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
I am very sorry to hear of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman faces. I am very well aware of the issues faced, and we have taken a number of measures to counter them. I will ensure that we write to him with very full details of the measures that we have taken to address the issue.
I am afraid that I am going to make some progress, because I only have so long. We are delivering Op Valour, a new national programme designed to make it easier for veterans to access the care and support that they deserve. Part of the programme is about using data to ensure that the right services are delivered at the right time, to the right place. On the issue of homelessness, we are delivering Op Fortitude. I say to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to everybody in this House that if they come across an ex-service person on the street, they should make use of Op Fortitude. The telephone number is 0800 952 0774. It is a single referral pathway that connects veterans who are experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness with help and support, and it has already helped more than 1,000 veterans with supported housing and temporary accommodation. On mental health, we have invested more than £25 million this financial year in Op Courage. Again, it is a single pathway in England for supporting veterans’ mental health, and it has already supported more than 35,000 veterans. We have a range of programmes to support those leaving service in finding fulfilling and sustainable careers that make use of their unique skills and experience. Let me turn to new clause 13. After well-documented, historic shortfalls in recruitment and retention, the figures are now far more positive. Under this Government, inflow is up by around 13%, and outflow is down by 9%. We have cut red tape, addressed system blockages and established a ministerial board to oversee both inflow and retention. I am concerned that if the Government were required to set out an armed forces retention strategy, alongside the annual “Votes A” paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained, it would create an additional layer of bureaucracy, and would largely duplicate information that is already available. We already publish information on the size and make-up of the armed forces, and we will continue to publish that. We will also continue to publish the outcomes of the various continuous attitudes surveys that the MOD runs annually. New clause 14 would require an independent review of armed forces recruitment and retention. We are improving retention through sustained investment in our people. We have a range of policies designed to help those who are medically discharged, and to ensure that people get the support that they need, and they are kept under constant scrutiny. The results of that can be seen in the decreasing outflow rates in the quarterly personnel statistics. As I have mentioned, we also publish the attitudes surveys each year, and we will continue to do so. Although these show that service personnel still have some significant issues with service life, we believe that the investments we have made will mean that we start to see an improvement in future surveys. We will also continue to publish a range of other reports. For example, the Service Complaints Ombudsman publishes an annual report, which will be taken forward by the new Armed Forces Commissioner. Let me turn to amendment 12. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) raised the issue that low trust reduces the likelihood of reports of sexual offences. I take this issue very seriously and have done a lot of work on it, but the feedback from victims and from our victim and witness care unit has been positive; it indicates that they feel supported, listened to and understood. We have seen an increase in reporting of sexual offences, which may indicate greater confidence in reporting them. We continue to strive to improve the service justice system, and to raise confidence in it. That is why the Bill strengthens support and protections for victims of sexual offences. Amendment 15 would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the House that no transfer of records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service, because defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records in the same electronic system. Let me turn to amendment 1. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for it, and recognise the concerns raised regarding the position of Northern Ireland councils. However, the amendment reflects a misunderstanding of the role that those councils play in the delivery landscape. The covenant legal duty applies to bodies when they are exercising public functions in certain key policy areas. In England, Scotland and Wales, local authorities play a direct role in delivering services in policy areas such as housing, which is why they are included. In Northern Ireland, responsibility for those policy areas rests with the Executive Departments and their arm’s length bodies; councils do not exercise functions in relation to the policy areas covered by the covenant duty. While councils can support the armed forces community through engagement, they do not have the levers to address the disadvantages that the duty seeks to tackle. Clause 2 reflects the distinct devolved arrangements across the UK, ensuring that the duty sits with those bodies best placed to make a meaningful difference.
I am afraid that I do not have time, but I would emphasise that what I have outlined does not remove the ability for councils in Northern Ireland to pledge their support as a covenant signatory. We will work very closely with colleagues in Northern Ireland to uphold covenant principles in practice. In my former role as Minister for Veterans and People, I recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to discuss the concerns behind amendments 3, 4 and 5. We will continue to work as a Government on the best way to address those concerns in practice. Last month, I met the Minister for School Standards, who has agreed to look into the concerns raised, particularly about improving support for service families when they move. The better route is not a rigid statutory fix; rather, it is practical improvements through existing systems. The covenant legal duty statutory guidance already gives public bodies a flexible framework for taking account of the particular challenges that service families face. However, let me be clear that considering the statutory guidance and supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development. Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are incredibly important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation—the systems are different, the legal frameworks are different, and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment. Our focus is on improving continuity in delivery, so that service families get better support without unintended consequences. Turning to new clauses 1 and 2, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 give effect to the provisions in the statute of the International Criminal Court. As such, they are the applicable regime for the issues raised by those new clauses, rather than the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The International Criminal Court Act exercises jurisdiction over individuals, rather than states, and any request to the UK from the ICC in respect of a warrant or investigation would be dealt with under the International Criminal Court Act as the appropriate applicable legal framework. I would add that the International Criminal Court Act already enables UK courts to prosecute relevant offences committed by UK nationals outside of the UK, irrespective of whether they are a member of a foreign military organisation.
