Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give us the upcoming business?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Business of the House
It is a pleasure to be responding again to the Leader of the House. It is the day after England started their world cup campaign, and it is fair to say that they already have our hopes up; I am a bit cheered out. Today, many of our colleagues are pounding the pavement for the by-elections. I am sure that the Leader of the House is waiting with bated breath to see if the self-anointed king of the north is shortly to begin his long march south to save the Labour party from the Greens. Or maybe the Leader of the House is waiting more keenly for the next intervention from the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), bemoaning the Prime Minister’s “poor leadership, poor judgment and bad politics”. While the comedy of errors of this Labour Government is playing out, the serious issues facing our country go unaddressed: grooming gangs, the murder of Henry Nowak, the two-tier justice system, benefits Britain and, in particular, the irresponsible failure of the Prime Minister and this Labour Government to support our armed forces with a defence investment plan fit for the dangerous world we face. The Prime Minister and the Labour Government are prepared to see our veterans subjected to continuing persecution and relentless lawfare. It is a failure of leadership. It is a failure to put our country before party. It is a failure to put our brave servicemen and women before personal political survival. It is a failure to protect those who have fought to keep us safe and free. It is easy to say that the first duty of Government is to protect the country; it is much harder to make the choices needed to deliver on that duty. We know that the root cause of that failure is that Labour MPs put “Benefits Street” before anything or anyone else. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions kindly confirmed that when he told Peter Mandelson that the only question Labour MPs ask him is: who can they tax, in order to pay more benefits? The Prime Minister did not have the backbone to confront his Back Benchers and tackle the out-of-control welfare bill. There will be £333 billion of welfare spending this year—£18 billion higher than last year. As the Centre for Social Justice pointed out recently, that £18 billion could have been invested in our armed forces. It could have bought 200 fighter jets or 12 warships, or funded 250,000 extra soldiers. Labour is taking the wealth created by hard-working families, small businesses and millions of Britons, and making it clear that in Labour’s Britain, working just does not pay. In Labour’s Britain, “Benefits Street” comes first. That brings me back to Andy Burnham, a twice-failed Labour leadership candidate who has shown that he has exactly the same flexibility of principle as the current Labour leader. This is a twice-failed Labour leadership candidate who thinks that governing will be as simple as out-Greening the Greens—spend more, tax more, repeat. This Labour party can never and will never change. Our armed forces, hard-working families and the small business across Britain deserve better. It is time for this Government to keep their promise, or go.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I echo and endorse all the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who was comprehensive in setting out our position. I therefore speak from a broad consensus surrounding the Committee that the final days of NHS England as a body are here, and so be it, because there are advantages to be gained from its abolition. The Minister set out some of the leading reasons why she and the Government are abolishing NHS England. She referred to the growing bureaucracy, the unnecessary complexity, and the overlap of roles and responsibilities between the organisation and DHSC. She also spoke about being able to better focus on delivering care rather than navigating bureaucratic hurdles.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Third sitting)
The shadow Minister points to a much wider issue entirely relevant to the Government’s plans here: the more reorganisation we do, the more we shrink the bandwidth to deal with smaller and more operational problems because so much of the resource has been pulled in. In my area, although it is probably true everywhere, reorganisation of Department or Government responsibilities causes endless frustration that while Governments and politicians—I take some responsibility for my own side’s actions at times in the past in very limited ways—talk about reorganisation when so much can be done on what might be termed low-hanging fruit. I worry that the Government are missing out on opportunities here to make a much more meaningful difference day to day and much more quickly than this huge reorganisation will achieve. Everything is about priorities. Plainly, no Government can do everything they want to do all at one time. It slightly surprises me that reorganisation of the NHS and doing away with NHS England has become such a major priority, considering it did not feature in the Labour party manifesto just two years ago. I do not seek to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but the gist of her evidence to this Committee was that within eight months of this Labour Government coming into power, they realised that NHS England had to go. Eight months is eight months, but it seems a short timeframe in which to decide to do away with a fundamental way that health is organised and delivered in this country. Going back to priorities, I recall that before the election, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—then the shadow Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Ilford North, talked about introducing a national care service. That was the Labour party’s big priority. Although Conservative Members and, frankly, the majority of the public were slightly sceptical of his intentions, we all agree that social care needs reform and that ultimately, the success of the NHS will be delivered only if we deal with the long-standing crisis in social care, which extends back three decades or more, as it is entirely dependent on that. Before the election, the priority was the national care service, but since the not-so-random date of 5 July 2024, when the right hon. Gentleman became the Secretary of State, he ceased to refer to reform of social care, and it seems once again to have been put on the back burner. I wonder whether the Government’s plan to abolish NHS England has gotten in the way of equally large, and perhaps even more substantial, reforms, which might ultimately have made a much more meaningful difference to the delivery of not only healthcare but health and social care, as well as to the overall wellbeing, including financial wellbeing, of so many people in this country. Social care refers to people living with frailty or dementia, and the family carers, and families more widely, on whom that has an impact. Every decision made is a decision not made, given the resource and bandwidth of those whom any Government ask to implement change, such as the civil service, advisers and the hundreds or thousands of people who are relied on to deliver in their day-to-day job. I and, it seems, all the other Committee members do not disagree with the fundamentals of what Government are trying to do; their reasons for doing this are broadly sensible, so who could disagree? However, because of the manner in which it is being done, I urge caution and a check on being too optimistic—just doing it and expecting all the good things to flow. It will take an awful lot more than simply passing the Bill to make the NHS the success that, to take the Minister at her word, she intends, wants and will do her best to achieve. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
- Hansard source
Tourism and Leisure
Soaring taxes are putting visitors off coming to the UK—that is what the boss of British Airways says. Does the Minister agree?
