Department of Health and Social Care
I am happy not to. Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Support for Victims of Abuse
Disgracefully, there are some in this House who believe that it is for the England football team to prevent domestic abuse, whereas we all know that it is for perpetrators to stop their abuse. As for those making more positive and valuable contributions in this space, will the Minister join me in celebrating the amazing work of Eastbourne Survivors, who support folks on an entirely voluntary basis to recover from the abuse they have experienced throughout their lives?
- Hansard source
Child Savings Accounts (Mental Capacity and Disability)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about access to matured child savings accounts in the name of a young person who lacks capacity; to require the Secretary of State to review savings provision for children and young people with disabilities including those who lack capacity; and for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to tell you about a family. When Mikey Turner was born, his parents did what so many parents do. They saved for him—not much; a little here, a little there—because they loved their son and they wanted to give him the best chance in life. They put money into a child trust fund, the Government savings account that existed for children born between 2002 and 2011, topped up with £500 of public money as a foundation for every child’s future. However, what they did not know at the time was that Mikey would grow up to have profound disabilities. He lacks the mental capacity to manage money independently. When his child trust fund matured on his 18th birthday, something absurd happened: the money that his family had saved for him, because of him and out of love for him, was, in effect, locked away. His parents, who have cared for Mikey every single day of his life, who are recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions as his appointees, who manage his benefits and who make decisions on his behalf, were told that they could not practically access their own child’s savings account. Instead, they were pointed towards the Court of Protection. The Court of Protection exists for good reasons, but we are talking about a process that can take over a year, cost hundreds of pounds in fees, require lengthy medical assessments, and demand a level of legal navigation and sophistication that would daunt even the most confident of us. This is a family seeking access to a few thousand pounds saved in their own child’s account. For a family already stretched by the daily demands of caring for a severely disabled child, this is, frankly, an injustice. Mikey’s father, Andrew Turner, is my constituent. It is six years since Mikey’s 18th birthday, and for all that time, Andrew has campaigned on this issue, both for himself and for all the other affected families. In that time, he has had to make his case 10 different times to 10 different Justice Ministers, seven Conservative and three Labour—with perhaps another coming soon, although I hope not. Such is the churn in ministerial positions. OneFamily and Contact have supported him throughout, and I want to thank Una Summerson and Maria Scholey at Contact for everything that they have contributed. Together, Andrew, the industry and campaigners have brought this Bill to the House, and the strength of support for it from across Parliament speaks for itself. Andrew’s is far from being the only such case. An estimated 80,000 disabled young people face, or will face, this same barrier, and that number can only grow, because junior individual savings accounts, the successor to child trust funds, will begin to mature before the end of the decade. Junior ISAs have the same fatal flaw, and some children with junior ISAs will also, sadly, grow up to be unable to manage their affairs. If we take no action, we will see the injustice repeat itself, but on an even greater scale. There is an extra twist. Many families have been told that while the money remains inaccessible to them, its existence can disqualify their child from any entitlement to benefits. Heads you lose, tails you lose. This is a scandal that must not be allowed to continue. These are not families trying to access large estates, or complex financial portfolios. They are parents who have saved a few hundred or a few thousand pounds because they believed in their child’s future—and I stress that this is not a demand for Government compensation; it is families’ own money. What makes this so frustrating is that a solution already exists. A number of financial institutions—OneFamily, Nationwide, Santander and Foresters Financial—already operate their own processes, using evidence of Department for Work and Pensions appointeeship and appropriate safeguards, to release these funds to families. They have helped thousands of families to access millions of pounds. However, they need a proper legal framework; without one, not every financial institution is willing to act. I acknowledge that Ministers and officials are engaging seriously with this issue. A meeting has been convened for 8 July. It will bring together the Government, the finance industry, charities and campaigners to work towards a solution, and that is very welcome. I want to particularly recognise the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who was a real champion for Andrew and families like his during her time on this brief. I am glad that the noble Minister who now holds the brief has continued that work and understands that this issue will not go away, but engagement is not legislation. Warm words, however sincerely meant, will not unlock a savings account. This Bill asks for something straightforward: it asks the Government to establish a clear, proportionate and statutory route, so that a parent in Horsham gets the same answer from their bank as a parent in Harrogate. It asks that protection does not become prevention, and it asks for a review of wider savings provision for disabled children, because the principle at stake—that disabled young people should be able to save on equal terms as the rest of us—matters, and goes beyond this one scheme. Andrew Turner has fought for six years for his son Mikey, and he is far from the only one. Claire Stockton waited more than a year and navigated a complex court process, all for the sake of a modest £1,000 in savings belonging to her disabled child. Another parent, Michele Creed, was able to access the savings, but has been obliged to take on the responsibility and bureaucracy of ongoing financial deputyship. This is crazy. The child trust fund is her daughter’s only asset. Only the most skilful and determined families will ever find their way through this legal quagmire. I respect the high amount of protection for trust funds. I understand that senior lawyers are reluctant to make an exception, even in a case like Mikey’s, and that this reluctance has frustrated 10 successive Ministers so far, but I repeat that this is not the Government’s money; it is the Turners’ money. When Andrew first approached a lawyer for help, he was told that all he could do was wait for Mikey to die, and then he could access the fund. That is absolutely unacceptable. These families had already cared for a disabled child, at great personal sacrifice, for 18 years by the time they realised that they could not access the fund. The mere suggestion that parents might abuse their position and spend the money on themselves is appalling, yet that is the implied position of the law. Thousands of families are waiting. The solutions are before us. The industry is ready. The cross-party support is here. What is needed now is for the Government to act—not to review further, or to consult again. If they need legislation, let this Bill be it. I know that the chances of a ten-minute rule Bill making it into law are vanishingly slim, but the Government can make it happen, if they wish. Families have waited long enough. I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That John Milne and Ed Davey present the Bill. John Milne accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 106).