I am afraid that I have little time, so I must make progress. New clause 17 would exempt certain service personnel and veterans from routine reassessments or reviews of the personal independence payment. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it is important to note that the PIP is a civilian welfare benefit, administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. Once someone has been awarded the armed forces independence payment, it is paid for life. It is not subject to periodic reviews, and there is no requirement for reassessment; it is specifically designed to provide stability and certainty for those with the most severe, life-changing injuries sustained in service. It is set at the same level as the highest rate of PIP or disability living allowance, whether or not the recipient has any care needs. Although I recognise the intention behind new clauses 19 and 20, a national standard is not required. I hope that what I have outlined provides the necessary assurances to the House that these new clauses are not necessary, and I ask that they be withdrawn. I commend amendment 2 to the House.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I thank everybody who has helped bring to the Bill to this stage, in particular the parliamentary staff, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and officials in the Ministry of Defence, especially the Bill team. They have all worked diligently to deliver it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and all Members on both sides of the House for their constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. I place on record my particular thanks to my predecessor, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for all his hard work and dedication in getting the Bill to this stage. The first duty of any Government is the defence of the United Kingdom. It is a duty carried out every day by the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces, with the support of their families, who together make immense sacrifices to keep our nation safe. Too often, however, those who serve and the families who stand beside them feel undervalued. This Government were elected on a promise to change that and to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. Through the Bill, we are delivering on that promise. The Bill not only fulfils our constitutional responsibility to renew the legal basis for the armed forces, but delivers meaningful reform across four key pillars: extending the armed forces covenant legal duty, establishing the Defence Housing Service, expanding our pool of reserves, and reforming the service justice system to boost protections and support for serving personnel. First, the Bill strengthens the armed forces covenant—the promise that those who serve and their families should face no disadvantage because of that service. Secondly, the Bill addresses long-standing concerns about defence housing. The quality of accommodation is not a peripheral issue; it is central to recruitment, retention and family life. Thirdly, the Bill recognises the increasingly vital role that reservists play in modern defence. They are essential to our operational capability. Deployed alongside regulars and reserves, our strategic reserve gives us wider access to the specialist skills we increasingly need in the face of a shifting landscape of threats. The measures in the Bill help to support mobilisation, improve flexibility and ensure that reservists are properly integrated, valued and supported. They will therefore strengthen not only our military capability, but the essential connection between our armed forces and wider society. Finally, the Bill delivers important reforms to the service justice system. Discipline, fairness and confidence in the system are fundamental to operational effectiveness and morale. The changes set out in the Bill aim to modernise and improve victim support and boost protections for those serving. Taken together, these four pillars reflect our commitment to improve service life in a practical and lasting way. At a time of growing global uncertainty, we are asking more of our armed forces than ever before, so it is right that we match that ask with action to protect, support and value those who serve. The Bill not only renews the legal foundation of our armed forces; it renews our national commitment to them. I end by paying tribute to the courage, professionalism and dedication shown by the men and women of our armed forces. We are proud to count them as the finest in the world and, above all, this Bill is for them. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Puberty suppressors have been used for many years for precocious puberty, but the evidence base for their use in gender dysphoria lacked rigour, so I welcome the news that the trial will go ahead, as recommended by the Cass review. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the medications are only one part of the research, and can he outline some of the other measures being looked at? Given the small numbers expected to take part in this trial, will research also be undertaken into the impact on young people who are showing gender distress but are unable to access a trial or, of course, be prescribed puberty blockers, in order to get a full clinical picture? Will he furthermore ensure that all young children showing gender distress will have some care and support?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this vital debate on behalf of the nearly 150,000 people who signed the e-petition. I am glad that, with the help and promotion of Jesy Nelson, who brought the petition forward, we are able to highlight the need for preventive action to protect children from the impact of SMA. In my work with the all-party parliamentary group on genetic, rare and undiagnosed conditions, I closely supported the campaign for newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy for many years. I praise the work of SMA UK and Muscular Dystrophy UK, which led the “Every Moment Matters” campaign along with Genetic Alliance UK to press for newborn screening for SMA. It is absolutely fabulous that Jesy Nelson has been able to put focus on the issue and to press the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to take real action, although it is very sad that she had to learn about the devastating impact of SMA from her own heartbreaking experience. With SMA, time is muscle. The condition causes rapid and irreversible neurodegeneration. By six months of age, an untreated baby with SMA type 1 will lose 95% of their lower motor neurons. Transformational treatments are available on the NHS, but we are diagnosing babies too late for them to receive the maximum benefit. I have seen the life-changing difference that early diagnosis made for a family in my constituency. I want to talk about two brothers, Freddie and Louis. Freddie is a happy, social and determined young man who has hugely benefited from access to the lifelong treatment nusinersen. His family say that it saved his life and independence, but they still face challenges and costs in securing equipment to allow Freddie to have the freedom he needs and deserves, including by fundraising with the community for an all-terrain wheelchair that allows him to take part in as many activities as possible with his peers. Because Freddie was diagnosed with SMA, his younger brother, Louis, was screened for SMA and diagnosed before birth. As a result, Louis became the youngest pre-symptomatic baby in the UK with SMA type 2 to receive Zolgensma, a groundbreaking new gene therapy, at just 18 days old. Since getting that treatment, Louis has done well and is able to live his life free from the disease. That completely transformational treatment was available only to siblings, creating, as we have heard, an unacceptable health inequality where the wider population is denied the same chance of a healthy life.
I certainly do agree. The test should be made available to everyone to prevent people from living with the effects of SMA that could have been diagnosed and treated. As I was saying, it is important that we now have testing, but we must expand it to the whole of the UK very quickly.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central. All babies should have access to treatment. We know the clinical consensus is absolute. In February 2025, leading clinicians published a letter in The Lancet contrasting the UK with countries that have screening programmes. In Belgium, babies born with SMA are ambulant. In the UK, babies with the exact same condition are still dying or remaining permanently reliant on ventilatory support and tube feeding. On the wider issue of newborn screening, a range of conditions could be the subject of testing, but we are behind the world on testing. Genetic Alliance UK and the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions are asking for a clear timeline for a systematic review of the NHS newborn screening programme from each of the four Governments across the UK to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to give more children a better and a healthier life. Returning to the issue of SMA screening, the UK National Screening Committee’s updated model from August 2025 confirms that introducing screening would prevent three early deaths and stop two babies from requiring permanent ventilation every single year. Crucially, it would also prevent about 30 babies from being confined to sitting and enable 37 babies annually to live largely normal lives. There is a rigorous financial case for acting now. Treating SMA pre-symptomatically reduces the need for lifelong mechanical ventilation and round-the-clock care. Introducing newborn screening would result in lifetime savings to the public purse of over £62 million and 529 quality-adjusted life years for each annual cohort of newborns diagnosed. I was relieved by the Government’s announcement last month that the in-service evaluation for SMA screening will finally begin in England this October. However, the Government confirmed on 16 June that the evaluation will cover only part of the country. Specifically, it will launch in only the seven newborn screening laboratories that already have the required equipment. There must be a way of getting around that problem so that all our babies can be tested and receive appropriate treatment if necessary. The Scottish Government began a national screening pilot for all newborns earlier this year, and Ireland announced the introduction of its own screening programme in April. We cannot accept a health system in which a baby’s chance of typical neuromuscular development depends entirely on the hospital in which they happen to be born. Will the Minister confirm whether the evaluation will be extended immediately to cover all of England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, for the sake of those children? We have the treatment, economic case and diagnostic tools; we must stop denying babies the chance of a healthier future.
