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

12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   I absolutely agree. I have just come from an event that Fairtrade is hosting in the Inter-Parliamentary Union room, at which people were talking, among other things, about the forest risk commodities legislation—I will come on to that later, because the Government have announced regulations today—and about the cost to smallholders and indigenous communities of complying with it. Of course, we want to ensure sustainability and stamp out deforestation in the supply chain, but we have to remember that there are small farmers and indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on that. At Easter, a number of us went to Indonesia—Borneo, in particular—and met communities doing agroforestry projects. We were looking at how we could support them. It was mostly about orangutans, which I will talk about at some length in a moment, but the people matter very much too.

   Hansard source
2. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   I could not agree more. I really appreciate all the interventions, which are a very good way of getting the debate flowing, but it is quite easy for me to lose my place. I was talking about the impact of mining, logging and urbanisation, and about the fact that forest and peatlands have been damaged by wild fires. I will come on to the marine environment later. The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to help reverse these problems. In a joint statement in November 2024, our Prime Minister and the President of Indonesia agreed a new strategic partnership, underpinned by people, planet, prosperity and peace. It included a commitment to address illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, conservation of ocean species, sustainable supply chains and food security. At COP29 in Baku in 2024, we pledged £239 million to halt and reverse deforestation in forest-rich nations that act as critical carbon sinks, including Indonesia. The measures included £188 million for high-integrity forest carbon markets, £48 million for blended finance for forest programmes to attract private investment and £3 million for the United Nations framework convention on climate change to support communities to benefit from forest restoration. We have also funded some specific Indonesia programmes, including UK Partnering for Accelerated Climate Transitions, which covers low-carbon transportation and energy efficiency. Phase 5 of a 20-year forestry programme looking at timber governance, legislation and regulation has had £12 million from us. The UK partnered with Jakarta and funded the Nature Transition Support programme for biodiversity protection in key national parks and pioneer carbon and biodiversity credit markets. The Climate and Ocean Adaptation and Sustainable Transition programme is funded by the UK’s Blue Planet fund. I have several more things on my list, but I am slightly worried that I will steal the Minister’s thunder. I suspect that she will tell us a bit about what the UK has done, so I will save them for her. As I say, good things have happened, but I will now focus on the challenges. I have been fortunate enough to visit Indonesia twice in the last couple of years. In April 2025, as the then Climate Minister, I represented the UK at the Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade dialogue meeting in Malaysia. Indonesia had been co-chair of the dialogue with the UK, but was handing over to Malaysia, so my visit took in both countries. The discussion mostly focused on palm oil, as hon. Members would expect, and the theme of the dialogue was smallholders. I think I am right in saying that, in both countries, about 50% of palm oil production comes from smallholders. Although it is easy for the larger agricultural concerns to monitor regulations, comply with the certification and do all the bureaucracy that is involved in that, it is much more difficult for smallholders. As we have said, we need to bear their needs and livelihoods in mind.

   Hansard source
3. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   That is probably the subject for another long debate, because it gets into the inequities in global food supply chains and making sure that farmers—whether in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency or the heart of the Indonesian rainforest—get fairly rewarded for what they do. I would say that a lot of products with palm oil in them are probably not the best elements of a healthy diet, such as the ultra-processed foods we should be stamping out. However, palm oil can be sustainable, and I will come on to talk about how we ensure that it is. Even if some palm oil products someone ends up consuming are not particularly great, there are others where palm oil is an important part of our food systems. Indonesia is the world’s largest producer of palm oil, supplying more than half of global exports. Palm oil accounts for around 4.5% of GDP and supports 16 million jobs, with many of those involved being smallholders, as I said. This is a dilemma that many emerging economies face: going for growth, exploiting abundant natural resources to the max and boosting the livelihoods of people who might otherwise be living in poverty, or protecting their environment. However, I do not think those two things need to be at odds with each other. It is true that palm oil has historically been linked to deforestation, peatland drainage and biodiversity loss, but Indonesia has been taking steps to address that. A mandatory national certification scheme for Indonesian sustainable palm oil, known as ISPO, was introduced in 2011. A palm oil moratorium was introduced in 2018, halting new plantation permits and revoking some non-compliant concessions, and many private sector companies have adopted NDPE, or “No Deforestation, No Peat, No Exploitation” policies. Indonesia has also acted more widely to protect its forests and peatlands. Forest and peatland moratoriums were introduced in 2011 and made permanent in 2019. New permits to clear primary forests and peatlands were suspended, and that was complemented by peatland restoration programmes and stronger protection against wildfires. Secondary forests are still vulnerable, however, and many forests remain exposed within existing concessions. Indonesia’s efforts are now focused on scaling up certification, strengthening enforcement and ensuring that future growth in palm oil production does not come at the expense of remaining forests, but this is a global issue, and we cannot expect Indonesia to act alone. We know that 90% of all global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion to meet international demand for traded commodities. What we consume in this country is contributing to the destruction of forests and peatlands across the globe. The Government’s figures show that, in 2023, British consumption of everyday goods, such as palm oil, cocoa, rubber and soy, was linked to the clearing of around 29,000 hectares of forests worldwide. That is an area two and a half times the size of Manchester—we normally say the size of Wales, but perhaps Manchester is where it is at these days. This was going to be the point at which I called out the Government for not making more progress with our legislation on forest risk commodities. I was going to say that we cannot have any credibility on the global stage in co-chairing initiatives such as the FACT—forest, agriculture and commodity trade—dialogue or the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership, which we co-chair with Guyana, if we are not prepared to take steps to stamp out deforestation in our own supply chains. During my time as Climate Minister, I spoke often to the Minister for Nature and the FCDO Minister responsible for international development, as well as to our two excellent envoys for climate and nature—Rachel Kyte and Ruth Davis—about this issue. I also pay tribute to the team in the international forest unit, which spans the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the FCDO, who were great to work with. Our conversations went back and forth on the pros and cons of going down the EU route on regulation, which was focused on the concept of sustainability, or the route proposed by the previous UK Government under the Environment Act 2021, which was based on legality. There was a valid discussion to be had about which approach was best, complicated by the fact that the EU approach would apply in Northern Ireland. What should not have been up for debate was whether we would act at all, yet some parts of Government were arguing that this represented another burden on business, which we could not impose. Businesses such as Ferrero, which I met, were calling for regulation, as were supermarkets. The opposition within Government was a straw man to argue for delay or, in fact, for dropping the proposal altogether. As I said, I came here prepared to vent my frustration at the delay, but I was pleased to get a heads-up from the Nature Minister last night that the Government are announcing today, at London Climate Action Week, that they are moving ahead with the regulations. UK businesses that trade in internationally sourced commodities such as palm oil will be legally required to check that their supply chains are free from products linked to illegal land clearances and the destruction of the world’s rainforests.

   Hansard source
4. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   I was going to wind my hon. Friend up by saying that I have no idea how big Leeds is—slightly bigger than Bristol, I think—but he is right that delay has consequences. I gather that the Government have announced a consultation now, but we do not want that to drag on. We must ensure that it is a genuine consultation, but that it is time-limited and that action follows as swiftly as possible.

