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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Reform·Robert Jenrick

   Business of the House

   On Tuesday, we learned that the only two major road projects in the east midlands—the A46 in Newark and the A38 in Derby—were to be scrapped. So many questions remain. How were these projects chosen? Why are the only projects being scrapped in the whole country those in the east midlands? Who, if anyone, was consulted? The Labour Mayor of the East Midlands was not. How much money has been wasted over the last 10 years getting to the point that we are at today? Does the Department for Transport even support this decision, given that the only communication we have had—by “we”, I mean the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), the Labour Mayor of the East Midlands and I—came, weirdly, from a special adviser in No. 10, not from the Secretary of State for Transport? It really is a mess. Can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to get in touch with those of us who are interested in this matter, and to come to Parliament to answer questions on it?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Reform·Richard Tice

   Siren Associates Ltd: FCDO Contracts

   It is a great pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate; I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for granting it. The Minister at the Dispatch Box and I are both Lincolnshire MPs, and we share the burden of knowing that Lincolnshire’s is the most underfunded police force in the country, and could really do with an extra £10 million to £15 million per year to provide an extra 200-plus police officers, more technology and more cars to prevent crime and secure more convictions. So, imagine my surprise and concern when last October, I read that the Foreign Office had granted a three-year contract for a sum totalling £46 million to help not the Lincolnshire police force, but the Lebanese police force. I thought, “What’s going on here?” I thought, “This feels to me, in my honest opinion, a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash,” because my constituents in Boston and Skegness believe that it is the Lincolnshire police force that should be properly funded. With all due respect to the police officers within the Lebanese police force, in the nicest possible way, that is their issue; our issue is protecting and keeping our own constituents safe. The idea that the Foreign Office is sending £15 million a year to train the Lebanese police force is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash, and I will come on to how I would deal with it. Of course, when contracts are placed by the Government, someone has to deliver that contract. Let me now introduce the House to a group of companies under the umbrella banner called Siren. There are a number of these companies, the first of which is Siren Associates Ltd, which is a not-for-profit company, which all sounds very nice and cosy and cuddly. There are other private companies called Siren Consulting Ltd, Siren Advisory Services Ltd and Siren Analytics Ltd. Those are owned and controlled by the four directors in varying different ways of the not-for-profit company Siren Associates Ltd. This is the company that has pitched for the contracts from the Foreign Office, and not just the three-year contract for £46 million that I referred to that was granted in September 2025. No, it actually transpires that Siren Associates Ltd, this not-for-profit company, had secured two previous contracts in 2021 and 2022 for the sums of £15 million for one year and then £16 million for two and a bit years to provide the same sort of services to the Lebanese police force. People might think, “That’s all very well.” I was surprised when I read into the accounts of Siren Associates Ltd, which are incredibly brief because they claim the exemption from full accounts, despite huge contracts from the Government, and from small company accounts, which means there is no profit and loss account. There is no explanation of how they are spending this taxpayers’ money overseas, of what an amazing job they might, or might not, be doing. Who knows? They have not explained how many police they are training and supporting in all the various ways. We have no idea whatsoever. The only interesting thing I spotted was at the end where the related party transactions show that millions of pounds are going out the side door to the directors by way of director fees and management fees to three separate Siren companies. It is quite hard to work it all out, but I have done my best, and it appears to me that within the first two contracts totalling some £31 million during that period, some director fees of £3.2 million were paid over that five-year period, which means that the directors were probably taking out per annum more than the Prime Minister is paid. Then, there is an additional twelve-and-a-bit million pounds by way of management fees to these other companies. It is probably worth reflecting on the four directors of this company, Siren Associates. One is a British citizen who appears to live in the United Kingdom. Two others are Lebanese citizens who live in Lebanon, and one is a Swedish citizen who lives in Sweden. I would have thought that directors’ fees of more per annum than the Prime Minister is paid is a king’s ransom in Beirut. I think many of our constituents would be pretty outraged, frankly, at the level of money—our cash—that has been going out the side door by way of directors’ fees and management fees. If this not-for-profit company is doing such a great job, why does it need all these separate companies? Why not be clear and transparent, when this not-for-profit company is clearly giving the impression of a great, charitable, noble endeavour? Maybe that was what helped to persuade the Foreign Office to grant the contracts, but we do not know. There is an anxiety about why it is so complicated, why there is so little transparency and why there is so little information about the performance and the quality of what they have done. So we have these four Siren companies, and we do not really know how they are performing. What we do know is that the framework contract under which these contracts were granted is the multibillion-pound conflict, stability and security fund. Accountability reports and audits have been done by the House and various others, and its performance has been heavily criticised here in the UK, with all sorts of red and amber alerts, which gives one considerable pause for thought. Of course, we all know that Lebanon is sadly in a difficult place; it is essentially a warzone. When we drill into it, there are—regrettably but unquestionably—considerable links between the Lebanese police force and the proscribed terror group Hezbollah. Taxpayers might wonder whether it is really a good idea to send our taxpayers’ cash to the Lebanese police force, which clearly has significant links—there is no question about this—to Hezbollah. That is a genuine concern, but in no way am I at all suggesting that that has any involvement with the, I am sure, very lovely and nice four directors of Siren Associates Ltd. When I learned this last October, I put out a tweet, and I gave my honest opinion that it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash to grant a contract for £46 million to help train the Lebanese police force. I expressed my concern about millions of pounds going out in fees to other companies. That was not well received, I think it is fair to say, by the four directors. They sent me a letter from their lawyers at the end of October, and just recently I have been notified that I will be receiving a writ and they will be suing me. I believe it is a fundamental duty of a Member of Parliament—all of us, across all parties—to scrutinise the expenditure, value for money and performance of taxpayers’ cash. I do not think it is unreasonable therefore to look at that and, in a democracy where we pride ourselves on the joys of free speech, to be questioning where we can, where we should and where we must. Sometimes, that might involve language that some might find a bit bullish, a bit offensive or a bit too gentle—who knows? But that is our solemn duty. What is the point of us if we are not going to scrutinise that level of expenditure? It causes me real concern when I see this sort of secrecy and complexity, when it could be so simple, and they could be so informative, but they are not. It makes one think, “What have they got to hide?” The directors could have just rung me up, or sent me a very nice email or letter saying, “Richard, we saw your tweet. Look, dear chap, we think you’ve got it wrong. Could we come and see you and tell you what a lovely job we’re doing and how fantastically we are serving the emerging trainees and police officers in Lebanon?” I would have welcomed that, and if they convinced me I had got it wrong, I could have corrected the record—while bearing in mind that my responsibility and duty is to my constituents in Lincolnshire, which is suffering the burden of colossal underfunding, as I said at the start. But no, they did not do that. They just took the most aggressive route possible, not even writing to me directly from the company, but instead sending me notification from the lawyers. That makes me wonder, “Hmm, what’s going on here?” Where is the rational, calm, friendly, supportive approach one would expect from a UK company, based in Northern Ireland, that is benefiting from, in total across the three contracts, £77 million of taxpayers’ cash, to be spent with the Lebanese police force, where we know there are problems with links to Hezbollah? I think the company has got their response very badly wrong. To aggressively tell a Member of Parliament, “We’re going to sue you,” is completely the wrong approach. I was then even more surprised when just yesterday, I was approached by another hon. Member of this House who gave me, essentially, a warning, a veiled threat, on behalf of what he called “a third party”, that I should be very careful. Bear in mind that this is a Northern Irish Member of Parliament, speaking with regard to a Northern Irish company. We all know the horrors and fears that came from Northern Ireland. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I received that with considerable concern and trepidation. Frankly, I think it is outrageous—absolutely outrageous. Then, I was surprised to hear that, apparently, Siren Associates wrote a letter to the Speaker expressing concern that this subject might be debated. The purpose of this debate—the very purpose of this place—is to do our job on behalf of our constituents and secure good value and better public services, and make people in this United Kingdom across all of our constituencies better off. I thought, “What’s going on here? Why would they behave like this?” Then, I realised, “If you don’t understand something, follow the money.” There is a lot of money here, and I am deeply concerned. The questions I pose to the Minister—a fellow Lincolnshire MP—are simple. Does he condemn on behalf of the Government a Member of Parliament being threatened as I have been? Does he condemn a lawsuit brought by a company against a Member of Parliament who is merely seeking to secure good value and to scrutinise the use of taxpayers’ cash? Given this chain of events, I ask him that a full and proper inquiry be conducted. Who granted these contracts? Where is the accountability? Where is the assessment of how well the company is doing? We do not know anything from what is in the public domain, because the company has not told us in their accounts, which I believe they should have done. Given all that I have described, I think the new three-year contract should be suspended, pending the review and the inquiry. This is not right. It is not fair, it is not proper, and it is not how we do things in Britain—it is just not the British way. To conclude, I revert to where I started: I believe that that £15 million a year would be much better spent on the Lincolnshire police force as opposed to the Lebanese police force, and in my honest opinion, it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Reform·Andrew Rosindell