- Hansard source
Department for Work and Pensions
Right now, it is hard to get through a day without someone, somewhere, saying that welfare spending is ballooning out of control. For example, the Conservatives’ alternative King’s Speech tells us: “For the first time ever, the total welfare bill is now higher than total receipts from income tax.” Western civilisation is at an end, it seems—until we realise that it is not the first time at all. It has been that way for 13 years, most of them under the Conservatives. Then we discover that the ratio is about to go into reverse: for the next few years, welfare is forecast to be lower than income tax receipts—panic over, then. Remarkably, as a percentage of GDP, the amount we spend on welfare today is roughly the same as it was under Maggie Thatcher 40 years ago. Today’s welfare bill is simply not the cause of our economic problems, and neither can it be the sole solution. Although moral panic is an overreaction, we should not relax. Cost control is always crucial, so long as we understand that today’s budget pressure is less to do with welfare and more to do with NHS demand and a general weakness in the economy. “New benefit claimants are suffering from mild anxiety,” we are told, “The need isn’t real. Why don’t they just man up?” The neat thing about this angle is that we can be mean to people in need but still feel good about ourselves. But this is a misreading of the data. Most claimants have more than one condition. If a claimant who cannot walk also has mild anxiety, they are counted only in the mild anxiety column. It is a false characterisation of a scrounger culture, and that itself is part of the reason we never fix things. Most attempts to cut the benefits bill fail. They hardly ever save as much money as they were supposed to and they can even end up costing more than they save. I fully recognise the need to control costs and that a healthy economy is the root of a healthy benefit system, but basing national policy around the minority of claimants who do not want to help themselves is the surest way never to fix our benefit system.
- Hansard source
Court Transcripts
Charlotte Meijer will never have access to her transcript, because her case was heard in a magistrates court where no recording was made. The Government are seeking to address that, but Charlotte has continued to campaign for all victims of crime so that they can gain access to free transcripts, given that some are still being quoted costs of thousands of pounds. Her campaign, Open Justice for All, is calling on the Government to go further and faster to make the justice system fair, transparent and open. This is a cross-party issue, and I know that many Back Benchers in the Minister’s party feel passionate about it. Will she assure the House that the job is not done, and recognise the desire for all court transcripts eventually to be made free and accessible for all victims?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Guardian reported last week on the case of a US air force officer accused of drugging, strangling and raping a British woman in his apartment. Although the incident took place off duty, off base and on English soil, the case was removed from the jurisdiction of the English courts and was instead tried by US court martial at RAF Lakenheath, with an all-male panel who were all from his base. Does the Secretary of State agree that victims of crimes on English soil should see justice served in our justice system?
- Hansard source
Defence Investment Plan
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, albeit 14 months late and one Defence Secretary later. The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in the technologies reshaping warfare in Ukraine and beyond. Our armed forces must be more agile and better equipped to deal with the threats we face. However, let us be clear: this defence investment plan is too little, too late. After years of Conservative neglect, Britain needed a Government willing to match the scale of the challenge. Instead, we have had months of delay, and we now have a plan that still appears to have a significant gap between the ambition and the resources required. In particular, it is hugely concerning to see how little is allocated to air defence. It is hundreds of millions short of what was recommended in the strategic defence review, and inadequate to protect our islands and, indeed, our allies. The Prime Minister himself has warned that Russia could pose a direct threat to NATO by 2030, yet the architects of the strategic defence review, General Sir Richard Barrons and former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, have both made it clear that the current funding is not enough. Just weeks ago, the Defence Secretary resigned because he believed the funding settlement on offer was not sufficient to keep Britain safe. The new settlement does not bridge that gap, yet the new Defence Secretary claims it is enough. Were both the experts and the former Defence Secretary wrong about this, or does the Defence Secretary truly believe this is enough funding to keep Britain safe? The Liberal Democrats have welcomed plans to sort out the sorry state of forces housing, so it is concerning to hear reports that funding is being found by raiding existing defence budgets, including for military housing. If that is true, what message does the Secretary of State have for serving personnel and their families still living in mouldy homes? Is this genuinely new investment or simply moving money from one overstretched budget to another? The last thing our armed forces and defence industry need is more uncertainty. Between delays to the DIP, a change of Defence Ministers and now a new Prime Minister incoming, they have already dealt with a lot. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who looks certain to become Prime Minister in the coming weeks, is sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat plan for defence bonds. Despite the Prime Minister appearing to rule it out in his speech today, can the Secretary of State confirm whether defence bonds are at least under consideration to provide the injection of funding our armed forces so desperately need?
