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. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Alex Barros-Curtis

   Draft Conversion Practices Bill

   I congratulate all the campaigners who have brought us to this moment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and the Minister, who has really spearheaded this work in the few months that she has been in the job. She should be really proud of what she has achieved. I have spoken to the Minister about this Bill extensively. As has been said, the community of victims has been waiting eight years for this legislation since it was first promised by a Conservative Government. People do not need fixing; they are not broken. Abuse is not and should never be permissible, so abusive conversion practices should be outlawed, and that really should not be a controversial topic. Will the Minister tell me about the work she will do on this Bill with the devolved Administrations? It covers England and Wales, so we need to look at Scotland and Northern Ireland and consider what best practice they can follow to ensure that there are no victims. As she said, consent to abuse is not a thing and should never be a thing. We should get this law on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

   Hansard source
2. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) on securing this important debate, and I thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for their contributions. I fully appreciate the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields raises about houses in multiple occupation, and in particular about their excessive concentration in two parts of her constituency, and the many problems that flow from that, which she described so vividly. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities. My hon. Friend made a number of points about the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. As she rightly said, larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, nationally permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use and become a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such small HMOs are also able to change back to standard family homes under similar rights. We recognise that the free operation of these nationally permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas, which is precisely why local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community. As my hon. Friend made clear, South Tyneside council has introduced a borough-wide article 4 direction, which means that all new HMOs in its area will need a planning application, regardless of their size. She has previously drawn attention to the impact of the growth of HMOs in her constituency, and will therefore welcome that change; I know the role that she played in pressing her local authority to make it. All planning permission applications are considered by the local planning authority in question in line with the development plan for the area, and in consultation with the local community. It is therefore key that local planning authorities have relevant and up-to-date policies in place. As my hon. Friend will be aware, South Tyneside council last adopted a local plan back in 2007, which means that the policies in the plan are significantly out of date. It is one of the oldest plans submitted in the legacy planning system. Following the council’s repeated failure to agree to submit its new plan for examination by an independent inspector, I intervened to ensure that the plan progressed to examination. I am pleased to report that the examination hearings have been completed, and we await the inspector’s final report. Following receipt of the inspector’s report, and in line with my intervention direction, the council will need to consider adoption of the plan. Adopting the plan will ensure that the council has up-to-date planning policies in place for South Tyneside, which is hugely important. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. The consultation included proposals for a more flexible policy on the use of article 4 directions, so that local planning authorities can remove nationally permitted development rights where that is necessary to safeguard the amenity or wellbeing of an area—where, for instance, there is an over-concentration of small HMOs. We are analysing the feedback received on that consultation, and will publish our response in due course. It is essential that HMOs are safe and well managed, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. These regulations place duties on managers of HMOs to take safety measures, supply and maintain gas and electricity, and maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings. In addition, all local planning authorities must license HMOs with five or more people from two or more households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Local authorities also have the power to require HMOs to be licensed where there are three or more people from two or more households sharing facilities. This means in practice that most HMOs can be licensed, where necessary. Local authorities can impose licence conditions to ensure that landlords effectively manage HMOs, and also have the power to inspect properties without notice, where they believe an offence has been committed under HMO legislation. Furthermore, the licence holder must undergo a fit and proper person test to assure a local authority that they can manage the property responsibly, safely and lawfully. I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about the operation of that test and its potential shortcomings, and I am more than happy to sit down with her and work through some of the examples she provided, so that we can learn more about its operation. If a local authority finds that the licence holder is no longer fit and proper—for instance, where they have committed a serious or repeated breach of licence conditions—it can revoke their licence. Local authorities have additional robust powers to tackle landlords who breach HMO regulations. That includes civil penalties of up to £40,000, rent repayment orders.

   Hansard source
3. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   As I have said, I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to hear their suggestions on where the regulations need to be strengthened. As a Department, our experience has been that, in some areas of the country, the powers are being properly enforced and the regulations are working. I want to understand more, if she is able to provide the evidence.

   Hansard source
4. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   I will give way in a second, but let me briefly mention resources, which are really important. It is vital that councils have the capacity to take action where needed. That is why we have provided £18.2 million in 2025-26 and £41.1 million for 2026-27 to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities have taken on under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We plan to establish a more sustainable funding system for enforcement in the private rented sector over the longer term based on future database revenue fees, but, again, I want to understand the challenges that particular local authorities are facing in that respect.

   Hansard source
5. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   Let me just give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields before I come to the hon. Gentleman.

   Hansard source
6. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   I do not have that information to hand. I am more than happy to follow up in correspondence with my hon. Friend, as I said. I will bring that data, and any further data we have available, to any meeting that we might have on this subject.

