that they do not reach the point of crisis. We need to treat mental health as seriously as we treat physical health. I know the Minister agrees with that; we think these new clauses will enable the Government to deliver on that ambition.

    Hansard source
24. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I thank hon. Members for their insightful input to the discussion on mental health in general and for their thoughts on our amendments. It is reassuring to see the cross-party concern for mental health and the recognition that it seems to be an increasing problem. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made a good point about the causes of mental health problems. We know that people in debt are three times more likely to have mental health issues than people on an average income, and that people who have served in the armed forces are at a higher risk. A whole combination of non-clinical things, such as insecure housing, zero-hours contracts and even social media for adults and children, are potentially adding to the mental health challenges that we are facing. I appreciate the Minister talking about the new cross-Department mental health strategy. It sounds valuable and it seems to address a huge number of the multifactorial issues that have led us to this point. I will happily not press any of the amendments apart from amendment 9. The mental health investment standard is one of our absolute core priorities, and I would like to press that to a vote. I thank everybody for their contributions and insight into this. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham covered most of the points I was going to make, so I will be very brief. The changes that are proposed to the better care fund seem like another example of decision making being taken away from local authorities and other organisations, which are often the ones that are best placed to understand the health and care needs of their local populations. This measure centralises power rather than devolving it. Ultimately, the Bill leaves the impression that social care is being pushed more and more on to local authorities. That seems like an ill-judged move, given the ongoing stand-offs we have on the funding of social care and continuing healthcare up and down the country, and it is hardly encouraging the integrated working that everyone accepts is needed to address the joint issues in social care and the NHS. We are worried that there are multiple measures in the Bill that are separating social care and the NHS at a time when greater integration and closer working are so clearly needed. If we want to grasp the nettle on corridor care, overcrowded hospitals, ambulance delays and delayed discharge, we need to get the NHS and social care working together. All those issues seem to have their roots in social care—or the lack of it. Taking these changes alongside others, such as the removal of local authorities and GPs from ICBs, it looks as though ICBs will not be capable of living up to the ambition of acting as joint committees that co-ordinate care with local trusts, GPs and social care. In summary, this all boils down to the fact that we cannot keep treating NHS services and social care as separate entities.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 47, page 34, line 19, after “behalf” insert “, including nominated carers”. This amendment makes it explicit that nominated carers can access the single patient record on behalf of those they care for.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    All the stakeholders have said that the single patient record is part of the Bill that could be genuinely transformative. I would also like to note the Bill’s many references to carers, including the Secretary of State’s duty to promote the involvement of carers alongside patients in decision making around care and commissioning. However, the Bill is currently quite vague as to whether carers will be able to access the single patient record, and we want that to be made explicit. We want to reiterate the lack of focus on social care, which is the biggest issue facing the NHS, and emphasise our call for carers in general. The benefits that the single patient record could bring to patients have been well-established, and it is well-supported, but we believe that the single patient record could also be of huge benefit to carers. It could allow them to care more effectively for their loved ones, and it could allow it to be flagged on their own records that they are carers, so they receive the support that they need.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. Obviously, the whole point of this amendment is to equip people who are providing what is often the daily care for someone else with the information they need to provide that care. My family cared for my father at home for many years when he had dementia; he was on medication for other physical health issues as well, and he was not capable of administering his own medicine, or even of understanding what he was on half the time.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I agree that there is no need for carers to see irrelevant or extremely historical information in the single patient record. Currently, however, there are a lot of carers who, for various reasons, such as not having legal power of attorney, cannot access the information that they need. We also sometimes find that the people who are carers, who are potentially the spouse of the patient and are themselves elderly—because a lot of people receiving care are elderly—do not understand the information that they are being given. There can be a situation where the person providing care does not fully understand why the patient is getting some medication, or the best way to treat them. We hear that quite a lot. We understand that the Bill is not designed to set out all the specifics of what the single patient record will look like—that key point was made in the interventions by the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Ashford. However, although we do not know exactly what it will look like, as it is being created, drafted and thought through, we would love the Minister to confirm to us that carers will be able to see the appropriate parts of the single patient records of those they care for, so that they can oversee their medical care and flag any issues. There are some specific advantages to having a single patient record when travelling between hospital trusts. For example, being able to quickly see what historical medication the patient has had, especially when it comes to antimicrobials, and the results of tests that were performed in other hospitals and healthcare settings, is absolutely vital to ensure that we do not allow antimicrobial resistance to increase at an unnecessary pace. Often, patients do not understand the type of antibiotic they are on, or remember the name of it, and that is a specific but big issue, because it can generate antimicrobial resistance. There are a few more issues that I could speak to, but I will sit down.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    The hon. Lady is making very good points. The whole thrust of the argument is that there is little detail around how the single patient record will be created and implemented. This is a perfect opportunity to work out how we can empower carers while preserving patient confidentiality where necessary. If we do not focus on that in the early stages of the SPR’s implementation, before it has even been designed, we will miss the opportunity to ensure that carers have an easy way to get the right information. We should not miss that opportunity.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I thank everyone for that very useful discussion. I was pleased to see everyone broadly in agreement that we need to work out how we can provide the necessary information to provide better care, and to balance that with privacy. Everyone made really insightful points on that. I just emphasise that, as we all know, there is a difference between treatment/prescription and compliance, and compliance is where many medical treatments fall down. It is once the medical staff are not involved on a day-to-day basis, when the patient is not under their direct care or in the facility of the medical treatment, that most of the care takes place, and that is when successful or unsuccessful treatment for the medical condition occurs. If the people providing the daily care are not empowered properly, it is—well, not a complete waste of time, but the efforts of the medical staff are in vain if the compliance day to day is not accurate. I thank everyone for the discussion. I will not press the amendment to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

