5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

   Clause 35 essentially establishes the right of the Secretary of State to convert a foundation trust into an NHS trust in certain circumstances. Currently, section 25 of the NHS Act 2006 establishes trusts and introduces schedule 4 of the same Act, which makes provision about NHS trusts. Section 56AA sets out how additional requirements concerning acquisitions of a trust or foundation trust are to work. Clause 35 deletes section 25(2), which specifies that an order in this context is referred to as “an NHS trust order”, and amends subsection (3), so that no order under section 25—previously no “NHS trust order”—can be made until any consultation that has been prescribed is complete. Clause 35 introduces proposed new section 57B into the 2006 Act, “Conversion of failing NHS foundation trust into NHS trust”, which provides the Secretary of State with the power to convert if the foundation trust breaches its licence or other legal duties. The trigger is broad and includes non-compliance with any statutory requirement. The proposed new section requires an order to specify when it takes effect and also requires the Secretary of State, when deciding to issue an order, to consider among other things “the seriousness of the failure…the health and safety of patients…the quality of the provision by the trust of goods and services…the financial position of the trust, and…the way that the trust is being run.” Before making an order, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the trust, any ICB where the trust has facilities and “any other person to whom the trust provides goods or services…whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.” The proposed new section also provides the Secretary of State with the power, when the conversion order is made, to “terminate the appointment of the chair or any executive or non-executive director”, and to “appoint a person to be the chair or an executive or non-executive director”. It also time-limits the powers to intervene with management to one year after the order is made. Clause 35 also introduces proposed new section 57C into the 2006 Act, “Guidance about conversion”, which requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance about matters to be considered when deciding to make an order and requires them to consult persons considered appropriate before publishing or revising guidance. The clause removes “NHS trust order” from section 276 of the 2006 Act, “Index of defined expressions”, and updates schedule 4, so that an NHS trust may be established by an ordinary order under section 25 or a conversion order under proposed new section 57B. Schedule 5 to the Bill inserts proposed new schedule 9A to the 2006 Act, “Conversion of failing NHS foundation trusts”, which provides that, on conversion, the foundation trust’s chair and directors become the initial chair and directors of the new NHS trust, unless they are removed by the Secretary of State under the procedures we have just talked about. The proposed new schedule initially keeps the board the same size, until new arrangements are made. It provides that the foundation trust’s public dividend capital carries over to the NHS trust and that the conversion does not affect continuity of the body —it will remain the same organisation, just with NHS trust status. The proposed new schedule provides that the trust’s property and liabilities, including criminal liabilities, continue unaffected. It also provides that existing contracts continue and that the trust remains party to them. It clarifies that those contracts do not automatically become NHS contracts under section 9(1) of the 2006 Act, provides that the trust keeps any corporate memberships that it held before the conversion, and clarifies that the continuity provisions do not affect the Secretary of State’s wider powers to make directions. The Secretary of State will have a direct power to act where the foundation trust has failed—for instance, where there have been patient safety lapses—and there are clear benefits to that. There are also transparency requirements built in: the Secretary of State must publish guidance and consult before issuing guidance or undertaking conversion, and the power to change the management is limited to a year. However, the last Labour Government said that independence was central to the success of foundation trusts. In 2005, the then Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt, said: “We know that independence from central Government control and greater freedoms are giving NHS foundation trusts the opportunity to innovate new approaches to healthcare and healthcare services, for the benefit of NHS patients.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 5WS.] The challenge with innovations is that, even with the very best intentions and the very best advice, some will work and some will not. If any failure at all is a reason for trusts to be taken over, will that cause them to be shy about innovating, for fear of their independence being undermined as a result? There is a balance to strike, so I wonder whether the Minister will comment on that. The change also makes it easy for the Secretary of State to convert a foundation trust for political reasons—for instance, because of pressure from local Members of Parliament. That is a positive in some ways and a negative in others. Again, it could have a chilling effect on the very autonomy and innovation that Ministers want to see, so the question is how they think they will balance that.