   Hansard source
5. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   My hon. Friend is right. One of my concerns was that Bolsonaro was making legal what should clearly have been illegal. The counter-argument was that there was something slightly colonialist about dictating how a country should decide on what was sustainable for its own purposes, and there were some voices on that side. As I understand it, the UK will start on the basis of what is illegal in the country from which we are sourcing the products, but the intention will be eventually to align with the EU regulation on deforestation-free products over time, and the ultimate goal is a blanket deforestation-free standard that would legally require products to be produced without any forest loss or land conversion whatever. That is the end goal; the EUDR has run into some problems and its implementation was delayed—it should have been at the end of last year, and now it may be at the end of this year—so the idea is that we move ahead with what we have already drafted under the Environment Act, and then better will follow. The British Retail Consortium today welcomed the announcement, which is another indication that business does want this change. While regulation will help to prevent further destruction, we also need to mobilise finance to protect standing forests and restore what we have lost. Public funding from donor countries and philanthropy both have an important role but, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford, we must look to the private sector if we are to close the forest finance gap. Indonesia is already benefiting from REDD+, or reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, funding, which is a mixture of public and private finance, but we could do much more to scale that up. Indonesia has a huge amount to offer investors, and I know they are looking to the UK to help them; in fact, just after I was in the country last year, the climate envoy arrived at the embassy to run some workshops on voluntary carbon and nature markets and how Indonesia could work with the UK on those. We are rightly seen as leaders, not least because London is one of the global financial capitals of the world. At COP29, I was proud to launch our six principles for voluntary carbon and nature market integrity, and last year we used London Climate Action Week to launch the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, which we co-chair alongside Kenya and Singapore. However, I am somewhat concerned by the lack of progress since then. There was a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero consultation that closed nearly a year ago on 10 July. I have been trying to chase that up, and I gather that around 200 responses have been published, but the recommendations have yet to come forward. Maybe that is being saved up for London Climate Action Week; I very much hope it is, because I think the eyes of the world are on us to make this blended finance happen. There is one issue that I will touch on only briefly, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) will speak on it: the controversial plans for a food estate in West Papua. I have had some reassurances that that will not involve the destruction of healthy forests and that it is part of an important strategy to increase Indonesia’s food security—I can tell by the look on my hon. Friend’s face that that is not the account he has been given. However, as I said, I knew he was coming here to speak about that, and I know I can rely on him to speak about it with great expertise. The other assurance I have had recently is that Indonesia wants to move away from such a high dependence on the palm oil sector, diversify what it grows and increase its food security, but I will leave that to my hon. Friend to cover. I want to talk instead about orangutans. My second visit to Indonesia was in April this year with the all-party parliamentary group on international conservation and Borneo Orangutan Survival UK. Three Members present today were on that visit, and I think it made a lasting impression on us. We took a very long and slow boat journey into East Kalimantan in the heart of Borneo and trekked through very rich, deep and, as I said, squelchy peatlands to see the work being done to restore primary rainforests. We also met people from the indigenous communities to see sustainable agroforestry in action. The best part was that we spent a day at a forest school for orangutans, where they teach orphaned orangutans how to survive in the wild. Indonesia is home to three species of orangutans and they are all endangered. They are the most arboreal of all apes, spending around 80% of their lives in the rainforest canopy. Normally, their mothers teach them forest skills and how to survive in that way up to about the age of eight, but when they are orphaned, they go to forest school for about the same length of time. Then they go to university, where they practise semi-independent living. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West and I each had the amazing privilege of releasing an orangutan—his was called Peanuts; mine was called Lanting—into their university island, where I hope they are thriving. BOS is doing great work, but we need to do more to tackle the underlying reasons why so many orangutans need its help. I have already spoken at length about forest risk commodities and the destruction of habitats, but those are not the only factors. Many orangutans like Peanuts and Lanting have been displaced by development as Indonesia’s population and urbanisation grow. They are also very susceptible to human diseases such as tuberculosis, which they catch when humans start encroaching on their territory. I think all of us who went would agree that the saddest thing we saw at the forest school was the orangutans that could not be released from their cages because they carried diseases—particularly TB. They were clearly really unhappy animals and it was heartbreaking to see them. Under the law in Indonesia, they cannot be euthanised, because they are a protected species. However, there is some hope, because BOS is fundraising to create new habitats. There are going to be about 15 little islands where groups of infected orangutans—one male, a couple of females and the younger ones—will be able to experience freedom together without passing their diseases on to healthy animals. I look forward to seeing that come into play. A sizeable number of the orangutans that BOS rescues have been trafficked—for example, stolen as babies to be pets or for private zoos. BOS has rescued around 50 from tourist attractions in Thailand. It has been three years since the UK passed the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023, which will ban the promotion by UK companies of tourist attractions abroad that involve animal cruelty and exploitation—for example, those where tigers are drugged and declawed, elephants are forced to perform or, as we saw on film in Borneo, orangutans are forced to take part in boxing matches. Yet we are still waiting for the Act to come into force, because the lawyers at DEFRA need to draft regulations. I am told that they are struggling to find the right words to put in the definitions to catch that type of cruelty and exploitation. My next note just says, “Get on with it.” They need to get on with it. There is no excuse for three years’ delay. As a lawyer, I am pretty sure they can find the words to deal with these things, even if it is just where animals are forced to perform unnatural acts or where they are drugged or declawed. They do not have to catch every type of animal abuse and exploitation; it would be a start to bring in regulations that catch at least some of it.

   Hansard source
6. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   It was good to talk to Nadine on the visit; she was a real source of expertise. I am glad to hear that, and if it is a possible answer to the issue, that is excellent. I will talk a little about the marine environment. We have quite a lot of debates in this place about oceans and marine issues, so I will not say too much, but they are important to Indonesia. The country covers an area of around 8 million km2, only a quarter of which is land. With around 17,000 islands, Indonesia is an ocean state, supporting coral reefs, mangroves and sea grass habitats that are vital for biodiversity and for human livelihoods such as fishing and tourism. It lies at the centre of the coral triangle, which is often called the “Amazon of the seas” because of its exceptional biodiversity, and has over 75% of the world’s coral species and more than a third of global reef fish species. Indonesia’s marine environment is amazing—I have been diving there, so I can vouch for that—but it is also highly vulnerable. The reefs are under pressure from overfishing, destructive fishing practices such as blast fishing, pollution and overdevelopment. Rising sea temperatures cause coral bleaching, which weakens or kills reefs, while pollution and sedimentation reduce water quality. Indonesia has established hundreds of marine protected areas. Conservation zones reach tens of millions of hectares, and it has ambitious targets to expand them further to safeguard up to 30% of its marine territory by 2045, which would make it one of the largest marine conservation networks in the world. Indonesia is also investing in marine conservation and restoration, including in coral reef rehabilitation programmes, stricter environmental regulations and innovative schemes such as the coral reef bond, which funds conservation projects based on measurable improvements in reef health. The UK has now passed the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026, and although I understand that a few more steps must be taken before the global ocean treaty is finally ratified, I hope that we will be able to play a full role in January at the ocean COP in New York. The Minister is leading on that, so perhaps she can tell us a bit about it in her reply. Indonesia is vital to us, and will become ever more so. Its economic success is important to us, as is its environment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister and other colleagues have to say.

   Hansard source
7. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   On that specific point, Fairtrade was holding an event in the IPU room earlier and I was concerned to hear about the cost of complying with forest risk commodities regulation for indigenous farmers. They were citing figures in the tens—I think the low tens—for both African and Latin American smallholders. Can the Minister speak to her colleagues in DEFRA about how we can ensure that the burden of these regulations does not fall on people in indigenous communities? I think the answer is having co-operatives or regional government-led initiatives to make sure that they can comply with the certification, but can she make sure that that point is taken up?

   Hansard source
8. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

   Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

   I thank everyone who came along to support the debate, and I thank the Front Benchers for their replies. I was particularly glad to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), show such enthusiasm for the global energy transition and for countries meeting their climate ambitions, accelerating climate action and recognising the importance of carbon sequestration. I did not think those were Conservative party policies any more, but perhaps it is a different matter when it is about Indonesia rather than the UK. I resisted the urge to intervene on him on that point, as we will be having that debate in this place tomorrow morning. I am not sure whether I should have referred hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests at the start of my speech, in relation to our trip to Borneo; I was just asking my colleague, and we are not quite sure whether all Members who went on the trip should have done so, but that is now on the record. As hon. Members will have appreciated, that trip was absolutely wonderful. It brought home to us not only the potential of the rainforest, the peatlands and Indonesia’s natural environment, but the threats that they face. I thank ICCF and Borneo Orangutan Survival, representatives of which are here to watch the debate. I hope that I have done justice to their efforts, and long may our relationship continue. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered UK-Indonesia collaboration on environmental sustainability.

   Hansard source
9. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

   Draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026.

