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. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

   I do not think we are disagreeing. Energy generation projects are infrastructure projects: whether the community owns them or not, the infrastructure still needs to be built. I would just like to see more communities owning those projects. We said in the local power plan that we want to make it possible to sell power locally, which would actively bring down bills, and for that wealth to be held locally. The grid and network infrastructure has to be built alongside that, which in previous years has not happened as much as it should have. One of the biggest changes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, has been about the cumulative impact and the sense that there has not been sufficient planning or a strategic approach. We will shift that with the national strategic spatial energy plan and, from that, the centralised network plan. We should have been doing that years ago. We have built lots of renewables projects, but have not worked out how we are connecting them to the grid. That is costing us in constraint payments, but it also means that we do not have as strategically aligned a grid as we should have. Unfortunately, we have to start from where we are. We will plan it more strategically moving forward, but I recognise my hon. Friend’s points. Returning to the central point of this debate, I recognise that communities should absolutely be at the forefront of the energy transition. We want to see much more community and shared ownership as well as partnerships with communities, but the Government are also unashamedly building the energy infrastructure that this country needs to weather the uncertain world we live in today. That will protect us in the future and unlock huge economic benefits from electrification and the industries of the future. That means building things, and they have to be built somewhere. My hon. Friend has frequently made the point that she agrees, but that she thinks Suffolk Coastal has faced a disproportionate number of those projects. I have some sympathy with her. We have to do everything we can to make sure that her communities and others like them benefit. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) made a point about pumped-storage hydro, which is an example of the infrastructure our country needs. We need to get the community benefits right that come with these projects. We have made huge progress in two years, but I am not going to stand here and say that the job is done. We need to continue to make sure that communities benefit as much as possible—not least because, in a fractured debate on the energy transition, we have a job to do to convince the public that this is a journey that benefits all of us. It will bring down bills and protect us in an uncertain world. Fundamentally, if communities are hosting it, they are doing the country a favour and we thank them for it, but they should also get some benefit. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal again for securing the debate. I look forward to meeting with her again; she should never fear bringing up these issues with me again and again, because they are hugely important. I take them seriously, and so do the Government. I hope that together we will find a way through. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
2. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

   High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

   I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He mentioned vape shops, barber shops and mini-marts. He will be aware of the evidence that some of those enterprises are masking quite serious organised crime on our high streets. This has been a decades-long failure in regulation. The cracks between which the issues fall, between different agencies, is immense. Does he agree that greater action is needed on the joint taskforce that this Government have now set up, and that we should also look at some of the commercial private landlords? We should ensure more regulation on them to check who is renting the properties that they let out.

   Hansard source
3. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

   High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

   Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

   Hansard source
4. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

   High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

   The hon. Member is being very gracious with his time. Is he aware that in Dudley there is a very tenacious trading standards officer who has managed to secure 40 closure orders in recent years, which far exceeds any other local authority? Does the hon. Member agree that tools and powers are available but it takes the will to use them?

   Hansard source
5. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

   High Streets

   The hon. Gentleman talks about the BBC investigation work that has been undertaken in recent months, which has exposed a huge amount of organised crime, including child sexual exploitation, money laundering and links to false asylum claims. Given how the fronts of these shops—so many of them are fronts—are tearing down legitimate businesses and making things so difficult for them, is it time to have a central agency to take responsibility, maybe under the guise of something like the national retail police?

   Hansard source
6. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

   High Streets

   The Minister is making a really important point. Grimsby town centre has diversified what the town centre offers; there will be a new cinema and more activities for families. That all ties into a youth offer with the brand new Youth Zone, a community hub for people in crisis, and town centre housing, which was desperately needed. It is absolutely essential to take a holistic view of how we rebuild our town centres.

   Hansard source
7. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

   Support for Victims of Abuse

   20. What steps his Department is taking to support women and children who have experienced abuse to access support services.

   Hansard source
8. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

   Support for Victims of Abuse

   The brilliant Denise Farman has been the chief officer of Women’s Aid in Grimsby for the last 25 years. She has pioneered move-on accommodation for those women and children leaving refuge to start to build the foundations of their new life, which has been remarkably successful. She notes, however, that there are more than 2,000 empty properties across north-east Lincolnshire. Has the Department had any discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we can better integrate projects such as Denise’s for this move-on and supported accommodation, and about linking it up with an empty home strategy?