- Hansard source
Tourism and Leisure
Oh dear, that is not an answer to the question I asked. My question was about the tax burden on the tourism sector in this country. National insurance is up, and we have new taxes on part-time work. An overnight visitor levy is in the pipeline, and there are extra taxes on air passengers and ferry passengers. This Government’s assault on the Great British holiday has been brutal. It is no wonder young people are struggling to find their first job. Will the Minister recommit to the Government’s target to have 50 million international visitors to the UK by 2030, and will she tell the Chancellor to cut the brutal tax regime in order to get us there?
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Third sitting)
I approach this with a sense of déjà vu—standing in a Committee Room in the Palace to debate a Health Bill opposite the Minister for Secondary Care, the only difference being that our sides and places have swapped over in the interim. It is a pleasure to be on this Committee opposite the now Minister. I will focus my remarks largely on clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised a number of questions about clauses 2 and 3 and their breadth, but I consider them to be necessary and consequential on clause 1, so I will focus on the points made in that clause, which sits behind them. One thing I want to address is the Minister’s question about why, in the Health and Care Act 2022, the Conservatives did not abolish NHS England. I have to say that arguments were made on both the pros and the cons, but the simplest answer is the context of that legislation. At the time, we were just emerging from a pandemic, and I wanted that legislation to retain a clear focus on my vision for the NHS: a linking of ICBs at the local level with the upper-tier local authorities, so that we could deliver social care through a permissive model, rather than a prescriptive one, allowing that local co-operation. I was also conscious that, emerging from the pandemic, there was only so much that the system could realistically bear while it was still grappling with its immediate aftermath, hence the approach we took. In reality, it cannot be disputed that, inevitably, this is a top-down, centralising reorganisation, and it was not in the manifesto. As Sarah Woolnough said in her evidence on Tuesday: “These arguments were very well rehearsed by the previous Secretary of State. He undertook personally that he would not follow this course of action, exactly because these things take longer and cost more, and because the benefit realisation case is not always clear.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 10, Q23.] On that point about centralisation, Jon Restell in his evidence said: “Obviously, some functions of NHS England moving into the Department, with powers going to the Secretary of State, feels like a centralising measure… On the whole, it is probably more of a centralising measure.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 79, Q122.] We have to recognise that this is a centralising measure, rather than any sort of devolution that provides local areas with greater autonomy. For me, there is a worrying lack of clarity at this stage in the process—around 15 months later—on the actual plan and approach. The hon. Member for Lichfield gave a very good speech that not only highlighted the local issues but drew a national read-through from those local examples, and he rightly highlighted that he did not want a protracted reorganisation. However, 15 months on—with the hare having been set running by the Prime Minister’s announcement back in March 2025— we still have protracted uncertainty on what will happen. That is having a very real impact on not only staff but the opportunity cost, through its impact on how services are actually being delivered and what the NHS is focused on. On that lack of clarity, when asked how this measure will work and whether it can save money, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund said: “I think, on the basis of the question, we do not know. Our worry has been about the opportunity cost. The Government, when in opposition, said that they would not launch wholescale reorganisation, because they understood the potential opportunity cost on time and other resources. As this has played out, taking longer than anticipated, we have had multiple examples of teams left in limbo about where they will end up in the target operating model.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 10, Q12.] Jon Restell also highlighted the impact on staff when he said, “this is becoming psychologically very difficult. You have a change programme that started in March last year with the announcement by the Prime Minister of the abolition of NHS England and the halving of the staff of NHS England and ICBs. For 18 months, that process has dragged on, with lots of design decisions still to be taken about how the organisation will look, what functions it will have, what will be going to the Department and what might be going elsewhere”.––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 80, Q125.]
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Third sitting)
The hon. Gentleman makes his point very clearly and he is absolutely right. Not only is there a lack of clarity in the legislation and in the plans for how the NHS will look, but, as was alluded to during evidence, the missing bit from the Bill, which is highly relevant, is social care. It will be deeply concerning if, when the implications of local government reorganisation emerge from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in a few weeks’ time, the two are not properly meshed together, because we will risk, yet again, a widening disconnect between the two vital parts of our health and social care system, both of which have to work well in tandem for the whole system to function. The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. He also highlights ICB budgets. I suspect hon. and right hon. Members around the country are already seeing the genuine impact of those changes to the budgets, which are actually pulling through into the frontline services that our constituents receive. I know that the Minister cares deeply about our health and social care services, and has a wealth of experience from in this place and outside it. Given the comments from our witnesses and the impact assessment, which has page after page listing the risks associated with this approach, I ask her how she will mitigate that loss of focus and that distraction, which is an inevitable human reaction when there is uncertainty. When she comes forward with the plan to merge NHS England into the Department, how will she ensure that she retains the best, most experienced staff? In any organisation where there is a change, it is often the most able and experienced who find it easiest to go to another role, by virtue of their skillset. How will she ensure that there is not a loss or drain of that expertise and knowledge? I turn to a deeply concerning element that links to the lack of clarity. The impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England is pretty much silent on the monetised costs and benefits and specific figures. The first two pages with the boxes and the summary just say “N/A” in pretty much every box on assessing the costs. If I flick through to the section headed “Monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits of each option”, I see page after page. There are lots of words but virtually no figures, and where there are figures, there is no breakdown of how they were reached, and no explanation of the degree or range of confidence in the few figures that are there. I ask the Minister whether a detailed spreadsheet of all the statistics, costs and benefits, risks, confidence levels associated with the numbers, and the phasing over years of savings and costs will be published during the Commons passage of the Bill so that Members of the House can consider it. If not in Committee, could it be published at least before Report so that we can have an informed debate? More broadly, once the Bill in whatever form is passed—I expect, given the Government’s majority, that it will be—what mechanisms will the Government put in place to ensure that when a target operating model and all the other details are available, Parliament will have an opportunity to not only debate them, but have a meaningful say, potentially with a vote, be it through delegated legislation or in the House?