   Hansard source
2. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

   Clause 39 broadens the Secretary of State’s ability to delegate or jointly exercise health service functions with NHS bodies and local government. Currently, section 7A of the National Health Service Act 2006 enables the Secretary of State to arrange for any of their public health functions to be exercised by relevant bodies, such as NHS England, ICBs and local authorities. Section 65Z5 sets out how relevant bodies may jointly exercise delegated functions, and section 65Z6 sets out how funds may be pooled for such purposes. Section 65Z7 sets out that NHS England may issue guidance for exercising functions under those two sections and that relevant bodies must have regard to any guidance. Section 75 then sets out that the Secretary of State can make regulations to enable NHS bodies and local authorities to enter into arrangements related to the delivery of health functions. Clause 39 deletes section 7A, removing the separate power for the Secretary of State to delegate public health functions. It amends section 65Z5 to create a wider power that allows the Secretary of State to arrange for any health service-related function in England to be exercised by or jointly with relevant bodies, local authorities, combined authorities, combined county authorities or other prescribed persons. It removes outdated references in section 65Z5 linked to NHS England and updates the wording so that arrangements can be made with a wider range of persons and not just bodies. Clause 39 also replaces section 65Z6 so that where functions are exercised jointly, the parties can use joint committees and pooled funds. It provides that pooled funds can include payments from relevant bodies and the Secretary of State, and can be used for expenditure connected to jointly exercised functions. It amends section 65Z7 so that guidance on joint working and delegation is issued by the Secretary of State rather than NHS England. It makes consequential amendments to provisions on directors of public health and local authority public health functions, reflecting the removal of section 7A. It also makes consequential amendments to section 75 partnership arrangements and the Local Government Act 1974, again removing references to section 7A. Once again, it is necessary to move functions to the Secretary of State when NHS England is abolished—somebody else needs to do the work. The changes introduce more flexibility for joined-up working between the Secretary of State and other entities in the health system, which could support integration and the shift to place-based care, with localised approaches to prevention, integration and service planning in line with the Government’s 10-year plan. However, the power is very broad, relating to any function in the health service. The Secretary of State could arrange for functions to be exercised by or jointly with any person prescribed, which could mean anyone. How will it be possible to determine who is responsible for things that have gone wrong when joint committees are established and funds are pooled? The Minister has spoken a number of times during our sittings about the importance of clear accountability. In the event that the work, funds and activities are pooled, how will it be made clear who is responsible and therefore accountable for the activity that occurs? Melanie Williams, the then president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, told the Health and Social Care Committee that we spend “a lot of time debating about who pays, rather than having a conversation about how, in the longer term, we can invest in people’s outcomes to enable better health and wellbeing.” Is it the Government’s intention to decide the allocation of money for social care and health providers, or that whoever they decide will work together? The Government have said that this is all about the devolution of power. This morning, we discussed the abolition of integrated care partnerships, on which ICBs and local authorities work together on projects that they choose locally. The Government are now introducing another power that will enable the Secretary of State to direct them to work together on things that he or she chooses. That does not sound terribly like the devolution of power. Could the Minister explain that to me? I shall leave new clause 26 to the Liberal Democrats. Government new clause 20 ensures that there is a complete list of authorities that may be included. I think some were missing from the first iteration. I just make the point that the more actors there are in the mix, the harder it may be to see who is responsible overall. We also need to discuss how to maintain the balance between clinical need and political priorities in the choice of what healthcare is provided.

   Hansard source
3. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Ninth sitting)

   Clause 40 prepares for the preparation of the annual accounts of NHS trusts and integrated care boards. Existing legislation in section 65Z4 of the NHS Act 2006, “Consolidated accounts for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts”, requires NHS England to prepare a set of accounts every financial year and consolidate the accounts of all the trusts and NHS foundation trusts. The Secretary of State can give directions about the content for methods and principles, and the accounts must be accompanied by reports or other information as directed by the Secretary of State. A copy may be sent by NHS England to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The latter must then examine and certify those accounts before sending a copy to the Secretary of State and NHS England, and NHS England must then lay a copy of the consolidated accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report before Parliament. That is how it works at the moment. Clause 40 rewrites section 65Z4 and the duty to prepare the consolidated accounts every financial year moves to the Secretary of State, and the list of what gets consolidated now includes the ICB accounts. The power to give directions to NHS England about accounts is removed, which is fair enough because there would be no need for it, as the Secretary of State is now preparing them and NHS England will cease to exist. The requirement for the accounts to be accompanied by such reports or other information as the Secretary of State may direct has been removed. The accounts go straight to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who reports back only to the Secretary of State. At the end, the Secretary of State lays the accounts before Parliament. The changes are necessary owing to the abolition of NHS England. I want to ask about the consolidation, including the ICB accounts, which was not there before, and what impact that will have. Will the accounts be sufficiently detailed so that it is possible to disaggregate that information if people are interested in doing so? Clause 41 changes which NHS companies can be covered by the scheme that meets certain losses, legal claims and liabilities. Currently, section 71, “Schemes for meeting losses and liabilities etc of certain health service bodies”, of the NHS Act 2006 enables the Secretary of State to establish schemes to meet the losses of NHS England, ICBs, trusts, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the CQC and several other bodies. The list of bodies includes “(ha) a company formed under section 223 and wholly or partly owned by the Secretary of State or NHS England”. In the new legislation, clause 41 rewrites paragraph (ha) so that it is “a company formed under section 223 other than by an integrated care board by virtue of section 223A”. That narrows the scope of the liability scheme by preventing ICB-created companies from automatically gaining protection, presumably to encourage ICBs to manage risk responsibly.

