What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Of course, this is not a debate about whether or not we increase defence spending; it is a debate about how much we increase it by. The hon. Gentleman has talked about our standing with our allies, which is incredibly important. What did our allies think when his Government were cutting defence? Can he tell us?
The hon. Lady knows that she is one of my favourite Tories—I think I have said that before. She has quoted Baroness Cass many times. Of course, Baroness Cass thinks this trial should go ahead, because the benefits outweigh the costs. Why is Baroness Cass wrong and the hon. Lady right?
By giving way a second time, the hon. Lady shows why she is my favourite Tory. Does Baroness Cass not say that she has met young people who have been self-medicating with testosterone, which is irreversible? That is one of the problems that we are trying to address through this trial. It is about protecting young people so that they are not going down their own medical pathway, but are listening to medical advice and are well supported in a coherent framework.
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Not too much.
This has been an interesting debate so far and I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who has worked so much in this area. We should all acknowledge that this is not an easy issue. The reason why I wanted to speak in the debate is that back when I was trying to get elected in 2024, I met the mother of a young trans woman. She told me about how her daughter really started to come to terms with who she was when she was entering puberty, but that led her to stop eating because she did not want to go into puberty. Her condition got so bad that she had to be taken to hospital, and she almost died. We should not view this as a lifestyle choice, and we should not think that doing nothing comes with no consequences. I know that not all cases are the same, but the reality is that doing nothing is not the answer. We do have to answer these questions. I welcome the news this week that the Pathways trial is set to go ahead. Since the Government announced an indefinite pause on the prescription of puberty blockers last year, both young people and clinicians have been stuck in limbo. This uncertainty has helped no one—not the young people who are desperate for medical support, nor the researchers who need to gather data to fully understand the effects of these drugs. However, it is right that this renewed permission for a trial is based on clinical judgment, not political discourse. We should be led by science, not politics, where the health of our young people is concerned. King’s College London and the MHRA have worked extensively to propose a safe and ethical trial, increasing safeguards since March and continuing dialogue with the Health Research Authority. I understand the concerns around the trial, and I think we all should. We all want to ensure the safety of the children involved, but it is time we find a way forward that balances the safety of the young people involved and the opportunity to enhance the care that we provide for children struggling with their gender identity. Far too often, that care is lacking. Many Conservative Members have consistently called for the full implementation of the Cass review. Baroness Cass was quoted multiple times by the shadow Minister in her introduction to this debate, yet the Conservatives have called this debate to oppose the trial, despite it being one of Baroness Cass’s recommendations. Why are the Conservatives not willing to listen to Baroness Cass on that single issue? In her original review in 2024, Baroness Cass made it clear that research into puberty blockers was necessary. Just this week, she has said that the trial to examine the risks and benefits of puberty blockers will reduce harm, not cause it. In fact, she goes further and tells us that the debate around the risks of puberty blockers has been exaggerated—we have seen some of that today, if we are all honest. She is absolutely right on this point.
Exactly. Baroness Cass is a respected expert in this field, and she made recommendations that were broadly accepted. We should be using science as a basis for decision making, not rejecting her findings purely on the basis of politics. Let me go back to what I said at the start: doing nothing will lead to our young people being harmed. That is an incredibly important point. We cannot rely on debates in this place to decide how and when puberty blockers should be used. Rather, we should be relying on thorough scientific research, carried out in proper trial conditions and led by medical experts. We heard earlier the Health Secretary explaining some of the detail around protections for our young people. Baroness Cass is also clear that more children will be harmed by preventing the trial than by allowing one to go ahead. That is an incredibly important point. Preventing a trial drives desperate children to look online or internationally for unregulated hormones or hormone suppressants. That leads young people to unsafe puberty blockers or to start taking hormones such as testosterone at a much earlier stage, which are irreversible once they start to take hold. We can prevent that by providing the properly regulated use of puberty blockers in the UK via this trial. The trial will provide understanding and allow clinicians to effectively guide Government on our next step. It is the right and necessary thing to do for the Government, clinicians and young people. We need to take better care of our young people, and we need to do that via a clinical trial. Let me say again that doing nothing might seem like the easy thing to do, but it will come with consequences. I really hope that we hear more from Opposition Members about what they think the consequences of doing nothing will be for the health and wellbeing of our young people, because we have not heard that.
I will, because I know the hon. Gentleman is keen to speak.
I welcome that fantastic point. Until I was unexpectedly elected, I was an academic, and what I learned was never to focus on a single study when doing research, because a single study is basically an anecdote. We have to look at the breadth of the research. If I may say so, we see exactly the same in the climate change debate—the broad spectrum of science supports the argument for climate change, but there are always one or two contrary views. Those views are welcome, but we do not base our view on just one study; we look at the breadth of the research.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I am part of the liberal working class. This debate is not about the Tavistock clinic. The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted Baroness Cass, but one thing he has not said is that she recommended that the clinical trial go ahead. She said recently that she supports the trial because she thinks there will be real benefits to it. Rather than talking about Tavistock, will he address what Baroness Cass, who he quotes extensively, thinks about this trial that we are debating?