   Hansard source
10. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. These two instruments, alongside the amendments made by the Employment Rights Act 2025, extend the time limit for presenting claims to the employment tribunal from three months to six months across the majority of employment rights. The draft regulations apply to Great Britain, while the draft order applies to England and Wales. The changes will help to create a framework that is more consistent and accessible, and better aligned with the realities faced by workers and employers. I recognise that Members will be rightly concerned about the capacity of the employment tribunal and the wider dispute resolution system to adapt to this change, given the growing caseload. However, I make it clear that we fully understand the challenges and are already working on reforms focusing on making the system more effective, efficient and resilient. The dispute resolution system taskforce was set up by the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice last year. It comprises representatives from business, trade unions, legal organisations and third sector organisations. The taskforce is helping to inform our work to develop reform measures, which include short-term, targeted measures to reduce pressure on the system as well as forward-looking measures intended to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. Those will follow a phased approach, with work on some measures currently under way. We will have further opportunities to discuss that work, but I will now turn to the two instruments on employment tribunal time limits. The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 are important because they ensure consistency with changes made by the Employment Rights Act and the current six-month time limit for statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. For many people, three months has proved to be a difficult window, and the short timeframe has led to rushed claims or, in some cases, people missing the opportunity to bring a claim altogether. By moving to a six-month time limit, the regulations create a more realistic and fairer system that better reflects the realities people face, provides more time for disputes to be resolved without needing to go to an employment tribunal and supports fair access to justice. They give employees and employers more opportunity to engage with concerns early and, where possible, resolve disputes before they reach tribunal. The additional time, alongside the consistent approach to time limits across jurisdictions, will support employees to consider the merits of bringing a case to the employment tribunal, particularly in complex cases, as well as time to consider the legal costs and funding that may be required. In practical terms, the regulations do this by updating a series of existing regulations so that the six-month time limit applies across a range of workplace rights that were not already amended by the ERA, including those relating to part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation and negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists and certain NHS-related protections. By bringing those time limits into line with a single six-month timeframe, the regulations support a clear and straightforward process. The commencement date for the change is 1 October 2026. The new six-month limit will apply only to claims where the problem at work occurred on or after 1 October 2026. Any claims based on earlier events will continue under the current three-month time limit. That approach provides clarity and avoids disruption for cases already in progress. The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing breach of employment contract claims by employees from three months to six months in England and Wales. The new time limit will apply only where the relevant employment contract is terminated on or after 1 October 2026. Claims relating to contracts terminating on earlier dates will continue under the current three-month time limit. The change ensures consistency by aligning breach of employment contract claims with the extended employment tribunal time limits introduced by the Employment Rights Act. The instrument applies to claims of this nature in England and Wales only and does not extend to Scotland, as the power to change the parallel Scottish legislation, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, lies with Scottish Ministers and not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government so that the change will also be made in the parallel Scottish legislation. However, in relation to Scotland, the change is expected to take effect in mid-November. We will provide clear guidance to ensure that those based in Scotland are aware of this temporary discrepancy in the time limit for breach of employment contract claims. Taken together, these instruments represent a sensible step forward by aligning with the changes to employment tribunal time limits in the Employment Rights Act. By creating a more realistic timeframe, improving consistency and supporting better-prepared claims, they help deliver a fairer and more workable system for all. I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.

    Hansard source
11. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026

    I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for a brilliant and well-made speech about why this legislation is so important. Unfortunately, the shadow Minister conveniently missed out a couple of statistics in his opening remarks. I will start with the first one. Going back to historical statistics on the previous Government’s inability to fix and appropriately resource our employment tribunal, if we look at 2017 and 2018, the percentage increase year on year of the number of outstanding single cases reached a shocking 89%. From 2008 to 2018, the average time from receipt of a claim to the first hearing was stable at around 30 weeks. That increased to 49 weeks by early 2021. If we look at the stats published in 2023, employment tribunal delays had increased by 60% since 2010 due to resource shortages. I certainly do not want to go back to those targets, nor commit to them here today. These measures are absolutely necessary because they recognise the reality that many people need more time to understand what has happened to them, seek advice and prepare their claim properly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton outlined. By creating a more realistic timeframe, they will reduce the risk of a rushed or missed claim and support fair access to justice. At the same time, they will give employers greater opportunity to engage early to resolve concerns and avoid unnecessary employment tribunal claims. The shadow Minister also asked what other work the Government have planned. I am sure he will welcome this update. He heard me refer to the dispute resolution system taskforce, which actually met this afternoon to progress that work at pace. I thank all members of the taskforce for their commitment and engagement so far to consider that longer-term reform. We are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient, and to make up for the lack of resource we saw under the previous Government. In the shorter term, we are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges, who will add capacity from 2027. Recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, which I am sure the shadow Minister will welcome. The Government are also actively improving efficiency and productivity, including through virtual hearings to enable judges to hear cases remotely. Where local shortages arise, we are deploying legal officers to optimise limited judicial resource and centralised telephone support so that litigants get a consistently good service and so that tribunal staff can focus on case progression. We are also rolling out digital systems and piloting AI transcription to support employment tribunal performance. We have talked about the impact of this legislation and why it is so important. Businesses will benefit from the increased time in which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed. That creates an opportunity for disputes to be resolved before they even reach the employment tribunal, potentially reducing pressure on the employment tribunal system in turn. The shadow Minister knows that we published an impact assessment setting out the impacts on both employers and employees. Although we expect that more claims could be brought to the employment tribunal, as he alluded to, he unfortunately missed out that the six-month time limit will give employers and employees longer to resolve disputes without needing to go to tribunal. We expect that the additional time to submit a claim will result in fewer claims being submitted late, thereby saving judicial time by reducing the resource spent on considering time limit extensions. It would have been good of the shadow Minister to reflect on that latter part, too. Just as importantly, the instruments will bring greater consistency across the system, aligning time limits and making the process clearer and easier to navigate for everyone involved. These are measured reforms. They will ensure that the system works better in practice by being clearer, fairer and more effective. I therefore commend the statutory instruments to the Committee. Question put.

    Hansard source
12. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Casting my mind back to before the weekend, we had a wide-ranging debate on clauses 1 to 3 but, I think, substantial agreement about the central proposition to abolish NHS England. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who succinctly put his finger on the key issue: it is fundamentally right that people and their elected representatives should be able to hold Ministers to account for the performance of the health service. It is also right that Ministers should have the tools to make the changes that are needed. The abolition is a necessary result of restoring that principle. The debate raised a number of questions, a substantial number of which we will address during the course of the Committee as we reach the relevant clauses. However, I will pick up a couple now. I reassure the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston that the Government do take the impact of this process on staff seriously. We will treat people with the care, respect and fairness that they are owed through this process, now and in the months ahead. I am also committed to consulting recognised trade unions and I have a joint partnership forum to support ongoing engagement. More broadly, we recognise that change of this type is never easy, but we will need to go through the process quickly, which means, of necessity, proceeding in parallel with the legislation on the detailed internal design work for the new Department. That is in the interests of staff, patients and the public. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the issue of whether the Bill was the cause of delays to the workforce plan. To be clear, it has not been, and we will publish that imminently. She also asked about the opportunity costs for other programmes, and I assure her that the Department, NHS England and Ministers are clear that we are here to deliver the 10-year health plan and other changes that make a difference to patients. We can, should and will do several things at once, and the Bill will help us with that by providing clarity of roles, greater freedom to local organisations and other positive changes. To take just one example of the real impact, we are already saving on agency costs, and this is the first time in many years that the Department has not had to go back to the Treasury for a further injection of cash mid-year. That is getting a grip on the system. I add that the opportunity costs of not acting are very clear to the public, to staff and to patients in every single staff or patient survey that is issued. Those are the opportunity costs of not doing something; that is why we are acting. Clauses 1 to 3 are a necessary requirement for an NHS that is more effective for patients, delivers better outcomes across the country and achieves the initiatives that are expected of us.