   Hansard source
7. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   Councils have that power. I do not know off the top of my head whether the hon. Gentleman’s local authority has consulted on and put in place an article 4 direction, but if it has not, I strongly encourage him to make that case so that his local authority makes full use of its powers. This is the crucial point. Are the powers in place inadequate—in which case let us have that conversation among hon. Members—or are individual local planning authorities unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to exercise properly the powers that they have? If that is the case, we need to understand what more they need in the way of resources, support and guidance to be able to do so. Let me briefly touch on social and affordable housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields rightly said, the ultimate solution to ensure that we have enough housing supply in any given area is to build enough homes of all tenures, including social and affordable homes. She has welcomed our new £39 billion 10-year social and affordable homes programme, the largest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes over the lifetime of that programme. As she knows, our target is for at least 60% of the homes delivered to be for social rent, to provide the genuinely affordable homes that families need in her area and others. We are also taking decisive action to reinvigorate council house building, including a new 10-year housing rent policy, and we have reinstated rent convergence. That will strengthen councils’ capacity and confidence for building new homes. We are taking action to reform the right to buy, including returning right-to-buy cash discounts to between £16,000 and £38,000. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields knows, we will go further in implementing the next phase of reforms through our Social Housing Bill, which is making good progress in the other place. Its measures include allowing councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales, with increased flexibilities in how they can be spent. We are already seeing many the fruits of many of the reforms that we have put in place. Data released just this morning by Homes England and the Greater London Authority in respect of affordable housing starts and completions shows that starts are up 26% and completions are up 8% on 2024-25, and we are delivering the highest number of social rent starts since 2010-11. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned the national scheme of delegation. We are modernising how planning committees function, and we have been very clear about the case for doing so. We want to ensure that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees are focused on the applications that require member input, not on revisiting applications and decisions that have already been taken. We published a working paper on this in December 2024, and we carried out extensive engagement following that. We formally consulted twice on the reforms, once in May 2025, on the principle of a two-tier system with some decisions delegated to planning officers, and once in March 2026, on the draft regulations and guidance. We are to debate those guidelines next week. I will gently push back on my hon. Friend’s contention that local voices and objections are cut out. Nothing in those regulations will stop local residents objecting to applications or registering their discontent, but we do think that on a certain set of applications, it is right that expert planning officers make the decisions. I also just make the point that schemes of delegation are in place across most local authorities in the country. The problem is that there is huge variation, which is creating issues in the planning system. We want to streamline that with a simple set of rules across the country and a national scheme.

   Hansard source
8. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   I am happy to sit down and run my hon. Friend through the instrument in lots more detail than I can give from the Dispatch Box, but it is the case that the national scheme of delegation does not specify HMOs in particular. However, development not covered by the HMO permitted development right will fall into schedule 1 of the regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation, where those decisions will be delegated to expert planning officers. As I said, we want to ensure with these reforms that planning committees, and their valuable time, are focused on the most controversial applications where their democratic oversight is best placed.

   Hansard source
9. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

   Houses in Multiple Occupation

   The register was successful in its aims in terms of providing operators with a chance to submit uncontracted, unsold section 106 units. Roughly over 4,000 units were put into that clearing service, which closed on 1 June. Through the policy intervention we made, we encouraged local authorities to consider how best to get those units moved, cascading to market sale in instances where they felt that they needed to do that. But that small number, which is far below the estimates we heard from some quarters, is a sign that some of the problem is working itself out. We are providing registered providers of affordable housing with greater financial capacity through our rent settlement, rent convergence and all the interventions we are making. Those measures are allowing them to buy more section 106 units and get those stalled schemes moving. To conclude, local planning authorities already have powers to restrict the proliferation of HMOs. They already benefit from or can deploy licensing powers to ensure that HMOs are safe and well managed, and they do have, we believe, robust powers to ensure that landlords of HMOs comply with all relevant regulations. As I said, I am very interested to hear from hon. Members about particular cases where they think that their local authority is not able to enforce the regulations that already exist, and of instances of actors circumventing that system—I was very interested in the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford gave. Those are the types of things we want to work through. If it transpires through those examples that the regulations are lacking in some way, we will take that into account. I have made it very clear that we keep the regulation of HMOs under review to ensure that the system works in the way that we want to see it work. Question put and agreed to.

   Hansard source
10. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    National Resilience

    Having spoken to ambassadors from various nations, such as the Scandinavian and Baltic states, as well as to the high commissioner of Canada, I understand that so many of these countries are now planning for dual-use infrastructure, for instance by expanding the width of motorways so that they can be considered for use by military aircraft in future conflict. Will the Minister update the House on our thinking in that domain?

    Hansard source
11. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Topical Questions

    Following the attack on the Prime Minister’s home and car, what measures are being taken to protect recently resigned or other senior leaders of Government?

    Hansard source
12. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Sudan

    This is a most bloody conflict, and the Foreign Secretary was right to say that rape is being used as a weapon of war. What steps is the Minister taking with international partners to ensure that the belligerents and those culpable are brought to justice?

    Hansard source
13. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Martin Rhodes

    UK-EU Relations

    3. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

    Hansard source
14. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Martin Rhodes

    UK-EU Relations

    Improving our relationship with the EU is about trade barriers, but it is also about standards. Many UK companies already follow the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive in order to trade with our biggest external market. Without alignment, we risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products while responsible UK companies are undercut by less responsible enterprises. What conversations has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues about aligning our human rights and environmental due diligence regime with that of the EU, to protect UK companies that do the right thing?

    Hansard source
15. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Martin Rhodes

    Topical Questions

    What steps is the Cabinet Office taking to co-ordinate work across Government on national resilience, particularly in relation to supporting SMEs in extreme weather conditions, such as we have at the moment?

    Hansard source
16. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Business of the House

    As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand the courage and dedication that our service personnel show each and every day, and, as this is Armed Forces Week, I want to commend them for it. One of my constituents is a newly attested Army reservist. He is proud to serve our country but his experience shows some of the barriers faced in training. It took nearly a year to train, but, crucially, he had to spend nearly £1,000 on travel, equipment and medical appointments. Unfortunately, that barrier resulted in many other dedicated applicants dropping out. On his behalf, will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the need to support the recruitment and training of our Army reservists?