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare a number of interests. I am a consultant paediatrician working in the NHS, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Like the Minister for Secondary Care, I got into politics after working in the health service. I am sure she agrees that what you see when working in the health service stays with you when working in the House, and that it benefits the House to have people who have done all different jobs working here. The NHS constitution says that health services should “improve, prevent, diagnose and treat both physical and mental health problems with equal regard”, yet in my work as a doctor—and I worked across several hospitals during my training—the gap between the vision of what should be delivered and the reality of what is being delivered has become apparent to me. The answer frequently given seems to be top-down reorganisation. As I will talk about in a minute, such top-down reorganisation has been done so many times but does not seem necessarily to have delivered in practice what it promised. Indeed, to an extent, we seem to be changing things from how they were to how they are to how they were, backwards and forwards. This Government have decided, in pursuit of better outcomes and cost savings, once again to reorganise the health service, and they seek to do so with this Bill and particularly clause 1. Clause 1 formally abolishes NHS England. The clause may have very few words, but they represent one of the biggest changes to our health service in decades. Abolishing NHS England is not just a decision about organisational structure or trimming bureaucracy, but a break with the direction of travel the health service has been on since its inception. Prior to the creation of the NHS in 1948, health services were fragmented: some people used contributory workplace schemes, people who could afford it paid out of pocket, and everyone else relied on very limited state and voluntary provision or went without. In the aftermath of the second world war, the national health service created a state monopoly provider. The Minister of Health had a duty to provide a comprehensive health service free for all at the point of use and a bureaucracy was created to manage it. There was a tripartite split between hospital services, local authority services and independent practitioner services. The hospitals provided secondary care for those with serious disease and those requiring emergency response. The NHS also took over many cottage hospitals in rural areas that had previously been run by GPs, and larger hospitals that used to be run by local authorities and the voluntary sector. At that time, hospital staff were managed by hospital management committees appointed by regional hospital boards. Those boards implemented Government policies and oversaw the budget. Meanwhile, teaching hospitals kept more independence, directed by their own boards of governors. Councils, operating as local health authorities, had a duty to provide several personal health services including health centres, maternity care, home nursing, immunisation and ambulance services—some of those are now provided by NHS England. They also had substantial powers to prevent illness and to care for the disabled. Independent practitioners—GPs, dentists, pharmacists and opticians— delivered services to local communities under contract from the health service. Now they deliver under contract from NHS England and the ICBs. The health service underwent significant reorganisation in 1974, not long before I was born. The main objective at that time was to create a unified, integrated system. Community health services previously operated by councils moved into NHS control. These functions were put under the control of new area health authorities, which took control of most NHS hospitals. Some larger area health authorities had their own distinct management teams, which managed services on the ground—we can look at the current process and ask how it is similar and how it is different. The majority of teaching hospitals lost independent governance, in the way that we, too, are seeing that go back and forth. Above the new area health authorities sat regional health authorities, which were responsible for planning and allocating financial resources. Their members were appointed by the Secretary of State. In the 1980s, Ministers recognised that the system had become very bureaucratic—perhaps similarly to today—and in 1982, area health authorities and district management committees were scrapped in favour of new district health authorities, with the aim of reducing what was in effect a three-layer structure to two layers. The thinking was that the new district health authorities would be closer to local populations, but primary care was left mostly unchanged. Once again, there are parallels with what is happening now. From its inception to the end of the 1980s, the NHS had gone through several waves of rationalisation, but the model remained that of a centrally planned public service. However, during that time, there was an intellectual change—the concept of choice. Previously, people had been happy just to get a health service, which they had not had access to before, but that changed and people wanted choice. We now see the benefits of giving patients choice, and we will hear about how the Government’s changes through the Bill will apparently improve patient choice. Of course, individuals have different values and preferences and live their lives in different ways, which makes it impossible for there to be a single public interest for the Government to pursue. Against that backdrop, the new public management approach to Government administration emerged, advocating for the introduction of market mechanisms and performance metrics—we have heard about the targets that NHS England follows—in public institutions. In theory, if elements of the state could operate more like the private sector, perhaps Ministers could achieve both cost savings and better outcomes. In 1991 the Government introduced market logic into the health service. They created an internal market by splitting the purchasers—mainly, at that time, the district health authorities—from the providers, which were the hospitals. The Secretary of State gained the power to create NHS trusts—hospitals with the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of assets; make bids for capital directly to the NHS management executive, in the way they might for NHS England; borrow money within limits; develop their own management structure; and employ their own staff with their own terms of employment. Within three years, almost all providers had become trusts. GP fundholding was established, enabling larger practices to receive budgets to buy secondary care on behalf of their patients, but that was short lived and was shelved in 1999. When new Labour came to power in the late ’90s, one might have thought that things might swing back the other way, but in some respects the trajectory was similar. Initially, the Labour Government talked critically about the internal market. In 1998 the then Health Secretary told Members that the Government were “sweeping away the internal market”—[Official Report, 1 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 314.] and the NHS plan published in 2000 claimed that “the internal market introduced competition but failed to bring improvements.” However, the policy choices of that Government furthered, rather than dismantled, the marketised aspects of the health service. They were saying one thing but, to some extent, doing another. There are similarities with this Bill: we have talked about decentralising power but, as we heard in evidence on Tuesday, many people feel it is more of a centralising Bill than a decentralising Bill. It was clear that the new public management approach had been adopted across the political divide. The NHS plan promised patients more choice about how to access the NHS—a good thing. It promised a system of inspection, accountability and far greater local autonomy. It said: “For the first time the NHS and the private sector will work more closely together not just to build new hospitals but to provide NHS patients with the operations they need.” When GP fundholding went, the Government introduced primary care groups, which meant that GPs, nurses and other staff came together to commission for local populations. Those groups then evolved into primary care trusts, which by 2002 were responsible for spending 80% of the annual NHS budget—a budget that is now distributed by NHS England.