5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I would like to explore what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube—the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) may be able to indicate this in her intervention, because I know she was involved—because there has been hardly any focus on that in the mayor’s strategy.
I will specifically address that point, but I will use one further example before I do. The same approach as the ULEZ has been applied to the Bradford district, in which my constituency sits. A clean air zone has been rolled out in Bradford, but it is a strategy that is again taxing motorists and some of the hardest-working people in our communities—including some of the most deprived communities, who are simply not able to afford the levels of tax imposed on them. Of course there are other ways of doing it, but before I come on to them I want to address the fact that if a resident or someone with a business on the outskirts of Bradford wants to travel into Bradford in a light goods vehicle, it now costs them £9 a day. That has a detrimental impact on business growth. It costs a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver £50 a day to take their vehicle into Bradford. That is also having a huge detrimental impact. Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised. Of that, £9.8 million was raised through entry fees but £16.4 million was raised through penalty charge notices, the vast majority of which were for people who could not afford to pay, and who therefore had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them. My point is that we cannot simply have a strategy that charges people if we want complete buy-in. That is why I use the example of the roll-out in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be, because when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester he opposed a chargeable clean air zone tax across Greater Manchester. Indeed, at the time, all five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also heavily lobbied the Government for a non-charging approach to be adopted. Such an approach was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment in electrification, upgrade grants and traffic control measures. Those were all rolled out in Manchester—approved by the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield—and they had buy-in at the local level. I would therefore simply say in response to the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow that there are other ways of doing it, rather than simply having a taxing approach. Will the Minister outline whether he has had discussions with the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is likely to become the Prime Minister, about what the future clean air zone strategy will be under the new Administration? Will the Minister also outline the cost to the taxpayer of all the infrastructure that was put in place but not used for the roll-out of that clean air zone—a tax to the motorist—across the Greater Manchester area? It is therefore vital that when we consider how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the Government work across Departments to ensure that there are no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed on our rural communities. I absolutely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent West: we cannot have a siloed approach across Government. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within DEFRA but will instead take a co-ordinated approach across Government. Communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality. We must do much more, with buy-in from businesses and residents, and only if it is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads and elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Those are not abstract narratives; they are everyday realities for millions of people. We must, therefore, work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air. To have a clean air strategy, we have to have buy-in from all and not just use a one-size-fits-all approach by taxing those in our communities who are most deprived. They are the ones who need to benefit from the clean air zone strategy because of where they live.
Back in 2022, the Keighley Cougars were awarded over £2 million to replace the Danny Jones stand, which is in dire need of repair, but Bradford council has still not made a decision on releasing this money, despite it having been awarded to the team. Can we have a debate in this place about how we unlock this money, which had been allocated through the Keighley towns fund, so that we can get these projects underway for the benefit of my residents in Keighley?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her opening remarks, and on the work her Committee has done to produce its report. It was an exceptional read—I thank her and her Committee. I am seeing increasing numbers of cases where leaseholders experience a range of problems, including high service and administration charges, a lack of transparency, overcharging, disproportionate costs to extend leases or buy freeholds, poor actions by managing agents, a slow and costly sales process, and imbalanced dispute mechanisms with leaseholders potentially liable for the freeholder’s legal costs. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the retirement village up in Ben Rhydding in my constituency. For the past year, I have been working with the Clevedon owners group, who have experienced real-life examples of how the current leasehold framework governing the integrated retirement sector falls well short of the standard that should be expected. The Clevedon owners group is made up of a group of leaseholders at the Audley Clevedon retirement village in Ben Rhydding. They have experienced repeated failures by their landlord to fulfil some of the most fundamental obligations contained within their leases, while the landlord continues to collect substantial service charges. The owners group estimates that the Audley Group collects approximately £30 million of annual service charges a year across its whole estate, with £3.5 million of deferred service charges, yet its residences are falling into disrepair and the freeholder is not updating its commitments or undertaking its responsibilities. The owners group has highlighted to me that its biggest concern is around the legal definition of the service charge and, crucially, whether certain mandatory payments in retirement leases fall within the statutory definition of a service charge under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The experiences of those residents in the Audley retirement village demonstrate exactly why this seemingly technical issue has profound and real consequences. Leaseholders have paid substantial monthly management charges and deferred management charges on the understanding that the funds would maintain their homes, safeguard communal facilities and ensure the long-term sustainability of their residential community. It is clear from the meetings that I have had with my constituents that that simply is not the case. Instead, their properties have gone unserviced, which presents serious questions about how the annual service charge and those funds are being used. Following years of expansion, heavy borrowing and financial difficulties, maintenance across the Audley Clevedon retirement village has reportedly declined significantly, despite leaseholders continuing to pay increased service charges. That needs to change, and I respect some of the recommendations in the report on that point. Does the Minister have any intention of commissioning an independent forensic audit of major retirement community operators to examine corporate governance, financial arrangements, service charge accounting, deferred management charges and compliance with lease obligations? Can he confirm that leaseholders in retirement housing, including integrated retirement communities, will not be excluded from the protections of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024? The current legal framework has failed to keep pace with increasingly complex corporate structures. If confidence in retirement housing is to be restored, residents must be given the protection, transparency and accountability that they rightly expect.