    Hansard source
13. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I can tell the right hon. Member that we expect that NHS England coming into the Department will deliver up to about £1 billion in annual savings by the end of the Parliament, driven primarily by reductions in headcount, calculated using the average staff costs—about £77,000 per staff member in the Department and £94,000 per staff member in NHS England—including all pension and employer costs, which I think should help contribute to those numbers. As I think he knows, we will publish all accounts in the usual way. I commend the three clauses to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 Reducing inequalities

    Hansard source
14. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I am grateful to all hon. Members who tabled amendments in this group, some of which have not been spoken to. I will address the central points that Members have rightly highlighted. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Health and Social Care Committee for their report and recommendations for the Bill. Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will set out what clause 4 does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East highlighted, the wider determinants of health inequalities are important. On the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made about the Labour party, they absolutely run through our DNA. Clause 4 restates and reaffirms our commitment to tackling health inequalities. It reformulates section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006, aligning it with the duty imposed on NHS England by section 13G of that Act. It makes plain the need to achieve greater equality between the benefits that people receive and the provision of health services—for their ability to access those services and for the outcomes achieved. Importantly, “outcomes” includes the safety and effectiveness of health services and the quality of the experience undergone by patients. The clause will ensure that the Secretary of State must have regard to reducing inequalities in respect of all those benefits. The wording of the revised duty more directly encapsulates the benefits that must be taken into consideration and obtained from the health service to support action that reduces or prevents inequalities. Fundamentally, the clause underpins our commitment to improving the health of the population and tackling the stark inequalities that blight the health of communities up and down the land, which have got worse over the past 14 years. That is central to this Government’s ambition, which is why we highlighted it in the 10-year health plan. We also recognise that this is not a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care alone, which is why we are already working across Government to address the root causes of health inequalities and the barriers to accessing health and care services. We are ensuring that our action on health is embedded in policies that shape people’s daily lives, from the homes they live in to the air they breathe.

    Hansard source
15. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The hon. Lady pre-empts my next comments. I absolutely agree with her, and so do the Government. That is why we are improving living conditions through the new decent homes standards, which set standards across all rented sectors. Awaab’s law requires social landlords to act promptly to fix housing hazards. Since coming into government, we have launched the warm homes plan, the Keep Britain Working review and the homelessness strategy. In April, we published a renewed women’s health strategy, marking a decisive shift to ensure that women and girls receive the care, respect and outcomes that they deserve. Last November, we published England’s first ever men’s health strategy, to improve the health and wellbeing of all men and boys. Within the Department, we are reviewing the Carr-Hill formula and the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to ensure the funding matches need. However, there is much more to do. The Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), will continue to engage with key stakeholders, including representatives of Health Equals. I have a meeting with representatives of that body this week. I sympathise entirely with the motivation underpinning amendment 13, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, and I commend hon. Members for working on this important agenda, but I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary. I note that it draws on the duty that was recently placed on combined authorities by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, with a view to creating a similar duty for central Government. Fortunately, I can reassure hon. Members that the Secretary of State already has a duty to secure improvement in the health of people in England, and the power to take such steps to improve public health as they consider appropriate. We would not want to narrow the definition of the existing duty, because health inequalities come from many causes, as has been discussed. As I have said, we are already working across central Government and local government to address those wider inequalities, including in housing and air quality, and by getting more people into work. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said that innovation might expand inequalities across our country, but we have seen a shocking expansion in the inequality gap across our country. That is what we are seeking to reverse, as we have made clear in our 10-year health plan, and the Bill will ensure that that happens. That is why we say that we will take the best to the rest; we are not about taking people down. Finally, I turn to amendment 34 in the name of the hon. Member for Winchester. He has spoken before about his constituents’ experience, and I have spoken with him about the new hospital programme, his constituents’ reliance on transport to access hospital appointments, and the difficulties experienced in more rural areas, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East also mentioned. That is why, in our 10-year health plan, we are very clear about our strong commitment to rural and coastal communities—we are the first Government to do that. We agree that reducing inequalities in hospital transport is important. The Bill already places a duty on the Secretary of State to “have regard to the need to…reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to their ability to access health services”. Inequalities in access to transport to receive care fall under the scope of that duty. As such, the amendment is superfluous. I also offer the reassurance that NHS England has been implementing a range of actions to reduce inequalities in patient transport, including the speeding up of reimbursement for patients eligible for the healthcare travel costs scheme. I also inform the Committee that the cancer plan included a commitment to provide up to £10 million a year to pay for the travel costs for cancer care for children and young people, and their families, as people have long campaigned for. Some important issues have been raised in this debate, and I am sure that we will return to them. In the meantime, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket to withdraw the amendment. I commend clause 4 to the Committee.

    Hansard source
16. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee. We almost went down a cataract rabbit hole, but I think the points were well made. I will outline the Government’s general approach to choice and then move on to the amendment. I recognise that hon. Members from both sides of the Committee are committed to protecting and upholding patient choice in our system, as are the Government. That is why clause 5 introduces new duties that require the Secretary of State to promote “the involvement of patients, and their carers and representatives” in decisions relating to the prevention or diagnosis of their illness, and their care or treatment. That applies when the Secretary of State is exercising health functions. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to “act with a view to enabling patients to make choices” about the health services provided to them. The Government are committed to involving patients and carers in decisions about their care. We know that supports a better experience of care and, in many cases, better outcomes. Furthermore, if they want to be, patients should be active participants in decisions about their own care, rather than passive recipients of services. I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I do not think it is necessary. It turns a general duty into one with more prescriptive detail, which risks adding complexity. Details on service types and operational details currently sit in secondary legislation, which allows them to be updated and amended as services evolve. I reassure the hon. Member that we will protect and maintain all the existing rights and duties set out in the choice regulations. In any future consideration of expanding patient choice, which this amendment requests, I hope the hon. Member would agree that we would need to build up and test the evidence base to ensure that any changes were effective and meaningful for patients, before legislative changes were made. I am not sure what problem the hon. Member is trying to solve. The Government are committed to protecting patients’ rights to choose. It is absolutely right that the duty to involve them in decisions will remain a central principle of the new health system and that patients are empowered to make informed, meaningful choices. I believe that the clause, unamended, does just that. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment, and I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
17. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this discussion to the Committee. We heard about the excitement in our constituencies around innovation—my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned Newcastle University at the start and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned her visit to Imperial College. Those visits are inspiring. Other universities and centres of excellence are available, but they made the case for why this is so important to the Government’s approach to innovation. I will talk about that and then turn to the amendment. The Government are fully committed to innovation. It is absolutely central to our ambitious priorities to digitise health and care, support prevention and early diagnosis, and enable a shift to neighbourhood care, to growth in our economy, and to regaining our place in the world as a centre for innovation, which was lost under the Conservatives over those 14 years. That is why clause 6 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to promote innovation in the provision of health services, including in how services are arranged and delivered. The clause also incorporates the Secretary of State’s existing power to incentivise innovation and research through the payment of prizes, as we have discussed. That is a flexible tool that will allow him to stimulate breakthrough ideas and reward innovation across the life cycle, including an early-stage report. On some issues that have been raised, the Conservative party knows that Ministers have to act reasonably as this transfers from NHS England, and we would obviously want to tailor a committee to the matter in question, including membership. The clause will allow that flexibility. The equivalent duty was on NHS England; I understand that it has not actually been used over the past five years, but it was previously suggested as a way of promoting innovation. In practical terms, the Secretary of State already supports innovation in a number of ways, for example through the work of the Health Innovation Network, supporting workforce developments in schemes such as the clinical entrepreneur programme and providing funding support for developing and evaluating promising innovations.