- Hansard source
Defence Investment Plan
indicated dissent.
- Hansard source
Defence Investment Plan
The defence investment plan includes an additional £100 million transformation of the Royal Marines commando forces, with a special focus on our allies in Scandinavia and the High North. As the Royal Marines Commando Logistic Regiment is based at RM Chivenor in my constituency, will the Secretary of State tell us what form that transformation will take?
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
I will raise some similar concerns about the abolition of integrated care partnerships and integrated care strategies, which clause 23 brings about. Before I do, I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The removal of integrated care partnerships, as well as the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities, raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning, which is very important to the Liberal Democrats, as the Minister knows. We feel that it removes the voice of charities and others in the voluntary sector who are crucial to meeting the range of needs in health and social care. Throughout the Bill there is a theme of separating social care and the NHS, at a time when greater integration and closer working are clearly needed. We heard Sir Andrew Dilnot say in evidence that we cannot deal with some of the challenges that arise in the NHS—particularly around flow through hospitals and long waits in corridor care in accident and emergency—without improving the discharge of patients into social care. Separating the organisations that deliver those things is clearly problematic. If we think about it, as the shadow Minister just outlined, we have lost the local authority representative on ICBs. The Bill also changes the way the better care fund is administered. With those changes, we are really concerned about the separation of these two responsibilities. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an example in Shropshire. Shropshire council spends almost 80% of its budget on social care. It is an extremely challenged council because of those funding pressures. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB has also been one of the most financially challenged ICBs. That is partly because of its small scale and its merging with Staffordshire—which, for the record, is unlikely to be the combined mayoral authority that Shropshire ends up in, as is my current understanding, although we are a long way off resolving that problem.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
We cannot see the resources allocated, so we cannot confirm that, but it is clearly a concern. We are not yet discussing the part of the Bill that deals with Healthwatch, so I should keep my powder dry, but we know that local authorities will get some additional funding to deal with their elements of Healthwatch, while ICBs will not. There is a concern that that streamlining is, in fact, slimming down.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
The hon. Member will be aware that the new clause is a probing amendment. It is designed to push the Minister to describe how we will ensure that this range of expertise is taken into account when the plans are put together. We will not press the new clause to a vote, but we want to use it as a discussion point to probe how the range of expertise in the health service will be fully utilised, so that the plans are the best they can be.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
I wish to speak to amendment 36 and new clause 59, which are different ways of seeking to do the same thing. They are aimed at ensuring that “civil servants are responsible for the decision making and appointment processes for trust and ICB leaders, rather than Ministers or Special Advisers.” In earlier sessions, we spoke about the risk of political capture; the amendment and new clause intend to deal with that. The Government’s intention is to give providers more freedom to design services around local needs, but we are worried that giving the Secretary of State the powers to appoint trust chairs and non-executive directors will undermine that local flexibility and agency. It risks creating a bottleneck in the Department for Health and Social Care, leaving foundation trusts waiting for approval to make their arrangements. In theory, the Secretary of State will be responsible for the appointment of 143 foundation trust chairs and roughly 1,000 foundation trust non-executives, who themselves will appoint the executive directors. Clearly, there is the potential for a bottleneck there. We also think that in the hands of the wrong Secretary of State—I cast no aspersions about the current one—there is potential for mass manipulation of the make-up of future NHS leadership. I think everybody here would agree that NHS leaders should be the best possible people for the job, not those who best fit the political agenda of the Secretary of State of the day. We are worried that future Secretary of States could abuse their power, intervening unnecessarily and for non-clinical reasons in hiring and firing decisions. Their political views could heavily influence the make-up of trust and ICB non-executives across the country—who are themselves responsible for appointing the chief executive— and lead to the firing and hiring of those who suit their personal vision of what a leader should look like. From speaking to chief executives and other senior NHS leaders, I know that many already feel that chief executives are subject to the political whims of the day and are too easily scapegoated for wider failures. Holding poorly performing leaders to account is extremely important when there are failures, but sometimes those concerns and the blame culture that can exist in those organisations stops capable, impressive NHS leaders from taking the next step up the ladder to becoming a chief executive. We think a safeguard is necessary there. We recognise that someone has to hold that power and appoint those people now that NHS England has gone. That is why amendment 36 proposes that in order to ensure there is not political capture of those decisions, they are taken by impartial civil servants who are given a set criteria of what a good leader looks like, rather than by Ministers or their special advisers. As I mentioned, new clause 59 broadly seeks to do the same thing, but uses a different mechanism for getting that into the Bill.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
I had finished speaking, but I will give way and think of something else to say.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
As I mentioned in my previous remarks, one imagines that a Secretary of State would set out criteria to ensure that the best people for the job are appointed. We are in a situation where a current Parliament cannot bind a future one, but we do need to set a precedent that political capture of these important leadership roles is not an unintentional consequence of this legislation. I accept that it is unintentional; I think the Secretary of State and the Minister have drafted this legislation with the best of intentions, but this is something we should guard against.