Minister Pennycook has agreed to give a short speech to accommodate the next debate.
Order. This debate has to conclude at 5 pm. For me to accommodate all Back Benchers, there will be a speaking limit of two minutes.
I now call the shadow Minister—I believe it is his first time. Congratulations and welcome, shadow Minister.
Order. Minister, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve, but the best colleges are in my constituency of Sussex Weald.
The Government’s impact assessment puts the costs of the Employment Rights Act at up to £5 billion, which will hit small and medium-sized businesses since they lack the human resources teams and the expertise to absorb the additional burdens. What advice does the Minister give to small and medium-sized businesses in my Mid Leicestershire constituency on how they should deal with that?
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate about preventing premature death from heart disease and stroke. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) on securing the debate and introducing it so ably. It is courageous of him to talk about the medical challenges that he has faced, and I am sure that the whole House wishes him the very best of luck on his journey. It is also nice to be with him in Westminster Hall, having spent five months debating with him in the Armed Forces Bill Committee. Stockholm syndrome kicked in, and we even started to like each other by the end, so it is doubly pleasurable to follow him in this debate. It is great to see the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—a man I have always respected—in his place, and to see the Minister, whom I also respect. I have bumped into her in the Portcullis House lifts many times down the years, and it is wonderful to see her in a ministerial position. I wish to declare two interests. First, I am a long-time supporter of the British Heart Foundation, which does great work to research heart disease and improve the technology and techniques to combat what is still, I am sad to say, one of Britain’s greatest killers. I pay tribute to that wonderful charity. I also wish to pay tribute to my wife Olivia, who has worked in the NHS for some two decades now, and who revels in the title of lead neurointerventional radiographer. That is a bit of a mouthful, but if someone has a stroke, she is the girl they need. I say that because she works in the specialist neurointerventional radiography department at Queen’s hospital in east London. As the Minister will no doubt know, there are 26 specialist units around the country, and her team at Queen’s is very ably led by Mr Tufail Patankar, an internationally recognised surgeon and an absolute expert in his field. He has built up that team over time at Queen’s, and, from what I hear, he leads it very well indeed. The technique that the team uses is called mechanical thrombectomy. It is an emergency procedure for treating acute-onset stroke caused by a blood clot blocking a large artery in the brain—that is effectively what a stroke is. During the procedure, the interventionist neuroradiologist —the surgeon—passes a thin tube through an artery. It usually enters the body through either the groin or the wrist, goes up into the brain, finds the blocked blood vessel and then extracts the clot, which can sometimes be a couple of millimetres long—not an easy target to find. When it is withdrawn, blood flow is restored to the affected area of the brain, helping to reduce permanent disability, particularly if the procedure is performed quickly. The department has a mnemonic: “Time means brain”—the quicker the operation can be performed, the more damage is averted and the greater the likelihood of recovery without complications. This was, admittedly, an exceptional case, but the team performed one of those operations on a man in his 20s within 90 minutes of the stroke occurring. He lived locally, and he basically walked out of the hospital a few hours after the stroke none the worse. That is what that relatively new technique can achieve. As the radiographer, my wife guides the surgeon to the target. I call her the “bomb-aimer”. Last year, Queen’s had a “bring your hubby to work” day, and I was taken to work. The hospital has two operating theatres back to back, with an observation area in the middle, so we could stand there and watch the operation taking place on a large screen. We could see the instrument going up into the brain towards the clot, at which point it attached itself to the clot and withdrew it. I have to say that it was not for the faint-hearted; I was there with the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and we stuck it out and saw the whole thing. It is a very odd procedure to watch, because the patient is lying anaesthetised on the operating table. One would think that all the activity happens around their head, but