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert— “1C Health improvement and health inequalities duty (1) In exercising any functions relating to the health service, Secretary of State must have regard to the need to— (a) improve the health of persons in England, (b) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to their ability to access health services, and (c) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to the outcomes achieved for them by the provision of health services. (2) Health inequalities ‘between the people of England’ means health inequalities between persons, or persons of different descriptions, living in, or in different parts of England. (3) ‘Health inequalities’ means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants. (4) Under subsection (3) ‘general health determinants’ are— (a) standards of housing, transport services or public safety; (b) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water; (c) employment prospects, earning capacity, and any other matters that affect economic security; (d) access to public services; (e) the use, or level of use, of tobacco, alcohol or other substances, and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, that are or may be harmful to health; (f) any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors.” This amendment would amend clause 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006 to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities.
I apologise for being a little delayed, Sir Jeremy. I am moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). It would place a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities when exercising functions. Between 2011 and 2021, the UK was one of only five high-income countries where healthy life expectancy fell. Over the same decade, we faced a cost of living crisis, the covid-19 pandemic and economic decline across the post-industrial regions. We cannot shy away from the fact that ill health is rising. Economic inactivity due to sickness is at its highest level since 2012, and we witness a widening disparity in health outcomes. People living in the most deprived areas of the UK, on average, live just 52 years of healthy life. There is now a 16-year gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of the UK. Even within individual constituencies, the life expectancy gap can be as wide as seven years between local postcodes. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that decisions taken at the highest level of the health system consistently reflect the reality that health outcomes differ sharply depending on where someone lives, the conditions that they live in and their opportunities to achieve good health. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve the health of persons in England. The intention is that this duty would include the need to reduce inequalities in health. That is in addition to the duties that are already in the clause, relating to inequalities in access to and outcomes of healthcare. At present, the Bill brings together old duties on the Secretary of State and NHS England to reduce inequality in access to and outcomes from NHS services. Those are too narrow and do not reflect the wider determinants of health that the Government have pledged to tackle through their 10-year plan. The amendment would strengthen the duty to reflect the wider cross-Government goals for health improvement and health inequalities. That would make an important statement of the Government’s commitment to improving health and tackling health inequalities, and would set in train an important step towards achieving them. The amendment also provides a clear definition of “health inequalities” and “general health determinants”. Health inequalities means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health, which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants, including housing standards, environmental factors, public transport, economic factors and other wider determinants of life expectancy. The amendment has been drafted to mirror the wording of the newly enacted section 45 duty on combined authorities in relation to health improvement and health inequalities under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. Accepting the amendment would ensure consistent focus on the mission of creating a fairer country where everyone lives for longer, from the top of Government to regions and neighbourhoods. By setting this out explicitly, the amendment would ensure that future Secretaries of State cannot overlook the wider conditions that shape health outcomes. In sum, the amendment would require that when decisions are made, the Secretary of State must consider their impact on health improvement and on distribution of health across the population. The amendment is supported by the Health Equals coalition, including 27 organisations that wrote an open letter to the Minister on 15 June. Those organisations range from the Health Foundation to the King’s Fund, Ramblers UK and the Wildlife Trusts, showing the breadth of support from across the sector. The cross-party Health and Social Care Committee also recommended that the clause be amended in this way. Embedding this duty in legislation would strengthen accountability and ensure that the reduction of health inequalities is treated not as a secondary consideration, but as an integral part of how the health system is led and managed. If accepted, the new duty would ensure clear alignment at national and local levels about the importance of prevention.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Patient involvement and choice
Does the hon. Member recognise that there are circumstances in which independent provision within a district has the effect of disabling the NHS service? A pertinent example is the ophthalmology world. Services have become difficult to deliver in NHS hospitals because large numbers of NHS staff have chosen to work in the independent sector. That makes the comprehensive provision of a service in an eye department difficult, as the staff are all off operating on cataracts.
Does the shadow Minister accept that, in order to encourage innovation within the health service, we need to do whatever we can to support clinical academics? It is within the academic departments of universities, where people are working in hospitals and teaching in medical schools, that we see the most fruitful innovations.
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 7, page 4, line 31, at end insert— “(2) Training under subsection (1)(a) includes training in general health determinants as defined by section 107ZB of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.” This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the health and care workforce is adequately trained in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.