   Hansard source
9. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The regulations were laid before the House on 1 June and, following a minor correction, re-laid on 8 June. In considering this instrument today we are not debating the principle of modernising planning committees. The enabling powers for these regulations are contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses and approved by them. Before I turn to the detail of the regulations, it is important to set out the extensive consultation and engagement that we have undertaken on these measures. As Committee members may recall, the commitment to improve local planning decision making by modernising planning committees was made in the King’s Speech 2024. Following that announcement, we published a planning reform working paper on planning committees that set out a range of proposals, including three options in respect of a national scheme of delegation designed to bring greater standardisation over the operation of committees and give greater certainty to applicants. Taking into account the valuable feedback we received to that working paper, three measures were introduced to the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The first gives a new power to the Secretary of State to set out which planning functions should be delegated to planning officers for a decision, and which should instead go to a planning committee or sub-committee. The second gives a new power to the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees. The third imposes a new requirement for members of planning committees to be trained and certified in key elements of planning law and policy. During the course of the Act’s progress, we undertook a public consultation on detailed proposals in respect of the three measures. Our response to that consultation committed the Government to introduce, through regulations, a two-tier national scheme of delegation to set a maximum cap for planning committees of 13 members, and to undertake further stakeholder engagement with a view to designing a creditable and cost-effective system for training committee members. As required by the Act, a further statutory consultation on the draft regulations for the national scheme of delegation and cap on committee size and associated guidance was undertaken earlier this year. The Government response confirmed that some changes would be made to the regulations as a result of feedback received, including imposing a size threshold in relation to reserved matters applications, which would determine whether they are in schedule 1 or 2. The result is the draft regulations before us. It is the Government’s considered view that they are integral to driving up rates of house building, and that they will improve, not undermine, the vital role played by planning committees. As I was at pains to stress throughout the passage of the Act, the Government recognise the essential role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. However, in providing essential local democratic oversight of planning decisions, we are determined to ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on larger and more complex applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. I reiterate that these regulations do not alter in any way existing requirements to consult on planning applications, the right of residents and elected councillors in any given local planning authority area to submit representations and make objections in respect of planning applications, or the fact that any such comments must be taken into consideration when determining applications, regardless of the decision maker. They are instead designed to ensure that planning committees function effectively, and that they are focused on the development proposals that matter most to an area, rather than spending time on minor or technical applications that can be efficiently determined by expert planning officers, bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. The principle of schemes of delegation is, of course, uncontested. At present, every local planning authority has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by planning committees rather than delegated to officers. Most local planning authorities already delegate a significant proportion of applications to such officers, such that 96% of planning decisions in England are already not made by planning committees. The problem is that there is significant variation across the country, and this creates risk and uncertainty in the system. For those reasons, we are introducing the national scheme of delegation. It will provide greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions. Let me briefly explain how the national scheme of delegation will work. It categorises planning applications into two types: those that must always be delegated to planning officers, as set out in schedule 1; and those that may, subject to a gateway test, be referred to a planning committee, as set out in schedule 2. The types of applications that must be determined by an officer include applications for minor residential development, that is schemes of fewer than 10 dwellings; minor commercial development; householder development; and reserved matters applications from proposals where the outline planning permission is for fewer than 500 dwellings. The types of application that fall into schedule 2 include larger applications for planning permission not set out in schedule 1, reserved matters applications where the outline permission is for more than 500 dwellings, and listed building consent applications. We anticipate that, in many circumstances, schedule 2 applications will continue to be routinely delegated to officers, as is already the case across the country. However, councils can decide to take them to committee if they feel it would be appropriate. To do so, the application must meet the requirements of the gateway test. It will be the responsibility of a nominated officer, usually the chief planner or equivalent, and a nominated member, usually the chair of the committee, to determine whether an application meets those criteria. The gateway test will operate as follows. Applications will be determined by a planning officer unless the nominated officer and member agree that it meets at least one of the following criteria: where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance for the local area; or where it raises a significant planning matter, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. We recognise that for applications involving a local authority itself, or an officer or member of that authority, there may sometimes be cases where, in the interests of transparency, committee scrutiny is merited. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they would fall into schedules 1 or 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria. To support local planning authorities in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and to ensure a consistent approach, we have published statutory guidance that they must have regard to. We have also asked the planning advisory service to provide support and training to both the officers and the members of local planning authorities in implementing the new approach to the operation of the delegation of decision making. As I mentioned, we are also placing a cap on the number of members who can sit on a planning committee. That is intended to allow committees to have more focused and higher quality debates. The cap has been set at 13 members, to accommodate those local planning authorities that have members from multiple political parties to ensure appropriate representation. To conclude, planning is and will remain principally a local activity because decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. That is why the Government are determined to ensure that every area has an up-to-date local plan developed through resident engagement, and it is why we remain firmly of the view that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. It is, however, vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. As I made clear at the outset of my remarks, we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement on these measures. We published an initial working paper. We held two rounds of public consultation and various roundtables and events, including with local authority officers, chairs of planning committees, house builders and sector bodies. Some of those events were led by the planning advisory service on behalf of the Department. We have listened and given careful consideration to the wide range of views expressed by those who have an interest in the matter. Those views and existing best practice across the country have informed the regulations. I hope that hon. Members agree that the changes we seek to make are a reasonable and proportionate means of improving the quality and speed of decision making in local planning authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

   Hansard source
10. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

    I knew that this instrument would provoke strong feelings, and it has done so, but I very much welcome the scrutiny provided by hon. Members and the considered contributions they have made. The first thing to say is that a principled case has been advanced—as it was during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—from members of the Committee who do not believe that a national scheme of delegation is warranted in any way. We have heard some of those arguments today, but, quite frankly, the time for those arguments has passed; the Act containing the enabling powers for these regulations passed both Houses after extensive scrutiny. We are talking about the form that the regulations take in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement to try to get the balance right in terms of the two-tier system we are introducing. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put a number of questions to me. The first touched on the rationale for the regulations in a fundamental way. As I said, we recognise the important role that planning committees play in ensuring local democratic oversight, and they will continue, once the regulations have passed—if they pass—to play a crucial role in planning decision making in the future. Across the country, we have a plethora of local schemes of delegation with huge variation, and that postcode lottery of schemes of delegation creates uncertainty. It slows down the planning system in important respects, which is why these regulations are required. We have made a raft of changes through our reforms to the planning system and are introducing a new system to bring forward local plans quicker. The hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned the importance of local plans, and I absolutely agree with him. It is a travesty that we inherited a system with such low local plan coverage that was up to date. We have made concerted efforts, as he knows, to try and drive up coverage of local plans across the country, to introduce a more rules-based national planning policy framework and to resource planning authorities to ensure that they can do the job they need to. Planning committees will continue to play a vital role in exercising democratic oversight, but we have to ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible and are focused on larger, more complex applications where member input is required. The Government trust expert planning officers. The question for us is finding the right level of trust and empowerment to allow them to resolve the applications that we propose to put in schedule 1 of the regulations more quickly in the service of residents and businesses. Only 5% of minor residential development applications are determined by committee, but that 5% adds a lot of time to what are, when it comes to residential development for example, quite minor applications. Local input in planning decisions will continue to be incredibly important, including from elected representatives. We believe that the best way for councillors and communities to engage in development is through the local plan process; that is the point at which local councillors can ensure that the local policies that planning officers would have to follow in respect of schedule 1 applications are in place. The changes we are making through the national scheme of delegation will support that plan-led system. They will ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible by focusing, as I have said, on those major decisions. We recognise that some planning applications are potentially complex or controversial. That is why we have created a framework where schedule 2 applications can go to committee for consultation when additional scrutiny is necessary. For example, schedule 2 includes listed building consent applications. In the vast majority of cases, we would expect those to be delegated to officers without any consequence, but there will always be a few cases that raise more significant issues and where members will want to take a view. Where a controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors can still play a key role in representing the voices of their constituents. I absolutely refute the Liberal Democrat spokesman’s argument that the regulations completely remove the role of councillors or cause the death of local democracy, as he sought to portray it. Local people will still be able to make representations on individual developments through the application process. Local councillors will be able to submit their views or objections, and, as the hon. Member knows because of his experience in the planning service, those concerns must be taken into account when, in the case of schedule 1 applications, the officer is reaching a decision. We are not changing anything in that respect.