    Hansard source
18. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady if I am not correct in this, or if there is another reason, but in the existing duty and under NHS England, the committee’s membership needs to reflect the matter in the question. If there is anything to add to that, I will certainly come back to her. We are also committed to spending more on innovation, raising the NICE threshold to ensure that patients have access to more innovative medicines on the NHS. That is action, not just words. The Government commend the intent behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, and she spoke well about that. As a clinician, I recognise her support for innovation, but we recognise that barriers remain to the systematic spread of innovation. That is a long-term problem that existed under previous Governments as well, and we seek to rectify it. The ministerial foreword to the “Life Science Sector Plan” published last year says: “We are clear-eyed about the challenges. For too long, the journey from discovery to delivery has been too slow, too fragmented, and too often held back by outdated systems.” That is why we need to remove barriers at every stage of the journey; however, the amendment is the wrong way to do that. The experience of supporting innovation in the NHS suggests that we need flexibility in our approach to tackle emerging barriers as they arise. Specifying several areas of focus in the Bill would limit that flexibility; those are better set out in published strategies and guidance, which is what we are doing. The amendment could also cause unintended consequences. It would create a one-size-fits-all approach, requiring all of England to have equivalent access to innovations. While tackling unwarranted variation is of course vital, we should continue our focus on providing access to innovation that best meets local needs. Instead of over-defining what we mean by innovation in legislation, we are taking practical measures to drive it on the ground. We are already building the 10-year health plan and the life sciences sector plan to deliver an ambitious set of actions, which address the areas raised by the amendment including procurement, aligned regulation and the alignment of our NHS innovation policy with sector growth policy. That echoes our approach elsewhere in the Bill of devolving power to local levels and giving more opportunity to systems and organisations to innovate, and more agency to use their resources to do so. The NHS has a strong record of developing and adopting new treatments, technologies and models of care. The clause will build on that record, signalling the Secretary of State’s clear commitment to promoting innovation, and it will do so in a flexible way that will allow us to respond to challenges as they emerge. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her amendment, and I commend the clause the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
19. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I thank hon. Members for bringing this discussion before the Committee. The Government are committed to ensuring that the NHS has the right people in the right place and with the right skills to care for patients when they need it. We will be publishing our 10-year workforce plan imminently. I cannot give the shadow Minister any more details on that at the moment, but it will set out the action to create a workforce that is ready to deliver the transformed service set out in the 10-year health plan. High-quality education and training for the NHS workforce will be fundamental to that, and clause 7 is in keeping with that commitment. Before turning to the clause, I will address some of the issues raised during the debate and in the amendments. I understand the intention behind amendment 50, but I cannot accept it. The 10-year workforce plan will set out the staffing needs of the NHS for the next 10 years. That goes further than the amendment calls for and will be updated every two years in line with our manifesto commitment to publish regular, independent workforce planning. It is only because the Government have set such a clear direction for the service through the 10-year health plan that we can credibly set out a sustainable approach to staffing the NHS over the long term. As hon. Members will understand, workforce planning is a complex topic. It is closely related to the wider service planning, which is why we have engaged so widely with independent experts to develop our forthcoming workforce plan. To divorce the process of workforce planning from service planning in the way that is suggested by amendment 50 would not produce a more reliable or useful set of forecasts. However, it would reduce the potential for innovation and reform of the kind that is needed and which the Government have set out so clearly in the 10-year plan for the NHS. I can only conclude from listening to Opposition Members that they really did learn absolutely nothing from their time in office or, indeed, from the problems with their workforce plan, which focused on headcount but notably did not reform care, did not look at new patterns of care, did not look at retention or training, and created some of the bottlenecks and problems that we have had to deal with. Our commitment will be guided by the workforce plan, which is why we cannot accept new clause 44. Decisions on training numbers must be guided by workforce need, and that will have to be considered as part of the forthcoming plan. Adding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, whatever the Government’s position on the number of medical school places that will be required in the future, fixing a number in primary legislation would be unhelpful as it would limit our ability to adjust target training numbers subsequently to reflect any changes in workforce need. I was asked about correcting the record. The last Government did double places in their 2024 workforce plan, and I commend the movement of medical schools across the country. If the former Secretary of State is reported in Hansard as having said something contrary to the correction of the record by my hon. Friend the Minister for Care, we will of course pick that up. Amendment 54 and new clause 45 look to reduce flexibility and increase bureaucracy for a workforce that is simply trying to deliver what is best for patients. On amendment 54, I think we can all agree that we need strong leadership and management to deliver national priorities, including the 10-year plan’s three shifts. Having a clinical voice in management positions is vital and many of our board-level and senior leaders are also clinicians. While some choose to carry on with clinical practice, others might prioritise their managerial role, and it is right that they should have that flexibility. Prescribing that all NHS managers with clinical experience must also undertake clinical care risks reducing board capacity and expertise, including clinical leadership, and disincentivising opportunities for management experience at a time when the NHS has seen a reduction in the number of managers per NHS staff from 2010 to 2025. We do not think that simply prescribing that requirement would benefit clinicians, managers or, crucially, the wider health service, so we oppose the amendment. New clause 45 would require the collection of further data on the proportion of time spent on clinical care. Detailed statistics on the number of staff working for NHS provider trusts broken down by profession and pay band are already published by NHS England on a monthly basis. Adding requirements to that is not simple. There is not a centrally held collection of data about NHS staff time, and setting one up would have costs both centrally and for NHS trusts to collect specific data. It is also not easy to separate out clinical care meaningfully. Clinicians spend time in supervision, education, safeguarding, quality improvement and clinical leadership, and the amount of time they spend on different activities can vary from month to month. The new clause risks putting more burdens on NHS staff if they are being asked to record what they are spending time on beyond existing procedures. We therefore cannot accept it. I turn to amendment 33, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, on workforce training. It would require the Secretary of State to intervene in the content and design of healthcare programmes. Standards of proficiency, conduct and performance of registered professionals are the statutory responsibility of independent healthcare regulators, although universities and practice partners develop the specific content and design of programmes to meet those standards. It is vital that the independence of regulators and universities is maintained to respect their expertise in designing standards and curricula that ensure public safety. We have published our 10-year health plan setting out major NHS reforms, including moving from sickness to prevention. Supporting healthcare workers to address the wider determinants of health will be essential to delivering that shift. That is why we are providing the “All Our Health” e-learning on critical public healthcare topics for people working in the health and care sector, and revitalising the “making every contact count” approach to ensure that every contact that a person has with the healthcare system supports a shift to prevention. I assure colleagues that our upcoming 10-year workforce plan will set out plans for ensuring that we train the staff we need so that we have the brightest people and the right skills to support patients. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment. Finally, I turn to clause 7. The Secretary of State already has an overarching duty in relation to the education and training of the NHS workforce. Currently, that duty is partially delegated to NHS England. NHS England also has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of appropriately trained healthcare workers across England. Clause 7 will simply merge those existing duties into a single, robust education and training duty on the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be entirely responsible and accountable for exercising relevant functions with a view to ensuring that there is an effective system for the planning and delivery of healthcare education and training, and that we have enough healthcare workers with the right training to meet England’s health service needs. Bringing those duties directly under the responsibility of the Secretary of State will reduce bureaucracy, streamline oversight and enable the Government to provide national strategic leadership across the NHS workforce. I reassure colleagues that accountability will not be diluted. Bringing these responsibilities into the Department will create clearer, stronger lines of accountability with the education and training of the NHS workforce. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will continue to be accountable to Parliament for the health service in England, including for the planning of education and training and ensuring sufficient numbers of trained healthcare workers. I commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
20. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Clause 8 will give the Secretary of State the power to direct integrated care boards to exercise his or her functions. This power, similar to that currently employed by NHS England, will promote subsidiarity by enabling such functions to be delivered at the lowest appropriate level. The clause builds on the existing section 7B of the National Health Service Act 2006, which allows the Secretary of State to direct ICBs but only in respect of public health functions. With our plans to abolish NHS England, the Secretary of State will again have broad powers and responsibility relating to the health service, and so this power encompasses a wider range of functions. Unlike the delegated frameworks set out under sections 65Z5 and 75 of the 2006 Act, which are entered into voluntarily, any integrated care board directed under this power would be obliged to carry out the stated functions. I reassure the Committee that, while the ICB will be legally responsible for how it discharges a function, overall accountability will remain with the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the Secretary of State might also use directions to place restrictions on the onward delegation of any functions, preventing delegation where it may be inappropriate. Finally, any directions must be published, ensuring transparency and allowing proper accountability. This measure will empower the Secretary of State to assign functions to ICBs where most appropriate. It aligns with and facilitates our broader direction of travel towards flexibly planned and delivered local services. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
21. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I recognise that this is a subject of some debate; we may discuss it further when we come to the part of the Bill on ICBs. The abolition of NHS England and transferring all its functions to one body has a consequence, which is that the Secretary of State retains that accountability and power. We are keen to have that power clear but flexible in order to empower local systems. That remains the intent. The power is necessary for the Secretary of State to update national commissioning standards, for example. The ICBs will have wider roles as strategic commissioners. We expect them to take on formal responsibility for a number of services delegated by NHS England. That allows us to issue a common set of commissioning standards, on the point made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon about variability in different places. There need to be common standards across the piece: eligibility criteria, the treatments the provider should use, and national reporting requirements. ICBs having those standards means that there will be a reduction in unwarranted variation in some of these events. The shadow Minister raised the timetable. The Opposition will recognise that there needs to be flexibility for the Secretary of State and Ministers to respond to unforeseen or changing events. That is why it is purposely broad, because the range of events that can impact the NHS is clearly very broad. We cannot predict the future. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said that the Bill needs to deal with all these problems. The Bill needs to give enough flexibility to the system and devolve as much power to the system. The Bill needs to make sure that the powers are in the right place, but it is for the local systems to respond to their local needs within that framework. They will be held accountable, for example through the NHS oversight framework and through ICBs’ normal accountability frameworks.