   Business of the House

   I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join the people of the Isle of Man this weekend, as they prepare to celebrate Tynwald Day on Monday. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting the Tynwald day reception in Speaker’s House last night with the Chief Minister, the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys. For several years, I have received correspondence from former constituents who have moved to countries such as Australia and Canada after a lifetime of paying tax in the UK. Nearly half a million British pensioners abroad have their state pensions frozen, while those in the EU and the United States receive annual increases. That is even the case for those who retire to the British overseas territories of Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos. How can it be right that British nationals are treated differently depending on where they live? Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this long-standing injustice?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ann Davies

   Business of the House

   Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. On 23 December 2024, my constituent Aaron Jones was killed in a hit and run while walking his dog. The perpetrator was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. Two weeks ago, his widow, Lisa, received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her of sentence changes under the Sentencing Act 2026, but she will have to wait until the end of August to know whether the man who took her husband’s life will be released earlier than expected. Does the Leader of the House agree that this uncertainty only brings further distress to victims’ families, and will he grant a debate in Government time so we can ensure that the Act is implemented with the required sensitivity, and with the safety and wellbeing of survivors the foremost consideration?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths

   The hon. Gentleman is, as always, generous with his time. We all fully appreciate the slant that he brings from Northern Ireland. Would he agree that there is also the issue of regional inequalities within England? We see in Yorkshire and the north of England some of the worst rates of survival when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Does he agree that we need to do more to close the gap when it comes to people from more deprived backgrounds and the poorer health outcomes that they face as a result of heart disease, stroke and other CVD?