    Hansard source
17. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I wish to speak on clause 12 in the context of specialised commissioning. In my parliamentary work, I deal with a great number of rare disease communities and other specialised groups. Specialised commissioning is important to them to ensure that they get the service they need and deserve. Will the Minister explain how we can ensure that there is patient involvement in a more dispersed system of commissioning, and that there is national oversight and clinical leadership for all these things? How will she ensure that specialised commissioning groups are monitored and that effective services are being provided to those in the communities who need them?

    Hansard source
18. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

    Public Procurement: SMEs

    14. What steps he is taking to help support small and medium-sized businesses through reforms to public procurement.

    Hansard source
19. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

    Public Procurement: SMEs

    Dellner Glass Solutions, one of the SMEs in my constituency of Blaydon and Consett, has been manufacturing aluminium and glass fabrications for over 50 years. It supplies window and door systems to the UK’s world-leading bus manufacturing market. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that reforms to public procurement support the growth of companies like Dellner Glass Solutions across the UK bus manufacturing supply chain?

    Hansard source
20. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Pitcher

    Business of the House

    “Can we have one, Dad?” That was the iconic slogan of Yorkshire Caravans back in the 1980s. I am sure the Leader of the House will not quite remember then, but will he join me in congratulating Yorkshire Caravans on achieving its 100th birthday, which is a huge milestone for a local business in Bawtry in my constituency?

    Hansard source
21. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Laura Kyrke-Smith

    Topical Questions

    The threats we face from hostile states are unprecedented in my lifetime, and geography is deceptive; we do not share a border with Russia or Iran, but our critical infrastructure is well within their reach, from hospital networks to transport networks and our banking systems. What are Ministers doing to prepare for these threats and build our national resilience, including making sure that the public know what is at stake?

    Hansard source
22. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Laura Kyrke-Smith

    Sudan

    We have seen three years of unimaginable suffering in Sudan, with 19 million people extremely hungry, millions of children out of school, and thousands of women and girls who have been raped. The world should have been focused on stopping that, but major powers, like the US, have been largely absent and others, from the UAE to Iran and Turkey, have actively supported the conflict by supplying guns and drones. We in the UK must be on the side of peace. Will the Minister say what more he will do to stop that supply of arms and throw our weight behind a ceasefire before we see a repeat of the El Fasher massacre in El Obeid?

    Hansard source
23. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kevin McKenna

    Draft Conversion Practices Bill

    I am so grateful that the Bill is finally approaching this stage in its journey towards becoming law. I think of my younger self, in the 1980s—a gay man in a religious household. Family relationships were put under so much strain because of religious pressure not to come out as gay and not to be honest. Frankly, the community pressure at the time had an impact not just on me, but on my parents. It is so great that we can get to a point in our country’s development where parents will get support and will not be put under pressure forcibly to convert their children. This is an incredible moment. I want to explore a little the protection around health professionals, as others have mentioned, particularly for people who might not fit the more common boxes that people think about, such as being gay, lesbian or transgender. For example, people who are asexual come under insidious and forcible pressure to have sex. Some of that pressure comes from assumptions in the medical community that all human beings should aspire to have an active sex life, but this is part of normal human variation; some people just do not have that desire and are coming under pressure, under the guise of clinical interventions. Will the Minister explain how that will be addressed in the Bill?

    Hansard source
24. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

    National Resilience

    5. What steps his Department is taking to improve national resilience.

    Hansard source
25. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

    National Resilience

    I am sure that I am not the only one who feels that they are not designed to withstand the current heat—and neither are many of our public buildings and infrastructure. May I urge the Minister to make sure, while also talking to colleagues in other Departments, that we factor in climate resilience when we plan future infrastructure and funding for housing, schools and hospitals?

    Hansard source
26. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Ports and Port Connectivity