it does not. The surgeon stands by their groin, where they have gone in, and then uses a very fine guiding device—almost like a gaming console—to control the instrument, taking their lead from the image on the screen that is provided by my wife, the bomb aimer. That is how it works. Last year, the department at Queen’s performed something like 300 of those operations. It operates 24/7, so over the weekend the staff are on a cover rota, or on call, as they say in the NHS. If my wife is at home and the bat-phone—as I call it—goes, she has an hour to get from our home to Queen’s, get scrubbed up, fire up all the equipment and be ready to receive the patients, some of whom may be coming from as far as Norwich and some of whom arrive by air ambulance. When the bat-phone goes, there is no time to grab a cup of tea and a slice of toast; she is in the car and gone. Can I just say that the sooner they finally sort out the chronic mess at Gallows Corner, the quicker and easier that journey will become? But I digress. There are only 25 hospitals in the country that perform the procedure. The reach of the department covers Essex and goes out some way into East Anglia, at which point it hands over to Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge. The department also has friendly rivals who do the procedure at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, which tends to cover Kent and south London, but that is on a rota. When the Royal London is off for a given week and Queen’s covers all the areas, it is responsible for a potential patient population of over 5 million. That is a tremendous responsibility, which is why we obviously need to have 24/7 cover. The service is also growing. Anecdotally, I can say that the bat phone rings more than it used to. On one level that is a good thing, because the technology is advancing all the time and patients can now be treated who could not have been treated a few years ago. However, that obviously puts pressure on Olivia, Dr Patankar and the team. I will make a plea to the Minister, if I may. I understand that the Government are evolving their strategy for stroke, as part of the 10-year plan for the NHS. Olivia and her team are keen to see that work evolve, but they are particularly keen to know what role there is for mechanical thrombectomy in the overall strategy. I have literally seen it at work for myself. It is a wonderful, lifesaving technology and technique that the NHS has been doing for barely a decade, and we are getting better and better at it all the time. I pay tribute to the team at Queen’s, as well as all the other teams that do this work around the country, including, for the record, at the Royal London. Most of all—I hope the House will forgive my indulgence—I pay tribute to my wife. Being a Member of Parliament can sometimes be a time commitment, but being the husband of a woman who does this work can be a bit of a time commitment, too. Sometimes, when we are making plans to see people or go to dinner parties, I am not the long pole in the tent. I am very proud of what she does, I am very proud of what her team do, I am very proud of what all the people who work at Queen’s do and I am very proud of the national health service. For the record, I am also proud of the stroke unit at Southend hospital, which provides a very good service, although it does not do mechanical thrombectomy; it defers to Queen’s on that. Well done to everyone who works in this area. I thank the House for its patience and indulgence. God bless all the people who work to save lives from stroke.
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, not least as he is being so kind to me, but for the record it is my wife’s bat-phone, not mine.
For many years, stroke units have had access to thrombolysis—or “the shot”, as it is known in the trade. However, that is a very rough way of doing it, and it can have side effects and impede a patient’s recovery. Mechanical thrombectomy is a far more accurate way of solving a stroke problem, and with far less risk of subsequent side effects. That is why we are so keen to see its use grow, and I second my right hon. Friend’s request to the Minister.
I am sure that the potential new Prime Minister will have noted very carefully the commitment of the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who mentioned that he lost 4 lbs during the by-election; I have a pound coin, and I am happy to make it up to a round fiver to help him get his money back, if that helps.
Yes—don’t tell my wife! I thank the Minister very much for what she says about Olivia, her colleagues and all the others who work in the NHS in that field. I will chance my arm and say that they are based about an hour from London; if ever the Minister had time to pop along and see what they do in person, I think she would be both very welcome and incredibly impressed.
7. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support the creation of jobs for young people.
I recently met people from Mission Employable, an incredible charity based in Chorleywood, which offers supported internships for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It was deeply concerning to hear that in England only 6% of adults with learning disabilities are in paid work. Will the Secretary of State outline how he is working with other Departments to ensure that the youth jobs grant does not disincentive employers in hiring people from supported internship backgrounds who are not claiming universal credit?
Micklefield Hall in Sarratt is a great example of a small business that has survived covid, only to be repeatedly hit by this Labour Government. Its representatives have contacted me to say that they are keen to borrow money for long-term investment, but fearful of yet more taxes on business. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to small businesses that want to invest for future growth, such as Micklefield Hall?
The Chairman of the Committee sends his apologies, Mr Speaker. In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, the Committee has agreed two Select Committee statements: one next Thursday from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and one the following Thursday from the Work and Pensions Committee. In addition, in Westminster Hall next week, there will be debates on UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends and on the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people. On Thursday, there will be a debate on Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. The following week, there will be debates on isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities, on the impact of the national planning policy framework changes and on capital funding for Changing Places. I urge Members to take part in the Sir David Amess debate, which the Leader of the House mentioned. It is an opportunity to raise any constituency matters and perhaps to avoid having to come to the Backbench Business Committee, where we have to find more time for those debates. In addition, will the Leader of the House give the Committee early notice of debating time in September, particularly if it is on the first day back? Moving on to my own question, I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware of the long-running campaign by the National Association of Retired Police Officers in respect of the injustice to widows and widowers, who can be deprived of their pension if they remarry. I have raised the matter in the House previously. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister to come here and outline the Government’s plans? I know that would please many of my constituents and others across the country.
I commend the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate, and for her continued strong and effective leadership of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I have spoken several times in this House about the problems with the current leasehold and property management system, more recently from the Opposition Front Bench. Like so many of my constituents and people across the country, I am a leaseholder and I know at first hand the horrific situation they face. However, in today’s debate I would like to focus on property management companies, which are bringing misery to the lives of both leaseholders and those living on freehold estates in so-called fleecehold properties. Apart from the law as it currently stands, it is the poor performance and, quite frankly, the total incompetence of companies such as the Residential Management Group and FirstPort that are at the root of so many of the issues facing leaseholders across the country. Since my election, I have not come across one property management company that residents are happy with. Whether it is High Leigh in Hoddesdon, Academia Avenue, Robinia Road and Watery Lane in Turnford, Aldermere Avenue and Magnolia Way in Flamstead End, or Eleanor House in Waltham Cross, it is hard to think of one part of Broxbourne that is not affected. The Minister, with whom I get on well, has promised to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, but how much longer will my constituents have to wait? His Department has already held a consultation on measures to help leaseholders challenge unfair fees and charges, and introduce qualifications for managing agents. In fact, the consultation opened nearly one year ago and closed in September 2025, and the Government are still analysing the feedback. That is what the people out there get fed up with. The Leasehold and Freehold Act 2024 is on the statute book and the present Government clearly want stronger regulation of managing agents, as that is what they have told this House, so why the delay? We need to get this sorted. I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward a Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and allowed my Committee to scrutinise it in its draft form. That is a positive sign that the Government want to get the right legislation in place for our constituents, but I feel they should commit to giving more powers to the Department, so that Ministers can hold managing agents to account, specifically with enforcement powers. Managing agents that break the rules should be fined, and ultimately stripped of their licence to operate. This means that management companies would have to start to care about the interests of the residents they are supposed to look out for. In my constituency of Broxbourne, we have had to put up with poor service charges and increasing bills for years. Residents have nowhere to turn when something goes wrong. They feel that managing agents have all the power. I know the Minister wants to change that, and I hope he will reflect carefully on what has been said across the House. I urge the Government to get a move on, and solve this issue for millions of people across the United Kingdom.
15. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of employment costs on levels of business recruitment.
The Employment Rights Act, the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are all making it difficult for employers to keep taking on new employees, or even to keep them at all. What advice does the Minister have for small business owners in Beaconsfield and Marlow having to make the difficult decision to either cut jobs or close their businesses thanks to this Government?