   Hansard source
4. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Prisoner Releases in Error

   5. What estimate he has made of the number of prisoners released in error since July 2024.

   Hansard source
5. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Prisoner Releases in Error

   I understand that the total is 441, which over a two-year period is the worst on record and means that, in less than 24 months, Labour has released more prisoners in error than were released in the previous six years combined. That is a disgrace. How many of those released in error early were convicted of rape?

   Hansard source
6. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. This statutory instrument revokes an obsolete SI, and we of course support clearing up and removing obsolete instruments. I wish the Government could do more of that in terms of regulation, and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide a list of the SIs that he plans to revoke, amend or remove over the course of the next year. Many people receive internet coverage through 4G and 3G. He will no doubt be aware that there have recently been quite a few cancellations under Project Gigabit. Can he tell us how many homes will now no longer receive gigabit broadband connections that were expecting to this year?

   Hansard source
7. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Defence Investment Plan

   I thank the right hon. Member for what he is doing in what I am sure is a challenging and uncertain time. With regard to meeting NATO spending commitments, he has referred to future spending reviews on many occasions. Is this defence investment plan not a bit like the Government: cast adrift and waiting for someone else in the future to make the hard decisions?

   Hansard source
8. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Defence Investment Plan

   The Daring class and Sea Viper are due to be retired from the mid-2030s. As I understand it from the DIP, the plan is that the Common Combat Vessel, and its slave drone vessels, the Type 91 and Type 94, will come in to replace it as our principal means of hybrid maritime air defence. Given that this is simply little more than a concept at this stage, what confidence does the Secretary of State have that we will not still be reliant on the Daring class, and has he made contingency for extending her service, so that we are not left undefended?

   Hansard source
9. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

   Women’s Prison Estate: Biological Males

   4. How many biological male prisoners are held in the general women’s estate.

   Hansard source
10. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

    Women’s Prison Estate: Biological Males

    In Scotland two weeks ago, the Court of Session ruled it unlawful to hold biological males anywhere on the women’s prison estate, and even the SNP Government, after a year of dither and hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money wasted, have now been forced to accept this and move biological males out of women’s prisons. Can the Minister set out a timeline for all women’s prisons right across the UK to remove biological males so that they can fully comply with the Supreme Court ruling brought about by For Women Scotland?

    Hansard source
11. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

    Department for Work and Pensions

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to make my maiden speech today. I thank all hon. Members from across the Chamber for their best wishes. I give my best wishes to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) for her upcoming maiden speech. The people of Aberdeen South have once again chosen a Conservative and Unionist to represent them here in Westminster. It is an honour to be here, and a responsibility that I take very seriously. I am grateful for and humbled by the trust that the people of Aberdeen have placed in me. The by-election victory was the result of the hard work of hundreds of volunteers, without whom I would not be standing here. Unlike another recent by-election, the campaign in Aberdeen South was not focused on one man’s job, but on the thousands of jobs in our oil and gas sector. With almost 50% of the votes cast in my favour, the people of Aberdeen have made their voices heard loud and clear—clear enough to echo around the Palace of Westminster and Holyrood alike. The people of Aberdeen have had enough of the wilful destruction of the oil and gas industry, of their jobs and of the local economy. This win is a clear mandate from the people of Aberdeen to the Labour Government in Westminster and the SNP Government in Holyrood to act now to save our North sea oil and gas industry. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to my predecessors in Aberdeen South. As an Aberdeen loon, for many years I was represented by the trailblazing Dame Ann Begg. In her maiden speech, she remarked on the transience of the Members for Aberdeen South, a seat held almost equally by Labour and Scottish Conservative Members throughout the 20th century. That transience is captured by another of my predecessors, Priscilla Buchan—Lady Tweedsmuir—who, like me, came to the House through a by-election. She was elected in 1946. A pioneer of women in political office, she was the youngest MP in the House of Commons at the time. She was a formidable force, having initially lost in Aberdeen North, and then winning in South the following year. In her maiden speech, made in a debate on the economic situation, she warned of “the growing feeling of nationalism, due to the Government’s policy of centralised control.”—[Official Report, 11 March 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1194.] It says much that, almost a century later, the people of Aberdeen South are grappling with the very same issues. The divisive force of nationalism still seeks to set us apart, but we on the Conservative Benches know the enduring value of our United Kingdom. Most recently, I succeeded the right honourable Stephen Flynn, who I am delighted has chosen to take up a seat in Holyrood. Without his decision, and his dedication to his career, I would not be standing here today. We were councillors together on Aberdeen city council, and we have both now sat in Westminster and Holyrood. I sincerely wish him well. Stephen understands the value of oil and gas to Aberdeen, and I am sure that, now in government, he will press the First Minister to get off the fence and finally defend our oil and gas industry. I have known Stephen for a number of years. He now has the tough job of Scottish Transport Secretary. I look forward to firing off the letters asking for updates on transport projects that affect my constituents in Aberdeen South. It was while I was at Aberdeen city council that I learned the cut and thrust of politics. I remember my time fondly as the co-leader alongside Jenny Laing, the daughter of the former Member for Oldham East, Jim Lamond. I am grateful to her and to all those I worked with on the council. It serves as a reminder of the importance of building bridges and consensus to deliver for our constituents. Aberdeen has a rich history of reinvention, from fishing to textiles to oil and gas. The silver city with the golden sands has been a cornerstone of Scotland’s success for centuries, and it has changed and evolved more than most. Today, energy plays the critical role in the city’s prosperity, with thousands of my constituents being among the most highly skilled workers in the industry. I am immensely proud to represent them. So too is it a privilege to represent so many distinctive parts of the city, from the great south harbour at Torry to Hazlehead Park, where the Piper Alpha memorial stands. That memorial is a testament to the dangerous, demanding work that our oil and gas workers carry out, week in, week out, for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom—because energy security is national security. It is too easy to forget the sacrifices, large and small, made by the sector so that the rest of us can enjoy the benefits of modern life. I am sure that my time here will be judged not just on the basis of how I can help constituents with their issues, or the quality of the legislation that we pass. My time here will be judged by how loudly and firmly I can make the case for our oil and gas workers. It is the privilege of my life to represent my city—a city that thousands of oil and gas workers call home—and I will spend every day repaying the trust of the people of Aberdeen who have placed me here.