    Hansard source
32. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 47, page 34, line 29, at end insert— “(3A) The regulations must make provision for medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record. (3B) The regulations must include a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of introducing a statutory requirement for mandatory medical markers for firearms licence holders to be used by those relevant in providing patient care.” This amendment would require medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The amendment was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and would require medical markers for firearms licence holders to be visible to all relevant health workers under the establishment of a single patient record. I will not read through all my speaking notes but, in a nutshell, a person rightly undergoes mental health checks before they acquire a firearms licence, but that will not be reviewed until they are due to renew their firearms licence a few years later. If their mental health status changed during that time, the amendment would enable them to be flagged to healthcare workers and GPs as a person who has a firearms licence, so that any necessary proactive measures could be taken to ensure that they are still safe to have that licence, or should have it removed, rather than waiting for them to apply for a new licence in a few years’ time. The British Medical Association supports the amendment and the Royal College of General Practitioners thinks it would be valuable. A survey carried out by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 87% of existing certificate holders believe that GPs should inform the police if they become aware of health issues that could have an impact on the certificate holder’s ability to own a gun safely. Quite often, however, the GP is not aware that the person is in possession of a firearms licence.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I suppose this is another chance to use the developing single patient record to ensure that we close the gap. The record could be formed in such a way, and the process put in place, to ensure equity in the system, with mandatory markers. Amendment 72, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, would require prior membership of the armed forces to be visible to all relevant healthcare workers under the establishment of a single patient record. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a report on making prior armed forces membership visible on the single patient record. There are just over 1.85 million armed forces veterans in the UK, 13.6% of them women and 86.4% men. The transition from serving in the armed forces to civilian life can mean that many of those individuals struggle with mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. The issues are often specific to the service the individuals have given. Some stats show that more than half of England’s Army veterans have some sort of health problem. I should point out that veterans do not only have mental health problems. Specific back and knee problems are much more common among infantry soldiers because of the type of training they have done over many years. The amendment seeks to make prior armed forces membership visible to all relevant healthcare workers, and to make the Secretary of State consult on the merits of doing so, so that when a GP is treating a patient, they are aware of that person’s service history without having to ask about it specifically.