- Hansard source
National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation
May I also add my thanks to the Secretary of State, to Baroness Amos and her team, and to the families that have relived the pain of their experiences to bring about this report? But the Amos report tells us little that we did not already know—indeed, it confirms our worst fears. Maternity services in England are fundamentally broken with the cost of political neglect being paid in trauma, injury and lost lives. Figures revealed by the Liberal Democrats in the last week show that the first quarter of 2026 saw the worst rate ever recorded for maternity injuries. In fact, while the number of reviews into NHS maternity services has steadily ticked up, we have also seen rising maternal mortality rates. Four years ago, I spoke in this Chamber in response to the findings of the Shrewsbury and Telford review, which were devastating for my community. Last week, I stood here really distressed, actually, as we heard further traumatic reports from the Nottingham review. But anger is not enough. The Government must meet this moment now and implement Baroness Amos’s recommendations in full and without delay, or the families simply will not forgive them. To do this, we need genuine accountability through the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, accompanied with the investment needed to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a national maternity commissioner—a long-standing Liberal Democrat campaign—and the other urgent and immediate actions that the Secretary of State has outlined in the last week. They are all urgent and are signs that this is being taken seriously. But we need to recognise that a commissioner alone cannot fix the broken system. I urge the Secretary of State to work with us and look at our maternity rescue package for inspiration for his action plan—it has a great degree of overlap with Baroness Amos’s recommendations. Our package would ensure one-to-one midwifery care for every woman in labour, additional senior midwives, an obstetrician on every ward, and mandatory updated annual training. Will the Government commit here and now to implementing all those recommendations and working with us to deliver the change we need?
- Hansard source
High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts
I have many residents who are really concerned about the high number of illegal vape and barber shops. Epsom and Ewell police force is taking action: it has targeted shops selling illicit vapes, with four busts so far, which is fantastic. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to support local community policing and give local authorities more powers?
- Hansard source
Department of Health and Social Care
Today we are being asked to approve a motion on the main estimates for the Department of Health and Social Care for 2026-27, in which pharmaceutical spending is not separately identified, in either the estimate or its accompanying memorandum. We are being asked to approve spending without clear visibility of exactly how much is budgeted for medicines. That is against the principle of estimates day, which is to scrutinise spending before it is authorised. This is yet another example of the lack of transparency around the murky UK-US pharmaceutical deal. It was drawn up in secret and the Government are refusing to publish the impact assessment. The Government must be clear on how much is budgeted for medicines, how much they expect the deal to cost and the risks to the frontline associated with diverting money from elsewhere in the NHS. The UK-US pharmaceutical deal should never have been allowed to go ahead. The deal will see the NHS paying out at least £1.5 billion more in higher medicine costs by 2028, rising to over £9 billion by 2036. The Government have made it clear that there will be no additional money to fund that over the next spending period. That means frontline NHS services will be plundered at the behest of a foreign Government, while patients suffer in crammed hospital corridors and cannot get a GP appointment. We must support the British life sciences sector. We can find ways to achieve that, but it must be a domestic matter for the UK Government to solve holistically through negotiations with the sector. It should not be dictated from Washington. The Government refused to publish an assessment of the impact of the deal. What are they trying to hide? The bottom line is that medicine procurement should be based on sovereign health needs. This is not a matter of being pro or anti the pharmaceutical industry. We need to find a solution that works for patients, the NHS and the life sciences sector. Rather than defund vital NHS services in a knee-jerk deal, the Liberal Democrats would take real action to strengthen our life sciences sector by: developing a long-term plan with the sector to ensure certainty on issues such as VPAG—the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access—and rapid licensing by ensuring that the needs of our society are reflected in the approach of NICE and other regulatory bodies; promoting investment into upscaling UK life sciences manufacturing; encouraging investment in vaccine, medicine and antibiotic medicine manufacturing plants; reviewing the relationship between research and development tax credits and manufacturing; and establishing a fellowship programme for scientists working on health conditions, such as cancer, so they can continue the research Trump has defunded in the US. We would also cut the cost of visas for researchers, as well as boost R&D funding to 3.5% through a decade-long programme of public investment. Rather than spending billions to pay off a bully in the White House, the Liberal Democrats would oppose the deal, develop a plan for our life sciences that reflects our national interest and invest money in vital frontline services that are in dire need of funding. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the deal could cost as much as £9 billion by 2036. That money would be transformative for so much of the NHS: it would end corridor care, hire thousands more staff, buy countless radiotherapy machines, or deliver high-quality care and help for elderly and disabled people. Any choices over money spent in our NHS must be made by the British people, not Trump. It is unacceptable that Trump thinks he can meddle in our NHS, and, worse still, that the Prime Minister lets him. That is why the Liberal Democrats wrote to the Prime Minister in December, demanding that the deal was put before Parliament for a vote. If the Prime Minister cares as much about the NHS as he claims, I encourage him to set the record straight, show his true feelings on the deal and, at the very least, bring it before the House for approval. This House, and the voters who elected us, decide matters of national importance, not the White House. That is why the Liberal Democrats tabled new clause 76 to the Health Bill, which would bring the deal before the House for a vote. Any deal that diverts billions of pounds away from NHS frontline services must be subject to democratic process and parliamentary scrutiny.