    Hansard source
12. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Culture, Media And Sport

    As the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) just said, sports participation underpins so much for young people, building character and resilience, acting in favour of good mental health and tackling obesity. Into old age, too, staying active has huge benefits, as I was discussing just this weekend with the brilliant, dementia-friendly Petersfield walking football group. In many ways, sports provision is probably better than ever, and national governing bodies have done a very good job. I was particularly grateful when the bowls national governing body introduced the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to the national open weekend for bowls, and I discovered what great fun it can be. Of course, children are now introduced to a great variety of sports at primary school, and that is a good thing. That has been underpinned in many ways by the schools PE and sport premium, the requirement for which is to go over and above what is set out in the national curriculum. Crucially, it has been a budget controlled by the schools themselves. This is an estimates day, which is about spending. I think we could query a lot of priorities at DCMS. I was particularly gobsmacked by the decision to cut the business events growth programme—a tiny sum of money in overall Government terms, but one that drives such success and billions of pounds’ worth of contribution to the economy—at the same time as looking at bringing in an overnight visitor levy, which will make this country less competitive compared to competitor nations. In this part of the DCMS world, there is the axing of the National Citizen Service and the closure of the youth investment fund. At the same time, the Department for Education is closing the opening school facilities fund and the Treasury is making changes to business rates, with the effect that that has in this sector. Of course, there is the question at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about Sport England as a statutory consultee. The Department of Health is also cutting by 66% its contribution to health-related activity in schools. However, the biggest things are the cuts to the schools PE and sport premium, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) set out. It is both a total budget cut and money that now has to be stretched across far more schools, having already let the real value of the £320 million erode over the first two years. Control of that is going to be taken away from schools. That is a very aggressive move. I commend to the House the Committee’s report, “Game On: Community and school sport”. There is a great deal in it, as my right hon. Friend set out, in terms of improving funding applications, local authority duties and doing things in initial teacher training. Most of all, though, as has been mentioned by colleagues across the House, what we need to see, and what this report calls for, is a cross-Government approach to movement for health.

    Hansard source
13. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Culture, Media And Sport

    I am going to have another go, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) did. A billion pounds over three years sounds like a lot of money. The simple mathematical question is, is that £1 billion over three years more or less than the amount for a comparable three-year period, starting just before the middle of 2024?