    Hansard source
11. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

    And we think that is right on schedule 1 applications. They are a very different proposition from schedule 2 applications, which we think members should be able to take a view on through the gateway test.

    Hansard source
12. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

    That is a fair question. As I set out in my opening remarks, if such an application were to meet the conditions in schedule 2, it would go in front of the chief planning officer, in most instances, and the chair of the planning committee, and a gateway test would determine whether it meets the criteria that I have set out. If it does, the local authority can put the decision in front of elected members, as happens now with an officer recommendation, so we are not changing that. I have listed the types of application that fall under schedule 1: minor residential development under 10 units, minor commercial development and so on. There might be a principled difference of opinion here, which I respect, but we do think that expert planning officers should be able to take decisions on those matters. The hon. Member for Orpington challenged me on the impact of the fact that 96% are already not determined by committee. In a sense, he was saying, “What’s the point of these regulations, given that we have local schemes of delegation doing the job?” As highlighted in the impact assessment for these reforms to the Planning and Infrastructure Act, we expect these reforms to have a small but positive impact on the delivery of housing in this Parliament. We have never suggested that they are a silver bullet for all the issues that we face in the planning system. The Act’s impact assessment covered a number of options, including our lead option of delegating when applications are in line with local plans. We explored that issue, but the regulations take a more structured approach to delegating along the lines of application type, so we need to update the assessment to reflect that. We recognise that only approximately 4% of decisions are made by committees at present, but that percentage represents a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process because many major applications go to planning committee for consideration. Under the circumstances that we have outlined for the gateway test, they might not necessarily do so as they might not meet those criteria. Streamlining the planning process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities.

    Hansard source
13. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made. The impact assessment for the Act was published on the basis of a particular scenario, which we have modified. We need to update the impact assessment and we will do so in due course so that he has a better sense of the impact. The impact is tangible and real, in terms of what can go through schedule 2. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications in schedule 1, so it will speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up important officer time to focus on larger applications that have a real impact on housing delivery. Several hon. Members mentioned councillors’ ability to call in applications, which we are removing. The regulations do not require local authorities to put every schedule 2 application through the gateway test. It will be for individual local planning authorities to put in place their own arrangements for how the consideration of cases for referral to committee will operate in practice. In other words, it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them so that only certain schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee.

    Hansard source
14. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

    I do not believe so, because local planning authority schemes must adhere to planning regulations and meet the gateway test—in the sense of what can pass a committee—and the statutory guidance to which they must have regard. In a sense, we want to ensure that applications passing through the gateway and considered by committees are larger, complex and more controversial cases, and that less significant applications are determined by planning officers. That leads me to the legal obligations on officers. In a sense, the question has been put to me, “Can we trust local planning officers to make these decisions?” I must make it clear that officers working for local authorities are bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. They must, by law, take all material considerations into account, including relevant parts of a local plan—that is why having an up-to-date local plan in place is so significant—and national planning policy. The law also requires their decisions to be rational. Planning officers’ actions must adhere to codes of conduct, be they those of the local planning authority or of the professional institutes to which they belong. Taken together, we think that these measures provide strong safeguards to underpin the integrity of decisions.

    Hansard source
15. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

    Planning officers routinely make decisions without applications going to committee. We trust them to do so; they are bound by the requirements that I have just set out. The hon. Member touches on a point that I was going to come to. It is important to ensure that we have a highly skilled planning profession and the right training and support in place for officers. We are investing in good decision making by planning officers in councils across the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department has a planning capacity and capability programme that provides a broad range of support covering recruitment, skills, development, training and funding to ensure that local planning authorities have the capability and capacity that they need. Our approach to supporting planning recruitment and skills is deliberately demand-led, allowing local planning authorities to deploy support in line with their specific pressures. As he will know, councils have the flexibility to use support to recruit specialist skills or to upskill existing staff. To ensure that I respond to all questions, I will make two final points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked about instances in which the local authority is the decision maker or a local authority member is involved. I addressed that in my opening remarks, but it is worth clarifying again. We recognise that, for applications involving a local authority or an officer or member of that authority, committee scrutiny is merited in some cases, in the interests of transparency. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they fall into schedule 1 or schedule 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North made a powerful speech in support of the regulations. However, he asked how we determined which types of application fall into schedule 1. On the specific question of minor residential development, we took that as the appropriate threshold because, unlike in policy, in legislation—the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015—there is a distinction between minor and major development. With “minor development” being under 10 units, we thought that that was the appropriate level to set when it comes to residential developments. Commercial and housing development also falls into schedule 2. Importantly, a key addition that we made to the regulations following consultation was the requirement for the regulations to be reviewed within two years of their coming into force. That will give us the opportunity to monitor their implementation and identify any issues or unintended consequences resulting from particular types of application placement. That review will take place by 31 October 2028. Notwithstanding the range of issues and considerations that we have discussed, let me draw the Committee back to what the regulations seek to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision making so that the housing and growth that local communities want—and desperately need in many cases—can be delivered more quickly. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
16. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Defence Investment Plan

    I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement. As he said, this is a welcome shot in the arm for our defence and security sector. He talked about the defence export funding that would be available. That is extremely important because so many nations around the world really rate our kit and our expertise in these sectors. I am slightly concerned about what he said on home defence. Will he say a few more words about where he thinks we are on future funding and the importance of the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank?

    Hansard source
17. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Marsha De Cordova

    Knife Crime: Custodial Sentences

    Ten days ago, 17-year-old Jamal Coombes was killed in my constituency as a result of knife crime. Every young person deserves to live safely and fulfil their potential. His life was taken too soon. What actions are this Government taking right now to have a more co-ordinated approach with schools, public health and the police not only to prevent such awful tragedies, but to ensure that our young people feel safe and do not feel the need to have to carry a knife?