    Hansard source
22. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    With due respect to the hon. Lady, it is not a matter of the Minister being busy, whether that is me or anybody else. It is about the operational running of a £200 billion organisation with 1.5 million staff treating millions of people every day. I am sure we all remember from our own experience incidents and unforeseen events that have happened in the local system, and sometimes very tragic events that have required the Secretary of State to take action. We are trying not to increase the number of reports and documentation and to rid the system of bureaucracy by putting something out in that timeline.

    Hansard source
23. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    No, I have finished. Question put and agreed to. Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 Secretary of State’s power to provide assistance Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
24. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Clause 9, which will insert new section 12DA into the National Health Service Act 2006, will give the Secretary of State a clear statutory duty to provide financial, staffing or other practical assistance in connection with the health service. The power may be used to support persons providing, or proposing to provide, services as part of the health service or which are beneficial to the interests of the health service. It may also be used to support public authorities where the assistance relates to education or training for people employed, or considering becoming employed, in activities connected with the provision of health services. The assistance may include financial assistance, the services of civil servants or other resources of the Secretary of State, and it may be provided on agreed terms, including terms about payments by or to the Secretary of State. The clause will support the wider purpose of the Bill by enabling a small centre to act in a supportive and enabling way towards the wider system. Where appropriate, the Secretary of State will be able to provide assistance directly to those delivering or supporting health service activity. The clause is needed because the existing statutory framework does not include a clear power that enables the Secretary of State to provide practical support across the full range of health service activity. Relevant support may be financial, practical, staffing-related or connected with education and training. Without this clear power, there is a genuine risk of confusion about the basis on which such support may be offered, particularly where the Secretary of State is acting to facilitate the delivery of services by others. The power is permissive and facilitative: it does not require the Secretary of State to provide assistance, and it does not require any person or body to accept it. The power is also limited by its connection to the health service and matters relevant to education, training or activities considered beneficial to the health service. Its exercise remains subject to ordinary public law principles and public financial controls. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.

    Hansard source
25. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    In concluding the debate on this part of the Bill, the Opposition have helpfully made most of my arguments for me. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham opened with reference to the pandemic and the unusual circumstances in which we have found ourselves. It is obviously important that this Government learn the lessons from that pandemic in the round, that we are prepared and that, as NHS England is abolished, those powers come back to the Secretary of State so that we can respond to any eventuality that comes before us. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, there are existing standards and rules of procurement. Any spending that happens through the Department and the NHS will be publicly recorded and published in the Department of Health’s consolidated accounts. Those come before Parliament, so there is direct transparency through the parliamentary process in the usual way and, as we all know and as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, Treasury rules apply. The point about the use of civil servants has been made. Again, it is really important that we recognise that we are bringing together NHS England, NHS staff and civil servants in the Department. It is right that the Secretary of State, in whatever eventuality comes before him or her, is able to deploy the right person for the right job, be they a civil servant or someone currently under NHS staff terms and conditions, to support that work going forward. The clause is necessarily flexible and broad to provide for those eventualities, and to enable the necessary assistance to be deployed. I commend clause 9 to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 Secretary of State’s duty as respects variation in provision of health services

    Hansard source
26. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I will respond to that question before picking up the other comments. If I do not address all the Committee’s comments, I will come back to Members. Everyone would expect this, but let me be clear: this Government are absolutely committed to a free-at-the-point-of-use, taxpayer-funded service. We also think that unless it is reformed and changed, it is an existential problem for the British public, who will not continue to support the service. As Members know, one Parliament can never bind another one, so I cannot predict what a future Government will do. There is talk from some of our Reform colleagues about an insurance-based system. There are people who were in the Conservative party but have moved over who think that, so obviously I cannot—

    Hansard source
27. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I will make some points, and then I will be happy take the hon. Lady’s intervention if I do not address what she was going to say. The hon. Member for North Shropshire outlined some of the history. This clause seeks to strike a balance. The governing principle behind it is that the decisions of the Secretary of State must not vary the proportion of providers by the type of legal entity that they are. Decisions must be taken according to what serves the health service and the people who depend on it. The clause permits, by way of exception, the balance between sectors to be varied purposefully, but only where doing so would be in the interests of the health service. That would, for example, prevent the Secretary of State from deliberately choosing to grow the proportion of NHS services delivered by private providers for solely ideological reasons. I understand the concern that drives the amendment. It is that the exception might be relied on to support the convenience of those already providing the service, without taking into account what is best for patients, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. That is not the Government’s position, and the clause does not lead to that outcome. The test that it creates is whether the interests of the health services are served. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham also said, the definition of the health service—as defined under section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006—is not separate from the people it exists to serve. It is defined as “a comprehensive health service” for “the people of England”, directed at improving their health and at the “prevention, diagnosis and treatment” of illness. A decision to rely on the exception must be justified by reference to that duty; one taken merely because it was easier or more convenient for existing providers or any other group, with no such justification, would be unlawful. The protection that she seeks is, in substance, already secured by the clause. The amendment would also create another difficulty. Section 1 of the 2006 Act reaches the entire population and includes the prevention of illness before anyone becomes a patient at all. The “interests of patients” reaches only those already receiving care, which is a narrower test than I think the hon. Lady intended, and would allow a Secretary of State who was so minded to provide a landscape that ignores vital preventive health and wellbeing concerns. I hope that she will take from my remarks an assurance that the clause already meets her concerns. The hon. Lady also highlighted the example of PFI—a subject of much discussion over many years—and of being unable to change her whiteboard. That is absolutely one of the lessons that needs to be learned from the way in which some past PFIs were procured and dealt with. For example, as a new Government, we outlined proposals for a new model of public-private partnerships for neighbourhood health centres, among other things. The previous Government could also have learned the lessons and done something about that, but they chose instead to completely halt the building of any kind of facilities. That is one reason why we are in such a shocking state at the moment. The new proposal outlines, as I think the Opposition know, an 80:20 funding route, exactly to make the point about which is the most efficient way forward. That will absolutely drive measures for growth and create more jobs in the sector.

    Hansard source
28. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I refer the hon. Gentleman back to my comments. The health service is defined under section 1 of the NHS Act 2006 as not being separate from the people it exists to serve. It is defined as “a comprehensive health service” for “the people of England”, directed at improving their health and at the “prevention, diagnosis and treatment” of illness—so, yes. At this juncture, I will explain a number of other features of the clause. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that it builds on section 12E of the 2006 Act to cover the Secretary of State’s health functions, powers and duties. It recognises that, with the abolition of NHS England, the Secretary of State has a far more substantial role to play—as a commissioner of services, for example—than previously. I also put on the record that whenever the Secretary of State takes a decision in this space, the general NHS procurement requirements and other statutory duties will continue to apply. Finally, the NHS relies on privately owned providers, as well as charities and community organisations, to provide a range of important NHS-funded services across the country. As such, it is important to ensure that, where there is a mixed-market provision between public and private for providers of a particular service, the Government’s powers are not used to distort the provision and potentially discourage important investment from outside the NHS. Conversely, they should not be used purposefully to favour independent providers over NHS providers for reasons unrelated to the quality or efficiency of NHS-funded healthcare.