    Hansard source
35. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman makes some good points, especially given his experience as the Conservative spokesperson in the Westminster Hall debate on this subject, for which he did a lot of research. I do not think we need to worry about medical professionals seeing that someone has a firearms licence and potentially treating them differently because of assumptions they make about them. Medical professionals are trained to be dispassionate, and they try to show little bias. I would be very surprised if a doctor, seeing it flagged on a single patient record that someone was in possession of a firearms licence, changed their attitude towards or approach to the treatment of that individual. I think that particular point is probably not relevant.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I thank all hon. Members for their input, and the Minister for her insights. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Danny Chambers

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I will speak to clause 47 and to new clauses 7 and 8, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). The sector has been calling for a single patient record for decades, and it is the single most impactful part of the Bill. It could be transformational for patient experience, care, outcomes, consistency of treatment and reducing errors. Members have talked about the hassle of people having to tell their story repeatedly or recollect the history, which many people cannot do accurately, so the clause could be hugely impactful. Polling shows that nine out of 10 Britons want better access to medical records. Many assume that a single patient record already exists and are often quite surprised when they go to another hospital and find that it has no record of what has been done in the county next door. Although the public are rightly concerned about the use of their data, especially outside of direct care and for planning and research purposes, we wholly support the idea of a single patient record. The plan is for people to be able to see their primary, secondary and social care records all in one place, all in the NHS app. It will be transformational, but patients should be in control of their data. They should be able to see who is accessing their records and should be able to opt out of sharing data. It is essential that there is sufficient control and guarantees around the sharing of data, whether for research or other reasons. The Bill does not go far enough to provide reassurances that patients will ultimately be in charge of their own data and how it is used. Trust among medical staff, patients and the public is essential for this much-needed system to succeed, and we have only to look at the pushback on the federated data platform to see that. Sufficient guardrails are necessary to make sure that secondary uses of health data are allowed only when they deliver a clear public benefit. Rules need to be future-proofed so that they are not vulnerable to change depending on the political or economic situation. There should be meaningful checks, balances and transparency. We want to make sure this technology is focused on enabling and delivering healthcare. We know that, in the US, Palantir is providing health data to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is then used to support deportations. We would be really concerned if people were too worried to come forward for medical treatment because they thought that their immigration status might be passed on to another Department. There was a Westminster Hall debate recently on the concerns about Palantir and about the single patient record being abused. From an economic point of view, it seems a lost opportunity to have such a huge infrastructure project farmed out to foreign companies based abroad. First, this is a huge opportunity for companies in the UK to boost our economy, provide employment and drive innovation. Secondly, if we are reliant on foreign companies to deliver this service, we could lose our health sovereignty and their motivations might change depending on the political and economic situation of the country in which they are based. There have been recent examples of NHS staff inappropriately accessing the private health records of the victims of the Southport and Nottingham terror attacks. The decision by the University Hospitals of Liverpool Group not to inform patients of the breaches understandably raised privacy concerns. The Government must therefore ensure that there are sufficient safeguards and guardrails, and that they are communicated clearly to the public to build trust. The single patient record needs to happen, but in the right way. The issues with the FDP’s uptake have shown that patient and staff mistrust can significantly undermine a system’s effectiveness. The most important safeguards should not be left entirely to later implementation. They should be laid out in primary legislation at the beginning of the process. The Bill should be more explicit on who is responsible for decisions about access, sharing, liability and redress. That is why we have tabled various amendments, which we will get to later, most notably on our health data charter, setting out the key principles of how health data should be handled and a duty to prioritise domestic suppliers in technology procurement. We welcome Opposition amendment 49, which we debated earlier—I believe it was echoed by the NHS Alliance—suggesting that a plan should be laid before Parliament for a minimum three-month public information campaign before the system goes live. The discussion on this needs to be constructive, not alarmist, to make sure that the SPR is rolled out in a safe fashion and so that we all get to feel the benefits. Public involvement should be ongoing, visible and tied to real implementation decisions. Past NHS data reforms show that support depends on people feeling informed, heard and able to challenge decisions. Any red lines should also be clear. For example, there should be consented use for marketing or insurance purposes. We also need to discuss the role of GP practices in this debate, given that they work within the NHS but are also private businesses. GP records are among the NHS’s richest data assets, and GP practices are to remain independent data controllers. I have spoken to three different practices in Winchester, and the practice managers are quite concerned that GPs will be required to share data much more routinely than they do now, but they will still carry the legal and professional risk and will likely act as the channel to explain to patients how their data will be used. GPs will need to be brought on side for the SPR to work, and that will depend on who decides, what safeguards apply and how burdens on practices are managed. Recent experiences show the sensitivity of the issue. The British Medical Association has stated that it may consider collective action on GP data sharing. The 2022 roll-out of automated prospective GP record access through the NHS app was paused after concerns about safeguarding and the burden on practices. Will the Minister expand a little on the detail and on how all this will be implemented? What precautions will be taken to ensure that patient data is protected? Will she consider the Lib Dem proposal for a health data charter that sets out principles and responsibilities for handling NHS data?

