5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I welcome the introduction of the strategic reserve in the Bill, but I would like clarity on how it will be paid for. Will it be via separate funding or will it come from the money already allocated to pay for the active reserve in the MOD budget?
The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.
I wish to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I start by thanking all Opposition Members—both in my party and across four other parties—who have supported this amendment. Let the record show that not one person on the Labour Benches supported it. We often speak in this House about veterans, our shared respect for those who have served and how best to support veterans in their post-military life, be it with careers, housing, mental health or simply the frailty of growing old. With that shared sense of society repaying our collective debt to those who have served must come the moral courage to do the right thing that we expect those who have served to show. During my Army career, I had the privilege to serve alongside and command soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—Australians and Canadians, South Africans and Jamaicans. As a support weapons platoon commander, a quarter of my anti-tank platoon was Fijian. As hon. Members may expect from a fine rugby playing regiment such as the Duke of Wellington’s, it was unbelievably competitive to get a spot on the wing. I therefore know well the courage and the sacrifice shown by our Commonwealth personnel not only today, but alongside me on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and during operations across the globe long preceding that. We owe those men and women the right to make a life in the country they have risked theirs to defend. Over four years ago, in April 2022, the previous Government implemented a visa fee waiver for those who have served in the UK armed forces. That waiver also applied to eligible veterans who were yet to regularise their immigration status. Having campaigned for that long before I became an MP, it was hugely welcome to see the playing field levelled somewhat for Commonwealth veterans. While that was a welcome first step, I personally felt that it was not enough. We in this Chamber often recognise the sacrifice and the challenges of those families left behind when service personnel deploy. Being a military spouse or child is not easy. This situation is made even harder for the family of a Commonwealth service member, because while we waived the fees for serving personnel in 2022, we did not extend the right to the immediate family and dependants of that service member. That means many Commonwealth veterans are saddled with significant visa fees if they wish to stay in the UK as a family after leaving the armed forces. From 8 April this year, when the cost increased once again, the base fee for applying for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226 per person. To put into context the speed of that increase, when we waived fees for service members just four years ago, it was £2,389 per person—a near £1,000 increase. That is just for indefinite leave to remain, not citizenship. In the US armed forces, a non-US citizen can achieve full US citizenship upon discharge for the price of the admin fee—just a few dollars. A service member, their spouse and two children now potentially face a cost of just shy of £10,000 for the right to live in the country they have risked their life to defend. I defy anybody to tell me that that is fair. It is not until the 12-year point that personnel become entitled to a resettlement grant of £15,047. The purpose of the resettlement grant is to do precisely what it says: to give people a head start, be it through a trade course, a deposit for a house or the funds to set up an entrepreneurial new business. None of those options is available to those who need to spend the majority of the grant on just obtaining the right to live in the country. What on earth are we doing? Why are we fleecing those who have served this country, saddling them with a five-figure burden? The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland lead the charge on this campaign. They have pushed for these changes consistently. They highlight that in delivering this manifesto pledge, the Government would fulfil their obligations under the armed forces covenant by removing those disadvantages and barriers to family life. Going into the 2024 general election, the Conservative manifesto looked to correct this issue. As part of our pledge to veterans, we announced that a Conservative Government would: “extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants.” The Labour manifesto, too, made that pledge, stating: “We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents.” So where are we with that? I have raised the question on a number of occasions. In November 2024, I asked the then Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), what the timetable was for delivering that manifesto pledge. I was told: “We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 22.] In June 2025, during the Armed Forces Day debate, I asked the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), if he could provide an update “on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth personnel”. He told me: “We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretory about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1290-1291.] That was a year ago. On 5 January 2026, the new Veterans Minister told me in a written answer that the Government are “working closely with the Home Office to deliver this commitment”. She went on to state: “it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date”. In April, she informed me: “This Government is committed to waiving visa fees for non-UK veterans”. In total, I have asked the Government for an update on the progress of the implementation of their manifesto pledge seven times and we are no closer to an implementation date after nearly two years than we were when the Government came to power. I am not seeking to apportion individual blame here. Having spoken to Ministers individually, including the two on the Front Bench today, I do not doubt that the Defence Front Bench wishes to implement this policy, but there is clearly something that is causing it to stall, be that the Home Office or the machinery of government. There is an opportunity here to drive this policy forward. We should bear in mind that the Ministry of Defence does not even collate the information regarding the number of ILR applications submitted by family members of service personnel. It has literally no idea of the impact the failure to deliver this policy is having. After two years with no timetable for implementation on the horizon, I have little confidence this is a priority on the MOD’s to-do list. I appreciate that the Government measure working flat-out in months, but this could be measured in continental drift. It simply does not appear to be a priority for the Government. However, my greater fear is that rather than do the right thing today, the Government will churlishly and spitefully vote against new clause 5, “because politics”. Not one Labour MP signed the new clause, despite every single one being asked twice. The Government have whipped their MPs not to support it, just as they will whip their MPs to vote against it. A vote against new clause 5 is not just a vote against the Labour manifesto that each Labour MP stood on. It is a vote against our veterans. It is a vote against those who have risked their lives to defend this great nation. It is a vote that tells Commonwealth personnel that this Government do not have their back, that joining our armed forces will still see them treated as second-class citizens, with limited options post service. Those Labour MPs with a military presence in their constituencies should ask themselves how they will spin it to the service member who has to pay £10,000 to live here with their family, instead of putting down a deposit on a house or launching a business. They should ask themselves whether, for the sake of playing politics this evening, it is worth holding somebody else back.