- Hansard source
High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on introducing this important debate, on the constructive spirit in which he introduced the subject and on his generosity in taking interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) rightly highlighted the issue of business rates; they need to be abolished and replaced with an entirely different system, which I will come back to. High streets are at the heart of our communities. In Taunton and Wellington we have a great range of independent traders, shopkeepers and hospitality businesses. Footfall in Taunton is up by 4.6%, which is way above the national average, in large part due to their efforts and work to promote the independent quarter and other parts of our town. However, they are struggling against the backdrop of energy costs, the difficult financial environment and those dishonest traders who do not play by the same rules as the rest of us. We cannot allow our high streets to become sites of decline. In Taunton, thanks to the team of councillors, trading standards officers and local police, a number of shops have rightly been shut down—a crackdown that I called for and supported when it happened. Although I am encouraged by the Government’s measures on closures, they must go further on this issue. I reiterate the call I made on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this Chamber a few weeks ago: there need to be greater powers for police officers to issue closure orders more swiftly and permanently close down repeat offenders and, as other hon. Members raised, measures need to be taken against dodgy landlords who knowingly and repeatedly let their premises to illegal traders. All those changes must come alongside investment in proper community policing to curb not only that kind of activity, but antisocial behaviour and shoplifting, which drive customers away. The Liberal Democrats would call on the National Crime Agency to establish a dedicated unit to tackle organised shoplifting gangs and give small businesses the tools they need to protect themselves. Several hon. Members rightly raised planning controls. Someone walking down many of our high streets will find units that are technically occupied and trading but with shop windows deliberately blacked out with various coverings. It is a simple point, but a shop usually has a shop window and a display, not an opaque screen hiding the internal activities from view. The window on to the street provides natural surveillance into and out from the premises. It is an invitation to the customer, and what makes the high street feel alive—it is part of its aesthetic appeal. Although it is difficult to quantify, that is incredibly valuable to the vitality that makes our town centres places where people want to go. Planning enforcement could be used to enforce that principle. If a business converts its shopfront into a blank wall or an entirely blacked-out façade, it is no longer operating as a retail unit in the traditional sense of the word. Planning use classes A and E define what a shop is, and both those classes include several mentions of a display. With an amendment to the guidance to clarify that one feature of a shop is a display of some sort or a shop window, enforcement action could be taken, and a stop notice could be issued under the Planning Act 2008, requiring unauthorised use to end. I urge the Government to include that measure in their review of powers, as well as addressing the issue of illuminated signs, which was raised by several hon. Members. We should all recognise that antisocial behaviour can be deeply traumatising; as well as bringing back proper community policing, the Liberal Democrats want more use of directly employed community safety wardens, and mobile CCTV to enforce localised issues such as fly-tipping and harassment. However, enforcement alone will not regenerate a high street. In Taunton and Wellington, I often speak to local traders who offer brilliant products and services, but they are under massive pressure to make ends meet, given the cost pressures and tax increases that have been levied. The Government increases in employers national insurance are a jobs tax, and they hit businesses hardest. That is why the Liberal Democrats oppose them at every opportunity. I call on the Minister to lobby the Treasury to reverse those increases and take more costs off our small businesses, which are the backbone of the UK economy and its single biggest sector. In some cases, business rates now exceed rents and squeeze out the independent businesses that give high streets their character. Our long-standing position is clear: replace business rates with a system of commercial landowner levy, based on land value rather than capital value, thereby shifting the burden from tenants to landowners and prioritising high streets in the process, stimulating the investment that we need. It is no matter how nice our high streets are if people cannot visit them, so we have called for bus fares to be cut to £1 for all. A family of four making a trip into Taunton from a nearby village have spent a significant sum at £3 each before they have spent a penny in a local shop. Homes above shops also have a transformative role, putting more people on to our high streets day and evening, weekday and weekend. The current policy framework allows for that, but shop owners often have neither the time, expertise or resources to navigate the system. We need more support for them to covert those spaces into residential use. In conclusion, the Liberal Democrat asks are clear: swifter, stronger closure orders; penalties for landlords who turn a blind eye; planning enforcement against opaque store fronts; the reversal of employer national insurance rises; bus fares cut to £1; and more help to unlock homes above shops. Our great traders and small businesses deserve that support, and they will repay it in bucket loads if we give it to them.
- Hansard source
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 only certainty that consigning applications to officers will bring is a greater certainty of refusal. Officers refuse a greater proportion of planning applications than planning committees, which is not an argument in favour of the draft regulations.