As the Committee knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) is one of the five medical doctors in the parliamentary Labour party. It is a great pleasure to move the amendment, which she tabled. The amendment is about education and training. My hon. Friend would like us to consider whether there should be an additional subsection after proposed new subsection (1)(a), which is about ensuring that “there are sufficient people with appropriate education and training to meet the workforce needs of the health service”. My hon. Friend would like to include within that specific training about wider health determinants, which, as we discussed earlier this morning, consist of things like housing, air quality, occupation, and substance abuse—tobacco, alcohol and so on. Her opinion is that that needs to be specifically incorporated into the legislation.
Does the shadow Minister agree that if we doubled the number of medical students, we would simply not be able to accommodate those people as young doctors unless we also doubled the number of training places? After five or six years, those medical students become young doctors. If we are to correct any problem with the medical workforce, it is insufficient to simply state that we will double the number of medical students.
I am happy with those assurances, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 33. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 50, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert— “(4) After subsection (2) insert— ‘(2A) The Secretary of State must publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years.’”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.) This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s staffing needs every five years. Question put, That the amendment be made.
It is true that the situation in ophthalmology is now quite serious, but is the hon. Lady aware of the problems in radiology and pathology? Some hospitals are unable to recruit histopathologists or significant numbers of radiologists, who provide key services, because the personnel necessary to run those services have been attracted into a private system, although they are contracted to the NHS. That jeopardises the ongoing services for urgent and emergency care.
I am grateful to the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for allowing an intervention. I regard this as quite a bold idea, like the NHS; that was a bold idea just after the war. Let us try and use our imaginations: perhaps we will create a shining city—a city not on a hill but in the flatlands of Suffolk—and, just perhaps, a solution to the housing crisis we have in our land.
I do not wish to declare my support for Forest City, but I wish to declare that there has to be some imagination here. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, has not grasped the imagination behind this project. We are not talking about simply expanding a number of existing towns; this is a completely new idea. What does he think about that?
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Sometimes we do not say thank you enough, so I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to the Chancellor for listening. She listened to me, my fellow MPs, our pottery workers, our GMB union and especially Sharon Yates by offering a £120 million support and growth package for our ceramics sector. Can the Chancellor now outline how she will ensure that smaller manufacturers benefit from this fantastic new scheme?
T10. The Tory Government squandered billions of pounds of public money on covid fraud, waste and corruption. Will the Chancellor tell the House what measures she is taking to address this issue on behalf of taxpayers?
I think this is the first time we have had a Robertson on Robertson intervention. It is a pleasure to break that duck. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about the need to change culture to embed innovation across the NHS. There is an example that we always come back to: fax machines. Fax machines were used in the NHS for far too long. It was mandated in 2018 that the use of all fax machines had to be stopped by the end of March 2020, yet in 2023, the NHS still owned 600. That mandation came up against a cultural barrier and it did not work, because 600 of them survived for three years after that. In amendment 58, I see more mandation and nothing on culture. The problem with the amendment is that, by trying to mandate innovation too closely, we would miss the cultural point. We could undermine the Secretary of State’s power to say that all parts of the system are fair game for them. Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond to that point?
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech. Further to her point, does she not agree that the Opposition’s motion to prevent a clinical trial would not give people information, options and choices? It would cut down information, options and choices. She mentioned a constituent in her 80s who clearly did not grow out of her gender dysphoria, and this motion would close off lifesaving and life-changing treatment for the 7% of people who do not grow out of gender dysphoria.
I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for giving way on that point. There is a lot of “what about” in her remarks; will she reflect on Dr Hilary Cass’s comments that the trial will lead to less harm than would otherwise be the case? Why does she believe that Dr Cass is saying that? Does she doubt her expertise in this instance?