I do not disagree. I recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making and his passion for delivering what he describes. I am a member of said all-party parliamentary group, and I am happy to push in order to try and get this across the line. I also recognise the politics of this. Although I am not sure his party will welcome him apparently somewhat throwing the Home Office under the bus in this instance, I recognise that there are complexities around the ability to deliver from a Home Office perspective. I know that is something that the Conservatives encountered when we were in government, and I imagine it is very much the same situation for the Government now. I insist that new clause 5 is still a good new clause. It would come in the right place within the Armed Forces Bill. I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to give the Government some wiggle room to get out of voting for the new clause this evening, but I am convinced that it should be voted on, and that we should push it forward in order to put some pressure on the Home Office.
I agree that it is a broader topic than simply covering Commonwealth veterans and their family members from those same Commonwealth countries. There are a number of personnel living here are UK personnel but have spouses and children who may be from overseas, and the same rules apply to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Member; I think we are very much on the same page on a number of issues—it is literally just the technicality of politics that is getting in the way. We are squeamish when it comes to discussing immigration. No party has yet demonstrated that they have the right answer, but on this specific element of the debate, it is very simple: no matter how high a bar we set for the right to live in this country—whether that is for key workers or high net worth individuals—those who have risked their lives to defend the freedoms that we enjoy deserve to settle here with their families without penalty. That should always be above that high bar. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country. That is in the Labour manifesto. I urge Government Members to do the right thing today and support new clause 5.
I recognise that the Minister wants to deliver this manifesto commitment as much as I do. However, after two years we have made little progress, mostly due to the machinery of government within the Home Office. This new clause was tabled some time ago, and the Government have had ample opportunity to refine the detail of it in order to make it acceptable to be voted on this evening and passed by the Government. Why have the Government taken no steps to work with me to get this measure across the line, given that it is a manifesto pledge of the Government? Can he also give some indication of when the pledge will be delivered, if the Government choose wrongfully to vote against my new clause this evening?
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Alec. The regulations, as already mentioned, extend the period for the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy to exercise existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 from 26 months to six years. In itself, that is not controversial; no new powers are created through this instrument and we do not intend to obstruct its passing today. The Minister has explained the reasoning for the extension: to empower the Northern Ireland Executive to parallel the British Government’s autumn Budget commitments. The Minister referred to the transfer of 75% of the renewables obligation scheme costs attributable to domestic energy supply, which will instead be funded through general taxation. As a result of that transfer, from April, only 25% of the renewables obligation cost is being recovered from consumers—but moving costs from energy bills to tax bills is a sleight of hand. Let us also not forget the recipients of this taxpayer money: those extraordinary subsidies now flowing from households are giving wind farm owners three times the market price for their electrons. The Secretary of State’s auction process has locked this country, including Northern Ireland, into paying extortionate prices for wind power for the next 20 years—an extraordinary cost—and it is taxpayers who are now footing that bill. The Minister espouses a commitment to lowering household energy bills, as per the Government’s manifesto pledge to reduce bills by £300, yet we have seen bills go up since they took office. A month ago, the Government adopted our policy to remove one of the carbon taxes on electricity generation—the carbon price support. While the Labour Government transfer renewables subsidies on to taxation, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the cost of energy and bring down bills by £200. Before moving to my questions on that point, I want to follow up on the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. Why is it that, as laid out in the explanatory notes: “Schedule 5 to the EPA sets out the time periods in which certain powers under that Act are exercisable” and that these powers will “cease to be exercisable after a period of 26 months during which both the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland held office (currently 3 April 2026)”? I have never seen such a measure in an amendment or a Bill before the House in the nine years that I have been here. It seems a remarkable paragraph. It is very strange to time limit the measures to the time in office of those two individuals. If the Minister could explain why that is the case, I would be very grateful—it is a genuine question on my part. If the Minister is keen to see households relieved of the burden imposed by the renewables obligation, will the Government adopt our cheap power plan and scrap the subsidy altogether? And might I ask the Minister when we will see the elusive £300 off all our bills?