    Hansard source
18. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Marsha De Cordova

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    I pay tribute to Baroness Amos for the report she has published, which lays bare the scale of racism and discrimination in maternity and neonatal care. This is not a surprise to anyone; it is an issue that I and many other hon. Members in this place have been raising for years. I welcome the recommendation to root out racism and discrimination in these services, but more broadly, we all know that structural inequalities exist across the NHS, whether we like it or not, and we need to hold those responsible accountable. Can the Secretary of State say a little bit more about how he intends to be held accountable in this place, and about how senior clinicians will be held accountable for their actions? We need to root out racism and discrimination.

    Hansard source
19. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    I beg to move, That this House has considered antisemitism on university campuses. I want to begin by paying tribute to the Union of Jewish Students for its stellar work to represent Jewish students and fight antisemitism. I also thank Jewish communal bodies for all their work on this issue and more widely. This debate is deeply personal for me. I am not Jewish, but my experience at university alongside Jewish students helped to shape the person and the politician I am today. When I was a student at the University of Leeds in 2008, I decided to stand with the Jewish society. Even then, despite not having a deep or ingrained knowledge of the issues surrounding Israel, Palestine or modern antisemitism, I could see that my fellow students were subject to racism and discrimination just because they were Jewish. As a member of the Labour party, a party for which equality is a core value, that shocked and appalled me. As chair of the university Labour club, I stood by Jewish students. As a sabbatical officer on the student union executive, I stood by Jewish students. Now, 20 years later, having had the honour and privilege of being elected by the good people of Leeds South West and Morley as their Member of Parliament, I stand with Jewish students again, as I always will. We must be clear at the outset about the scale of the problem and its source. We must also be clear that those who deny that there is a problem are part of it. As the Community Security Trust has detailed forensically, antisemitism soared on our campuses following the 7 October attacks, rising by 413% between 2022-23 and the following academic year. October 2023 saw over a year’s worth of antisemitic incidents in just one month. A poll commissioned by the UJS and published this year found that a quarter of all students—25%—do not care very much, or at all, if Jewish students are forced to hide their identity on campus. Even more shockingly, 20% of students say that they would be reluctant to, or would never, live with a Jewish student. Antisemitism has, in the words of the UJS, become “normalised on campus”. We will never be able to grasp or tackle this crisis until we recognise that it is driven primarily by antisemitic anti-Zionism, the ugly form in which centuries of Jew-hate finds its most virulent expression today. The CST says that over 70% of the antisemitic incidents that it recorded in higher education last year were overtly related to Israel and the middle east, while also demonstrating anti-Jewish hate or motivation. I must be crystal clear: this is not about the legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli Government—goodness knows, I have been a critic. That criticism is expressly protected in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Nor is this about the legitimate protests that people carry out in support of the Palestinian people.

    Hansard source
20. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The purpose of the debate is to talk about antisemitism on campus, what drives it and how we can solve it. I want to be clear that a lot of what drives antisemitism on campus today relates to the denial of the equally legitimate right of the Jewish people to self-determine—there is no question but that that is one of the causes. It is about abusing some of the most precious aspects of our democracy. The right to free expression and the right to protest are being twisted to intimidate, harass and abuse Jewish students, in pursuit of a cause that we often see animated by racism, hatred and violence. That is why half of all students have heard chants or slogans that glorify Hamas, Hezbollah or other antisemitic terror organisations. It is why similar numbers of students have witnessed the 7 October attacks, the bloodiest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust, being justified. This is what globalising the intifada means in the real world. It is the student trying to take her biology exam while chants calling for the destruction of Israel and praising terrorists who massacred Jews on 7 October were screamed through a megaphone outside. It is the student who had to listen to their lecturer saying that hostage taking was “the only way for Palestinians to negotiate.” It is the students who have witnessed so-called pro-Palestine societies holding bake sales on Holocaust Memorial Day and the anniversary of the 7 October attacks.

    Hansard source
21. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. Later in my speech, I will come on to what I think the Government should be doing, but as the hon. Member mentions colleges, I will say that the Government should adopt David Bell’s recommendations once he has completed his review into antisemitism in schools and colleges. We have to stamp this out wherever we find it. The effort to stigmatise, isolate and harass Jewish students has even, on occasion, been accompanied by physical violence. Last year, I was pleased to return to Leeds JSoc to hear the first-hand testimony of Jewish students. They told me of being taunted by shouts of “Free Palestine” when they were going to Shabbat dinner at Hillel House, an event that had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They told me what it feels like to have a lecturer boast of how proud he was of seeing his son arrested for supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. In some instances, they also told me personally that they were hiding their identity from their flatmates because of the fear of how they might react.