    It is a pleasure, Mrs Jardine, to serve under your chairship. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing this incredibly important and prescient debate. As an island nation, our prosperity has always depended on our ability to trade, connect and compete with the rest of the world, and that is as true today as it has ever been. True also is the importance of the ports sector across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and the contributions by MPs from across the Chamber today have reflected that. I turn briefly to some of the comments that have been made today. My hon. Friend pointed to the importance of the symbiotic relationship between the grey hulls of the Royal Navy and civil maritime in this country. She said that we need to raise all boats in developing our maritime policy, and that I need to work hard with my MOD colleagues to do so. She also spoke of the proud history of Falmouth port and the exciting future in floating offshore wind, which I know she is challenging for, and also the next generation, who share the deep sense of civic pride in our port communities and are among the most ambitious about enhancing that status and projecting it into the future. My hon. Friend also spoke of the importance of industrial strategy zones that provide a catalyst for economic growth, a point also reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). I also note the point my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made about funding for the business case for the rail improvement project she speaks about. I would be grateful if she wrote to me to set out the detail of that again, and we will pick it up and see what more we can do to support her in her work. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the importance of port connectivity, not just to Northern Ireland, Belfast and his constituency, but to the entire Union of the United Kingdom and the economic bonds that exist within it. I am very pleased to say that I have accepted an invitation to visit Belfast port for myself to see those operations at first hand, and I am encouraged to hear that it is engaging in the master planning process and has such an exciting programme of expansion. On the Windsor framework, the UK Government are working hard to reset the relationship with our European partners. That will bring simplified trade procedures and reduced friction at ports, but he is right to hold us to account on that important issue for businesses in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) showed how planning reform, decarb initiatives and national growth do not need to happen to the exclusion of one another; they must go hand in hand to deliver for communities like those she represents. She is right to be ambitious about reviving the prospect for the port of Ramsgate. I just visited Portsmouth, another municipal port that shows how that system can work incredibly well to drive growth. I thank her for having similar ambitions for her constituency. I am excited to visit the port of Immingham very soon to see the investment it is bringing forward. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) will know that, as I am a Hull lad, his seat is very familiar to me. He and other hon. Members raised the important plan for the grid connection process. I can confirm that I am working closely with colleagues in DESNZ, and also within Ofgem and NESO, to make sure that we clear out projects from the pipeline that are not shovel-ready and cannot be scaled at pace, so that our ports get the grid connections they deserve. That will also be a major focus of the forthcoming maritime growth strategy that we hope to bring out later this year. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham also raised the importance of rail connectivity, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I am glad that they have focused on the fact that we can unlock efficiency and air quality improvements for local communities, as well as enhancing our port infrastructure; that is an incredibly powerful point. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) also raised a point that we do not reflect on enough: beyond the quayside, even in some of the most successful ports in the United Kingdom, stark inequalities can exist in coastal communities. There are inequalities in access to opportunity and to the fantastic roles we have in the maritime sector, but there are also major issues to do with economic inequality. It is this Government’s driving mission to address that. We want to make sure that ports such as Southampton continue to grow and offer fantastic services through the cruise sector. Part of that is about making sure that we get the grid connections right, but it is also about making sure that people who live in coastal communities benefit from the enormous opportunities that improved port connections can bring. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encourages me to make spending commitments from this Dispatch Box. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him today, but I am very interested in his point about rail freight connectivity from London Gateway and those three miles. That is more clearly within the remit of Lord Hendy in the other place—but, if the hon. Member wrote to me about it, I would be very interested to engage with him further from a maritime perspective. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), was characteristically strong in his advocacy for the port of Tilbury, which I had the real pleasure of visiting recently. I take his points about the implementation of EES very seriously. We continue to work with our EU partners and EU member states to encourage pragmatism whenever queues build, to reduce the impact for UK travellers and operators. I assure him that I am working very closely with my counterparts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office to ensure that we deal with those problems as they arise. The impact of our ports should not be underestimated. Around 85% of the goods that cross UK borders pass through them. The fundamentals of everyday life—the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the energy we rely on—all arrive by sea. Ports are also major employers for our coastal communities, supporting around 30,000 direct jobs. With the latest figures showing an annual contribution of over £2 billion, they are also catalysts for local, regional and national growth, although a key theme that has arisen from this debate is our obligation to ensure that the proceeds of that growth are spread more equitably among the coastal communities that Members represent. Last year, ports were recognised as a foundational industry in the Government’s industrial strategy. That was in no small part down to the swathes of investment that UK ports are already making, with £6 billion committed across the country since 2020. The Government are working hard to match that appetite for growth. I have heard some of the limitations of the National Wealth Fund in terms of the investability of propositions before the organisation. However, £5.8 billion is being directed towards five priority sectors, backing projects that face the greatest barriers to finance. Earlier this month, the fund announced £200 million for ports, the largest single investment it has made in the sector to date. Last year, the Government announced a further £448 million for the UK SHORE—Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—programme, helping innovators across maritime to develop sustainable technology, including improving grid connections at UK ports. We know that investment alone is not enough; a modern and effective planning system will also be essential to the future success of our ports. That is why we will soon publish the revised national policy statement for ports, providing greater certainty to those proposing new developments. I put on the record my thanks to the Transport Committee for its robust scrutiny of the statement, which we have done our level best to include in our additions and updates. We are also working closely with regulators to streamline the planning and consenting process, including tackling the backlog of harbour order applications. A new prioritisation framework will ensure that time-critical applications can be identified and processed more quickly, preventing any unnecessary delays. For ports to reach their full potential, they must work seamlessly with our road and rail networks. Congestion and capacity issues, whether at the port gate or miles away, can have a huge impact on supply chains. From the lower Thames crossing in the south to the trans-Pennine route upgrade in the north, the Government are pouring billions into improving port connectivity. In March, we announced over £27 billion through the third road investment strategy, including a new performance metric to reduce delays on gateway routes. At the same time, GBR will work to improve rail access, supporting our ambition for a 75% increase in rail freight by 2050 alongside the duty in the Railways Bill to promote rail freight. As we invest in growth and connectivity, we must also ensure that the sector is ready to meet its climate commitments. The maritime decarbonisation strategy doubles down on our mission to build a greener future, setting clear targets and guiding principles to help us to get there. Last year, we ran a call for evidence to understand ports’ current and future energy needs; over the coming months, we will publish a summary of those responses and set out our next steps. For centuries, ports have supported the movement of people, goods and ideas. They have helped to build the foundations of our national prosperity. Today, they continue to drive growth, support jobs and create opportunities in all four corners of the United Kingdom. Supporting the continued success of our ports is one of the Government’s top priorities, and we will keep working with and listening to industry as we shape the right policy environment for them to thrive. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who made such considered contributions.