The truth is there is no just transition. Everybody can see that except for the Government Front Bench. I spoke to a woman in Aberdeen just yesterday, born and raised in that city and raising her family there. She had worked in oil and gas and, actually, was proud to be playing her part in developing the energy technologies of the future. She was a lifelong Labour voter—no longer, because she has now been made redundant. Like so many others in that city, she is now looking overseas because of this Government. What does the Minister have to say to Aberdonians like her?
We have been over this before: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca Energy and, just this morning, Xodus Group are all laying people off. Xodus specifically blamed the slowdown in the roll-out of renewables due to the decline in oil and gas in the North sea. The former Health Secretary the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), Tony Blair, academics, Scottish Renewables, the chair of GB Energy and apparently quite a number of the Cabinet agree with us on the Opposition side of the House and with the public that we must keep drilling in the North sea while we have a demand and while it is there. When will the Government listen to everyone else, end this ideological obsession, overturn this and get Britain drilling?
The central figure in this entire saga is someone who enjoyed a cosy relationship with Ministers at the heart of this Government, yet he has refused to hand over his mobile phone and Ministers, many of whom he had as close friends, seem simply to have accepted that refusal. Does the Minister really expect this House to believe that full transparency has been achieved when Mandelson continues to be able to pick and choose what evidence he allows us to see?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role as Secretary of State. The point about ICBs and the devolution of responsibility for NHS eye tests is one that we often forget to talk about in this place, as is the case with eyecare—I know that there are some ophthalmic experts in the Chamber. On that point, can the Secretary of State assure me that the changes will not result in a postcode lottery in the provision of eyecare tests? At the end of the day, NHS sight tests are a universal entitlement, so can he ensure that that will continue?
I associate myself with the words of the Chair of the Defence Committee on the need to get to 3%. Given that we are one of only two countries in the European continent to run a nuclear programme, does the Secretary of State agree that, if we knock out the nuclear programme, we are actually spending more like 1.7% or 1.8% on our conventional defence, and that that compares rather more with Spain than it does with countries such as Poland or Estonia, which are spending more like 4% or 5%? Does he therefore agree that we need to uplift immediately?
I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his new post, and thank him for sharing his very personal story about what the NHS means to him. I look forward to our future exchanges, however long he is in post. I also pay tribute to the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), with whom I have had a few moments across the Dispatch Box. I know that the NHS has also been very important to him personally. During my time in hospices, I saw the incredible work that the NHS does, and despite the politics that we may have—and I will be referring to the right hon. Gentleman a bit more later on—we all care deeply about the national health service and want the very best for it. There are moments in politics when one almost has to admire the confidence of Governments—not their competence, necessarily, or their judgment, and sometimes not their timing, but certainly their confidence—and nowhere has that confidence been more magnificently displayed than in the presentation of the Health Bill. If one had listened carefully to the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care over the past two years, one could conclude only that this Bill was not merely legislation, but apparently the parliamentary equivalent of the second coming. In every speech, interview and carefully staged hospital visit with sleeves rolled up, they delivered the same message: at last—at long last—the NHS was to be modernised, integrated, digitised, streamlined, revolutionised and transformed into a gleaming technological marvel, where patients floated frictionlessly through a system powered entirely by innovation, efficiency and ministerial self-belief. I say gently to Ministers that whenever a politician begins using the phrase “once-in-a-generation change” on such a regular basis, it is usually wise to place one’s hands protectively over one’s wallet, given the sheer cost of what is to follow. What became increasingly striking was not simply the scale of the promises, but the sheer showmanship of them, with the former Health Secretary speaking less like a Cabinet Minister wrestling with one of the most complex public services in the world and more like a man auditioning to narrate the trailer for his own leadership campaign documentary. And now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we arrive at the great political twist: the man who spent two years announcing the future has departed before the delivery date arrived, like an architect unveiling magnificent blueprints before quietly moving abroad just before construction begins. Into this situation walks the new Health Secretary. Members can imagine the scene: the Prime Minister sits stubbornly in No. 10, grinning with all the reassuring confidence of a man standing knee-deep in a flooded rowing boat insisting that the situation merely requires a modest redistribution of water. Into this bunker is summoned the new Secretary of State—formerly the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the very man who helped to allocate the famous £202 billion funding settlement now repeatedly cited as proof that every problem in British healthcare has theoretically already been solved.