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Third sitting)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I will be grateful if the Minister clarifies at the end, because she seems to be suggesting that Lord Darzi’s report was wrong in some way. He was assessing the NHS at the same time that she was, with the experience of having been a Minister, and made the counter-suggestion. It is not just about what one does; it is about how one goes about it. As we heard on Tuesday, there is in general a plan of what is going to happen, but so many decisions have not been made yet in relation to this. In particular, one of the witnesses from the union talked about how unsettling that was for staff and how difficult it is for staff to be asked to go from the current location to a destination unknown. It is very difficult to make transformation in a direction when it is not clear where one wants to be. In March 2025, the Government announced that NHSE would be abolished. The largest healthcare union described the handling of the announcement as “shambolic”, coming only days after the announcement of a 50% cut to staffing levels at the centre. In the days and months since, Ministers have provided only some clarity about what they are trying to achieve. According to the Government, the restructure will cut red tape, save money, devolve power and improve accountability, all with a view to improving patient outcomes. Those are not new objectives; they are the same objectives that underpinned the creation of NHS England. How is it that the same objectives require dismantling the institution created to deliver them? Again, I just do not understand what has changed the Government’s mind. Let us look at cutting red tape. As a Conservative, I welcome the ambition to make the health service more efficient. My constituents do not want to pay for staff in the Minister’s Department duplicating the work of those in NHS England, particularly when thousands every day are subjected to care that could certainly be improved. On Tuesday, we heard from the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), that “the bureaucracy has got completely out of hand.”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 33, Q58.] However, that bureaucracy is not confined to NHS England and any medical practitioner will explain that bureaucracy exists across the entire health system. Can the Minister explain how the changes will improve that? Lord Darzi’s independent investigation said that, taken together, there are nearly 80 people employed in regulatory and headquarters functions for each NHS provider trust. Can the Minister say how many people will be in such roles once the abolition of NHS England is complete? Can she talk about how abolishing NHS England will review the volume of paperwork on patient safety, some of which is helpful for patient safety and some of which is not. That was identified by Dr Dash in her report. I remind Members that abolishing NHS England is not a prerequisite of undertaking a robust cost-benefit analysis before introducing changes. We have had difficulty in getting answers on numbers. We have been told that this will save money—£1 billion a year, I believe—but no sums have been produced for us to scrutinise to explain where that will come from. Indeed, when asking questions about where it might come from, it has been quite difficult to establish that. We have heard that the redundancy package will be worth £1.1 billion to £1.3 billion. It does not seem clear exactly where that will come from or how it will benefit patients. It is also not clear how many of those staff will end up re-employed by the new organisation, having received redundancy from the first, and what effect that will have on the country’s finances. More than a year on from the Government’s announcement that they will abolish NHS England, how much progress have Ministers made? In March 2025, Lord Scriven tabled a question about the legislation required to abolish NHS England. In her response, the Health Minister in the other place, Baroness Merron, wrote: “Ministers and senior Department officials will work with the new transformation team at the top of NHS England, led by Sir Jim Mackey, to determine the structure and requirements needed to support the creation of a new centre for health and care.” One year later, in March 2026, the Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, tabled a question asking what functions had been transferred over since the announcement was made. In response, the Minister for Secondary Care wrote: “Work is progressing at pace to develop the design and operating model for the new integrated organisation, and to plan for the smooth transfer of people, functions, and responsibilities.” One does not need to enlist the services of Hercule Poirot to see that, one year later, that work has not been done. The Government have no comprehensive plan for how they will abolish NHS England. They can write a line in the Bill to abolish it, but how that will happen, to which clauses 2 and 3 relate, is, as yet, really uncertain.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Third sitting)
My hon. Friend talked about how the ICBs have merged. There are lots of different types of reorganisation going on at once: the abolition of NHS England, the changes to local authorities, the introduction of mayors in some areas, and the changes and cuts to ICBs. What effect is that having in his part of the country?
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
As the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) did, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I pay tribute to him for securing it and for all his work with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. He puts an awful lot of work into it—it is not like a normal APPG—and we are all very grateful. This scandal is of such a scale that probably every MP has at least one constituent who has been infected or affected, but in my constituency it has a particular weight attached to it because East Hampshire is home to Treloar’s school and college. Treloar’s is an internationally recognised centre of excellence in which incredibly committed people provide the most remarkable level of support, care, nurture and education for children and young people with some of the most profound disabilities imaginable, but it was also the place where, in the 1970s and 1980s, there was the single biggest concentration of people who were victims of these terrible practices. The reason was that at any one time there were 40 to 50 haemophiliac patients there. It was seen as an opportunity to study the disease; the NHS haemophilia centre was established nearby, and it later moved into the school grounds. Treloar’s looms large in Sir Brian Langstaff’s report: an entire section is given over to it. It describes how research objectives were put ahead of the interests of children and how those children were subjected to unethical research techniques, without them or their parents being informed or consulted about the risks attached. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of the 122 children with haemophilia who attended the school between 1970 and 1987, only about 30 are alive now. There have been much wider effects, too: the stigma that could be attached, the interrupted education, the long-term mental scarring for the people and their families, and the trauma through families that has lasted for decades. This is a story of lost childhoods and lost futures. It has been my privilege to meet a number of the Treloar’s boys over time. There is one gentleman in particular, Adrian Goodyear, with whom I have been in contact since I was first elected in 2010; he had previously been in contact with my predecessor Michael Mates for many years. In our 2010 debate, I read out a line from one of Ade’s emails to me that haunted me then and haunts me now: “We’ve now lost so many of our friends from the Treloar days—in fact, we stopped counting at 40”. I pay tribute to Ade, to all the Treloar’s boys and to everybody in this community who has kept up the fight, for their remarkable tenacity in seeking justice in the name and memory of their friends lost. I thank the Paymaster General for his continued and consistent positive engagement on the subject. He always comes to these events in person, which I think the House really appreciates. I have a few questions that I hope he will address later in the debate. First, I have been asked specifically to raise the lack of parity between bereaved parents whose child was over 18 and those whose child was younger. I hope that the Minister can comment on that point and on whether a change may be possible. On further elements of the award, I thank the Minister for his letter in response to our exchange at Cabinet Office questions about the special category mechanism and the psychological harm payments, but I continue to receive questions from my constituents about the unethical research awards. The increase in the amount is very welcome, but in our November 2024 debate I asked how the figures had been reached, and even with the higher number I am still being asked that question. Clearly one cannot put a value on this tragic loss or say that any amount of money could compensate it, but even if the answer is that there is no way of calculating such a number, it would be helpful to have that set out. I think IBCA has tried to engage well with MPs, which is welcome, but clearly the administration of the scheme needs to accelerate. Inevitably with these processes, things move relatively well at first with the more straightforward cases, but it becomes harder when we get on to the more complex cases. As the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst says, we are talking about victims who are increasingly elderly and who, tragically, may die before they receive the compensation they have been promised.