    Hansard source
27. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Clause 12 inserts new section 3B into the National Health Service Act 2006, re-establishing the responsibility of the Secretary of State to commission services. Although we intend ICBs to commission the vast majority of services, as we discussed this morning, we will use this regulation-making power to set out the small number of specialised services that the Secretary of State will be responsible for. That may include, for example, proton beam therapy, alongside a small number of other specialist services not currently suitable for ICB commissioning, such as gender dysphoria services and clinical genomics. By their nature, those are services to which national commissioning is appropriate because, for example, they have fewer patients or providers, greater or changeable costs, or they require specialist clinical expertise and input. Having a regulation-making power allows us to future-proof the system and update the regulations when new services or treatments emerge, or when services become cheaper or mainstream and therefore sit better with ICBs. I now turn to amendment 57, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I recognise that any change to the way these services are commissioned matters enormously to the patients who depend on them. The hon. Lady used the word “worried”, and I understand that. Any change must be made with the greatest of care. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State, before any regulations are made that alter the range of nationally commissioned services and regardless of the scale of the change, to publish a transition plan covering seven prescribed matters, to consult five prescribed categories of persons for a minimum of 12 weeks, to publish a response to that consultation and then to wait a minimum of 60 days before the regulations can be made. As I have said, I understand and share the concern about continuity of care and the careful allocation of responsibility that lies behind it, but the proposals in amendment 57 are not the right way to address that concern. It proposes a fixed sequence of steps with minimum time periods that would apply to every change without exception. Taken together, the prescribed steps would add the better part of half a year to any change, including changes that are minor or technical, or that, for reasons of clinical safety, need to be expedited. That would create delays for patients and uncertainty for the wider system over where commissioning responsibility sits. I would like to offer assurance on some of the concerns raised today. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, who has spoken to me regularly about her concerns, for the work that she does in this area. I also commend the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, for her work on spinal cord injuries. I have met the chair of the APPG on spinal cord injury to discuss this topic. I would like to thank Bristol Councillor Kelvin Blake, who has a spinal cord injury and who for many years has impressed on me the difficulties faced by people with spinal cord injuries who are wheelchair dependent. I commend the work of people with these conditions who, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, struggle through a system that they should not have to struggle through. We want to make sure that these changes are assured, and I commit to working with hon. Members to do that as the Bill goes through. I can assure the Committee that any significant change to nationally commissioned services will be accompanied by proportionate and appropriate engagement with patients, clinicians and the bodies affected. Change will always proceed according to appropriate transition arrangements. Each service, as hon. Members know, has very different patient needs and commissioning requirements, and demands different skills to commission effectively. The framework the Government are proposing will enable the Department to manage these processes flexibly and proportionately. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about arrangements for new organisations. In a changing organisation where people are coming forward for redundancy and in a new organisation that is taking shape, it is important that the executive looks at all redundancy requests and changing needs with regard for critical business infrastructure and the retention of skills. That is what we are currently doing. The hon. Lady also asked about funding. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set out which ICB pays for whom, and there are clear rules for people in prisons and those not registered with a GP currently under the guidance of court, which is called “Who Pays?” There are also long-standing processes for ICBs to pay each other as needed. The hon. Lady also asked about high security mental health services; I can assure her that we have no plans to ask the private sector to provide services. The power to direct has been updated to ensure that directions would bite on non-NHS providers if that changes in future. Clause 13, which is part of this group, is a technical clause that permits the Secretary of State or an integrated care board to confer on a person discretion in relation to anything that is to be provided under the commissioning arrangement. In practice, this means that they could undertake some activities traditionally carried out by a commissioner, such as reviewing how services are provided for a population and designing the way that those services will be delivered within the parameters set by the commissioner. These activities would be clearly set out and measured under the contract, and the commissioner would retain overall responsibility for the delivery of their functions. Currently, integrated care boards are already permitted to do this, and with the transfer of NHS England’s commissioning powers to the Secretary of State, we propose a similar approach for services that are commissioned nationally. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and that she will withdraw her amendment. I commend clauses 12 and 13 to the Committee.