Some 40,000 children each year acquire a brain injury, which are recorded, if at all, under a broad range of categories. Will the Minister meet me and the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum to look at how we can better record acquired brain injuries in a special category to deal with their specific neurological needs?
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and associate myself with her comments on the sad loss of the train driver Shaun Burton and her thanks to the emergency services, staff and volunteers who helped at the scene. Many of my constituents in Amber Valley travel on that line regularly. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give them that everything is being done to ensure their safety once that specific line is back open? Can she reassure those worried constituents who are contacting me that the line will not be reopened until it is absolutely safe to do so?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate and thank him for his service down the mines. I say that as a coalminer’s daughter, and I put on record that I am proud of my dad for the work he did. The Minister mentioned the delays caused by previous Governments’ inaction. I am glad that this Government are acting, but every day former miners and mineworkers are passing away. Can he reassure those affected by this injustice in my constituency of Amber Valley that he is working as fast as possible to resolve this issue?
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 755980 relating to spinal muscular atrophy and the newborn screening test. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and a privilege to open the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I want to begin with two little girls. In May last year, twin daughters were born prematurely to the petitioner, Jesy Nelson, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Several months later, they were diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy type 1, which is the most severe form. Their mother was told that they would, in her words, “probably never walk”. In January of this year, Jesy chose to share that diagnosis publicly, saying that it would be “selfish to keep this to myself and not potentially save a child’s life.” This petition is the result, and I pay tribute to her for the way that she has courageously told her story, using her own unique reach. As a result, the petition was signed by 149,692 people, including 225 of my constituents in Sunderland Central. I was grateful to meet Jesy earlier in Westminster Hall, and I thank her and every family who has turned the hardest experience imaginable into a campaign for other people’s children. In preparing for this debate, I also met Giles Lomax of SMA UK, Muscular Dystrophy UK, and Professor Francesco Muntoni of the Neuromuscular Centre at Great Ormond Street. I thank all of them for their time, and I also thank the Petitions Committee staff for their help as I prepared for this debate. SMA is a rare genetic condition that attacks the motor neurones, causing progressive muscle weakness. Around 1,500 people in the UK live with it and about 48 babies are born with it each year—roughly one a week. With type 1 SMA, symptoms appear within the first six months and the effects are profound. Children cannot hold up their heads or sit unsupported; they may be tube-fed and need help to breathe. Until recently, up to 90% of untreated babies either died before the age of two or required permanent ventilation. I used the past tense there deliberately and happily, because the important fact in this debate is that SMA is no longer untreatable. There are now three disease-modifying therapies in this country, including a one-time gene therapy that did not exist a decade ago. They are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and funded by the NHS. A condition that was too often a death sentence for babies is now one that we can treat.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I will come on to talk about screening in just a minute.
I agree with my hon. Friend, though I think the issue is not mainly financial; I will come on to that in a minute. As other Members have said, the key point is that treatments are dramatically more effective the earlier they are given: before symptoms appear and before irreversible damage is done. Once motor neurones are lost they do not come back.
The hon. Lady is entirely right and I have heard a number of those heart-wrenching stories; she does well to speak so movingly on behalf of her constituent. That is a testament to the key intervention of getting a diagnosis as soon after birth as possible. Today, a baby with type 1 SMA is typically not diagnosed until around six months of age. By then, for many the window when treatment would have had the most impact has closed. There is an alternative; screening at birth through the existing NHS heel-prick test, which is routinely done on day five of a baby’s life. That already screens for 10 different serious conditions.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about the potential postcode lottery. I do not believe it is a decision for individual ICBs to make, but a national decision that includes the UK National Screening Committee, which I will come on to. The screening that I have described is already in place in dozens of countries. Across Europe, 75% of children are screened at birth and since 2024, every newborn in the United States and Canada has been screened. Ukraine managed to begin newborn screening for SMA in the midst of a full-scale Russian invasion. Given that, the petitioners simply ask, “Why is this screening not in place universally here too?”
I thank the hon. Member for making one of his excellent interventions. Clearly health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Wales, where screening is also not available, but the hon. Member is absolutely right. It would be difficult to explain to parents anywhere in the UK why this screening is increasingly standard practice internationally but is not available in every nation of the United Kingdom. The petitioners are clear that all the conditions necessary to begin screening have been met. The test exists, the treatments exist and the evidence tells us that screening would save both lives and money. In the UK, screening is overseen by the independent UK National Screening Committee, which gives recommendations to Ministers. I was unable to meet with the committee in preparation for the debate, but I am sure that the Minister has had the benefit of its advice. I recognise, as we all must, that the committee’s independence matters. However, its decision making and the way in which it balances risk, evidence and benefit must be subject to ministerial oversight. In this case in particular, there are questions about how those three elements have been balanced, and specifically about how far the committee seemingly required NHS-specific evidence when significant international evidence already exists. When the National Screening Committee reviewed SMA for potential inclusion in the screening programme in 2018, the committee did not recommend screening, but campaigners like SMA UK did not walk away; they kept on doing the work. New cost-effectiveness modelling commissioned by the screening committee and published last year finds that screening for SMA is likely to be lifesaving and cost-effective.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a matter of pace and of asking, “When?” not “If?” or “How?” because both those questions have already been answered. I turn to the Government’s response. The previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, the petitioner, in January. The Government accepted the case for an in-service evaluation and brought the date for that live NHS trial forward from January 2027 to October this year, when screening will begin to be rolled out. I, the petitioners and others welcome that, though there is a sadness that it has taken so long to get to that point. We must, however, be honest about where that decision leaves us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) alludes to, the real argument now is about pace and fairness. The evaluation is funded. It will run at seven of England’s 13 screening laboratories, covering around 72% of births. The remaining six sites, which include the site that covers the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and which account for the remaining 28% of babies born in the UK every year, are not at present in the plan. That does not seem to be an accident but the design. Put in human terms, of the 48 babies born with SMA in England each year around 35 would be diagnosed by the introduction of SMA screening in this evaluation but 13 would not: there would be 13 babies a year born with the same condition but on the wrong side of an arbitrary line that they did not choose who will go undiagnosed until damage is done. A baby born in one postcode will be screened, treated early and may walk, but a baby born in another postcode in the same week will not, and by the time anyone knows it may be too late. That is the postcode lottery that Jesy told me about, and which deeply concerns her, in its starkest form. It is not about a difference in waiting times but about whether a child walks, breathes unaided or feeds normally for life. That is why Professor Muntoni’s assessment needs to be heard. He asked me specifically to put this on the record: he described a trial that deliberately leaves some babies unscreened to serve as a comparison group as—his word—“unethical”. We are withholding from some children a diagnosis that we are fully capable of making and that we know will help to shape their lives in order to gather data on something that Professor Muntoni considers already internationally proven. That is the view of not just one eminent clinician, I am told, but the wider SMA clinical community.