    Hansard source
14. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

    It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As we heard from the Minister, the instrument makes two principal changes. First, it provides for the enforcement in Northern Ireland of the EU machinery regulation, including in respect of powers for regulators, offences, penalties and mechanisms for co-operation with EU authorities. Secondly, it amends the Great Britain regime by extending the recognition of CE marking beyond January next year. The Government argue that the changes will avoid a regulatory cliff edge and support trade. Although there are merits to continuity, the instrument also raises several serious concerns. First, there is no impact assessment. The explanatory memorandum focuses narrowly on the cost of enforcement, not the cost of the underlying regulation once enforced. That is a significant omission. It is impossible for the Committee to judge whether the measures will have a material effect on trade, as is required, without understanding the real costs imposed on Northern Ireland businesses. Secondly, what assessment has the Minister made of the comparative cost burden? Will the measure increase costs for Northern Ireland businesses relative to those in Great Britain, and if so, to what extent? How many businesses are expected to be impacted? Does the Minister believe that the £16.6 million UK internal market package will be sufficient to meet the costs? Thirdly, the instrument clearly deepens regulatory divergence within the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland will be subject to a new EU regulation, enforced through EU-aligned structures, while Great Britain operates under a different framework. How does the Minister intend firms that trade across both markets, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, to navigate that fragmentation? Fourthly, the Government suggest that many businesses already align with EU standards. If that is the case, why has there been no full assessment of the administrative burden of operating dual systems? More fundamentally, the regulations are politically and legally significant. They give practical effect, through enforcement, to legislation made outside the United Kingdom in a legislature in which the people of Northern Ireland are not represented. Whatever one’s views of the wider arrangements, that is not a trivial step and it deserves proper scrutiny. Finally, the Government indicate that similar measures may in time be introduced in Great Britain. The Minister gave us a timetable, but can she clarify it so that businesses can understand the timetable they are working towards and whether the measures represent a long-term policy of continued reliance on EU standards? The Committee should not be asked to proceed on the basis of incomplete analysis. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on costs, impacts and the Government’s longer-term regulatory direction, because while we await clarity on those matters, we will oppose the regulations.

    Hansard source
15. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

    I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this urgent question. The Conservatives have made clear for a number of weeks how concerned we are about the incoming steel tariffs that will take effect tomorrow. We have heard from businesses, not just in Northern Ireland but across the country, that the 50% tariff on steel imports above the quota will do great damage to upstream British manufacturing, our defence and aerospace sectors, and those who construct the nation’s infrastructure. We acknowledge that on Thursday the Government brought forward some changes to the quotas after reflecting on concerns raised by industry, but we have now heard at the last minute that the EU has cut a significant chunk of the UK’s export quota. Businesses have been warning us for months about the damage that these proposals could cause, and they are now expected to adapt in a matter of hours, not days. Will the Minister publish the full impact assessment and communicate properly with the affected sectors? He mentioned a few ways in which he is going to communicate with them, but I cannot stress enough the urgency of getting clarity for every business across this country in the upstream steel industry. Have any Northern Ireland businesses specifically lodged applications with the Trade Remedies Authority? I know that the Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has kindly let us know that he cannot attend oral questions on Thursday as he will be visiting businesses in Northern Ireland. Is that to do with the serious concerns over steel tariffs? Finally, may we have an update on the negotiations the Government are having in this area with the US and India, because it seems that whenever the UK Government negotiate on behalf of our steel industry, the industry loses out? This is all shaping up to be a disaster for steel, and we would appreciate an update.

    Hansard source
16. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Defence Investment Plan

    The Royal Navy is spending millions of pounds on private accommodation and hotels each year, while entire buildings and accommodation blocks behind the wire of its estate sit rotting and uninhabitable. However, I cannot say exactly how many millions, because I have submitted questions on that to the MOD and it refuses to answer. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can help me with that. On the £9 billion that will be spent on defence housing over 10 years, what is the spend profile and how much of that will be spent in the first two years? If it is back-ended to year 10, it does absolutely nothing to stem the flow of wasted cash and to provide our service personnel and their families with decent, habitable homes.

    Hansard source
17. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Culture, Media And Sport