    Hansard source
29. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    The hon. Lady tempts me to delve into the politics of future Secretaries of State. They will respond according to the manifesto on which they are elected by the British public. That is the point of a democratically accountable public service. I think that the clause strikes that balance, as I have said. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
30. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    We have a clear political and—as I think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said—philosophical division here. This Government believe in democratic accountability, in politics and in good government. I understand that both Opposition parties were architects of the 2012 Act, which created this huge, independent body to run what has become a £200 billion service that clearly has not worked, and that they want to hold on to some of that, despite not opposing the Bill on Second Reading and, actually, not really opposing the abolition of NHS England—I think we will keep returning to that—but we believe that, ultimately, the Secretary of State needs to be accountable for the service, which is not working as the British public deserve or expect. The hon. Lady asked me to go into good variation and bad variation. Our drive has been to understand the variation. I know from Members of Parliament who have come to me in the past two years, and we understand from looking in detail at the variation across the service, that there is often no rationale for the variation. Local people do not understand why services work better in one part of their county, even, than in another. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon alluded to that when he mentioned some places in his area that are working better than others. That is why—and I personally wanted to drive this very strongly—we are getting more information out, releasing the outcomes framework and releasing information to all Members of Parliament about where and how the current data shows their local systems are performing. That is what local people need, and in my view good local parliamentarians, of whom there are very many, should be able to go back to talk to their local systems and chief executives about why that is—not to berate them, but to understand it. There might be a very good cause for the variation; there might be structural reasons or geographical reasons, and they might be long-standing reasons. That is what we seek to do in order to regain the trust and confidence of the British public, and that is why we are publishing those documents. I stand by my comments that my approach is more local than centralised. This is about changing the culture, which we seek to do by making that happen more locally. I absolutely get the points about operational freedom and the balance that we will seek when we release the operating model, which is being worked on in the Department, as we bring the new system into being, alongside the Bill. However, we want to be very clear that when an ICB has failed or is at risk of failure, and that failure is significant, it is right that the Secretary of State has the tools to minimise the impact on patients and the public and to act swiftly to put things right. The public rightly expect that, in such circumstances, Ministers will take the necessary steps to protect patients, taxpayers and the public. In some cases of significant failure, that may include directing an ICB and removing the chief executive. I am sure that all Members here today will agree that effective performance management of ICBs will continue to be essential once NHS England is abolished, not only to support the provision of a quality service, but to reassure the people served by ICBs that when things go wrong, they will be put right.

    Hansard source
31. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Health Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I will come on to the power. As hon. Members are aware, NHS England currently holds similar powers, so it makes sense for these powers to be held by the Secretary of State once NHS England is abolished. I want to be clear—I hope that this will address the hon. Lady’s point—that our intention is to use these significant failure powers rarely and not as a first port of call. It is far better to work closely with ICBs and their leaders to spot issues and work collaboratively to resolve them before they have the opportunity to become significant, but it would be irresponsible not to have the power to intervene as a last resort. I want to address the other elements of clause 11. The first part of the clause establishes a general power for the Secretary of State to direct integrated care boards about the exercise of their functions. Using that power, the Secretary of State could direct a singular ICB, a group of ICBs or all ICBs, depending on the scope of the direction. This power is a necessary step in restoring democratic control over the NHS. The public rightly expect Ministers to be able to set priorities, drive improvements and set out how they expect the NHS to operate. For example, we expect to use the power to set up and update national commissioning standards. The power is particularly relevant given the wider commissioning responsibilities ICBs will have in their role as strategic commissioners following the abolition of NHS England. By setting standards for all ICBs, the power will help reduce the unwarranted variation in the way that ICBs discharge their functions. It is also an important tool for enabling Ministers to respond to changing events. The lack of such a power has slowed the ability of NHS England to respond to unforeseen challenges within the health system. I can also give the Committee an assurance that the clause includes a considered set of limits on the scope of the power. The Secretary of State will not be able to direct ICBs to appoint a particular individual, issue a direction about the services to be provided to an individual, or direct the use of a drug treatment or diagnostic technique where that is inconsistent with NICE guidance or recommendations. Equally, to maintain transparency in the health system, directions made under the general power to direct ICBs as to the exercise of their functions will be required to be made in writing and to be published as soon as reasonably practical. The power will enable the Secretary of State to uphold the standards that patients expect and deserve, while also protecting the principles of fairness and impartiality at the heart of the NHS. We have already addressed much of the second part of the clause, but I should note that we have purposely placed the powers to intervene in cases of significant failure outside the general power of direction over ICBs. That is because it is important to be clear that those powers are expected to be used only rarely and in situations where an ICB is failing or at risk of failing. I hope the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham feels able to withdraw her amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
32. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kanishka Narayan

    Role of Big Tech in Society

    It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy, but it is a particular pleasure when we are discussing questions of digital markets and regulation, because I know that you bring expertise in and experience of these issues. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing this debate. He has held me to account in the main Chamber, we have spoken in the corridors of Parliament, and I am delighted that he has now convened a much broader debate on the role of big tech in society. I am grateful to him and to all other hon. Members for their contributions to this important discussion. This debate gets to the heart of what I consider the central question in our politics, our economy and our national security: how we ensure that the extraordinary power of modern technology serves our society, strengthens our economy, protects our citizens, and is grounded in British values. Given the time we have, I will do the courtesy of responding to individual Members first before talking more substantively on the common issues. The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) raised the central question: are we on the side of British values or shareholder values for firms located abroad? It is pretty clear, whether on questions of online safety legislation, where we have the most robust regime anywhere in the world, or on questions of the most innovative set of sovereignty interventions anywhere in the world, that every single decision that this Government have made on technology has been on the side of British values, in the spirit of collaborating and never capitulating. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) raised the two magic words: open source. I made a speech a few months ago talking about my passion for open source, not least because aspects of its Welsh grounding—Raspberry Pi, developed by a Welsh founder, is now opening up opportunities for kids in living rooms across the world to develop bits of software. There are three things we have therefore done on open source that make Britain the best place in the world for open-source talent: first, a particular focus on talent, not least a major hackathon we have partnered on to invite the world’s best talent to come and build open source here; secondly, a series of offers of compute, direct involvement in Government strategy on open source and, to the extent it is helpful, personal mentoring from me for winners of public service development on open source; and thirdly, just this morning, significant funding of £30 million for a serious national lab, led by University College London, focused in particular on open-source models. Britain is at the frontier of open-source AI, and this is the right thing to have done for our sovereignty aspirations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport raised an important point about kids’ experiences on social media and the impact on educational attainment. That is exactly my personal motivation behind the significant action we are taking to ban social media for under-16s as well. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) raised a series of questions, and I will address two of them in particular. He asked about compliance with social media bans. There are three things we have done to ensure we learn the lessons from elsewhere: more robust age checks; ensuring that enforcement is out of the gate on day one rather than delayed, so that companies feel the heat of enforcement early on; and to acknowledge that this will not be a 100% overnight compliance issue, but a long-term societal shift in culture, as previous regulations have created. That is the right thing to do. The hon. Member for Yeovil asked about wider opportunities that the Government will support to offset some opportunities that young people might lose as a result of the ban. There are exemptions for both education services and music streaming. Really importantly, on the day that we announced the social media ban for under-16s, we announced 180 youth hubs across the country. That means more than £500 million spent on arts, music and culture opportunities for young people, right across England. There was a series of contributions from Members with that point in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) raised very important points about concentration. I will not speak overtly about an individual company, but I will flag that I understand from the relevant Department that a supplier contract for the NHS federated data platform will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes this year, on the question of its extension. I am sure that her contributions will be regarded in that context. I normally hold the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) fondly in my mind in our parliamentary debates, so I was sorry to hear her take a more political, point-scoring approach to questions of online safety. I was sad that she called putting the voices of Welsh kids and families at the heart our decisions “dilly-dallying”. Thousands of young people and families in Wales contributed to the decision on a social media ban. This is a historic decision for the people of Wales, whose voices fundamentally shaped it. That is not tiptoeing; it is running fast but together towards the solutions that matter. On the hon. Lady’s particular questions, we are preparing legislative options alongside securing significant progress on blocking children from taking, receiving and sharing nude images. We have already secured more progress than any other country on this question. On her point on proactively dealing with national security concerns, the British Government are building capabilities, not least through the Security Institute and across our intelligence agencies, that are unparalleled in terms of ensuring that our national security is a priority on questions of technology. On when this Government will face up to tech platforms, I gently suggest to the hon. Lady that again and again this Government have taken the side of people, not platforms—of British families, including Welsh families, not foreign tech billionaires. I would encourage her to join us in that mission. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) raised concerns about a particular data centre. I am not fully abreast of the plans on that particular site, but I am very conscious of the concerns he raised. I simply point out that, in theory, there are ways in which data centre investors ought to make sure that what they are doing supports our important clean energy and power goals. In particular, I reflect on the fact that in Lanarkshire there are significant sites that have pulled forward clean energy generation in solar and battery as a result of data centre investment, rather than instead of or in trade off with it. Again, we are focused on ensuring that both those aspirations are met, as they are in north Wales where our data centre investments are pulling forward the future of small modular reactor nuclear in this country. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), raised an important point about pension funds under allocation to British equities, in particular to British technology and AI equities. That has been a huge focus for the Government, not least through the Mansion House reforms and the increased deployment pace at the British Business Bank, which is now deploying more than £2 billion a year in this area, but also through the half-a-billion sovereign AI fund, which is focused on building deep British capability. The point the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised about the balance of power is central. In response to the ask for a sovereignty strategy, we are not only talking about it—we are delivering it. We have defined the single most important question: where does Britain stand on the balance of power? Do we have strategic leverage to secure ongoing access to critical inputs? There are three tests we are focused on. The first is having enough critical inputs—NVIDIA graphic processing units, for example—to be able to play our way in the world. The second is having a diverse set of sources so that we have bargaining leverage in that context; one of the first things I did was meet SambaNova, Cerebras and Groq to diversify our engagement with chip companies. The third really important test is, where British strengths and economics allow, to build full-fat British capability. We have done that with our hardware plan—more than £1 billion supporting companies such as Fractile, OLIX, Salience Labs and others. That is the crux of our sovereignty strategy: a clear definition, a clear plan across every part of the stack on AI, and delivery alongside that. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) brought a deep degree of expertise on technology to this debate and asked the central question: do we shape technology in the artificial intelligence revolution, or is it the other way around? His point about stronger competition, which was also raised by the shadow Minister, is important. The CMA has been acting in an area of collaboration between the previous Government’s aspirations on digital competition and this Government’s. I look forward to the enforcement of remedies across both mobile and business software when it comes to AI. My hon. Friend also raised questions about online safety. I hope he feels that the significant actions that the Government have taken—banning social media for under 16s, being one of the first countries to bring AI chatbots into regulatory scope to make sure that they are not producing illegal content, and banning romantic chatbots—have been pioneering and show that we are always on the side of the British public. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) raised incredibly important points about how we ensure that the security of AI is central to the questions we ask in public policy. Across every aspect of Government, we are building a Labour vision for that. We are building state institutions that will last the test of time and ensure that we are kept safe from some of the risks of AI.