    Hansard source
28. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Primary care is the front door to the NHS and is critical to delivering our neighbourhood health agenda. The neighbourhood health service will bring care into local communities, ending fragmentation and preventing unnecessary hospital admissions. To support that, alongside clause 14, which I will discuss shortly, we have tabled new clauses 22 and 23 and new schedule 1, to strengthen action in the event of local pharmacy challenges and streamline the appeals process. On new clause 22, many hon. Members will know how the closure of a local pharmacy can significantly affect a community. Pharmacies close for a range of reasons: voluntary closure, business failure or emergencies affecting the premises or surrounding area. Even where a pharmacy remains open, unforeseen or unexpected events can disrupt access for local people. The NHS Act 2006 sets out how ICBs should commission pharmaceutical services in normal circumstances and what can be done if those arrangements fail. Section 133 of the Act is intended to deal with exceptional situations where standard commissioning processes are too slow and rapid action is needed to restore provision while long-term solutions are put in place, if required. However, the current wording of section 133 is widely interpreted as applying only to large-scale national emergencies, as it refers to inadequate provision affecting a significant number of people. It is unclear whether that would cover more localised situations, such as a village cut off by flooding following a bridge collapse, or where the only pharmacy serving an area closes unexpectedly, creating an urgent unmet need, as we have seen happen. It is also unclear how the Secretary of State would authorise alternative arrangements. To address those issues, new clause 22 ensures that ICBs can respond swiftly to exceptional circumstances, regardless of scale. It removes the unnecessary provision for the Secretary of State to make arrangements himself and clarifies that authorisation to ICBs should be given through directions. The directions will be limited to six months, with the possibility to extend further if required. This change maintains appropriate national oversight while preventing misuse of the powers. It is a sensible and proportionate amendment that gives the system the flexibility it needs in exceptional circumstances while retaining proper safeguards. New clause 23 and new schedule 1 simplify the appeal framework for NHS pharmaceutical services by allowing appeals that are currently split between different routes to be heard by a single appeal authority. At present, where concerns arise about a pharmacy contractor, different appeal routes may apply depending on whether a case is characterised as one of fitness or of performance. In practice, however, that distinction is not always clear and the current system can create unnecessary complexity and duplication. New clause 23 and new schedule 1 address that problem, providing for such appeals to be heard through a single route, which we intend to designate in regulations as NHS Resolution. It is a practical and proportionate change; NHS Resolution already has substantial experience in handling disputes involving NHS pharmaceutical services and is well placed to provide a clear, consistent and independent route of appeal. Importantly, this measure does not change the position in relation to the fitness to practise of individual pharmacy professions. Cases concerning individual practitioners will continue to be dealt with separately by the General Pharmaceutical Council. By simplifying the framework, this measure will help to ensure that related issues can be considered more coherently, reduce fragmentation in decision making and support the effective oversight of NHS pharmaceutical services. In short, it aligns the appeal system more closely with operational practice, reduces unnecessary complexity and preserves the appropriate safeguards for individual practitioners. The remaining Government amendments are consequential on those changes, or are technical changes that have emerged as necessary following drafting of the wider Bill. I will speak to new clause 21 in particular, as it updates section 132 of the 2006 Act so that the legislation reflects current commissioning arrangements for pharmaceutical services. Section 132 currently allows, in addition to retail pharmacy business, arrangements to be made with individual doctors and dentists for the provision of pharmaceutical services. That wording reflects an early model of care. In practice today, arrangements for primacy medical services are made with GP practices, not individual general practitioners, and patient lists are held at practice level. New clause 21 therefore brings the legislation into line with the way services are already commissioned and delivered. It will mean that, where such arrangements are made with dispensing doctors, they are made with GP practices rather than individual GPs. It also removes provision to make such arrangements with dentists, to reflect the fact that that provision is redundant. In summary, new clause 21 is a technical amendment, which does not change current practice but simply updates the statute book to reflect modern NHS arrangements. Patients in rural areas eligible to receive medicines from the dispensing doctors will continue to receive that service as they do now.

    Hansard source
29. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    The changes here, as I have outlined, are bringing practices in line in terms of the regulation. I think the issue my hon. Friend really addresses is the arrangement between those local practices and the ICB as the commissioner on where the service is provided. Ordinarily a commissioner would seek to make sure that a rural area had provision from somewhere in particular; I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend outside the Committee if there is a problem in his local area.

    Hansard source
30. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I have enjoyed the “back to the good old days” of the Lib Dem-Tories. They tell us we live in fractured political parties, but I quite like the old days. On new clause 2, I understand the intention that GP provision is important to us all and to our constituents. We have recruited over 2,000 more GPs since 2024—the highest number of qualified GPs since 2015—and there is provision to ringfence money for even more. We all know the importance of timely access to general practice, and patients need to be confident that they can get that care urgently and receive it promptly. We are seeing improving signs. According to the ONS, the number of people who say it is now easy to contact their GP practice is up 14% since 2024, and that satisfaction is rising. Importantly, 69% of patients are seen within seven days and 44% are seen within the one day that they have requested an appointment, irrespective of urgency. That is the progress that we are encouraging, but we are not complacent; we recognise that there is more to do. We also recognise that not everyone not seen within seven days is experiencing an unnecessary delay. Not every patient requires an appointment within seven days, and many people book appointments in advance for routine reviews, medication checks, to ensure that they see their preferred clinician or to fit around work and other life responsibilities. The new clause would cut across that flexibility by imposing a more rigid approach to appointment allocation, weakening both clinical judgment and patient preference. We do not believe that would be the best for patients or safe care. We must protect both clinical judgment and patient choice. We therefore cannot support the new clause. We are clear that if someone is unwell and a doctor needs to see them urgently, they should be seen that same day. NHS England’s medium-term planning framework, which was published in October 2025, sets out an ambition for all clinically urgent appointments to be delivered on the same day, ensuring that patients assessed as needing urgent care are prioritised appropriately. We have made changes to regulations to require clinically urgent requests to be dealt with on the same day to support that ambition within the 2026-27 GP contract. We will publish data on that progress soon. On new clause 52, we know that dentistry is broken and that we need to rebuild it. That includes ensuring an urgent care safety net across the country by reforming the dental contract and developing the 10-year workforce plan This new clause is unnecessary; we have delivered 1.8 million more dental treatments, and from April we began introducing a package of reforms to address some of the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams have been experiencing. Those reforms will prioritise those with the greatest need, shifting care away from clinically unnecessary check-ups. We are also including dental school places, and we will make more provision in our upcoming workforce plan. The Government are committed to more fundamental contract reform by the end of this Parliament, which will include publicly consulting on future proposals. I make no apologies for taking the time to get that right. The issues are complex; this has not been done for a long time and there is no consensus on the perfect approach. On that basis, I commend clause 14 to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 Conferral of primary care functions on integrated care boards etc Amendments made: 14, in schedule 1, page 60, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2). This is consequential on NC21. Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 60, line 26, leave out “(a), (b), (c) and”. This is consequential on NC21. Amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 60, line 36, leave out paragraph 46. This is consequential on NC22. Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 65, line 5, leave out paragraph 65. This is consequential on NS1. Amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 75, line 1, at end insert— “(4) In subsection (5), in the definition of ‘relevant area’, after paragraph (b) insert— ‘(ba) in relation to an integrated care board, in a case where a person has at any time provided or performed services by arrangement or contract with the board, means the prescribed area (at the prescribed time).’”—(Karin Smyth.) This adds an amendment to section 259 of the NHS Act 2006 that is consequential on the transfer to integrated care boards of NHS England’s commissioning functions in respect of primary care. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)