I will make a little progress and finish my point; I can see the time getting away and I want to make sure that other Members can speak. The question is why, when so much of the world has acted, the United Kingdom is moving so slowly. That caution sits oddly with the Government’s welcome ambition elsewhere. The generation study is sequencing the whole genome of 100,000 newborns for more than 200 rare conditions, and the Government have committed to offering whole genome sequencing to every newborn within a decade, which is a welcome part of their 10-year health plan. That is a world-leading vision, and I welcome it, but there is some irony in promising to read every baby’s entire genome within 10 years while not rolling out today across the whole of England one well-established, internationally proven test for a single treatable condition. Screening decisions must, of course, be taken with care. A national programme that affects 650,000 babies a year must be safe, accurate and deliverable across many laboratories. I recognise that the therapies are relatively new and therefore their lifespan impacts require ongoing evaluation. There are legitimate grounds for further research, but the evidence that we have now on its impact should sharpen our urgency, not dull it. I am told that the research the screening committee commissioned estimates that each year, screening could prevent around two babies needing permanent ventilation, prevent around three early deaths and allow around 37 babies to live relatively normal lives. The economics are striking, too: the typical direct costs of caring for a child severely disabled by SMA—not the drugs costs, but the care costs—are around £450,000 per year. Most of that would be avoidable through diagnosis and treatment at birth. Here, the compassionate course and the fiscally responsible course point the same way. I gently raise the point—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already made it—that there is a geographical discrepancy across the United Kingdom on this matter. Let us welcome the fact that, in Scotland, screening is now being rolled out for every newborn, though that is not the case, and there are no plans that I am aware of, in Northern Ireland or Wales. I began my speech with two little girls—Jesy’s girls—and I return to them now. The delays to their diagnosis were not inevitable. Had the UK adopted screening on a timetable comparable to that of other countries, Jesy’s twins might have been diagnosed before symptoms appeared. We cannot change that, but we can stop it being true for the next family. SMA is only the first of many rare genetic conditions where an early, treatable diagnosis will likely become possible in the coming years. If we cannot move at a reasonable pace on screening for SMA, which is proven, costed and adopted across the world, what does that say for the children with other rare genetic diseases, the screening tests for which will be developed in the coming years? I put the following questions to the Minister, and I hope—and I know the petitioner hopes—for answers that are as specific as she is able to give. First, will the Minister push for conclusions to be drawn more quickly from the in-service evaluation than the 18 months that are currently planned? Every month of delay in roll-out to the 28% of the population not covered by the evaluation will likely delay the diagnosis of one baby, with serious consequences. Secondly, what does the Minister say to the families of the 13 babies a year who, on the current plans, will be born outside the evaluation’s reach? Are there any interim safeguards against a delayed or missed diagnosis? Thirdly, will the Minister respond directly to the concern shared across the SMA clinical community that knowingly leaving some babies unscreened when the test and treatments already exist raises serious ethical concerns? Finally, will the Government commit to ensuring that every baby in England is screened for SMA as quickly as possible? Will they continue to roll that out to all remaining screening centres, even if that is on a provisional basis while we wait for the in-service evaluation? By what date can that be achieved? I conclude with a reflection that, as it stands, the science on this disease has changed faster than our health system has. The condition was, within living memory, untreatable, but now a test at birth can make the difference between a wheelchair and a childhood spent running around. The petitioners are not asking us to abandon evidence or caution; they are asking us to act with the urgency that international evidence now permits, and to make sure that no baby is left behind simply because of where they are born. I look forward to contributions from other Members and to the Minister’s response.
I thank the Minister for her remarks. As others have said, she is a diligent Minister, and I know that she will push this carefully with the Department. Would she consider meeting me, Jesy and SMA UK after she has had a chance to push some of those points? I thank all Members for their contributions today. Most of all, I thank Jesy for bringing this petition to life, telling the story of her twin girls, being so clear and rightly challenging us about the fact that there should not be a postcode lottery in the UK. We should have screening provision as good as anywhere else in the world.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever we do with the BCSSS surplus, we should do with the mineworkers’ pension scheme as well? We must ensure that mineworkers are looked after, and that the surplus goes back to the scheme’s members, too.
The Minister talked earlier about putting the wrongs right, and those decisions that will be made in the future will hopefully do just that, but once that is done, we want to make sure that they are future-proofed for everyone, regardless of what happens in the future. Will the Minister also commit to ensuring that once those wrongs are put right, that will continue, whoever governs in the future?
As the Member of Parliament for Corby and East Northamptonshire, I agree with everybody about the emergency services, the NHS, the community who came together, the guards, the staff and the passengers as well, who did not go through the panic that can sometimes happen in situations like this. The 16.40 London train from Corby to was involved in this fatal collision. No worker should ever go to work never to return home, and I am sure all our thoughts are with the dedicated Shaun Burton, who lost his life, as well as with his family and his friends, and the family and friends of all those impacted and affected—a lot from my constituency —including those with injuries. I spoke to Ministers over the weekend, and I thank them for that. I have also spoken to the ASLEF and RMT unions, and I know that they are offering support. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that train drivers, who connect our communities and deliver the goods we need, work in a safety-critical environment and deserve to feel safe? Does she also agree that the passengers and staff affected by the trauma of such an accident really do need our support and that of the rail operators?
10. What steps she is taking to improve further education pathways.
Every time I have been to Buckinghamshire College Group in Aylesbury I have met fantastic staff who bring decades of professional experience to their roles and have a deep commitment to the young people. However, many further education colleges, including ours, are struggling with staff recruitment and retention, in part because staff pay is higher in schools. As we do this brilliant work to expand technical education opportunities through FE colleges, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that FE staff salaries are competitive and that FE colleges can continue to attract the best talent out there?
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have not gone far enough to challenge the expansion of illegal settlements? Does he agree that too many red lines have been crossed, and that the Government have sat on their hands and done very little to change that?