I would point the hon. Lady to how the NHS was being run in Wales—it certainly was not the great success that she is trying to allude to. In politics there are difficult jobs and there are impossible jobs, and then there is inheriting a Department after one’s predecessor spent two years promising the electorate that this is the one Bill to rule all Bills and fix virtually everything short of death itself. This was not just a hospital pass, but a hospital pass delivered by catapult. One can almost hear the poor Secretary of State gulping. “Thank you, Prime Minister,” he replies faintly, in the tone of a man accepting command of the Titanic after it has already struck the iceberg. Off he trudges to the Department of Health and Social Care, where the automatic doors open and his nostrils are struck immediately by a strange, lingering aroma. It is not the scent of modernisation or the smell of efficiency, and it is certainly not the fragrance of falling waiting lists. No—it is the unmistakeable odour of political panic, mixed delicately with the perspiration of failed leadership manoeuvres and lightly seasoned with the ashes of abandoned promises. There waiting for him, naturally, is Sir Humphrey—because however much Governments modernise, digitise, integrate, recalibrate or synergise, Whitehall always produces a Sir Humphrey. I can imagine the conversation. The new Secretary of State says brightly, “Good news, Sir Humphrey. I understand that my predecessor has already solved everything through the Health Bill.” At this point, an eerie silence descends. Civil servants suddenly become more fascinated by ceiling tiles, and one junior official attempts to escape through a stationery cupboard. Sir Humphrey clears his throat in the way only permanent secretaries can; a sound rather like an early—
Give me time, give me time. “Well, indeed, Minister,” says Sir Humphrey. “I understand,” says the Secretary of State, “that abolishing NHS England will instantly reduce bureaucracy, improve accountability and unleash vast efficiencies.” “Well, Minister, it will certainly create a large number of meetings.” “And the single patient record will revolutionise healthcare, won’t it?” “Yes, Minister—assuming the NHS IT systems eventually stop communicating with each other via what appears to be medieval semaphore.” “But we have delivered 5 million more appointments.” “Certainly, Minister—only 1.5 million appointments behind the last Conservative Government.” “And integrated care boards now answer directly to Ministers.” “Yes, Minister.” “So accountability is now indisputable.” “Well, Minister, blame certainly is.” And so the conversation goes on. The Secretary of State asks, “And what about the workforce plan?” “Still developing, Minister.” “And social care?” “Still delayed, Minister.” “And mental health implementation?” “Still proceeding at approximately the speed of continental drift.” “And pharmacies?” “Still under pressure.” “And GP contracts?” “Still alarming GPs.” “And productivity?”, the Secretary of State asks desperately. “At present, Minister, the NHS measures productivity in the same way that astronomers in ancient Greece measured distant planets: with great optimism and very limited visibility.” At this point, the Health Secretary clearly begins searching the office for the exit map. “But Sir Humphrey,” he says, “surely my predecessor left me with a fully deliverable programme.” After a long pause, Sir Humphrey replies, “Well, your predecessor was primarily focused on a different pathway.” “A different pathway?”
“Yes—the pathway to No. 10.” And now I will give way to the right hon. Member! [Laughter.]