- Hansard source
Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026
I will give two examples that have a bearing on the hon. Gentleman’s point momentarily. The Liberal Democrats have supported elements of the Government’s reforms. We supported the housing measures in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we support the principle of strategic planning. We also have no objection to a standard scheme of delegation or an upper limit on the size of planning committees. However, we do not accept that decisions must—the word “must” is used several times in the draft regulations—be taken away from elected councillors such that councils will approve decisions in cases where every single councillor disagrees, and the council’s name will still be on that decision. How can that be just? How can that be right? The delivery of new homes is important. In particular, our target for social homes is higher than the Government’s, as we would aspire to deliver 150,000 per year, and we would allocate funding in that direction. Many of the measures that the Government are bringing forward seem to be directed at increasing planning permissions, largely for private sector housing, which many people in my constituency cannot and will not be able to afford. There is also little evidence that increasing planning permissions will reduce house prices—in fact, that has never happened, and it never will. Of course, house builders work on a commercial model in which they need to sustain their price to make their profit, which is an entirely reasonably approach. Recent other changes also seem to be bearing in this direction. Councillors have already been removed from making a free decision on developments for over 150 homes; they cannot refuse them unless they first go cap in hand to the Minister and ask whether that is okay. Under that recently introduced direction, they lost their ability to decide on applications over 150 homes, and under the draft regulations, they will also lose their ability to decide on smaller applications. Guidance on the draft regulations would be a good thing, but this is not about guidance—the key word is “must”. The Minister referred to democratic oversight, but that will be removed unless the draft regulations are defeated. There is absolutely no question of any democratic oversight in any of these decisions. Two examples came to my mind. One does not have to spend a lot of time as a member of a planning committee to come across applications where officers recommend a cautious refusal, but members of the committee then overturn that decision. I dealt with one in Wiltshire many years ago where an owner wanted to divide a large house into two by blocking up two doorways. The planning officer and the senior planning officer were adamant that this would create a new dwelling in the open countryside and so must be refused, and they would listen to no other representations. With the support of local councillors, it was taken to the planning committee and the planning committee unanimously approved the application to create an additional dwelling and increase the housing supply. When I spoke to the chair of my local planning committee in Somerset recently, I heard about a similar example just outside my constituency where officers were recommending a refusal, but members overturned that decision and the housing was granted. That will not be possible under the draft regulations, and applicants will have nowhere to go. Whether they are local residents or local builders, they will not be able to do anything. They will be allowed to contact their councillors, but their councillors will turn around and say, “Even though I’ve been elected as a councillor, I cannot have any say or effect over this council decision. It has been taken away from me by the regulations.”
- Hansard source
Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of close working between councillors and officers, and I do not deny it, but the planning committees and the national scheme of delegation consultation outcome document is crystal clear, and I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to quote it. It says in paragraph 17: “Nominated officers and nominated members should make every effort to reach agreement on which cases should be referred to committee.” Of course, that is only in schedule 2 applications; in schedule 1 applications, there is no opportunity for councillors to have a word with the officers and have the application referred to committee, but in schedule 2 applications there would be. The consultation outcome document goes on to state: “However, where agreement is not possible, the case must be delegated to officers under regulation 5(3).” The questions raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington, about whether officers will be required to prepare the same registers of interest and to be subject to the same degree of openness and accountability that councillors have to have are well put. In our view, the draft regulations dangerously undermine democratic accountability—in fact, they remove it altogether—and leave the way open for those who will say, “It doesn’t matter how you vote or what you think—it has no effect.” The regulations will extend that principle to councillors and their powers: it does not matter what they think or what they say; they will not be allowed to affect decisions that are taken in their name and the name of their council. We will be pressing the regulations to a Division if the Opposition do not. Every councillor will regret these changes.
- Hansard source
Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026
The Minister is being generous in giving way. As he knows, we fundamentally disagree with these proposals. He has just illustrated the point that councillors will be reduced to the same role as members of the public: they may make representations, but that is it.