I, too, want to echo the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to the Prime Minister. There is much of which he can be proud, particularly on the international stage. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s strong words about what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, but my constituents frequently write to me in despair that Israel seems to be able to act with impunity when it comes to illegal settlements, the blocking of aid and many other examples. What reassurance can he give them that there is some hope that Israel will be held to account, and that the people of Gaza and the west bank will be helped in the face of such oppression?
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for keeping us up to date this weekend. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the family and friends of the driver, Shaun Burton, who sadly lost his life following this truly heartbreaking incident, and to send my very best wishes to all those injured on Friday. I would also like to pay tribute to the emergency services, railway staff and local responders for their swift response, ensuring passenger safety and providing urgent emergency care on the scene. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on the work required before services can be safely resumed and how passengers will be kept informed of progress?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for prior notice of his point of order. He has now corrected the record and put his remarks on the record.
As the House can see, we have many Bills to be presented today. To save time and get on with today’s main business, for Members presenting more than one Bill consecutively I will accept private notice of the Second Reading dates. The dates will be recorded and published accordingly in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings. Members presenting individual Bills will name the date for Second Reading as usual. Mobile Homes Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the law relating to mobile homes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 33). In-Person Banking Services Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Alan Mak presented a Bill to make provision about the delivery of in-person banking services; to require the Financial Conduct Authority to set standards for the provision of in-person banking services; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 34). Dementia (Specialist Support) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Rachel Gilmour presented a Bill to make provision about a minimum standard of support for persons with a diagnosis of dementia; to require that minimum standard to include access to dementia specialist nursing and end-of-life care; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 35). Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Jeremy Corbyn presented a Bill to make provision for establishing an independent public inquiry into UK involvement in Israeli military operations in Gaza; to require the inquiry to consider any UK military, economic or political cooperation with Israel since October 2023, including the sale, supply or use of weapons, surveillance aircraft and Royal Air Force bases; to provide the inquiry with the power to question Ministers and officials about decisions taken in relation to UK involvement; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 36). Gambling Act 2005 (Mandatory Conditions of Lottery Operating Licences) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to remove monetary limits on proceeds from the mandatory conditions of lottery operating licences; to make further provision about the mandatory conditions of lottery operating licences; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 37). Battery Energy Storage (Planning and Regulation) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mike Wood presented a Bill to make provision about the construction, use and decommissioning of battery energy storage systems; to provide that fire and rescue authorities must be consulted in relation to planning applications relating to battery energy storage systems; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the safety and risks of battery energy storage systems and to lay the report of that review before Parliament; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 38). Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Maria Eagle presented a Bill to increase the minimum required height of guarding in multi-storey car parks; to make provision about the height of guarding in existing multi-storey car parks; to require 24-hour staffing of multi-storey car parks; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 39). Telecommunications (Fixed-term Contracts) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Dr Luke Evans presented a Bill to prohibit the increasing of charges payable under certain fixed-term telecommunications contracts within the duration of those contracts; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 40). Electricity Works (Small Business Compensation Proposals) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Gregory Stafford presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a scheme to compensate small businesses affected by road closures resulting from electricity works; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 41). Public Sector Equality Duty (Repeal) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Joy Morrissey presented a Bill to repeal section 149 and schedule 18 of the Equality Act 2010; to make provision consequential on that repeal; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 42). Environmental Impact Assessment (Downstream Emissions) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Harriet Cross presented a Bill to make provision about the assessment of environmental impact of developments involving the extraction of fossil fuels; to provide that downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion or other end use of extracted hydrocarbons are not required to be assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment of such developments; to make provision relating to decisions in respect of the grant of consent and planning permission for certain such developments; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 43). Pets (Microchips) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Rebecca Harris presented a Bill to make provision regarding pets with microchips; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 44). UK Food Labelling (Country of Origin) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Aphra Brandreth presented a Bill to make provision about the use of UK country of origin indicators in the labelling and marketing of food products; to prohibit the use of such indicators unless products meet specified criteria; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 45). Chalk Streams (UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Pippa Heylings presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as a serial UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 46). Scotland (Independence Referendum) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Graham Leadbitter, supported by Dave Doogan, Kirsty Blackman, Pete Wishart, Chris Law, Brendan O’Hara, Seamus Logan and Lara Bird, presented a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 47). Heritage Trees Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir John Hayes presented a Bill to make provision about the protection and stewardship of heritage trees in England; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 48). Hospitality (Value Added Tax) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Seamus Logan, supported by Dave Doogan, Kirsty Blackman, Pete Wishart, Chris Law, Brendan O’Hara, Graham Leadbitter and Lara Bird, presented a Bill to reduce the rate of value added tax for certain supplies relating to hospitality; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 49). Domestic Building Works (Consumer Protection) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mark Garnier presented a Bill to make provision about consumer protection in relation to domestic building works; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 50). Ponds (Permitted Development) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Rebecca Smith presented a Bill to extend permitted development rights to include wildlife ponds under 0.2 hectares; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 51). Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Bambos Charalambous presented a Bill to make provision for or in connection with the relief of debts of certain developing countries. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 52). Welfare Reform Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) David Simmonds presented a Bill to make provision to restrict eligibility for the Personal Independence Payment for those with certain mental health conditions; to require that assessments for certain welfare benefits are conducted face to face; to make provision to restrict the eligibility of persons who are not British citizens to claim welfare benefits; to make provision about fit notes in connection with welfare benefits; to provide for a two child limit on the child element of universal credit; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 53). Non-Domestic Rating (Retail, Hospitality and Leisure) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mr Gagan Mohindra presented a Bill to make provision about non-domestic rating in respect of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 54). National Police Chiefs’ Council (Guidance) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope, supported by presented a Bill to require parliamentary approval for the issuing of advice or guidance by the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 55). Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (UK Covid-19 Inquiry) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the implementation of Recommendation 5 of Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, relating to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 56). Climate Change Act 2008 (Repeal) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008; to make provision consequential on that repeal; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 57). Hospitality Services (Value Added Tax Exemption) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt providers of catering and accommodation services from VAT for fees and charges made in respect of the provision of those services; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 58). Sporting and Physical Education Services (Value Added Tax Exemption) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Gregory Stafford and Greg Smith, presented a Bill to exempt providers of sporting and physical education services from VAT for fees and charges made in respect of the provision of sporting and physical education services, in cases where no existing exemption applies; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 59). Employment Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about the employment of foreign nationals; to make provision about the national minimum wage; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 60). Tax Reliefs Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about the relief of taxation in respect of private education, private healthcare, mortgage interest payments for primary residences, certain transport costs relating to employment and private pension contributions; to make further provision relating to the relief of taxation; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 61). Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the effectiveness of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, with reference to the application of that Act in individual cases; to make provision about the recording and retention of information relating to voided motor insurance policies on the Motor Insurance Database; to make provision for a review in cases involving inadvertent or voluntarily disclosed misrepresentation; to provide for the correction or removal of such records in appropriate circumstances; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 62). Vehicles (Registration) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to provide that a registration document issued in respect of a road vehicle must contain the permanent address of its keeper; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 63). Meat (Information About Method of Killing) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require producers, suppliers and retailers of meat to indicate clearly whether the animal has been killed in accordance with religious rites without prior stunning; to require the Secretary of State to collect and publish specified information relating to meat slaughtered in accordance with such practice; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 64). Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to limit exit payments made by some public sector organisations to employees; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 65). Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to provide that a draft statutory instrument which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure may be amended by either House of Parliament before it is approved; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 66). Anonymity of Suspects Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to create an offence of disclosing the identity of a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of the alleged commission of an offence; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 67). Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Government to conduct a review of every Arm’s-Length Body in existence on 22 June 2026 and to publish the results of those reviews within four years; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 68). Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for Arm’s-Length Bodies to be directly accountable to Parliament. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 69). Bailiffs (Warrants of Possession) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to set maximum time limits within which a bailiff’s warrant of possession appointment date must be granted; to make provision for alternative methods of executing warrants of possession; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 70). Bank of England (Inflation Targets) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for penalties against the Court of Directors of the Bank of England for failure to meet inflation targets. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 71). BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to de-criminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee by persons aged over seventy-five; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 72). British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 73). Caravan Site Licensing (Exemption of Motor Homes) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt motor homes from caravan site licensing requirements; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 74). Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope by presented a Bill to extend the definition of children’s clothing for the purposes of exemption from VAT; to extend the VAT exemption to further categories of school uniform; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 75). Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 76). Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make provision about financial assistance to persons who have suffered disablement following vaccination against Covid-19 and to the next of kin of persons who have died shortly after vaccination against Covid-19; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of a no-fault compensation scheme to provide such financial assistance, on whether there should be any upper limit on the financial assistance available, on the criteria for eligibility and on whether payment should be made in all cases where there is no other reasonable cause for the death or disablement suffered; to provide for a special time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 for actions in respect of personal injury or death following a Covid-19 vaccination; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 77). Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to provide that, before making any order to designate a type of dog for the purposes of section 1 or 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation and publish a comparative review of data showing the incidences of fatalities resulting from bites of dogs of that type in the last three years. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 78). Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt from Value Added Tax supplies of electricity, oil and gas for domestic purposes; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 79). Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt from Value Added Tax repairs to listed places of worship; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 80). Exemption from Value Added Tax (Public Electric Vehicle Charging Points) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt from Value Added Tax the supply of electricity at public electric vehicle charging points; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 81). Green Belt (Protection) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to establish a national register of Green Belt land in England; to restrict the ability of local authorities to de-designate Green Belt land; to make provision about future development of de-designated Green Belt land; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 82). Health Insurance (Exemption from Insurance Premium Tax) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to provide for exemptions from insurance premium tax in respect of health insurance; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 83). Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 to restrict the defences available to highway authorities; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 84). Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 85). National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for co-funding and co-payment in the National Health Service; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 86). NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about arranging alternative non-NHS England treatment for patients who have waited for more than one year for hospital treatment; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 87). Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make provision about Parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under that Act; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 88). Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require a Regulatory Impact Assessment to be published for all primary and secondary legislation introduced by the Government; to make provision for associated sanctions; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 89). Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require public authorities to exercise their statutory powers to investigate and take enforcement action for breaches of the law; to make provision for sanctions for failing to take such action; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 90). Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 (Review) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to review, and publish a report on, the merits of increasing the relevant statutory sum under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 for all claims since 1 January 2020 by an amount representing the amount of inflation since 2007. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 91). European Convention on Human Rights (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mike Wood, supported by Sir Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the Convention. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 92). Planning Application Consultations (Mobile Network Operators) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Gregory Stafford presented a Bill to make provision for the consultation of mobile network operators in relation to certain planning applications; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 93). Leisure and Fitness Facilities (Value Added Tax) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Gregory Stafford presented a Bill to exempt from VAT the supply of certain services by independent leisure centres, gyms, health clubs and fitness facilities; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 94). Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996 (Repeal) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Gregory Stafford presented a Bill to repeal the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996; and to make any necessary provision consequential on that repeal. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 95). Lobular Breast Cancer Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) John Milne presented a Bill to make provision about research into lobular breast cancer; to place duties on the Secretary of State in relation to such research; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 96). Civil Aviation Authority (Ombudsman) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) John Milne presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment and functions of an ombudsman to investigate regulatory decisions made by the Civil Aviation Authority; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 97).