    Hansard source
31. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Patients and the public have a critical role in shaping our health services. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon for tabling the amendment, as moved by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. I will discuss the amendment with the wider question of whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. To be clear, the Government are committed to engaging with patients and the public about the services they use. Services shaped together with the people who rely on them are better services. We want to see deep and collaborative ways of working between patients, public and the NHS. Across the country, there are good examples of that from which we want to learn. That is why the clause requires the Secretary of State to involve patients and the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, the development and consideration of proposals for service change, and decisions that may affect how services are delivered or the range of services available. The clause is intended to encourage early engagement and meaningful involvement in service change, thereby helping to build legitimacy, trust and better-informed commissioning decisions. As a duty, it covers the entire end-to-end commissioning cycle. I have been a commissioner myself, so although I will not detain the Committee too much on that, it is indeed part of the job of a commissioner to do that at a very early stage. I also draw attention to the fact that the clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure the involvement of individuals who use or may use health services, together with carers and representatives, where appropriate, in commissioning activity. That duty is purposely broad, covering both existing service users and those who may reasonably rely on services in future, and will support preventive approaches and enable the consideration of wider population health impacts. We made the deliberate choice to include specific references to carers and representatives, recognising that some individuals may require support to participate effectively in engagement and decision-making processes. That is particularly important where barriers such as disability, communications needs, sometimes age, vulnerability or unequal access may otherwise limit participation. We are ensuring that involvement is inclusive and meaningful, which I think is what all hon. Members want to see. Specifically on amendment 28, I gently caution against creating an implication of different approaches to patient involvement for different parts of the system, leading to a two-track approach and unnecessary confusion. Instead, we propose a Government commitment to ensure meaningful consultation. We support co-production and will continue to champion it, but we do not think it necessary to put it on the face of the Bill. The Government support involving patients and the public at every stage, and we recognise that working closely with the people and communities affected by commissioning decisions brings valuable insight into service quality, accessibility, equity and effectiveness. We will use the duties and powers available to Ministers to ensure that that principle is embedded across the work of the NHS. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for North Shropshire has some reassurance and will withdraw her amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
32. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    There are a number of amendments in the group. Amendment 35 was not moved but as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon spoke to it, I will comment on that amendment, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). Community equipment and wheelchair services are really important to us and—to allay the concerns of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon—that is why the medium-term planning framework requires that, from this year, all ICBs and community health services must actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. I assure the Committee that we will hold the ICBs for their performance. The community health services situation report has a specific monitoring line, covering children and young people and covering adults, for the wheelchair, orthotics, prosthetics and equipment category. We intend to continue that work following NHS England’s abolition. Consistent national standards will help us to identify the best and the weakest-performing areas, to identify what improvements need to be made and to tackle the longest waits. Amendment 52 was tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. We are committed to ensuring that all patients receive the NHS care they need in a timely manner, and I recognise the importance that Committee members have placed on that matter. The NHS constitution sets out that patients should start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks of referral, and it is imperative that the system continues to work towards returning to and then upholding that standard. I listened with great care to the comments from Members on the Opposition Benches, but I was here—as were you, Dr Huq—during the last couple of Parliaments; I was here as waiting lists rose and rose after 2012, under the previous Government’s stewardship, until they reached 4 million people, all waiting an inordinate amount of time. That Government had no kind of approach to reducing the numbers; they were quite content to have 4 million people on waiting lists, and to never bring forward measures to change that. They were quite content not to challenge NHS England or trust boards about why people across the country in all our constituencies were languishing on those lists. We are determined to resolve that situation.

    Hansard source
33. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I will move on. It is absolutely right that integrated care boards, as local commissioners, retain the ability to manage their services and waiting lists effectively, given the shocking numbers that they have inherited. This is complicated, difficult work: commissioners have to balance demand, capacity and clinical need, and a prohibition such as the one set out in the amendment would threaten to remove legitimate flexibilities that are required at the local level to ensure that services are delivered safely and efficiently. We are clear that systems should not be setting minimum wait times that exceed the 18-week constitutional standard, but hon. Members will appreciate that not all elements of waiting are inappropriate. In many cases, they reflect clinical pathways, sequencing of care or the need to prioritise the most urgent patients. It is imperative that clinical judgment and urgency remain the key drivers of prioritisation, which is something the amendment threatens to remove. Turning to amendment 52, I recognise that Members across the House are committed to ensuring that all patients receive the NHS care they need in a timely manner. Validation is a routine and long-standing part of waiting list management by providers. It ensures that patient records are accurate, that patients are on the best pathway to meet their needs and that they still need their appointments. Routinely validated waiting lists will support a return to the 18-week NHS constitutional standard. Reasons for removal as a result of validation include a patient no longer needing their appointment or there being a duplicate appointment. The previous Government left behind some systems and trusts in such a poor condition that they give out duplicate appointments, and we need to resolve that as part of our work. Other reasons for removal include a patient’s record not being properly updated following treatment or a clinical decision—another sign of the inefficiency that the previous Government left behind.