   Hansard source
6. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Heart Disease and Stroke: Premature Deaths

   As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, I should say that we have been pushing to make sure that, when people with diabetes have those diabetic care processes, those are better linked with other comorbidities and ancillary services. Does he agree that we need to see more of that to get better outcomes for people with those comorbidities?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Distillers

   Earlier this year in my constituency, the much-loved brand Slingsby Gin went into administration. A cocktail of different things added to the pressure on the business. Will the Minister wish the new owners of Slingsby Gin, Chris and Asma Williams, good luck in their new venture, and tell me what steps the Government are taking to support them going forward?

   Hansard source
8. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Topical Questions

   I recently visited Envirovent, a manufacturer and supplier of sustainable ventilation products just outside Harrogate. It was recognised in The Sunday Times’ best places to work 2026 and recently produced its three-millionth ventilation fan unit. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Envirovent on those achievements, and perhaps visit to see the fantastic work it does for the people of Harrogate and North Yorkshire?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Business of the House

   Yesterday, over 50 parliamentarians from across this House and their Ukrainian counterparts wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about “Masha and the Bear”, a Russian cartoon series in which the militarisation of children and a distinct lack of regard for boundaries are key themes. It is currently streamed to British children on Netflix and ITVX; it is produced by a Russian studio paying tax to the Russian state, and has been labelled an instrument of Russian soft power by the Ukrainian Centre for Countering Disinformation. Does the Leader of the House agree that British children should not be an audience for content with these propaganda concerns, and will he ask the Secretary of State for DCMS to make a statement on what the Government intend to do about it?

   Hansard source
10. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Historical Forced Adoption

    I thank the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology and his statement. Nothing can undo the horrific harm and trauma that have been caused. He outlined the national online resource and national virtual peer-led support groups. Can I press him to say what steps will be taken to support those who might struggle to access digital services, and who might be digitally excluded? Will he consider setting up a national hotline, so that everyone can get justice, whether they can use technology or not?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Access to Further Education

    Quite often when I come to this place, it is to moan and groan, and gripe about something that has gone wrong, but today I want to highlight a really positive story. One of the first campaigns I ran after the general election was to secure an extension to the FE capital transformation fund for the rebuilding of Harrogate college. That is really exciting. I have been to Harrogate college a number of times, and I have seen the fantastic work that it does with people from across the local area. The new building will have some really exciting features, such as a replica hospital wing and renewable engineering kit. It is a really good success story about how we can upskill future generations to meet the skills gap. I visited Harrogate college earlier this year for Colleges Week, when the theme was “Skills for All”. I press the Minister on what more we are doing to ensure diversity, and to get people from all backgrounds into apprenticeships and FE colleges. I used to be on the board of governors at Selby college, where I did my A-levels. A great thing there were the partnerships with industries and experts; they really supported FE colleges, and went above and beyond when it came to kit in the classrooms. When I meet the principal of Harrogate college, he tells me that the real-terms cut to the devolved adult skills fund is placing pressure on the college. I gently ask the Minister whether that could be looked at, going forward, so that we can build effective pathways that allow adult learners to progress into areas where we see skill shortages. Harrogate college is well placed to help address the “not in education, employment or training” issue. I would like to press the Minister on the funding cliff edge. There is also an issue relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities, and home-school transport issues. The principal of Harrogate college has told me repeatedly that he has seen an increase of children with SEND going to Harrogate college, but transport to get them there is a massive issue, and a barrier. What will the Minister do to ensure that people can get to FE colleges in the first instance?

    Hansard source
12. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

    Employment Rights Act 2025

    Research by the British Retail Consortium found that over two thirds of part-time workers in the retail sector took the role because they needed flexibility around educational and caring commitments. The number of young people not in employment, education or training is over 1 million. Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that Labour’s jobs tax would hammer job opportunities for young people and that its business rates hikes would kill off opportunities on the high street, which gives so many young people their first job. As they implement the Employment Rights Act, which will introduce some welcome measures for employees, how will the Government ensure that this is not yet another burden that prevents businesses from being able to provide entry-level and flexible jobs?

    Hansard source
13. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

    Trade with Europe

    Joining the single market and a customs union could boost UK GDP by about £25 billion a year. Single market membership would give the UK access to EU defence programmes, creating high-skilled jobs in aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence technology. It would restore passporting rights for financial services, reducing costs and administration for firms operating across Europe. For businesses, joining a customs union would eliminate the rules of origin red tape that adds between 2% and 8% to the cost of exporting. The current Prime Minister and Chancellor have both admitted that repairing the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever they could pull for growth, and the incoming Prime Minister has stated his desire to rejoin the EU, so does the Minister agree that there is political momentum and a desperate economic need now to negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with Europe?

    Hansard source
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Oswestry is in Shropshire.

    Hansard source
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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