On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge? The recent sale of Cambridge City airport to Homes England is an exciting initiative that will genuinely provide the homes and businesses we need.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. The draft regulations expand the eligibility for the climate change agreements scheme to include three new processes—the mechanical recycling of plastic, the packaging of spirits and the production of automotive-grade battery cells—as well as clarifying the existing eligibility and administrative requirements for the scheme and updating the carbon emissions factor figure used in the buy-out fee for the scheme. The climate change levy was introduced in 2001 for the purpose of encouraging energy efficiency across our economy by taxing energy supplies such as electricity or gas. From the outset, the tax has included the CCA scheme, a voluntary scheme that provides eligible energy-intensive businesses access to significant discounts on their CCL bill in exchange for meeting negotiated energy-efficiency or carbon-reduction targets. As a tax designed to drive efficiency, the CCL should accommodate the changing energy landscape. We therefore propose to extend the eligible processes within the CCA scheme to include the three I have already mentioned. Those processes meet the scheme’s established eligibility tests, thereby demonstrating that they are sufficiently energy intensive and, where applicable, subject to competition from imports. Their inclusion is consistent with existing policy and continues to support the Government’s objectives of delivering affordable and secure energy and decarbonisation, while also helping to drive growth. In summary, the regulations give effect to the Government’s decision to extend the eligible processes within the CCA scheme to include the production of automotive-grade battery cells, the packaging of spirits and the mechanical recycling of plastics. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
As ever, I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their contributions and questions. I agree with the shadow Exchequer Secretary that lengthy consultations can be a frustration—they are the bane of my life too. Of course, we need to make sure that we engage and listen, but it is always good to be as quick as we possibly can be. There is a gap between now and when the changes will come into effect because the Environment Agency requires numerous administrative processes to be completed before facilities from newly eligible sectors can join a scheme. We of course always look to make sure that we can speed up such administrative processes. I will follow up in writing with details as to why the non-successful processes were not successful; I do not have that information at my fingertips today, but I look forward to reading the letter and sending it to the shadow Exchequer Secretary. I can confirm that the four processes that applied but were not successful were two relating to tire retreading, one relating to the roll turning of plastics and one relating to water. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points in due course. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that there is a very minor change in a complicated formula from 0.0497 to 0.0498. I am assured that that is about helping to make sure the Government do these things properly, and that the resultant changes will not be significant. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right to point out that we have high energy costs in this country. We need to bring them down. We are not going to take the approach of the previous Government of saying no to new nuclear power stations over and over again, and we are not going to take the approach of the previous Government of not investing in our energy security. Instead, we are going to get a range of different energy sources into our energy mix so that we can get prices down. The Chancellor proactively made the decision at the last Budget to take £150 off energy bills for families across the country, which was very welcome indeed. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned how she would like to see the carbon price support removed. I have good news for her: just a few short weeks ago we announced that we are removing it. I am disappointed that she did not hear that exciting news. It is a very niche tax, but it is important that we are removing a tax that had become outdated and was not fit for purpose given the current structure of our energy market. I do like to make sure that we get rid of taxes. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need action and ambition on decarbonising our electricity network. We must take the steps we need to take to get clean power and to make sure that we meet our net zero obligations, not just for ourselves but for future generations and for the world. We owe it to all of humanity to make sure that, in a reasonable and careful way, we make progress towards decarbonising our economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
The Government introduced legislation in the Finance Act 2026 to provide for a new settlement offer for those affected by the loan charge. The Government will write off the first £5,000 of liabilities, and that is in addition to the proposals put forward by the independent reviewer, Ray McCann.
I do agree that those who have been affected by the loan charge need to be able to move on with their lives. That is why the Government put forward a generous settlement offer at the last Budget that went further than the proposals set out by the independent reviewer. I would just note that it was a Government that the hon. Gentleman supported for 14 years who introduced the loan charge and did not do enough to reform it for those who were affected by it.
I thank the hon. Member for giving me another chance to talk about the great British summer savings scheme, which the Chancellor has just talked us through. It is fantastic that it is coming into place in just a couple of days’ time and will run until the end of the summer holidays. It extends across all four nations of the United Kingdon, benefiting businesses in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain.
I understand that the VAT rate in Northern Ireland is different from the rate in Ireland—there are different rates of VAT across Europe. It is important to remember that VAT is a national tax in the UK, at 20% across the country. It is important to have consistency for businesses operating across the UK. Significant cuts to VAT come with significant fiscal costs. For example, halving the rate of VAT on hospitality would cost the Exchequer about £11 billion.
I am very busy today, Mr Speaker, as ever. I thank the hon. Member for asking about business rates. She will know that we have already started the work of reforming the business rates system so that we can put in permanently lower multipliers for high street businesses. As part of tax update day, we will be consulting on ways to collect more of the VAT that online sellers dodge by making online marketplaces liable for VAT on both UK and overseas business sales of goods. We will put every penny of the additional revenue raised into improving the business rates system for high street businesses.
We have a tax on profits in the UK, which is corporation tax. In our corporate tax road map, we have committed to keeping that stable in this Parliament, rather than having it jump around as it did in the last one. It is important to have a broad tax base, so it is reasonable for business rates to continue to be—as they have been since the late 1980s—set in accordance with an estimate of the rents of properties. I do not think it would be right to change that.
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. There are many businesses in rural and coastal communities across the country that we want to see thrive and grow, which is why the Chancellor announced the great British summer savings scheme, which will run until 1 September. On the point about the online giants, we are looking at further ways to raise more revenue by going after those online giants dodging VAT. In the last Budget, the Chancellor changed the multipliers in the business rates system so that the tax rate paid by a small high street business would be 33% lower than that paid by large properties, such as those occupied by online giants.
I have to correct the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—I do not think that this hon. Member has a near certainty of becoming Prime Minister any time soon. [Laughter.] It is good that my newly elected right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has taken inspiration from the decision that we made in January to cut business rates for pubs, bars and live music venues by 15% so that we can back the great British pub and other hospitality venues.