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
My word! My hon. Friend puts it in very striking terms. [Interruption.] I see the Minister indicating that he has heard her question, so I think it is right that I defer to him to say a word about the matter when he makes his speech. As the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst and other colleagues have said, this is not the first compensation scheme that has been set up. Obviously every case is somewhat different and involves different categories of harm, but it seems that every time this happens, processes and systems have to be set up and time is thereby lost. We want lessons to be learned from this scheme, but they should also have been learned from previous schemes. I welcome the fact that the Public Accounts Committee is conducting its inquiry; I hope to hear a commitment from the Minister that lessons will be learned, particularly from that inquiry. The last thing I want to mention is the possibility of a criminal investigation. I know that you and your constituent have been involved in discussions about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that you and I have both had discussions with the police and crime commissioner for Hampshire, Donna Jones. This is clearly not a question for this Minister or any Minister—not for the Cabinet Office or the Home Office; it is about the criminal justice system, the police and whether a threshold has been met. But I want to take this opportunity through the debate, without expecting the Minister to respond directly, to say that with all the passage of time, there is a premium on knowing what will happen and if we will move in this regard. Nothing will ever or could ever make up for the multiple failings of the state in this case—from successive Governments, the civil service, the national health service and many more—but we can and must ensure that at this point, we have a compensation scheme that now does pay out in a timely way, and is as effective and humane as possible for all the victims and their families. We must face up clearly to our failings as a state and —let’s be honest—as a political system over those many years, and give truth to that phrase, “Never again”.
- Hansard source
Access to Music and Dance Training
The Secretary of State will know that the music and dance scheme supports so many talented young performers from lower-income backgrounds to access an arts education. She will also know that such specialist schools and conservatoires are now subject to VAT, because of changes brought in by her Government. In many cases, the bursaries do not even begin to cover the extreme costs, which are made up by family members, parents and everybody clubbing together to try to find the money. The VAT is still there, and it still makes a difference to whether they can afford it. What assessment has the Department made of the number of families paying VAT on the remaining fees, and how many talented young artists are now unable to attend as a result? I think I heard her right in saying that the bursaries will continue in the 2026-27 academic year, but could she please confirm that?
- Hansard source
Regional Innovation and Growth
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Government Minister. However, Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Justice Committee. Andy Slaughter will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which should be brief questions directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the Minister. Front Benchers may, of course, take part should they wish.
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
I call Clive Efford, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
I call Mims Davies.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Will the Secretary of State rule out extending the BBC licence fee to streaming services such as Netflix?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Across my constituency, from Hagley to Wythall, from Cofton Hackett to Belbroughton and in the villages in between, it feels as if there is a barrage of speculative planning applications from developers who have been emboldened by this Government. There are around 1 million long-term empty homes in England alone, which would go a long way towards helping the Government alleviate the pressure on the green belt as they seek to deliver their housing target. Can we please have a statement from the Housing Minister on the Government’s long-term empty homes strategy as soon as possible?
- Hansard source
Support for Christians in Palestine
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for not being in the Chamber earlier. The sad reality is that many Christians in the west bank and Gaza face direct challenges for forced conversion to Islam, and in the Holy Lands now there is not an attempt to increase the number of Christians and bear witness. Will the Church reach out to encourage and promote Christianity in the Holy Lands, so that we can see more Christians there, rather than fewer?
- Hansard source
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
I sat on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for 14 years. We saw the first exposé of the scandals of the grooming gangs, particularly in Rochdale and other places in the north of England. Dame Louise Casey came in front of us and made recommendations that have still not been carried out, so full power to the Minister to actually make this happen. The sad reality, as I understand it, is that police forces are resisting the collection of ethnicity data, and indeed resisting investigations into those who turned a blind eye to what was going on with the grooming gangs. Will the Minister ensure that police forces carry out their duties properly and that those who turned a blind eye to what was going on are brought to justice and suffer the consequences of not protecting vulnerable girls?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, next Thursday, in the Chamber, there will be a statement from the Work and Pensions Committee on its recent report. The Backbench Business Committee received eight high-quality bids for estimates day debates, and we had to disappoint two. As the Leader of the House announced, we have allocated three debates on each day. I make a plea to him to avoid Government statements on those two days, because the debates are well subscribed and Back Benchers will want to have their say about the estimates. The Backbench business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 23 June will be a debate on fly-tipping in residential areas and the associated impacts. On Thursday 25 June there will be a statement from the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, followed by a debate on the national lung cancer screening programme, followed by a debate on ports and port connectivity. On Tuesday 30 June there will be a debate on Government support for removing unlawful storefronts from, and regenerating, local high streets. On Thursday 2 July there will be a debate on reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke, followed by a debate on Government plans to tackle air pollution. Given my experience this morning, I was tempted to ask the Leader of the House for a statement on the performance of London Underground, but as that is a devolved responsibility to the failed Mayor of London, I have something much more joyous to relate: Sunday will be the International Day of Yoga, which has been celebrated across the world since 2015 and will be celebrated next week in Parliament. Personally, I do my yoga stretches first thing in the morning when I wake up. Yoga is now recognised by the national health service as extremely valuable to individual health, and I recommend it to everyone. May we have a statement next week, presumably from a Health Minister, on the benefits of yoga for personal health?