    Hansard source
22. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    Having stood on the same site, I know just how powerful it is. Those people must be remembered for all time. I will come on later to recommendations for the Government; I realise that time is getting on, and I want to make some progress, but I will address the hon. Member’s point later. Abuse and intimidation on our campuses is not just directed at Jewish students. Rabbi Deutsch, the university’s Jewish chaplain, was hounded, bullied and, with his family, forced into hiding after death threats—that was at Leeds University again. Beyond Leeds, Jewish academics and staff on campuses have been subject to appalling antisemitism. Israeli professor Michael Ben-Gad was targeted by activists last year. He was threatened with beheading, and mass protesters stormed his teaching and his classes. Professor David Hirsh, a world-renowned expert on antisemitism, was forced to quit the University and College Union, of which he himself had been a founding member, because he found it intolerable to stay. Quite rightly, we would never accept such behaviour being directed at any other group of students or staff from any other minority background. In Britain in 2026, Jewish students and staff should not and must not be denied the safety, dignity and respect that we expect all students and staff to be afforded. Although it has obviously worsened considerably over the past three years, antisemitism on our campuses is not a new problem. Fifty years ago, anti-Israel activists on British campuses responded to the passage of the UN’s now infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution by attempting to ban Jewish student groups who supported the idea of a Jewish state, in effect banning huge numbers of Jewish students from campus. Half a century on, technology has exacerbated the challenge. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has rightly warned: “Campus antisemitism is the direct physical consequence of the online ecosystem. Social media platforms, AI chatbots, search engines and computer games have allowed extreme, conspiratorial antisemitism to shift from the dark fringes of the web into the mainstream student experience.” Two aspects are particularly noteworthy. The first is the manner in which well-networked extreme student groups operate anonymously, allowing them—sometimes in co-ordination with hostile state actors, it has to be said—to launch harassment campaigns against Jewish staff and students, with little or no risk of ever facing exposure or discipline. Secondly, no 18-year-old arrives at university without exposure to social media and what the APT terms “algorithmic grooming”. This speaks to a wider point. Campuses are not hermetically sealed bubbles. We know that through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the nefarious IRGC—Tehran and its media mouthpieces are seeking to radicalise young people here, spread antisemitism and amplify anti-Israel activism and narratives. In recent years, IRGC commanders have addressed UK-based student groups in online seminars, urging them to become “holy warriors” in an “apocalyptic war” against the Jews. Universities, one of them suggested, “have become the battlefront”, and they are calling them to arms. We must not allow our seats of higher education and learning, which at their best should promote, cultivate and guard the Enlightenment values of reason, tolerance and freedom of expression, to become incubators of extremism, fundamentalism and hatred. Too many universities have been too slow, too timid and too ineffectual in tackling antisemitism. In some instances, they have failed Jewish students and staff, the wider student body and the very purpose and principles underpinning academia and university life. That brings me on to my actions and what I ask of the Minister today. In the face of this challenge, I commend the action that the Government have already taken, especially the Prime Minister’s announcement that universities will be required to publish information on the scale of the problem on their campuses, as well as the specific steps that they will take to clamp down on it. I believe—to go back to what the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) said—that the Government should also consider the establishment of a statutory framework for the investigation and disciplinary handling of hate crime incidents in higher education and universities. The Charity Commission, the Office for Students and other regulatory bodies should all be empowered to ensure proper conduct and strengthen student union accountability, implementing sanctions where unions fail to address antisemitism. Higher education should be designated as a priority area for the extremely welcome Government agenda, “Protecting What Matters”, which was announced in March this year; it contains a lot of good material, but not necessarily the timelines in which to deliver it. I note that in the past UJS has provided a vital early warning system about emerging extremist threats. For instance, in the cases of the neo-Nazi National Action group and the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Government have followed with proscription, recognising that a threat on campuses soon becomes a wider threat to the safety of everyone. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could clarify a few points. What is the timetable for implementing the measures set out in the “Protecting What Matters” strategy? Will he ensure that higher education is a priority area? Will the Government consider UJS’s proposal for formalised taskforces to better co-ordinate action by the police, universities and Government to combat criminality and extremist activity on our campuses? That includes the provision of clear public order guidance for universities and the police, to strengthen the enforcement of both new and existing powers. Finally, will the Government consider the proposals developed by the Antisemitism Policy Trust to tackle the threat posed by social media? That includes developing a dedicated strategy to address the role of algorithms, gaming platforms, encrypted online networks and generative AI systems in facilitating the spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories, extremist narratives and online-to-offline radicalisation. I want to acknowledge the work of Jewish societies, student unions and university administrators. Some of them are doing tremendous work right now to deal with this problem. I will give three quick examples. King’s College London adopted UJS’s antisemitism awareness training, working with it to adapt that important resource for many of its staff. Keele University’s campus security team responded to the appalling attacks on the Jewish community in north London by inviting Jewish students to speak about their concerns and what they can do to address them. In communications with all students, City St George’s student union in London encouraged them not to engage with City Action for Palestine, which has repeatedly shared content supportive of terrorism and proscribed organisations. I will end today with where it all began for me. This year, I had the privilege of attending one of Leeds University JSoc’s Friday night dinners, one of the first I had attended in 18 years. The invitation described it as a small gathering, but I was delighted to find that it was a rather less intimate event than that. There were over 150 students there, and there had been 300 the week before; I think the lower attendance in the week I came was not because of me, but because it was half-term. It was a pleasure to be there and to speak to as many students as possible. Around the tables, some students were discussing their studies. Many spent the evening gossiping and making new friends—everything that student life should be about for everyone. Our Jewish fellow citizens are not asking very much from us: simply the right for their children and grandchildren to expect and enjoy the same experiences at university, with all its new opportunities, discoveries and challenges, that so many of us cherished and enjoyed.

    Hansard source
23. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    Can the Minister give us a more specific timeline than “very soon”?

    Hansard source
24. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Antisemitism: University Campuses

    It has been an excellent debate, and I value everybody’s contributions today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who talked about his experience compared with that of Jewish people, how wildly different it was and how insane it is that we tolerate that in this day and age. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for talking about the experiences of Warwick students, both good and bad. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) gave an excellent history lesson and spoke about the fact that this has happened before—and before Israel even existed. Antisemitism flares up on campuses regardless of the circumstances, and we must deal with that. I could not find a fault in the first half of the speech made by hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). He invited me to work with him to deal with this problem, and I gladly accept. I would gently say—I did not intervene at the time, because I wanted other Members to get in—that there is clearly a problem on campuses, and we have to intervene now, if 20% of all students say that they do not want to live with Jewish students. I would also say, on the issue of universities clamping down on free speech too much, that there is clearly still a problem if Jewish students have to live in fear on campuses today. It is worth having a discussion about that after the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke brilliantly about experiences of Jewish students from across the country. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) was excellent in her summation; I have to say that she, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and the Minister almost spoke with one voice, giving a new, positive meaning to the word “uniparty”. I will end by saying a huge thank you to UJS, which has provided a lot of the statistics and evidence that we have used in our speeches today. I commend its members for their work, and I know that it will continue. I want them, and everybody outside this place, to know that they will always have a friend in us. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered antisemitism on university campuses.

    Hansard source
25. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Murphy

    Defence Investment Plan

    I welcome the defence investment plan and the additional investment announced today. Too many defence SMEs locally tell me how difficult it is to navigate the defence procurement system and to win contracts. Will the Secretary of State set out how they will be able to benefit from this investment and how we will then be able to benefit from their skills and expertise?

    Hansard source
26. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Akehurst

    Defence Investment Plan

    I am particularly concerned about missile and drone threats to the UK, so I welcome the £790 million in the DIP for additional air and missile defence capabilities. Could the Secretary of State give a little more detail about what additional capabilities will be added to our existing layered air defences?