    I thank the Backbench Business Committee. I am conscious of time, so I will focus my remarks on the Select Committee’s “Game On” report, which looked at community and school sport, and the Government response published last week. The evidence was unequivocal: an active nation underpins everything else—our health, our prosperity, our social cohesion. It is not a peripheral issue, but a strategic priority, yet it has too often been treated by Governments as a discretionary choice. We are at a critical juncture as the UK continues to invest significantly less in sport and physical activity than many of our European neighbours, despite the proven economic and social returns. Our Committee therefore called for a decisive generational shift, with a cross-Government movement for health strategy that recognises that physical activity is not simply a sport, but a central pillar of policy across health, education, planning and economic growth. The Government response acknowledged much of this analysis, but when we look more closely, we recognise a theme that has gripped this Government from day one: plenty of words, but no action to back them up, or as some might say, “all mouth and no trousers”. Nowhere is that clearer than on funding. We recommended increasing the share of Government expenditure on sport and recreation over time, in recognition of the very clear evidence that investment in activity delivers long-term savings, reduces illness, supports people into work, prevents chronic conditions and strengthens local economies. Following publication of the Committee’s report, the Government announced over £1 billion for school sport. It looked like a statement of the kind of ambition we would like to see across the sector, and we nearly patted ourselves on the back for influencing this remarkable investment. However, given a closer look, this glossy announcement is no gift at all. It is a cynical cut disguised as new funding. Yesterday, Schools Week published an article with the finding that 65% of schools in the north-east are expecting to make cuts to their coaching staff as a result. One reason for this cut is the reduction in the contribution from the Department of Health and Social Care and the replacement of the PE and sport premium with money that must now go to secondary schools as well as primary schools. I have a feeling that the Minister will attempt to say that schools are receiving more money for PE and sport when she responds to this debate, but that is simply not the case. It is smoke and mirrors. We were pleased with the £400 million of grassroots funding, which we called for in our report, but we need a concerted effort to ensure that the funding achieves what it sets out to do. We also called for an audit of sport and physical activity facilities to make sure we are not losing them. This danger is real, especially as the Government have still not ruled out removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. Are the Government tracking the number of sports pitches and facilities, or do they have any plans to do so? Another pillar of our recommendations was clarity—clarity of leadership, accountability and deliverability—because without a coherent national plan, even significant investment risks being fragmented and under-realised. That is why we called for a cross-Government strategy, backed by clear objectives, defined responsibilities and mechanisms to measure progress. The Government have told us that a national plan for physical activity is in development, but there is no firm deadline, no detailed governance model and no clear indication of how the Department will be held accountable—all words, no action. On issue after issue, the Government have agreed in principle to a number of our recommendations, but have declined to act decisively, as with the recommendation of a statutory duty on local authorities to provide sporting and leisure facilities and the recommendation on action to remove unnecessary “No ball games” signs. There are warm words, but zero grip. In schools, where the case for action is perhaps clearest of all, we see the same pattern: the Government accept that provision is inconsistent and acknowledge the importance of high-quality PE and regular activity, but when presented with the opportunity to set out clear national expectations, they step back. There is no requirement for children to achieve 60 minutes of activity every day, only encouragement; there is no firm mandate guaranteeing two hours of PE each week, only an expectation that schools might protect time; and physical education itself will remain outside the core curriculum subjects, despite its central importance to children’s development. A truly transformative approach would embed movement throughout the school, throughout the curriculum, throughout the environment and throughout our culture, ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to live active lives, because active children become active adults. Outside school, the Secretary of State has made her national youth strategy the poster child of her tenure. She came to Parliament to tell us she was giving young people “somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 971.] The strategy is backed by £500 million, which again sounds like a hugely significant investment to me, but when we look at the detail, we see it is not the investment we think. It is the amalgamation of the scrapped youth investment fund and the scrapped National Citizen Service. Less money is going into the system. Although the National Citizen Service no doubt had its flaws, it was the most successful youth programme of the past few decades—over 1 million young people took part. Funding streams used to be clear, but now there is a convoluted pick and mix of over nine different programmes. It is more difficult for civil society to navigate a fragmented selection of funding pots. Meanwhile, the speed of the closure of the National Citizen Service meant that some of the incredibly skilled and dedicated youth workers, on whom we rely and on whom the Government will rely when they finally decide what they are going to do for young people, have left the workforce. How many have left the sector due to delays and uncertainty in the delivery of the national youth strategy? Does the Minister know? Perhaps she can tell me. Volunteering is an essential foundation of community sport. The Government recognise its importance, but they once again stop short of setting out a comprehensive national policy to support, incentivise and sustain the workforce—there is nothing there. The valued volunteer workforce is needed more than ever before, but it is under incredible pressure. People are dropping out due to the time priorities of coping with cost of living demands. There is one further example that speaks volumes about the Government’s approach: the question of women’s football broadcasting. The Select Committee recommended an intervention to explore whether the 3 pm Saturday blackout could be adapted to support the women’s game. It would give a consistent time for showcasing the women’s game and inspire girls to get active. The Government’s response points to the technical complexities of UEFA article 48 and argues that any change would risk opening up the slot more widely, thereby undermining its current purpose—the response is, “It’s all too difficult. We just can’t be bothered.” Where is the ambition to work proactively with UEFA and the Football Association to pursue a targeted exemption for women’s football? While the 3 pm blackout continues, women’s football is shackled and with it the opportunity for more women and girls to see themselves participating in sport. An active population is a healthier, more productive and more connected population. Increasing participation in sport and physical activity is one of the most powerful and cost-effective levers of Government. It delivers returns across multiple policy areas simultaneously, easing pressure on public services and improving quality of life. The question is not whether the Government recognise those investments—they plainly do. The question is whether they are prepared to act with any urgency or with the ambition that the evidence demands. Without ambition, we will continue to fall short of what is possible. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has set out a road map. It is quite easy for the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Department to follow it. What we need now is for the Government not simply to endorse this sense of direction, but to actually match their words with decisive action.

    Hansard source
18. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Culture, Media And Sport

    The hon. Member is an excellent Minister, but can she please just answer this question? When we add it all up, does this equate to an increase or a cut in the total amount of school spending?