- Hansard source
Stoma: Public Toilet Provision
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd—I wish you a happy birthday. I welcome the Minister to her place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate on the provision of public toilets for people living with stomas, which is too often overlooked and too rarely spoken about. He began by saying that although this is not a fashionable debate, the issue needs to be aired, and he was absolutely right about that. He was also right to say that this issue is about dignity and independence, as Members from across the House have said. This debate is important for many people throughout the UK—that is evident from the personal stories that have been shared by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) described the importance of humour to deal emotionally with this difficult and embarrassing condition, including by naming stomas, which is new to me—I did not know that was a thing; every day is a school day. I have to say that my favourite from his catalogue was also Vladimir Poopin, but maybe that reflects our politics more than anything else. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions throughout the debate, particularly in highlighting the human reality of living with a stoma. Around 200,000 people in the UK live with a stoma following surgery for bowel cancer, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis and many other conditions. I do hope that I have pronounced those correctly—there is a reason I am not a medic. On average, in a constituency such as Mid Bedfordshire, around 200 to 250 people are likely to be living with a stoma. With an ageing population and increasing diagnoses of bowel conditions, this need will grow, not diminish, over time. For those people, a toilet is not a convenience but a necessity, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), said. A stoma bag must be emptied or changed at the moment it is needed. There is quite literally no waiting when it is required. Yet the facilities that most people with a stoma rely on—standard accessible toilets—are frequently not fit for purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde eloquently described. Too often, there is no shelf on which to lay out medical supplies, no hook for clothing or a bag, no mirror to help someone change safely, no basin within reach and nowhere hygienic to dispose of used products. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for highlighting the “Boys Need Bins” campaign, which is an absolutely fantastic campaign that we should all get behind. At present, provision depends on good will rather than on standards, which leaves a postcode lottery for something as basic as using a toilet. The result is people changing stoma bags balanced on their knees or on dirty floors. Someone with a stoma often must plan their entire day around whether a usable toilet exists. I come from a rural constituency and acknowledge what a challenge that must be on days out in the countryside. There is a second barrier, which is one of attitude. A stoma is, in the main, an invisible disability, as hon. Members have said. Many people with a stoma or inflammatory bowel disease report being challenged or even abused for using an accessible toilet, or accused of being “not disabled enough” because they do not use a wheelchair. Simple signage and staff awareness can prevent the confrontations that many people with invisible conditions face. Those attitudes are a stain on us, and it is precisely why Crohn’s & Colitis UK’s “Not every disability is visible” campaign and Colostomy UK’s Stoma Aware work matter so much. I am proud that the last Conservative Government understood that dignity in this area is a duty of the state, not an optional extra. When he was Local Government Minister, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), led the drive to expand Changing Places toilets, with larger facilities with benches, hoists and space for carers, which the most severely disabled people need. He set in motion the change to building regulations that, from 2021, made Changing Places mandatory in large new public buildings in England, including shopping centres, stadiums and arts venues. That was backed by a £2 million fund to install them in more than 100 NHS hospitals, further investment in motorway service stations and funding for a national online map so that families could find them more easily. The public sector could lead by example across councils, hospitals and transport networks. The number of Changing Places has risen from 140 in 2007 to around 1,200. That is a record of practical, compassionate action and I pay tribute to the programme, but—I say this candidly—Changing Places, vital as they are, are designed for the most profoundly disabled. Most people with a stoma are fully mobile. The solutions that they need are cheaper: the simple stoma-friendly standard of a shelf, a hook, a mirror and a bin in ordinary accessible toilets. Some retailers—B&Q was mentioned, but I am sure there are others—have shown that it can be done across an entire estate at a modest cost. The additions required often cost less than a few hundred pounds per facility. This is not major capital infrastructure work; it is a small retrofit that has a huge impact on people’s dignity. The building blocks exist; what is missing is national leadership to join them up. When people cannot rely on basic facilities, they withdraw —from work, from shopping and from social life. That is not just a personal loss; there are wider economic impacts, too. Constituents in Mid Bedfordshire have told me that living with these life-changing conditions can be exhausting, isolating and unpredictable. The hidden nature of their symptoms means that they are often invisible to other people, but they deeply impact the daily lives of the people who have them. It is an honour to represent those people at the Opposition Dispatch Box in such a good debate, in which there is cross-party consensus. I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, what are the Government considering doing to make places more stoma-friendly? Secondly, what meetings have Ministers had with Colostomy UK and Crohn’s & Colitis UK to discuss options? Thirdly, what consideration are the Government giving to local government facilities, recognising the interesting proposal from the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, for a statutory duty? This is not a party political issue; it is about whether someone can leave their home with confidence. The previous Government opened the door with Changing Places. I urge this Government to walk through it, finish the job and support people with stomas.
- Hansard source
Tourism and Leisure
8. What steps her Department is taking to help support the tourism and leisure sectors.
- Hansard source
Tourism and Leisure
Tourism is vital to Chester South and Eddisbury’s economy. From Snugburys and the Ice Cream Farm to BeWILDerwood and Beeston castle, we are fortunate to have fantastic attractions, and I encourage the Minister to visit them. But as one business told me following the Government’s summer savings announcement: “It feels a bit like having £100 taken off you, then being given £30 back and being expected to be grateful”. The scheme is a drop in the ocean compared with the costs imposed by this Government’s damaging policies. Will the Minister tell those businesses what more she is doing to support the sector, not just for the summer but for the long term?