    Hansard source
27. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Leigh Ingham

    Topical Questions

    I welcome the Government’s £500 million of investment in victims’ services, which is a serious investment after years of neglect. In my constituency, Staffordshire Women’s Aid has been supporting survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence for 50 years. For every £1 spent on victims’ support services, £10.80 is returned to the public purse. What steps are being taken to ensure that brilliant local organisations, such as Staffordshire Women’s Aid, can access this funding, so that no area falls into the gaps?

    Hansard source
28. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Laura Kyrke-Smith

    Topical Questions

    T2.   This month I was delighted to award my community champion award to Afzaal Hussain. After his best friend was stabbed and died in 2021, he set up In This Together Bucks, which has now removed more than 1,500 knives from the streets while also addressing underlying causes of knife crime through mentoring, mediation and support for families. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Afzaal on his work, and does he agree that organisations such as his in our communities are vital to the tackling of knife crime?

    Hansard source
29. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kevin Bonavia

    Defence Investment Plan

    The Prime Minister and many others have said that this country needs to be ready for an attack on NATO by Russia by 2030, so every step this country takes is critical, and I welcome today’s plan. We must mobilise everything we can, including our industry, so will the Secretary of State or a Minister in the Defence team meet me to see how the defence industry in Stevenage—including MBDA, Airbus and our SMEs—can benefit from the new defence export facility?

    Hansard source
30. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

    Knife Crime: Custodial Sentences

    Mr Speaker, I know that you are a great supporter of the Parliamentary Knowledge Foundation. Next Thursday, it will be bringing MPs to Empire Fighting Chance, a boxing gym in my constituency that has been involved in the Government and Idris Elba-led anti-knife crime coalition. Does the Minister agree that listening to youth perspectives is crucial in the battle to reduce knife crime and that we should be commending the young people at Empire Fighting Chance for their involvement in what is often a deeply personal issue for them? They have lost friends and family to knife crime, but they want to be part of the efforts to address it.

    Hansard source
31. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 1 June 2026. I will begin by setting out the background. The instrument concerns machinery, which includes a wide range of workplace and consumer products such as cranes, excavators, leaf blowers and lawn mowers. The current framework for machinery safety is, like many other product regulations, based on EU rules that were assimilated into UK law following our departure from the European Union. The current EU directive and our UK regulations were first introduced in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Members will appreciate that machinery has adapted and advanced significantly in that time. As such, it is important that we review our legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose and accounts for potential risks from new and emerging technologies, as well as changes in supply chains and how they operate. I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. It has two functions: first, it ensures that updated EU machinery legislation can be fully enforced in Northern Ireland, as required under the Windsor framework; and secondly, it amends domestic legislation so that machinery that meets the updated EU requirements can continue to be placed on the market in Great Britain. The SI will introduce mechanisms to allow the EU’s new machinery regulation to be enforced effectively in Northern Ireland. The EU has updated its machinery rules through a new regulation that will apply from 20 January 2027, when it will replace the existing directive. The SI will give full effect to the machinery regulation in Northern Ireland by establishing a robust enforcement framework. It designates enforcement bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and district councils, and makes it an offence to fail to comply with obligations under the regulation. The instrument also provides for appropriate penalties, including fines and custodial sentences. This ensures that effective enforcement action can be taken where products are non-compliant. I reassure Members that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that the measures will not have a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system. In the vast majority of cases, compliance should be achieved through engagement and support for businesses rather than recourse to criminal sanctions. However, it is essential that penalties are available in serious cases of non-compliance. The instrument also provides for the continued role of UK-notified bodies in certifying machinery for the Northern Ireland market using the UKNI marking, a conformity marking that must be displayed alongside the CE marking when used for goods placed on the Northern Ireland market. In Great Britain, the instrument continues CE recognition, allowing businesses to place on the GB market goods that meet certain updated EU requirements, avoiding costly duplicate conformity processes. It achieves that by amending legislation to ensure that machinery that meets the relevant requirements of the EU machinery regulation can still be placed on the GB market. The instrument also includes provisions relating to Northern Ireland qualifying goods, ensuring that products in free circulation in Northern Ireland continue to benefit from unfettered access to the GB market. The EU’s machinery regulation aims to respond to new technological developments by introducing updated provisions that include clarified responsibilities across the supply chain, including clear importer and distributor obligations; provisions for digital documentation to reduce environmental impacts; and mandatory third-party assessments for certain high-risk products. The Government’s position is that those changes are beneficial, sensible and proportionate, and reflect how the machinery industry has developed since the previous regulations were introduced. As such, the Government will introduce a second SI in due course that will update legislation in Great Britain in line with requirements in Northern Ireland. The approach we are taking will support economic growth by eliminating costly duplicative processes, reducing unnecessary burdens on businesses, and helping to maintain the UK’s competitiveness with other markets. It will also support commitments in our trade strategy to reset the UK’s relationship and facilitate easier trade with the EU. It will protect the UK internal market and the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while also improving trade with the EU and other partners. My officials have carried out extensive stakeholder engagement regarding the future of machinery legislation in the UK. We ran a call for evidence last year and gathered verbal feedback through a series of roundtable events held across 10 locations and attended by more than 200 stakeholders. My officials engaged with businesses and trade associations across the UK and in key global markets. Stakeholders were supportive of modernising machinery safety requirements and continuing CE recognition, to reduce costs, support trade and maintain competitiveness. We received several responses from businesses in Northern Ireland and held two roundtable events in Belfast. There was broad support among stakeholders for the measures being introduced, including those to modernise and strengthen safety requirements. Many Northern Ireland stakeholders also expressed support for continued CE recognition in Great Britain. They told us this would ensure a clear and consistent approach to machinery regulation across the whole of the UK internal market. As the Committee is aware, we have already announced our approach in respect of introducing measures similar to those in place in the EU and Northern Ireland. Officials have also proactively engaged with the devolved Governments and enforcement authorities throughout the policy development and legislative process to discuss the upcoming changes and ensure they work for all parts of the UK. No significant issues have been raised with my officials, and we continue to engage regularly with stakeholders. It is clear from our engagement that this legislation is in the best interests of both industry and consumers across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. The Government are taking proactive steps to ensure that industry is well supported in complying with the new requirements. The approach we are taking reflects the feedback we have received from stakeholders and is designed to work in the best interests of business as well as consumers. The changes have been widely viewed as a pragmatic solution to support competitiveness, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and sectors with more limited resources. As machinery is a global sector, many businesses that manufacture and supply machinery have already begun preparing to meet the updated requirements to continue trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. Through our engagement with industry, officials have not identified significant adverse impacts arising from the instrument. The Government remain fully committed to supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. In the most recent Budget, we announced a £16.6 million UK internal market package to help businesses to adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape. We will also provide clear and timely guidance to give businesses the support they need to comply with the requirements with confidence and certainty. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