    Hansard source
19. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Culture, Media And Sport

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House a moment ago when she said that the quantum of school sports funding exceeded what it previously was. There have been cuts to school sports funding, and I would like to give her the opportunity to correct the record.

    Hansard source
20. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

    Order. Before I call the next Member, I wish to say three things. First, the Secretary of State for Defence will commence his statement at 2.30, so time is limited; Members may help each other if they ask short questions. Until then, the Macmillan Room in Portcullis House and Committee Room 7 are available as reading rooms for the defence investment plan. The plan will be made available from the moment that the Secretary of State for Defence begins his statement at 2.30.

    Hansard source
21. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Defence Investment Plan

    Order. I will only be able to run the statement until 4.15 pm, so Members will have to ask much shorter questions.

    Hansard source
22. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Points of Order

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The House will know that everything that hon. Members say in the course of proceedings in this House is protected by the privilege of freedom of speech set out in article 9 of the Bill of Rights. However, when it comes to what hon. Members say outside this place, that is a question of the operation of the law, and it is not a matter on which I can offer advice from the Chair.

    Hansard source
23. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Points of Order

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given notice of her point of order. As she will know, the content and timeliness of ministerial answers, either to parliamentary questions or correspondence from Members, is not a matter for the Chair. However, it is important that Members receive replies. I would advise her to consult the Table Office on her options for pursuing this matter further. She may also wish to write to the Procedure Committee, but I know that the occupants of the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said.

    Hansard source
24. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Points of Order

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which he will know was not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record.

    Hansard source
25. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Culture, Media And Sport

    The debate will be opened by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and there will be an immediate three-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions. I call Dame Caroline Dinenage.

    Hansard source
26. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Culture, Media And Sport

    Order. That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
27. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Culture, Media And Sport

    The hon. Lady will know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that if the Minister wishes to correct the record, she will.

    Hansard source
28. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Culture, Media And Sport

    We are not going to continue the debate via points of order.

    Hansard source
29. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Department of Health and Social Care

    The debate will be opened by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. Before I call her, I wish to alert Members that the same time limit of three minutes will be imposed in this debate, and I am sure the Chair of the Select Committee will be cognisant of that during her opening remarks. I call Layla Moran.

    Hansard source
30. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for regenerating local high streets and removing unlawful storefronts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and a delight to see so many Members present to talk about this important topic. High streets matter: they are one of the most significant topics in UK society and politics today, because our town centres are a barometer of the vitality of all the areas that we represent, both economically and socially, for good or for ill. Town centres are changing. There has been a perfect storm: retail habits have changed since e-commerce set in the best part of two decades ago, and social habits have changed as a result. In many areas, we have seen a hollowing out of high streets and a different type of retail moving in, often with different problems. Low-grade retail and the decline in investment in the public realm are significant factors in the vitality of the areas that we represent. The British public have clear opinions: 79% of Brits are concerned about the decline of high streets and town centres, 65% believe that there are not enough shopping options and 68% believe that there are too many vape shops, barber shops, charity shops and mini-marts in their communities. We have to think about why footfall in retail has declined. There is the effect of internet shopping, which is very much a normal part of life nowadays. We must also acknowledge the increasing costs that businesses face, including business rates, utility bills and rising labour costs. It is a perfect storm: I do not think that anyone across the House would deny that high streets are under probably the most acute pressure in living memory.

    Hansard source
31. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate later today. He is absolutely right: the pressure and stress that high streets are under mean that, on the current path, they will be unrecognisable in a decade.

    Hansard source
32. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    The hon. Member is correct: without doubt, a strong regulatory failure over the past decade has contributed to the problem. I will address some of her points later in my remarks. There is also a rural/suburban distinction. In rural areas, the British public have a stronger opinion: about 55% of people in predominantly rural or semi-rural areas believe that their high street is undergoing a decline, whereas the figure for those living in urban areas is only 19%. Let us look at some of the stats that back up the evidence about the narrowing range of high street retail across the country. There are now believed to be at least 3,500 nail bars, 20,000 to 25,000 barber shops and 3,500 vape shops. As we are all aware, those numbers could well be significantly under-reported, so they do not necessarily give an accurate picture of the extent of the challenge. On Oxford Street alone, a mile or so from here, there are 18 American candy stores.

    Hansard source
33. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    The hon. Member is correct. At the centre of a Venn diagram of regulatory and reporting blackspots, there is a sweet spot where it is difficult to identify those who are responsible behind the building ownership or the so-called businesses appearing on our high streets as a consequence of the pressure that I am outlining. Another consequence that is being discussed across the House is the decline of vital services in our areas. Some 7,000 banks have closed across the country since 2015, which is two thirds of the entire banking network. We have all heard stories from constituents who are increasingly dependent on retail banking presence. There has been a push towards banking hubs, and the Post Office performs a role to some extent.