- Hansard source
Financial Inclusion: Young People
It is a honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. My first job was on the deli counter of my local supermarket. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing this important debate. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, whether a young person knows how to manage their money, can afford to stay in education, can access affordable financial services and advice they can trust, can avoid problem debt and can build a secure future has never mattered more. Young people are facing challenges that previous generations did not. Money has changed. For previous generations, it was coins in a pocket or cash in a wallet. Today it is numbers on a screen—online banking, apps, digital wallets, “buy now, pay later” schemes, cryptocurrency and social media influencers offering financial advice that often benefits themselves rather than the young people following them. We assume that because young people are comfortable with technology they are financially literate, but those are not the same things. The Milburn review laid out the importance of financial inclusion for young people. Between January and March of this year, 1.01 million people between the ages of 16 and 24 were not in education, employment or training. The number of young adults regularly relying on borrowing has increased by 45% in just one year. Many are using unsecured loans and buy now, pay later products to cover everyday essentials, while one in five were employed on zero-hours contracts, making it almost impossible to budget or save. This is not just about people on the lowest incomes; it is increasingly affecting younger people who are working hard but cannot get ahead. The challenges are even greater in rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Financial inclusion depends on being able to access financial services, yet facilities that make this possible—bank branches, cash machines and post offices—are disappearing fastest from rural communities because they are considered commercially unviable. Meanwhile, our communities are expected to embrace digital banking despite persistent mobile phone and broadband blackspots in villages such as Drimpton, Burton Bradstock and Stoke Abbott. Across the country, 1 million people have cancelled internet packages because of the cost of living crisis. Digital banking cannot be the answer if people cannot get online. True financial inclusion should be about giving people the confidence and knowledge to make informed decisions throughout their lives, yet less than half of children receive meaningful financial education either at home or in school. Nearly one quarter of young adults have low financial capability. Most children say that they would ask their parents’ financial advice, yet only about half of parents feel confident having those conversations. Financial education should become a core life skill, taught from primary school onwards. Every young person should leave school with an understanding of budgeting, saving, borrowing, mortgages, pensions, taxation, credit scores, fraud and the long-term consequences of debt. Those are skills that will benefit them throughout their lives. Financial education should not stop when the school day ends. Family hubs, community hubs and banking hubs could and should become centres of financial guidance, not just financial services. Parents and carers should receive greater support because they remain the single biggest influence on their children’s financial behaviour. We must also recognise the growing risk facing financially excluded households. An estimated 2 million people are now borrowing from illegal moneylenders—an increase of about half a million since 2022. More people are turning to payday loans simply to pay their rent or mortgage. That is not sustainable and we must do better. We must ensure that everyone has access to appropriate and affordable financial services, regardless of where they live, and can access affordable credit and independent debt advice before they reach crisis point. For constituencies such as West Dorset, financial inclusion is also about opportunity. It determines whether a young person can take up an apprenticeship, manage their first wage, avoid exploitative lending and build financial independence. When we fail to equip young people with the skills and services they need to manage their money, we do not simply leave them financially excluded; we rob them of opportunity itself.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I have been itching to speak on this new clause, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—I am not sure how to pronounce that, but I am sure it is a very beautiful place; I have never been. It would ensure that a certain range of primary care providers were consulted by integrated care boards in the development of the healthcare plans. The recent King’s Fund report, as well as many others, showed that over 90% of NHS contact with patients is in primary care in all its forms. New clause 70 relates to new clause 60, also tabled by my hon. Friend, which is about having GP representation on integrated care boards. This is an extension of that, so that dentists, pharmacy contractors and providers of ophthalmic services can all feed into integrated care boards’ healthcare plans. That is how most people come into contact with the NHS, which means that those providers have a close and deep understanding of the healthcare issues facing the demographics in their communities.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The purpose is to ensure that those who are deeply embedded in community care are consulted by the ICBs, so that they do not miss obvious localised issues in their demographics when developing care plans. Just to give a brief example from a surgery I held recently, Joanne Cook is an occupational therapist who is campaigning for occupational therapists who have received specific training to be able to prescribe, and crucially de-prescribe, medications, in the same way that trained paramedics can. Often, occupational therapists see patients on a daily basis. They give them intimate and regular care, and are even better placed than GPs to notice small changes and adjust medications to keep people out of hospital. If integrated care boards are not drawing on the experience, knowledge and data from primary care providers in all their forms, any healthcare plans they come up with will not be relevant to those demographics. We will not be keeping people out of hospital or treating them as effectively in the community, and the whole system will not be as efficient or as targeted as it could be. I would appreciate it if the Minister considered accepting the new clause.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Eighth sitting)
What we are desperately trying to do is ensure that we are drawing on the expertise of primary care providers. The hon. Member seems not to understand that talking about 40 new hospitals the whole time with no plan to deliver them is looking at the wrong end of the health service. We need to try to keep people healthy and in the community. The new clause is an attempt to refocus thoughts on keeping people healthy in the community, rather than talking about hospitals that never existed.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Ninth sitting)
New clause 26, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who both sit on the Health and Social Care Committee, would require the Secretary of State to review the arrangements under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 and consider whether to require NHS bodies and local authorities to enter into new arrangements with one another if that is likely to lead to an improvement in how their functions are exercised. A recurring theme of Health and Social Care Committee inquiries is the impact of financial flows and how they frustrate attempts to deliver truly integrated care—an issue we discussed in earlier sittings. We all recognise that closer arrangements are needed to properly address discharge delays, which directly lead to corridor care or even unnecessary admissions to hospital. It seems that a consensus has been reached, yet the action to back that up is not there. We feel that, through this Bill, the Government are moving away from closer integration. Melanie Williams, the then president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, told the Health and Social Care Committee that the NHS and local authorities “spend a lot of time debating about who pays, rather than having a conversation about how, in the longer term, we can invest in people’s outcomes to enable better health and wellbeing.” She highlighted concerns about the funding of intermediate care and community health services through aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and NHS continuing healthcare. Section 75 of the 2006 Act provides a legal mechanism for NHS bodies and local authorities to pool budgets and jointly commission health and social care services. The Select Committee has heard evidence of positive examples of such arrangements being used to commission integrated services. It also heard that the use of section 75 arrangements is inconsistent. In October 2023, the Government launched a call for evidence to explore how section 75 could be better utilised to support integration. A summary of responses published in December 2024 identified several areas for improvement, including the need for stronger inter-organisation relationships, clearer governance and financial structures, and better data sharing. The Health and Social Care Committee recommended that the Government expand the use of section 75, including the range of services that it will be used to support. This Bill is a missed opportunity for the Government to reform or promote the use of section 75 arrangements, or to provide an alternative mechanism that they believe would be more effective in addressing the challenges that funding flows present to the integration of health and care services. That is why the Select Committee suggested this new clause to prompt a review of section 72 and the introduction of guidance to support pooled budgets and jointly commissioned health and social care services.