    Hansard source
32. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations and their contributions to the debate. They raised a significant number of issues that I will pick up on in my response. First, on our product regulation legislation, since getting into Government we have legislated for the flexibility to ensure that product regulation, now and in future, is tailored to the needs of the UK. There will be some instances where we will take our own approach and some instances where we will want to take a similar approach to the EU. However, we have done that, and will continue to do that, on a case-by-case basis, where it is absolutely in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers and in our national interests. The arrangements under the Windsor framework are a settled and important part of UK law, agreed by Parliament to protect the UK internal market. We have made the sovereign decision that is right for the whole of the UK to improve safety and modernise in particular machinery legislation, which we are discussing today, to reduce duplicative and costly burdens on businesses and ensure that there is no friction with the UK internal market. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, our approach is supported by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders. This SI does not implement EU law in Great Britain; it does, however, continue CE recognition in Great Britain so that products that meet the new EU requirements can be placed on the GB market. That is not a new concept, but the continuation of current Government policy and the policy of prior Governments. The UK and the EU are strategic partners, and it is in our mutual interest to maintain trade flows and avoid trade friction, while responding to emerging technologies and maintaining a commitment to product safety and consumer protection. Mutual transparency and regular discussions are an indispensable part of that. Informed by our engagement with industry, the Government have reviewed the changes introduced by the machinery regulation, and we believe that they are sensible and proportionate and will ensure that safer products are available to consumers and businesses alike. That is why we are continuing CE recognition and seeking to introduce similar measures in GB. As I have said before, we are prepared to align with EU regulation, but we will take a pragmatic, case-by-case approach, doing it where it clearly advances the national interests, supports long-term growth, promotes consumer interests, attracts investment and supports jobs. Where that is not the case, we will take a different approach to deliver the best outcomes for businesses and consumers in the UK. At the centre of any long-term plans for the alignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we will maintain the integrity of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s rightful place within it. My officials engage with the Northern Ireland Government and enforcement authorities on a regular basis to discuss any issues or concerns they might have, and that close relationship will remain ongoing. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire mentioned Northern Ireland businesses and dual labelling, and I thank him for raising that. The answer is no: they can continue to CE mark only, and UKNI marking is optional if the conformity assessment is in the UK. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, and a number of Members on the Opposition Benches, mentioned the impact assessment for this SI. As she knows, a de minimis assessment has been prepared for the provisions of this instrument relating to continuing CE recognition in Great Britain. These measures are considered to have a low impact per business from their introduction, and that is additionally the case for the Northern Ireland aspects of this instrument. The measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of the assessment. The Windsor framework is already given effect in legislation through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement Act) 2020, which adds provisions and powers to the 2018 Act.

    Hansard source
33. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises AI and cyber-security as part of our considerations. That is why it is so important that we keep up to date with technological developments and the impact on machinery. The EU’s machinery regulations, as he says, include provisions on software and AI to ensure that those new technologies do not affect the safe functioning of machinery. We are also working with the EU to ensure that the changes in Northern Ireland are compatible with wider product safety and regulatory reforms, including cross-cutting legislation on AI and cyber-security. Overall, we expect the instrument to benefit Northern Ireland. We have extensively engaged with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and SMEs in particular have indicated that it significantly helps in terms of resources—that is from our direct engagement with those businesses and the feedback we have received. It is a key consideration for businesses that they will be able to continue to benefit from dual access to both EU and UK markets. As we work towards introducing similar measures in Great Britain, continuing CE recognition and ensuring that the same machinery products can be placed on the market across the whole of the UK without unnecessary duplication of testing and administrative process will be absolutely vital. The shadow Minister asked about the numbers of businesses involved. We estimate that around 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and 5,380 in Great Britain are in scope of the machinery legislation. She also referenced the £16.6 million of funding that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Funding was allocated in the Budget to deliver an enhanced “one-stop shop” advice service for small businesses beyond what is available on gov.uk, along with the new funding for Intertrade UK, and that commitment will be delivered in the course of the next financial year. The project has moved into a phase of more active engagement, with robust interest from stakeholders. Formal co-design workshops are ongoing to refine the service specification and ensure that the delivery model meets business needs. I have briefly touched on the implementation of similar measures in Great Britain. My officials have already begun actively developing a further SI to modernise GB machinery regulation, which will ensure that the UK framework remains proportionate and aligned with the technological developments raised numerous times throughout this debate. Announcements about implementing similar measures have already been made, to provide businesses with the certainty that the shadow Minister also asked about. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referenced enforcement and parliamentary scrutiny. The day-to-day enforcement of product safety legislation is largely local. For machinery in Northern Ireland, it would generally be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland or by district councils, for workplace and consumer products respectively. However, the Secretary of State has enforcement powers under legislation, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards has an active enforcement role on behalf of the Secretary of State, particularly where issues are nationally significant, complex, novel, high risk or large scale. For example, the OPSS can intervene where a product risk affects consumers nationally or where co-ordinated enforcement action is needed across multiple agencies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that enforcement will remain as it is under the current regime and that nothing will change; I hope that reassures him and answers his question. When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of CE recognition under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we have consulted with stakeholders, and Northern Ireland provisions are done as part of the Windsor framework, which I touched on right at the start of my remarks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary process uses the affirmative procedure. To conclude, we are using the PRAM Act powers, as I have mentioned, for CE recognition, which requires consultation with stakeholders. UKNI marking will only be used by a UK notified body; otherwise, it will be a CE mark only. We have heard that from businesses in Northern Ireland through that stakeholder engagement, and that is what they have told us. As explained previously, this draft instrument ensures the effective enforcement of the EU machinery regulation in Northern Ireland. It maintains access to the GB market for compliant products and supports high safety standards while minimising unnecessary burdens on business. This draft instrument also ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am pleased to commend this draft instrument to the Committee.