    Hansard source
34. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    The hon. Member is correct that the issue is acutely felt in rural areas. I am delighted that the Conservative party has put forward a plan to abolish business rates for thousands of small businesses, including shops, pubs and hospitality businesses on the high street. I will come on to some solutions to the challenges we face. There are 1,400 postcodes across the country that do not have a bank within a 5-mile radius, which demonstrates the scale of the challenge. One in seven high street shops across the country are currently empty. An estimated 38 businesses close every day. When businesses close, there are job losses, with an estimated 93,000 retail jobs lost in 2025 alone. In the hospitality sector, it is reported that up to 5,000 jobs are being lost per month. I make a plea to the Government to change course on the additional costs that they have placed on small businesses across the country. They are unquestionably killing employment and putting greater pressure on the long-term viability of those businesses.

    Hansard source
35. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    The hon. Member is an ardent champion of her constituency. It is reassuring to hear that her area has a strong and thriving independent sector, but she is right that the first rung of employment for so many has been pulled away from that ladder, in large part because of choices that this Government have made. Small retail businesses have reduced recruitment, and in many cases they have had to let people go because of the pressure on them. Another reason why the debate about town centres matters, as hon. Members have touched on, is that far too often our high streets are becoming a very visible front for illicit or illegal activity. That is a problem in plain sight that none of us can deny.

    Hansard source
36. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    The hon. Lady is correct: the tools at the disposal of the state are not used often enough, there are not enough deterrents and there is not enough strong and visible action to clamp down on this behaviour and prevent such instances from recurring.

    Hansard source
37. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I will make a tad of progress, if I can. The Office for National Statistics has reported that in 2025 there were 530,000 shoplifting offences, an increase of 20% on the previous year. That is the highest figure on record, and it does not take into account crimes that are not reported because there is a general malaise or a suspicion that they will not be investigated. I read a similar stat from public authorities that only 50% of shopkeepers report crime, while a staggering 55% of reported cases are closed without a suspect ever having been identified. That is despite retailers having spent £300 million on measures such as security, CCTV and facial recognition to mitigate the effects of shoplifting. It is believed that up to one half of vape shops and a large proportion of American candy stores have ties to organised crime. The scale of the problem is unquestionable; we all recognise it. Over the past 12 months, 3,600 shops have had illegal goods seized, and it is estimated by the National Crime Agency that £1 billion of criminal cash is laundered through high street retail. The scale of the problem is undeniable, which brings me to the question of what we can do about it.

    Hansard source
38. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I am genuinely interested in hearing what fellow Members have to say, so before I continue I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
39. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Much greater focus on tackling these issues is needed from all arms of the state, national and local, including arm’s length bodies, law enforcement and investigation. For far too long, a fragmented approach has allowed the problem to grow: it has swelled, not declined, in recent years. The reason this matters is that society has to get the basics right. I am a big believer in the idea that the fundamentals in society slip when we do not collectively enforce the basics. That often starts with pride. As we have seen our high streets hollowed out, we have seen a decline in civic pride across the country. In all our areas, the councils do some things very well, but it is unquestionable that investment in the public realm has declined over the past decade. There are lots of reasons for that, and hon. Members may speak about some of them, but we have to get back to enforcing the basics. I am passionate about the importance of good design, including design codes and good-quality signage and a good-quality aesthetic in the public realm. A lot flows from the degradation that we have seen in recent years.

    Hansard source
40. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    That is fantastic, and I am delighted to hear it. I know that many areas do that well, but we have to get the very basics at the bottom of the question right. I believe in design codes because they give people control over the aesthetic of our areas. We all know the kinds of places that we are attracted to when we have a bit of leisure time—we may go there to spend money and to have a day out with family and friends. We have to view our own areas through that lens and ask how we can ensure that they are attractive enough destinations for people to want to come there and spend their money. If our town centres are not attractive because we have allowed the basics to slip and do not take care around the aesthetic and cleanliness of areas, we should not be surprised when people stop coming, businesses do not invest and low-grade retail begins to occupy the void that has been created. I encourage the Government to restore the principle of good-quality design being at the centre of planning decisions, to enforce a greater aesthetic standard across the areas that we represent. Tied to that has to be an increase in the quality of signage. All hon. Members can cite examples of a low-grade retail unit—possibly one that is questionable in terms of how many people it employs and what its purpose is—opening in their constituencies. I guarantee that in many cases such a unit will come with a garish, ugly and possibly neon sign that local people are frankly staggered that the local authority is allowing to stay in place. The state has to make a much more concerted effort to tackle the issue: the national Government need to devolve powers to local authorities and regulatory services, and local authorities have to have a much stronger will to ensure signage standards across society are of greater quality.

    Hansard source