- Hansard source
Human Rights: Supply Chains
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I join other Members in thanking you for chairing this debate. Also, if your Wikipedia page is correct, may I be the first to wish you a very happy birthday for Saturday? I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate and to Members from across the House for the thoughtful and serious way they have approached it. The hon. Gentleman really brought to life the way that globally sourced products are infiltrating every part of our daily lives, and I thank him for that. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for sharing the benefit of his many years working on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West); they all brought different perspectives, for which I am grateful. There have been differences in opinion this afternoon about the causes of the problem, the strength of the enforcement required and the precise tools the Government should use, but there should be no disagreement on one central point: goods produced through forced labour, modern slavery or serious human rights abuses have no place in UK supply chains. The question is whether the Government are prepared to deliver serious enforcement, potentially with the support of new technologies and businesses such as Oritain; or whether they will simply pile fresh cost and complexity on to responsible British businesses while the worst offenders continue to evade accountability. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was right to highlight the fact that goods produced wholly or partly through forced labour are being sold in this country. It is also correct that the current framework has not been enforced strongly or consistently enough to stop that happening. The overwhelming majority of firms—responsible retailers, manufacturers, importers and investors—want to do the right thing. They invest time, money and effort into understanding their supply chains and meeting their responsibilities. They should not find themselves being undercut and placed at a competitive disadvantage by organisations willing to look the other way, nor should they be buried under layers of poorly designed and duplicative new obligations, which create cost and complexity without improving outcomes or catching the individuals who break the law. The Modern Slavery Act, which was introduced by Baroness May of Maidenhead when she was Home Secretary, was a landmark piece of legislation and placed the issue of modern slavery firmly on the national agenda. It was also Conservative Governments that imposed sanctions on those responsible for the persecution of Uyghurs, strengthened export controls, and introduced tougher penalties for businesses that fail to meet their obligations. Those achievements should not be diminished, but equally we should not pretend that enforcement cannot be strengthened. We support enforcing the laws that we already have. The first test for the Minister is whether she is prepared to make the existing framework bite on the bad actors. The task for the Government is to strike the right balance between being strong where enforcement is needed, being clear where expectations must be met, being proportionate where businesses are already acting responsibly, and being practical enough to work in the real world. Public procurement—I include in that Great British Energy, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green—has an important role to play in this effort. Government must lead the way. Taxpayers rightly expect that public money is not rewarding forced labour, serious exploitation or suppliers whose conduct falls far below the legally prescribed standards. The challenge is making that principle work in practice, with rules that are clear, usable and targeted at those who break them. The risks exist across apparel, food and manufacturing, and they exist in sectors that are becoming increasingly important to our future economic and national security. Global supply chains were once viewed mainly through the lens of cost and efficiency; the assumption was that they would deliver cheaper goods and greater prosperity. We now understand that they can also create strategic vulnerabilities when too much control is concentrated in too few hands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has been particularly persistent in drawing attention to concerns around Xinjiang, polysilicon and critical minerals. He is right to do so. Growth and trade must never come at the price of our values, and pursuit of warmer relations with Beijing must not mean going soft on human rights or turning a blind eye to slave-made goods entering our market. If our standards apply only when the politics are convenient for them to apply, then they are not really standards at all. The framework must address risk wherever it appears, it must apply consistently, it must be based on evidence, and it must be enforced fairly. The Minister has heard the points raised in this debate and no doubt she will address them directly. After the Government’s jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act and a surge of new regulation, businesses are entitled to ask whether labour supply chain plans will be properly thought through and will address their actual needs. I have some straightforward questions for the Minister. When will the Government’s review of responsible business conduct conclude? What steps does she intend to take to strengthen enforcement? How will she improve traceability in high-risk and newly emerging sectors? How will she protect legitimate businesses from unnecessary burdens while ensuring that bad actors and the worst offenders face meaningful consequences? What lessons has she drawn from allies, including the United States, the European Union and others, about what works in practice? How will she ensure that the United Kingdom remains a leader, rather than a follower, in confronting modern slavery and forced labour? Warm words, statements and reviews on their own will not solve this problem. The Modern Slavery Act was a significant Conservative achievement, and we are rightly proud of it. The challenge now is to ensure it is enforced as seriously, practically and effectively as possible. That is the standard that Parliament should expect, and it is the standard against which we will judge the Government’s response.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
This week, we have been discussing civility in public life, yet almost a year ago, I formally reported Rutland Councillor Mark Chatfield to the Liberal Democrats for a year’s worth of offensive social media posts, including, I am sorry to say, a racist post against my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), comparing him to different shades of toast. He has also attacked local journalists, calling for them to be named and shamed, and uses phrases such as “beet-faced Tory expletive” on his social media. What do we do when we go through the formal processes that political parties have put in place but they refuse to do anything at all when their councillors are clearly bringing their parties into such disrepute?
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
The hon. Gentleman has set the point out very powerfully. It is distressing for any of us in this House, and particularly for those of us who cannot imagine our children being put through that in such a callous way. In addition to the questions around compensation, one of the most horrendous things is the additional burden being put on parents where they have to prove, with documented evidence, that they lived with their child 40 or 50 years ago when that was done to their baby, to the future of their family. Will the hon. Gentleman touch on how outrageous it is that that is required, and the additional heartache and burden that that puts on those families?
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and to the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this debate. It is very difficult for any of us to contain our unadulterated rage at what happened. My constituent lost her mother to infected blood. Unfortunately, her father is now in his final days, and soon she will lose him as well. He received compensation, and of course there was no inheritance tax on it then, but as his child she knows that the Government will be putting inheritance tax on that money when it passes to her in a very short time. Will my right hon. Friend give his view, which I am sure will be heard on the Government Front Bench, on how we are to ensure that when that compensation passes down from a father who lost his wife to a daughter who lost her mother, it does not incur inheritance tax?