    Hansard source
34. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The clause updates the National Health Service Act 2006 to abolish the requirement for integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts to prepare and publish a joint forward plan and a joint capital resource use plan. The 10-year health plan aims to simplify local healthcare planning, and the Bill delivers that objective by removing legal requirements for integrated care partnerships, integrated care strategies, joint forward plans and joint capital resource use plans. Planning will now begin with the joint strategic needs assessment, developed by health and wellbeing boards. The assessment will inform a new neighbourhood health plan, replacing the joint local health and wellbeing strategy. ICBs will produce population health improvement plans, aligning multiple joint strategic needs assessments, neighbourhood health plans and local priorities across their wider populations. As a result, the planning process will be streamlined and less bureaucratic, and will deliver healthcare for local people based on local planning and strategy. I commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
35. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. I largely agree about legislative plumbing—that is a nice phrase. As she rightly highlights, and as is clear in the explanatory notes and so on, the duplication and administrative burden on all these bodies is considerable. On her question about objectives, we certainly want to streamline that so that ultimately, as well as organisations knowing the objectives they are pursuing, the local population—importantly to her concluding point—can readily see and address that, follow it through and hold people to account. I do think that 150-page documents are not always the easiest to see. Young people will obviously be part of the joint strategic needs assessment, and ICBs will be mindful of the Government’s wider policy objectives, as we have discussed previously. With regard to maintenance and prioritisation of capital schemes, since coming into office we have already done a huge amount of work to streamline the relationship between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care—and, indeed, our friends over at His Majesty’s Treasury—in respect of the approvals process, making better use of capital and making that more transparent at local level so that individual organisations are involved in the prioritisation that comes forward to the ICBs. Question put and agreed to. Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 Abolition of integrated care partnerships and strategies Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
36. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The clause abolishes the requirement for ICBs and their partner local authorities to form an integrated care partnership. It also abolishes the related requirement for that partnership to prepare and publish an integrated care strategy. These abolitions address the policy objectives of the 10-year health plan by streamlining the number of plans that must be created by local health systems and supporting key local stakeholders to work together more flexibly and effectively. The changes recognise that in many areas, integrated care partnerships have not had a positive impact on local health outcomes and have come with significant opportunity costs. Alternative planning approaches proposed elsewhere in the Bill and more broadly will enable local health bodies to plan for their patients in a way that is tailored to their strengths. However, I can reassure the Committee that where existing arrangements are working well, nothing in the Bill will prevent local areas from coming together to consider how best to integrate services and plan their approach to tackling the challenges they face. I commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
37. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    There has been a wide-ranging discussion on this clause. I remind Members that the abolition of ICPs is about reducing that complex legal framework, allowing for local decisions and putting partnership work in place in the most effective way. That is what the measure seeks to do. I do not think anyone has disagreed with the notion that the landscape is complex, and that people are producing a lot of reports. In future, health and wellbeing boards will be the focal point for the collaboration between ICBs and local authorities. They are statutory committees that bring together the NHS, local government and relevant community partners; set the strategic direction for health and care services; and oversee joint working in their area, which we are of course committed to making work in local areas. I do not think many people will disagree with that; I hope that is clear. There is also an enhanced role, not only for the health and wellbeing boards—as I said last week, I think they have been underutilised in most areas; again, I do not think people generally disagree with that point—but for health scrutiny. Again, across the country, that has not been pursued to the greatest extent to create links with elected councillors in local areas. We are clear that the role of local authorities is crucial at a local level—as the name describes—and particularly in working on our commitment for neighbourhood partnerships and developing the neighbourhood plan; most of that was covered in our sittings last week. I accept that there are a number of concerns about how that will work in different geographies. I think the Opposition said last week that a survey suggested a quarter of areas will keep those partnerships, which is absolutely fine. That is up to them. On the one hand, the Opposition say that there is centralisation and a power grab in this Bill; on the other, they complain—I should not say complain, because it is their right and their job to do so—about the move to devolution and the freedom to allow, or indeed encourage, local leaders to work together across authorities on behalf of the populations they serve, even where some of them are politically divided, because the populations they serve voted for different people. It is incumbent on all of us as individual elected politicians to work with people—whoever the population around us voted for. These provisions provide for that.

    Hansard source
38. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    We all have examples of decisions that are made in our constituencies that we do not like. Again, that is part of the democratic process, but I go back to my earlier point: either there is a centralised unaccountable body like NHS England making decisions, or the Secretary of State devolves those responsibilities. It is incumbent on people and elected leaders locally, and the ICB, which is not elected, to work with local leaders on these decisions. ICBs will be held accountable through mechanisms in the Department of Health and Social Care. There will be decisions that people do not like—that is a consequence of some of these things—but the clause simplifies the landscape.

    Hansard source
39. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I will not; we need to move on from this point. Of course, if people want to keep the partnerships, they are totally able to do so. That will be up to local leaders to decide. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
40. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Clause 24 abolishes the requirement for health and wellbeing boards to prepare and publish a joint local health and wellbeing strategy. Instead ICBs, local authorities and their partners must work together through the health and wellbeing board to develop a neighbourhood health plan, in line with this Government’s commitment in the 10-year health plan. The neighbourhood health plan should be updated regularly to reflect the needs of the local population, unless all partners consider the existing plan is sufficient. In developing their neighbourhood health plans, responsible local authorities and partner ICBs must involve the people who live or work in the area of the responsible local authority. The neighbourhood health plan will cover most of the topics previously considered by joint local health and wellbeing strategies, but will also encourage a deep focus on tackling the challenges facing individual neighbourhoods. That may mean applying different geographical focuses to different elements of the plan, to ensure that planners are addressing the real and different needs of the diverse communities they serve. These plans will outline how the NHS, local government and local partners intend to improve the health of people in their locality and reduce health inequalities through a joined-up neighbourhood health approach. The plans will consider how local services can help realise national NHS priorities, further public service reforms, and improve performance against the adult social care outcomes framework and the local outcomes framework metrics. To support this work, the Government also intend to provide local areas with guidance and we will work with systems to ensure this addresses the needs of local planners and local communities.

    Hansard source