11. What assessment he has made of trends in employment levels in the hospitality sector.
I thank the Minister for her answer and the positive news about the sector apprenticeships. Hospitality is critical in Salisbury as we move towards our 800-year celebration next year, but last summer there was a 25% drop in temporary work in the sector, and the cost of employer national insurance contributions for part-time workers in the sector—those working 15 hours—increased by 73%. I say respectfully to the Minister that I recognise that tough decisions have to be made in the Treasury; I was there for seven years, and was part of those decisions. However, this sector is under real strain, and part-time jobs for the youngest workers are not there at the moment. Something quite significant needs to change in the Government’s approach.
I welcome the appointment of Parminder Kohli as the chief executive officer of the Office for Investment. He is a personal friend of mine, and he will bring 30 years of experience in the oil industry. Will the Secretary of State set out what measures of success Parminder will face, so we can judge what impact the Office for Investment makes and what role he will play?
In Salisbury, we welcome zero emission buses, and the previous Conservative Administration worked with the ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional area—scheme to deliver 30 new buses. Last week, when I met Ed Wills, the new managing director of Salisbury Reds, we discussed a number of matters, including acoustic measures to mitigate the noise from those buses, but the challenge is that Chinese-manufactured buses are cheaper, and offer greater battery range. The Government need to make a decision about the next round of the ZEBRA scheme. Could the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement on this, so that local authorities around the country, including those in Wiltshire, can determine the best way to expand provision?
16. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support the creation of jobs for young people.
While still at school, I played my part in the creative industries by playing in bands with names as louche as Street Lethal and Cheap Sweeties. It was very lucrative.
I’ve got it! In the modern era, that all important first job is increasingly hard to find because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the massive 330-page Employment Rights Act 2025. Will the Secretary of State go to the new northern powerhouse Cabinet and impress upon the Chancellor the need to save our summer jobs and cut the burden on industry?
Does my hon. Friend agree that reporting between urban and rural, which runs through these amendments, is particularly useful? Many of the solutions put forward throughout this Bill involve mayoral areas or authorities, which of course do not currently exist in many rural areas, and in some may never exist.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I wish to speak on this aspect of the single patient record. Although I support the general intention and aim of the single patient record, I have some wider concerns about how it will be implemented. I will restrict my remarks to the issues related to this group of amendments, and particularly amendment 49 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Plainly, most people—I would probably include myself in this—are not immediately familiar with all the ins and outs of how their medical records are kept and used, and why should they be? However, they have some pretty clear views on what they expect, whether that is confidentiality or their records being used and stored in such a way that does not inadvertently act as a barrier to accessing healthcare in an efficient and timely way. That is why the Government have introduced these proposals, which I mainly support.
Plainly, there is already scope for this to happen and sadly patient records are wrongly accessed, either inadvertently through mistake or deliberately in bad faith. However, from a technological and design point of view, the single patient record inevitably makes that easier and more likely, whether through mistakes or deliberate acts. That is just one of the many considerations and downsides of a single patient record that is otherwise beneficial. It is incumbent on the Government to do what they can to mitigate against those inevitable structural problems that the record will produce, and amendment 48 is an entirely sensible way of achieving that. I am always slightly reluctant to use analogies from other sectors, because plainly there are differences, but in my former life as a family law solicitor, even within a small private law firm, there were structures in place to ensure that only people who needed to access data could do so, and much of it was arguably less sensitive than patient records. That was the case in a small firm, and because we have a national system of healthcare in this country, which is a good one, the scale of fallout and harm that could arise from such mistakes or deliberate acts is so much greater. I urge the Government not to see the amendment as seeking to undermine their overall plans, but as a means of strengthening them.
The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. A single patient record is not the same thing as mandating that 450 record-keeping systems become one. In fact, the single patient record will work as a theory on paper only if there is interoperability between different databases. That is a massive challenge that is not dealt with here. It cannot be dealt with here, in the real world, and the single patient record will not be realised until it is dealt with, which could take years. Does the hon. Member have a reflection on that point?