Mr Andrew Snowden is unable to present his Bill today, so we will move on to the next item of business.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Dual nationals serving in foreign armed forces: war crimes risk— “(1) This section applies to a person (‘the individual’) who is— (a) a British national or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and (b) a member of the armed forces of a foreign state. (2) Where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has participated in, ordered, or failed to prevent conduct that constitutes a war crime within the meaning of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, the Secretary of State may— (a) refer the matter to the Attorney General for consideration of proceedings under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, (b) direct that the individual’s British travel document be suspended pending investigation, subject to section 41C, and (c) notify the International Criminal Court of the individual’s British nationality and last known address in the United Kingdom. (3) A suspension of a travel document under section 41B(2)(b) must not exceed 90 days without renewal. (4) The individual to whom section 41B applies must be— (a) informed as soon as reasonably practicable of the grounds for any action taken under section 41B(2), and (b) afforded a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. (5) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance to the armed forces, relevant intelligence agencies, and border authorities on— (a) identification of British nationals serving in foreign armed forces, (b) information-sharing arrangements with the International Criminal Court and relevant foreign jurisdictions, and (c) the circumstances in which action under subsection (2) is appropriate. (6) For the purposes of this section— “British national” has the meaning given by section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981; “Rome Statute” means the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998 (2187 UNTS 90). (7) Nothing in section 41B or this section limits the protections afforded to an individual under the Human Rights Act 1998.” NC1 and NC2 ensure that the United Kingdom does not extend the immunities and privileges afforded to visiting forces under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to forces from states whose commanders are subject to ICC proceedings, and creates a framework for referring dual nationals suspected of war crimes to prosecutorial authorities. New clause 3—Veterans: housing and employment data duty— “(1) The Secretary of State must, in each calendar year, collect and compile data on the following matters in respect of persons who have served as members of the regular forces (‘veterans’)— (a) the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014; (b) the number of veterans who are unemployed and claiming Universal Credit or Jobseeker’s Allowance, disaggregated by— (i) length of unemployment; (ii) age and gender; and (iii) service branch and rank on discharge; (c) the number of veterans in contact with local authority housing or homelessness services; (d) the number of veterans placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority; (e) the number of veterans who have presented themselves as having suicidal ideation and those who have committed suicide; (f) trends in the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) over the preceding five years. (2) For the purposes of collecting data under subsection (1), the Secretary of State— (a) must request and receive data from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, local authorities, and such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, (b) may require local authorities in England to provide data as to veterans within their area who have approached them for housing assistance, and (c) must consult Veterans UK and any other bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate in designing the data collection methodology. (3) The Secretary of State must, not later than 31 March in each year, lay before Parliament a report setting out— (a) the data compiled under subsection (1) for the preceding calendar year; (b) a comparison with data from the two preceding calendar years; (c) the steps taken or proposed to be taken by the Secretary of State, or by public authorities subject to the duty in section 343AZA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (as amended by section 2 of this Act), to reduce rates of homelessness and unemployment among veterans; and (d) an assessment of whether those steps have been effective. (4) The report under subsection (3) must include, in respect of veterans who have left the regular forces within the preceding three years— (a) the proportion who entered employment within three months of discharge; (b) the proportion who were provided resettlement support under a scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence; and (c) the proportion who were provided with suitable accommodation within one month of discharge. (5) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a person independent of the Ministry of Defence to review, and report to Parliament on, the methodology and reliability of data collected under this section at least once every three years. (6) In this section— “homeless or at risk of homelessness” is to be construed in accordance with sections 175 to 177 of the Housing Act 1996; “regular forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act); “veteran” means a person who has served as a member of the regular forces for a period of not less than one day and who is no longer serving as such a member.” This new clause imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to collect, compile, and annually report to Parliament data on rates of veteran homelessness, suicide and unemployment, including trends, actions taken and their effectiveness. New clause 4—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years— “(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows. (2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert— “(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years. (3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.” This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years. New clause 5—Review of mental health support for veterans— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of this Act, conduct a review of the adequacy, accessibility and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans of the armed forces. (2) A review under subsection (1) must assess the extent to which mental health support available to veterans meets their needs, including specific information about availability of such support based on— (a) age, (b) sex, (c) service branch, (d) rank, (e) length of service, (f) time elapsed since leaving service, (g) operational deployment history, (h) conflict or operation in which the veteran served, (i) geographical location within the United Kingdom, (j) whether the veteran resides in a rural or urban area, and (k) any other characteristic the Secretary of State considers relevant. (3) A review under subsection (1) must examine— (a) levels of provision of specialist and non-specialist mental health services for veterans; (b) waiting times for assessment and treatment; (c) access to NHS and charity-provided mental health services; (d) barriers to accessing support, including those arising from geographical isolation, transport availability, digital exclusion and workforce shortages; (e) rates of referral, treatment completion and clinical outcomes; (f) rates of suicide, self-harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions among veterans; (g) differences in outcomes between veterans who served in different conflicts or operations; (h) the effectiveness of arrangements for identifying and supporting veterans most at risk of mental ill health; (i) reliance on charity support. (4) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) veterans’ organisations, (b) service charities, (c) NHS bodies, (d) devolved administrations, (e) local authorities, and (f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (5) Upon completion of a review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament indicating the findings of the review. (6) A report under subsection (6) must include recommendations for improving mental health support for veterans, particularly those groups identified as being at elevated risk of poor mental health outcomes based on the review on which it is based.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the adequacy and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans. New clause 6—Review into reservist facilities— “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas. (2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the quality, accessibility, and refurbishment of reservist facilities. (3) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas. New clause 7—Digital archive of Armed Forces Standing Orders— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must put in place a plan for the digital archiving of all Standing Orders issued to Armed Forces personnel, to be completed within 12 months. (2) Once the digital archives under subsection (1) are established, the Secretary of State must carry out a review every six months to ensure they are up to date. (3) Under this section, “Standing Orders” means the body of permanent regulations, issued by units or formations, which govern the conduct, administration, and procedures of personnel.” This new clause would add a requirement for the Ministry of Defence to ensure the indefinite digital archiving of all standing orders issued to the Armed Forces. New clause 8—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)— “After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert— “366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment (1) Within 6 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”). (2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office. (3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to— (a) promoting the interests of veterans in England; (b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England; (c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families; (d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services; (e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans. (4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may— (a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans; (b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations; (c) publish reports and recommendations. (5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. (6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England. (7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament. (8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for— (a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and (b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section. (9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term. (10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of— (a) incapacity, (b) misbehaviour, or (c) failure to discharge the functions of the office. (11) In this section— “public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998; “veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.”” This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions. New clause 9—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces— “A member of the regular or reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.” This new clause would make provision for the members of the regular or reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment. New clause 10—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan— “Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament, if they have not already done so.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the passage of this Act, if they have not already done so. New clause 11—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights— “After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert— “(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must authorise for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention. (2) In this section — “overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance; “Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).”” This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations. New clause 12—Feasibility study on a Forces Housing Association— “(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act , the Secretary of State must publish report on the possibility of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA). (2) The report must examine the proposals in Chapter 5 of the 2020 Report “Stick or Twist – A Report for The Prime Minister into Retention in HM Armed Forces – and how to improve it.” (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the merits of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA) as opposed to the proposed Defence Housing Service. New clause 13—An armed forces retention strategy— “(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year. (2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy. (3) The retention strategy must include— (a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces, (b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and (c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.” This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the Armed Forces. New clause 14—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention— “(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces. (2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider— (a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces, (b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces, (c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and (d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life. (3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.” This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament. New clause 15—Duty to provide medical records on