    Hansard source
33. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kanishka Narayan

    Role of Big Tech in Society

    The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am personally interested in how we rest more agency and control in the hands of the British public and the British state when it comes to data. There are clear rules and regulations about both privacy and individual data consents that apply, but I want to go further still by building infrastructure that equips individuals to have greater control over their data. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole’s points, through the AI Security Institute we have the best capability in the state to keep evaluating, understanding and mitigating risks. Through the AI Economics Institute, we have a deeper understanding of the impact of AI on jobs than pretty much any other country. We want to go further on that, including looking at a range of economic levers to mitigate some of the risks. Through sovereign AI we are investing in British capabilities, through the Alan Turing Institute we are investing in national security-relevant AI, and through labs that were funded just this morning we are making sure that British capability, rather than foreign capability alone, determines the future of AI.

    Hansard source
34. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Juliet Campbell

    Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate on an issue that affects almost everybody in this room. The waste crime action plan put forward by the Government contains several promising measures to tackle the persistent issue of fly-tipping in our communities. I welcome the additional £45 million allocated to the Environment Agency for waste crime enforcement, which will go a long way to strengthening investigations and addressing the problem at source. However, the measures proposed could go further, because residents like mine in Broxtowe have reported that rubbish is not only being left in the alleyway behind their property but being thrown over their fence and left in their garden. After reporting the incident, they discovered that as the landowner, they were responsible for clearing the waste themselves, as well as the associated costs. I am sure we would all agree that that just cannot be right. Victims of fly-tipping should not be left to bear the cost of the crime committed against them, yet this widespread injustice continues across the country. The legal framework already allows for significant penalties, including unlimited fines, vehicle seizures and even custodial sentences. However, these powers are too rarely enforced. In fact, despite more than 1.26 million recorded incidents, enforcement action remains astoundingly low. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, less than 0.2% of perpetrators have enforcement action taken against them. My residents in Stapleford who live in an area with a communal garden space have repeatedly raised concerns about waste being dumped in that area, and the council continues to clear it. Time and again, the cycle persists, because those responsible are not being held to account. The core issue is that without resources to properly investigate, enforcement action cannot be taken, and therefore we will never tackle the root cause of fly-tipping. I urge the Minister to consider further resources for local authorities that will allow them to form fly-tipping enforcement teams that could sufficiently investigate instances of fly-tipping so that strong enforcement action can be taken. That would not just be to clear the waste, but to pursue offenders and recover the costs. I hope that the Minister will also consider stronger measures to ensure that offenders are held to account in instances where they are identified, so that they not only face fines but are required to cover the full cost of clearance and disposal, therefore removing the burden from victims.

    Hansard source
35. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Defence Spending and Readiness

    Order. The Minister has made it clear that she is not taking any more interventions.

    Hansard source
36. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Newbury

    Household Budgets

    14. What steps she has taken to help support households with the cost of living.

    Hansard source
37. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Newbury

    Household Budgets

    The Chancellor will know that I have raised the need to take action on the costs faced by farmers and families alike, both of which she has done. The great British summer savings scheme will be a brilliant help with the cost of giving kids a great school holiday, particularly the free bus travel for five to 15-year-olds throughout August. Does the Chancellor agree that continuing to look at how we can support affordable bus travel for constituents like mine in Cannock Chase will be very important even beyond the great summer break to come?

    Hansard source
38. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Grady

    Economic Strength

    17. What progress she has made on strengthening the economy since July 2024.

    Hansard source
39. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Grady

    Economic Strength

    The long-term strength of the economy depends on long-term investment in the UK. UK growth companies still struggle for capital, while UK savers’ money flows to trackers, which are concentrated on a small number of US stocks. That is bad news for our future. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made brilliant progress on reforming pensions, but can she reassure me that the Treasury is looking at further reforms, to increase the amount of UK savers’ money that is invested in our future?

    Hansard source
40. 23 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

    Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. Fly-tipping in residential and rural areas is a blight across the communities that I represent, whether it is the most rural communities, such as Belsay and Kirkley Hall, or areas such as Throckley, Newburn and Walbottle on the more urban side of my seat. I pay particular tribute to community organisations, such as the Ponteland Anti-Litter Squad and the Hexham Wombles, that take action to clear up local litter and against fly-tipping, most of which do excellent jobs. There are other groups in the 200 towns and villages throughout my constituency, but I would detain everyone for quite a long time if I named them all. I welcome the waste crime action plan. It sets an excellent foundation for taking action to tackle fly-tipping, which blights communities across the span of my constituency. However, I am slightly concerned that on the more rural side of my seat, there is a growing problem of individual areas becoming magnets for mega fly-tipping. While those areas are not hyper-residential, like the areas that many of my wise and well-informed colleagues have spoken about, mega fly-tipping is nevertheless a blight on the communities that live around them, use those green spaces, and enjoy the countryside and their surroundings. I have been really heartened to see statistics coming out of Northumberland and Newcastle that show the hard work of council workers in addressing fly-tipping. Unfortunately, I think there is a structural issue within Northumberland in particular, where the Conservative administration neglects the west of the county. It directs resources away from the area I represent to areas that it prefers. There is a slight sense, certainly in my constituency, that we are getting short-changed—that the Conservatives are putting up our council tax for very little in return in the west of the county. I want to touch briefly on the Walbottle Road tip in Newburn, which is a major driver of fly-tipping and of unease and unrest over fly-tipping in my constituency, simply because it is impossible to turn into. It has been a running sore for residents over many years, including when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) represented this part of Newcastle. I urge the Minister to think about how she can encourage councils to make their tips more accessible to address those concerns. One of the priorities for the new Reform councillors in Throckley, Walbottle and Newburn is to make sure that residents are able to access that tip and that the Mill Vale estate no longer has to deal with either the constant fumes and sheer noise from traffic idling just outside it or the fly-tipping we are seeing around it.

    Hansard source