I will pick up where the hon. Member for Lichfield left off. I make it clear that a single patient record is not a single electronic record-keeping system. Also, the single patient record is a theory, and it will remain a theory long after this legislation has been passed, as I am sure it will be, unless and until the electronic record-keeping databases and software in this country are able to speak to each other. I have experience of working for a national nursing charity, and my role specifically dealt with the legal and governance issues of trying to embed community nurses in different settings. However, that work was beset by the problem of different databases—different electronic record-keeping systems—that did not speak to each other. Even those systems that were supposed to speak to each other did not do so. As the hon. Member for Lichfield said, sometimes there can be dozens, even hundreds, within even one NHS trust. That should not be a problem today, but it is, and the Bill will get us no further on the technicalities and the technology problems we have. These systems are already meant to speak to each other, and we do not need legislation to realise that should be happening. Indeed, there are still paper record-keeping systems in many places up and down the country. The theory of a single patient record is a good one, but it will mean nothing in practice until those paper record-keeping systems have become electronic and then all the electronic systems speak to each other. That makes me wonder whether a single patient record will ever be realised, regardless of legislation on the model that is supposed to exist. Indeed, the Bill does not mandate a single preferred electronic record-keeping system, and nor should it; there is a competitive market out there in which NHS trusts are free to engage and contract with different providers of electronic record-keeping. I wrote to the local health bosses in my area after being made aware that the provider of one of their main electronic record-keeping systems had offered to extend the system further throughout the trust in order to save money. However, the trust has not yet responded. I am not in a position to say whether that offer is a better one, but on the face of it, it certainly looked like it would save money because it was a record-keeping system that the trust was already using; it just was not being used across all parts of the trust. That letter has gone unanswered for a year. It is not just a technological issue; there is also a cultural issue of the lack of nimble, joined-up decision making. Some health bosses, not necessarily those in my area, are unable to take advantage of the financial benefits of changing or adapting to using new systems. Until that is resolved, a single patient record will remain ever wanted but never actually delivered. To use an analogy, different companies provide the services on people’s mobile phones—the internet access, social media; software and even hardware. Most of us end up with a smartphone that does pretty similar things to every other smartphone and, broadly speaking, all the different apps co-operate with each other. Of course, the major global technology companies have faced legal action in the US, Europe, this country and elsewhere to ensure that their systems talk to each other, and primary legislation has been required to make them do that.
That was a long intervention, but it was helpful. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the legislation is not seeking to require technology companies or the providers of electronic record-keeping systems to be able to talk to each other. It is trying to create the concept of a single patient record, which is good, but it does not mandate a way to achieve that. I do not particularly want to name companies, but a big provider that is already in the health space and that provides electronic record-keeping systems might say, “We can already provide a single patient record. It is for other providers to adapt and feed into our record-keeping system,” and there is nothing in the Bill that says one technology company must adapt to another. The technological issue is completely unaddressed. I am not even saying that it should be addressed in the Bill, because there are all sorts of issues around competition law and state support for particular companies. It is not a criticism per se of the way in which the Bill drafted, but this is an opportune moment to make the point that absolutely none of the clause will be delivered until a major issue that the Government have not yet addressed is dealt with. That issue is the interoperability of different electronic record-keeping systems provided by the private sector. They are all in competition with each other to get a bigger share of the market; unless and until that is addressed, the Government are not going to realise any of this. I do not want that to be the case. I want the single patient record to be realised, broadly speaking.
The hon. Gentleman is making the point that I have been trying to. He referred to a number of companies that each provide an electronic record-keeping system. The Bill does not mandate those companies to speak to each other and create a single patient record; there is no requirement on those private companies to do anything. As they are in competition with each other, their answer could be, “We can provide the single patient record—we are already doing it—if you just use more of our system and pay us more money.” I am not suggesting that this is the hon. Gentleman’s responsibility, but does he have anything to say about the practicalities of a single patient record as a theory and the interoperability of electronic record keeping—a practical thing not dealt with in the Bill?
I thank the Minister for clarifying that the data will continue to be stored and held in the databases in the electronic record-keeping system where it is currently kept. I am not looking for her to give me a detailed solution on the spot, but does she accept that unless there is seamless interoperability across all those systems the single patient record will not be realised, and that we are still an awfully long way from seamless interoperability across England, let alone the UK?