    Hansard source
34. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is expert on this issue and has outlined to us some excellent clinical examples. I look forward to debating the single patient record further in Committee. Importantly, any patient removed from a waiting list should be notified alongside their GP. Data on the total number of removals from waiting lists is published by NHS England. That data includes, but cannot separately identify, patient pathways removed as a result of validation. The Department remains committed to the transparent publication of official waiting list statistics following the abolition of NHS England, although there are no plans to publish more detailed breakdowns. NHS staff are delivering record levels of elective activity, which has enabled us to meet our interim target of 65% of patients being seen within 18 weeks.

    Hansard source
35. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    The hon. Lady outlines a particular case, and if she wants to raise that separately, I am happy to come back to her with a fuller answer. As she knows, and as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon also knows from his work with Getting It Right First Time, there are complications in some of this. I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point, but if there are particular or anecdotal examples of what she referred to, I am absolutely prepared to look at them. Patients, with their GP, need to understand what is happening. That is a key part of our elective reform plan. If patients are on the list for a long time, they should be told why, and what alternative provision can be made for them. We are taking an active approach to supporting and empowering patients with information and knowledge, and being transparent about how we get down the shocking lists that the Conservatives left us, which stood at 4 million people before the pandemic.

    Hansard source
36. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    We know that in some areas of Scotland and Wales that are near the border with England, the way that health services are planned and commissioned in England can have implications for the people who live in Scotland or Wales. That is why clause 17 inserts new section 14Z45E into the 2006 Act, to place a duty on integrated care boards, when exercising their commissioning functions, to “have regard to the likely impact of those decisions on the provision of health services” to persons in Scotland and Wales living near the English border. I assure the Committee that the clause will operate solely in relation to the exercise of ICB commissioning functions in England. It will neither confer functions on ICBs in relation to the commissioning or provision of services outside England, nor affect the responsibilities of devolved Administrations for the organisation and delivery of health services in Wales and Scotland. I commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
37. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    As an MP in Bristol, which is not quite on the border, but is pretty close, I absolutely understand. We have relationships with our Welsh colleagues and I have been involved in debates on this matter. The clause ensures that, with the abolition of NHS England, regard is had to to arrangements with our colleagues across the border. We all understand that devolution means that different arrangements will be made in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It is not for the UK Government to determine what those are, because they are devolved. However, I assure members of the Committee that across the piece in the Department, and indeed across the Government, regular meetings and conversations on these and other matters with regard to the devolved functions are a regular part of the work that we do. Question put and agreed to. Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 Transfer schemes in connection with integrated care boards Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
38. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    The clause gives the Secretary of State the powers to make transfer schemes where an ICB is being abolished or established, or where the area covered by an ICB is being amended. A transfer scheme ensures that all the staff, property rights, responsibilities and liabilities, other than criminal liabilities, of the ICB being abolished are transferred to another ICB. That ensures that the ICB taking over has the appropriate information and resources to continue to arrange healthcare services for their population. In the past, that has been used to support the restructuring of ICBs to achieve geographical boundary alignment with strategic authorities, as set out in the 10-year health plan. The power also allows transfers to the Secretary of State and, when a new ICB is established, allows the transfer of staff from an NHS trust or foundation trust or from a special health authority. Following the abolition of NHS England, we expect that Ministers will continue to need to be able to make transfers between ICBs. The clause allows that as needed. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
39. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    It is precautionary to give the power in the event—future-proofing the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 Integrated care boards: power to provide assistance Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
40. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    The clause relates to the power for integrated care boards to provide assistance and support in relation to the health service. It replaces section 14Z48 and, in part, section 12ZA of the National Health Service Act 2006 with a clearer and more flexible power. At present, the various ICB assistance powers are narrower and more confusing. Section 12ZA provides for certain forms of practical assistance in connection with ICBs’ commissioning functions, while section 14Z48 provides a more limited power to make grants or loans. Other specific assistance powers sit elsewhere in the legislation, including in sections 96, 112, 124 and 147, which allow assistance and support for primary medical services, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. Clause 19 replaces all those separate powers with a general power for ICBs to provide assistance or support. The clause will make it clearer when an ICB may support providers, prospective providers or other activity connected with the health service. It will allow an ICB to provide assistance or support to a person who is providing or proposing to provide services as part of the health service. It will also enable an ICB to support a person who is carrying out or proposing to carry out activities that the ICB considers to be conducive to the health service. The assistance may include financial assistance, making available the services of ICB staff, or making available any other ICB resources. The clause also allows assistance to be provided on agreed terms, including terms about payments by or to the integrated care board. The clause supports ICBs in their role as strategic commissioners. ICBs need to be able to support the development, improvement and resilience of services for their populations. They need to be able to cultivate their provider sector to meet the needs of the people they are responsible for, and they need to be able to do so in innovative and flexible ways. The clause gives them a clearer statutory basis for doing so. This is only an enabling power; it does not require an integrated care board to provide assistance and it does not create any entitlement for a person to receive assistance, nor does it disapply the ordinary legal and financial controls that apply to integrated care boards, or any other element of the usual way in which NHS bodies are overseen and regulated. The clause should be read alongside clause 9, which creates a broadly analogous assistance power for the Secretary of State. In combination, the clauses support the move to a simpler, more flexible statutory framework that enables everybody, from the centre to ICBs, to discharge their responsibilities in ways that can be adapted to the complexity and multiplicity of circumstances they will inevitably encounter. I commend clause 19 to the Committee.

    Hansard source