- Watch on YouTube
Meet Jo Hart | Parliamentary Candidate for Aberdeen South.
Jo Hart will stand up for her electorate just as she did as a nurse in healthcare. Vote Jo Hart for Aberdeen South on June 18th.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q11. Thames Water’s headquarters are local to my town of Reading, but it is their distant creditors who are really in charge. Investors should be rewarded for success, but they should pay for their failures. That is why I strongly welcome the Government’s objections to the current creditors deal. Under any deal or special administration regime, the company will be restructured, but the question is whether that restructuring will be done only in the interests of senior creditors, or with customers and the environment in mind. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whose side he is on?
- Hansard source
Steel Tariffs
UK steel sector voices and Cabinet officials met to back procurement of British-made steel at Tata Steelpark in Wednesfield, rather than in offices in Whitehall, which I welcome. I also met Walsall Wheelbarrow, a family-owned business started by Fred Thacker in 1939. It is the only UK manufacturer of wheelbarrows left in the UK. Will the Minister look at ensuring that imported steel that cannot be made in the UK remains tariff-free?
- Hansard source
High Street Shops: Illicit Activity
I certainly hear the same thing in Mansfield. Residents raise concerns with me when they see businesses that seem to operate without customers but somehow remain open and trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that, where there is evidence of that type of activity, the public are right to expect rapid enforcement of the law?
- Hansard source
National Security (State Threats) Bill (Allocation of Time)
I will be brief in my remarks. I regret the approach taken by the official Opposition. They know full well that this is a very tightly constructed Bill that takes forward a specific set of recommendations made by the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation. It will be fully scrutinised by this House and the other place. The reason for moving quickly, as the hon. Lady well knows, is because we need the wider power to designate bodies, which we will debate in due course, so that we can move quickly, given the threats the country faces. The need for speed, I believe, is made by recent events, and I think the Government are doing the right thing. I ask her to think again. Of course, if we must divide then so be it, but I would have expected better from someone with her experience.
- Hansard source
National Security (State Threats) Bill (Allocation of Time)
I will not give way, given the time.
- Hansard source
National Security (State Threats) Bill
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The first responsibility of a state is to protect its citizens. The security of our nation is the basis upon which our democracy, our prosperity and our way of life depend. If a state cannot guarantee the safety of its people, every other promise it makes rings hollow. Today we debate a relatively short Bill, but its brevity should not be mistaken for unimportance; it is essential to meeting the sacred responsibility of protecting this country and our fellow citizens. This Bill comes at a time when the need is great. We live in an increasingly dangerous world—one in which many of our old assumptions no longer hold. The boundaries between war and peace have blurred; the tactics employed by hostile actors have become more sophisticated, more deniable and more insidious; and the threat has grown in scale. The director general of MI5 recently revealed that the number of individuals under investigation for state threat activity had grown by more than a third in the space of a year. After many years in which the Security Service was focused overwhelmingly on counter-terror work, it must now also respond to threats from foreign powers that are greater in number than at any time in a generation. The nature of the threats posed by foreign powers will be known by many in this House. We have seen physical threats against individuals and property; we have witnessed attempts to interfere in and influence our democracy; and we have experienced cyber-attacks targeting both the state and the private sector that disrupt critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive data. The source of these state threats has come predominantly, although not exclusively, from three countries: Russia, China and Iran. I should emphasise that the threats from each present differently, both in scope and nature, and I will take each in turn. The Russian state, as we know all too well, is responsible for deaths on British soil. What began with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was repeated in Salisbury with the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal. The Russian state’s wanton disregard for human life was evident in the risks it was happy to pose to British citizens, which led, tragically, to the death of Dawn Sturgess—an innocent British woman killed by the Russian state. Putin’s Russia has also sought to influence our politics, as demonstrated by the guilty plea by Nathan Gill, Reform UK’s former leader in Wales, who accepted bribes for peddling pro-Kremlin narratives. Russia is also a prolific and malevolent force in cyber-space. A recent targeting of politicians, journalists, universities and civil society organisations was disrupted by our security services in December 2025, resulting in the sanctioning of eight Russian cyber-intelligence officers. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, our approach to China is nuanced: we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. There are areas on which we will engage with China, including the economy, the environment and, indeed, on certain shared security challenges. Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all. However, national security is the first duty of Government, and China does pose real national security threats to the United Kingdom. We have seen cyber-attacks, foreign interference, and espionage targeted at our institutions. Just days ago, MI5 and fellow Five Eyes members issued an alert warning of the threat posed by China’s military intelligence services. The Hong Kong police force has also encouraged transnational repression on our soil against a community to whom we are proud to have given sanctuary.
- Hansard source
National Security (State Threats) Bill
Both the National Security Act 2023 and the measures we are debating today will ensure that we have the strongest suite of measures available to us to take action against those who come after people on our soil, including dissidents from other regimes and people to whom we have given sanctuary. Transnational repression will be caught by the measures in this Bill.
- Hansard source
National Security (State Threats) Bill
Let me first associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the excellent work and service of all those in our United Kingdom intelligence community, wherever they serve, and indeed all those who serve and put their lives at risk in order to keep the rest of us safe. I also pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the Intelligence and Security Committee—one of Parliament’s most august Committees—to provide vital scrutiny of our legal frameworks in this important area. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, personally, as someone who signs warrants every day that are subject to both Secretary of State decision and judicial decision, I think that we have a legal framework that is sufficiently robust to provide oversight, without getting into the operational choices that must be made. Of course, these matters are always kept under review, and I take that review process seriously. If there are proposals that he wishes to make, I would be happy to discuss them with him.
- Hansard source
National Security (State Threats) Bill
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s construction of proposed new section 33G, but I am sure that we can pick up that point in Committee, when we do line-by-line scrutiny. The Bill is intended to be read alongside all our other pieces of international and human rights legislation, and the Bill is compliant with our domestic and international human rights obligations.