    Hansard source
38. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Historical Forced Adoption

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today and for the apology on behalf of the state. I acknowledge the visitors we have in the Gallery today and the extraordinary testimonies of Members across this House. So often this Chamber is divided along the lines of party politics, but on days like this, we are united as living, breathing and feeling human beings, and I think the Chamber is at its best in those moments. My constituent Lynne was forcibly adopted shortly after the second world war. To understand her health concerns, she was eager to learn something of her family’s medical past. She was denied access to medical records for many decades. In fact, it was only a very helpful social worker who sought to try to reconstruct her family’s medical past for her and with her. Could the Prime Minister say more about whether the new national online resource will include details such as family medical history, so that constituents like Lynne might better understand their own health concerns? Bearing in mind the highly time-sensitive nature, given that often the children were born in the late 1940s and 1950s, can he say more about the timescales he expects to deliver this new resource?

    Hansard source
39. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Dr Al Pinkerton

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

    I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing today’s important debate. I want to use the brief time I have to share two examples from my constituency of systemic mismanagement of managed property. The first example that I will cite is a FirstPort-managed property—we have heard that name mentioned already—called Bentley Court in Camberley’s town centre. On 19 March, the building’s only lift broke down. For most of us, that would be a frustration, but for the retirement community who live in that building, it has been life changing. These are older people, often with significant mobility issues. That lift is not just a convenience; it is their access point to and from their property. It is their independence. Residents tell me that they have not been able to go shopping and have missed hospital appointments. Some cannot take out their rubbish, and others have become trapped in their home for days at a time. That brings me to the case of Audrey West, one of my constituents. She lived at Bentley Court for more than 26 years. She suffered from heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, and had serious mobility problems. She became a prisoner in her own home when that lift broke down, and her health and wellbeing deteriorated. When she attempted to tackle the stairs, the physical exertion caused enormous strain on her body, leaving her breathless and exhausted. That was only compounded by the recent heatwave. In order to secure her safety, her family concluded that the only thing they could do was remove her from her home of 26 years. On 28 June, just days after leaving her home, Audrey’s family contacted FirstPort again, copying in my office, to inform the company and me that Audrey had died. I am not here to claim that a broken lift directly caused Audrey’s death, but I am willing to say this: no vulnerable resident should ever be left feeling abandoned and trapped in their home. The lift remains unrepaired and unrepairable, with no end to the situation in sight. My second example is Mytchett Heath, a not-for-profit retirement community managed by Cognatum Estates. MPs from across the House have constituents who are affected. Again, older residents are feeling completely ignored, and now maligned, by the company that should be looking after them—residents who have invested their life savings in a home, but who have no voice when it comes to how their property is managed. Last month, I met a group of Cognatum residents here in Parliament. One described Cognatum as “the worst commercial organisation I have dealt with in a long professional career”, and nobody in the room looked surprised at that. Residents described soaring service charges, complaints that went nowhere, a regulator—the Association of Retirement Housing Managers—that they do not believe is independent, and a tribunal process that is so expensive. Lease terms can allow the managing company to recover legal costs from residents, who simply give up trying to engage with the process. Residents spoke about residents’ forums disappearing, and about having to renegotiate electricity contracts on behalf of the management company, because it was incapable of doing so itself. The most extraordinary thing that we heard was that Cognatum has refused to allow defibrillators in a retirement community, because it is fearful that members of the public might seek to access those defibrillators from outside the estate. I will conclude in just a few seconds, if you will allow me that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister—

    Hansard source
40. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Daisy Cooper

    Business of the House

    The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—the Prime Minister in waiting—has said that his approach to devolution would be one of urgency, yet we understand that there may be conversations about delaying announcements on local government reorganisation and devolution of powers, so that the new Prime Minister has the glamour of announcing them. Will the Leader of the House put those rumours to bed, and confirm that announcements on the creation of unitary authorities in Hertfordshire and elsewhere will be made in this House, before the summer recess? That way, Members can ask the Government questions, and local authorities can have certainty about going ahead with local government reorganisation without further disruption to vital services, such as special educational needs and disabilities provision and social care.

    Hansard source