discharge— “(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces. (2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records to be provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces. (3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent. (4) In this section— “health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB; “service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty’s forces during the person’s period of service.” This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date. New clause 16—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert— “343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer (1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer. (2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB. (3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans. (4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section. (5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom. (6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament. (7) In this section, “veteran” means a person who has at any time been a service member.”” This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer. New clause 17—Personal independence payment reassessment exemption for amputees— “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces to be exempt from personal independence payment reassessments except in instances in which such persons have requested a reassessment. (2) For the purposes of this section, “personal independence payment” has the meaning given by Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces are exempt from personal independence payment reassessments. New clause 18—Report on disregard of armed forces compensation in means-tested benefits— “(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means-tested income benefits. (2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. (3) The report under subsection (1) must consider compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating— (a) Pension Credit entitlements, and (b) any other means-tested benefit where compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is not currently disapplied in entitlement calculations.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means-tested income benefits. New clause 19—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert— “343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards (1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”). (2) The national standards must— (a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies, (b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and (c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment. (3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section. 343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery (1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty. (2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall— (a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies, (b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers, (c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and (d) include provision for capacity-building where required. (3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community. 343AEC Reporting and measuring framework (1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty. (2) The framework must include— (a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures, (b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner, (c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and (d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.”” This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty. New clause 20—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert— “(5A) An armed forces covenant report must— (a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA, (b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and (c) include recommendations for improvement.”” This new clause, which is consequential on NC19, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement. New clause 21—Reporting on the Defence Investment Plan— “(1) Every six months after the passage of this Act for the duration of this Parliament, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan. (2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would compel the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan every six months during this Parliament, and annually thereafter. New clause 22—Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays— “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment of the delays to the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan. (2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of such delays on— (a) small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within the UK defence supply chain, (b) military procurement, equipment capability timelines, and operational readiness, and (c) the financial sustainability of defence sector businesses. (3) In preparing the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector, and (b) the Defence Suppliers Forum. (4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a one-time report within six months of the Act’s passage assessing the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays on military procurement and defence businesses, with particular focus on SMEs. New clause 23—Assessment of the reserve forces estate— “(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of— (a) catering provisions, (b) personal hygiene provisions, and (c) support for existing and new reserve forces. (3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1). (4) Under subsection (1) “reserve forces estate” refers to all properties managed by the RFCA. (5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter. New clause 24—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006— “(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. (2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered. Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 15, at end insert— “and to the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland.” This amendment would add the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland to the meaning of “local authority” in relation to the armed forces covenant. Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs (1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who— (a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted. (2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority. (3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities. (4) Under this section, “a plan” means— (a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan; (b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan; (c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan; (d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.” This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another. Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements (1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who— (a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces, (b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and (c) is required to move base as part of their military service. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority. (3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another. (4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons. (5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.” This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces. Amendment 5, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services (1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who— (a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates. (a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies. (3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on— (a) the transfer of patient records, (b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care. Amendment 14, page 6, line 43, at end insert— “343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions (1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include— (a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed, (b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and (c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements. (3) For the purposes of this section— “former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces. (4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. Amendment 15, page 6, line 43, at end insert— “343AZC Transfer of medical assessments (1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. (2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of— (a) the time and costs associated with current practice, and (b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces. (3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces. Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert— “(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a multi-year budget, which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State. (5) This must specify both capital (CDEL) and revenue spending (RDEL) on the Defence Housing Service, over the period of the Defence Investment Plan” This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State. Amendment 8, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) improving the satisfaction of service personnel and their families with the accommodation provided.” This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service. Amendment 9, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) providing earmarked accommodation, as far as practicable, to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order. (f) for the purposes of subsection (e), a “child arrangements order” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Children Act 1989. (g) “contract visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).” This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order. Amendment 13, page 8, line 24, at end insert “and single living accommodation”. This amendment would add single living accommodation to the definition of defence housing to ensure that defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation. Amendment 10, page 9, line 27, at end insert— “(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service, once appointed, must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.” This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service. Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 34, line 33, at end insert— “115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police (1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom. (2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force, and inform the complainant of their right to have the investigation referred back to the relevant service police force and military courts. (3) If the complainant requests that the case be transferred back to the military courts, the jurisdiction over the investigation and subsequent trial must be transferred back to the relevant service police force and military courts. (4) In this section— “relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place; “relevant offence” means— (a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or (c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b). (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.” This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system, with the option for the complainant to transfer their case back to the military justice system if they prefer. Amendment 6, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert— “(iii) a retired holder of such a rank. (iv) NCO’s – down to the level of Corporal, or equivalent.” This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial. It would also allow soldiers down to the rank of Corporal (or equivalent) to sit on Court Martials. Amendment 7, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert— “69C Notice periods for recall (1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R7 (60 days). (2) For the purposes of this section, ‘Army Reserve Group A’ has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.” This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 60 days. Government amendment 2.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Under this Government, apprenticeship starts by young people are up. We are going further and investing an additional £1 billion to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships with the new foundation apprenticeships, and providing £2,000 for smaller employers when they hire young apprentices.
I think we should look at what people do, not what they say. This is a Government who are reversing the decline; apprenticeship starts by young people reduced by 40% under the previous Government. We are taking a range of steps, including supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and giving greater flexibility in the apprenticeship system, all to create an extra 50,000 opportunities for young people.
My hon. Friend is a fierce champion for apprenticeships and technical education. I am happy to meet him to discuss those matters further. The Minister for Skills, my noble friend Baroness Smith in the other place, has taken a whole series of actions with the Secretary of State to reform our apprenticeship system, opening it up to create tens of thousands of additional opportunities for young people.
We inherited the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—crisis and years of decay in the school estate. Labour is investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme to rebuild over 750 schools across England. Over 500 schools are already in the programme, with well over half already in delivery. We will select a further 250 schools by early 2027.
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Hudson primary school. He has spoken to me before about the excellent performance of the school and its headteacher. We will be selecting the 250 schools for the school rebuilding programme by the end of the year and announce them at the start of next year. It will be based on those schools that have the most acute need in terms of their building state. I am happy to discuss that further with him.