- Hansard source
Defence Investment Plan
Since we have been in the Chamber, it has been reported online that senior military personnel are deeply unhappy with the DIP and, indeed, that the Chief of the Defence Staff asked the Secretary of State to remove a line that suggested that he personally backed the plan. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he had to remove that line from his statement?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
My constituent is here. Her ex-husband sexually assaulted her children, and attempted to murder them and her by removing the brake pads from her car, yet the court appeared to listen more to the abuser’s allegation of parental alienation syndrome, a concept discredited by the World Health Organisation, than her evidence. The abuser today has unsupervised access to the children. What steps will the Government take to prevent discredited concepts from obstructing criminal justice, leaving children at risk of rape and murder?
- Hansard source
Defence Investment Plan
Some 80% of US and UK historical war borrowing has been repaid not through debt repayments but through economic growth. Draghi has urged the EU to borrow for defence R&D to increase economic growth and repay debt. Does the Prime Minister’s statement this morning ruling out extra borrowing for defence risk not only our national defence but our economy, too?
- Hansard source
Draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
I welcome the explanation of the draft regulations, but I wonder if the Minister could provide clarification, because there seems to be a contradiction. The draft regulations remove the legal presumption that new schools should be academies, yet through the Children’s Wellbeing and School Act, the Government intend for all schools to be academies. Why are they encouraging local authorities to open maintained schools if they will then have to go through a governance change in the next couple of years to become an academy? Surely, that is disruptive, time-consuming and potentially unnecessary for the school.
- Hansard source
Culture, Media And Sport
Teachers and parents in South Devon are worried about the future of PE following funding cuts. Many areas already have successful school sports partnerships, with schools pooling their premium and working with organisations such as Active Partnerships. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to clarify whether schools can build on existing relationships, with those partnerships continuing to operate under the new system, or will they all be forced to start from scratch?
- Hansard source
National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation
To deliver on this review’s recommendations in full will require serious capital investment. Just last week, we heard that St Helier, the hospital in my constituency, was considering closing its maternity unit altogether due to potentially unsafe pipework. Will the Government commit to reviewing the phasing of the new hospital programme, or at the very least providing the funds required to keep those buildings safe and open until the delivery of a new building?
- Hansard source
High Streets
Unfortunately, Cornwall was unsuccessful in the latest Pride in Place funding round. Does the Minister agree that Cornwall desperately needs a proper devolution settlement so that Cornwall council can fill the many empty shops in Bodmin, in Launceston, elsewhere in my constituency and across Cornwall? The council does not currently have the power to easily put shops back in community use or put them to other excellent uses.
- Hansard source
National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation
Like others, I welcome this report. The Secretary of State referred to Dr Bill Kirkup, who resigned from the Amos review as an adviser because he felt that it was skirting around certain birthing ideologies and caesarean targets. The Secretary of State said that “staff shortages can have a dangerous impact”, and indeed they can. Although he and Baroness Amos refer to culture, a lot of that culture is to do with budgetary and other pressures that result in members of staff on the frontline being belittled and discouraged from blowing the whistle about unsafe staffing levels. Will the Secretary of State look again at the report, and consider for the first time introducing mandatory safe frontline staffing levels for these services?
- Hansard source
National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation
The Secretary of State’s announcement of 1,000 extra midwives is welcome, even if the funding is temporary. However, this is a review of maternity and neonatal services. In Baroness Amos’s review of Sussex, she noted that in the 12 months ending in October 2025, only 50.1% of shifts at the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton were staffed according to British Association of Perinatal Medicine guidelines. What provision is the Secretary of State making to ensure that neonatal staffing is safe?
- Hansard source
High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts
The small businesses that my hon. Friend is talking about make up 84% of store closures nationally. That trend is felt very much in my constituency, as I am sure it is in hers. Does she agree that the Government must urgently reform our business rates system before those independent businesses vanish from our high streets entirely?
- Hansard source
High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts
Does the hon. Member agree that in rural areas we need a lot more banking hubs, because the banks are going, and that we should scrap business rates for start-ups and independent businesses? Rural communities are losing shops big time.
- Hansard source
National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation
Yeovil hospital was included as part of the review after the temporary closure of its unit last year. Since then, families, frontline staff and I have repeatedly raised concerns with Government and NHS leaders about working culture, bullying, staffing levels and support. Today’s review backs that up, after months of feeling that our concerns have not been properly acted on. Can the Secretary of State detail what the Government are doing to improve staffing levels in rural maternity units and to address working culture, leadership, accountability and whistleblowing?