On a point of order, yesterday in Westminster Hall, the Maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), may have inadvertently misled the House. I confirm that I have given the required notices. The Minister stated on three occasions that a Court of Appeal judgment changed the legal status of maritime coastguard rescue officers. That simply is not true. The Court of Appeal confirmed worker status that already existed and has existed for years; it is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, backed by the Government, that is now seeking to change the status of those brave heroes to that of unpaid volunteers. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on how I can seek to get the record corrected?
Recognising that the real Golden valley is in Herefordshire, will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know that he and the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the England football team on their win last night, although I must say I am not sure we should be thanking them for the trauma and heart-stopping cardiovascular workout that I, at least, experienced right to the end. The Prime Minister was quite punishing about the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday for their sanctimoniousness. Let us be clear: we can all agree that he was spot on. However, the Prime Minister has not exactly been immune to sanctimoniousness himself. He was extremely rude about the state of the public finances after the general election and promised “tough decisions” to “fix the foundations”. The imaginary £22 billion black hole that he inherited needed, he said, candour, discipline and hard choices. Those tests should also apply here and now with the defence investment plan, which commits £15 billion in additional defence spending over four years, of which £4.7 billion will be confirmed at Budget 2026. In other words, the plan, which comes 394 days after the strategic defence review and on the eve of a NATO summit, is partly unfunded from the moment it is published. That is not what candour, discipline or hard choices look like. Irony of ironies, the further £10 billion reportedly needed for the DIP is itself precisely the kind of unfunded bequest to the next Government that the Prime Minister claims to condemn. Of course, the plan is also too small. The Government say that 3% is their ambition for the next Parliament. Getting to 3.5%—the UK’s core NATO commitment—by 2035 requires about £25 billion a year more in today’s terms. The Government have offered no funded pathway to either figure. It is little wonder that the plan has been so roundly criticised by defence experts across the board. The Leader of the House might feel tempted to make comparisons with 2010; perhaps I might remind him that at that time, the UK was reeling from the global financial crisis, a very different US President was in the White House, Ukraine was not at war and Russia was not directly threatening NATO members. Cost escalation in defence is just part of a wider British problem with major national projects. High Speed 2 is the starkest warning. As far as I am aware—I spent two years at the Treasury trying and failing to stop it—HS2 is still constructing a gigantic so-called bat protector at a cost of more than £100 million in order to protect 20 or so pairs of endangered bats. There is little to no evidence that such a bat protector will do that or, indeed, to suggest that a few nets with some bells on would not be at least as effective. In other words, Edward Lear himself could not make this nonsense up. Now we have Northern Powerhouse Rail. This week, the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Government still lack a convincing plan to manage, spend or prioritise benefits within the £45 billion rail budget, with unclear scope, optimistic costing, weak governance and late trade-offs. That is how large projects get into serious difficulty. Other nations have shown that they can do it better. Norway built the world’s longest and deepest subsea tunnel for about £450 million at the time of completion; we should be asking why we cannot do the same. We have got a great model of our own nearby: the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which cost £369 million over 10 years. That is the lesson for restoration and renewal of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Palace of Westminster, the cost of which is currently estimated at up to an astonishing £12 billion to £19 billion. No one doubts that the Palace of Westminster badly needs restoration, and it needs a decision on that soon. No one disputes those points—the fire risk, asbestos, and failing electrical and mechanical systems are real—but Parliament cannot ask parliamentarians and, through them, the poor, long-suffering taxpayer to support a project of that scale without demonstrating the same disciplines it requires of others: not merely cost forecasts but stated and effective governance, a capped budget, independent challenge and proper named accountability. May we have at least two debates in the House on restoration and renewal, with one to discuss the issues in detail and another in relation to an authorising motion?
Farm profitability in the UK is incredibly low. As we know, for many farms it is less than 1%. Reports show that a poorly negotiated and poorly implemented sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could see a 10% hit to profitability for our arable farmers. That will have a trickle-down impact across the whole agricultural supply chain, impacting many businesses UK-wide. How is the Minister’s Department working with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that our arable farmers and the supply chain are not impacted?