Well, let me say directly to the right hon. Gentleman that there have been a lot of announcements from the Government. We know all about the fall in waiting list figures, and not just from comments from us in this Chamber challenging what is really happening—we are receiving email after email from people who have been taken off waiting lists despite still needing treatment. Patients are being taken off waiting lists, sometimes without their knowledge. This has not been about more appointments for patients—it is about massaging the figures, and he knows it. There is a lot in this Bill that we will support, and there are many areas where we would like the Government to perhaps go further, but there is also a rhetoric that needs to be addressed, because there are unresolved problems still. Social care is unresolved. Workforce pressures are unresolved. Mental health backlogs are unresolved. Productivity is unresolved. Pharmacy pressures are unresolved. GP satisfaction is unresolved. The Secretary of State is inheriting not just a Department but an expectations crisis, because the greatest danger in politics is not under-promising; it is convincing the public that complexity itself can be announced away. The Bill abolishes NHS England and centralises significant powers to be governed by the Secretary of State. It takes control out of patients’ hands.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it is exactly the sort of issue that will need further scrutiny in Committee. I note that local authorities will not have the same seat at the table and that it will be transferred for mayoral regions, but what about regions that do not have a mayor? That measure will create a real democracy deficit in the NHS. I hope that we can look at this in detail in Committee, because that serious oversight absolutely needs addressing.
My hon. Friend raises a very important point; it is an area that the Committee will have to look at very carefully. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and I believe that he wants there to be a patient voice, but there is a serious flaw in the Bill. Abolishing Healthwatch and HSSIB is a terrible mistake, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for the work that he has been doing on this. The reality is that HSSIB gives members of staff who work in the NHS the confidence to come forward and be a whistleblower. We need that. We need people to feel that they are in a safe environment. The CQC is a totally different beast in the minds of people who work in the NHS and social care, so to put those functions within that organisation is a terrible mistake and one that I hope the Committee will look at very carefully.
I am genuinely concerned about that. Members of Parliament from across the House have often brought to the House some very serious cases—things that have gone terribly wrong for their constituents, services that have been commissioned in their area, and awful things that have happened to patients. It is because of organisations like Healthwatch and the HSSIB that those issues have come to light, and work has gone into improving those services. That is what we all want to see, but I am really worried that that progress will be lost. If those functions are absorbed into the Secretary of State’s office, I really do not think it will be able to cope with the sheer volume. It needs to be done on a much more localised basis.
That is exactly one of the issues that needs to be ironed out. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Committee considers the impact for devolved Administrations, particularly where they have responsibility for health in their areas. I hope that he will raise that with members of the Committee.
I gently remind the hon. Lady that it was the former Secretary of State who said that he did not want to go through another reorganisation, because it would be very costly. We still cannot get a clear answer from the Government about how much this is all going to cost the taxpayer, and there are estimates of £1 billion. There are still serious questions to be answered. The hon. Lady talks about democratic responsibility and accountability, and she is right to do that. She is fortunate—depending on one’s point of view—to have a mayor, but my constituency and county do not. Will my constituents get less of a voice in their NHS than her constituents in Shipley? That does not seem fair to me.
I am talking about trying to get accountability down to the local area. That is where it matters, and that is where my constituents want to see it. They know their local services and the hospitals in their areas, and they are the ones who should have their voices.
Yes, and this is—[Interruption.] It is slightly patronising to say to someone, “Read the Bill”. Clearly my hon. Friend has, and we have been talking about this in great detail. There is a real concern here. We need much clearer answers to these questions, which many of our constituents will have. Those who give up their time to work in organisations to make the NHS better deserve decent answers to those questions and concerns. I certainly hope that reflection will be taken on those points. At its heart, the Bill is not simply a debate about technology or bureaucracy; it is about who holds, controls and safeguards the most personal data that any of us will ever possess. This is one of the most significant reorganisations of the NHS in modern political history, but it is wrapped carefully in the language of managerial simplification. Perhaps part of the Bill will help, and of course some reforms are necessary. Conservatives are not afraid of reform—definitely not. Indeed, if the NHS is to survive the demographic, technological and fiscal pressures ahead, modernisation is essential. That is because technology matters, innovation matters, integration matters, data matters, prevention matters, productivity matters and, yes, accountability matters too. That is why, where we see good work in the Bill, we will back it, and where we think there are questions that need to be drilled down into, we will do so. We want to ensure that the Bill works. There is a difference between modernisations rooted in political realism and announcements designed primarily for political theatre, and too much of the approach we have seen so far is Whitehall talking to itself; meanwhile, outside this Chamber, reality continues uninterrupted. Patients still wait, ambulances still queue outside A&E, the family still worries, the exhausted nurse still works a double shift and the GP still battles impossible demands. Here is the truth: the NHS does not primarily suffer from a shortage of announcements; it is marked by a persistent lack of grip and direction. The Government today increasingly resemble a man frantically changing labels on a filing cabinet while the building itself quietly catches fire. The Government say that abolishing NHS England will reduce bureaucracy—perhaps it will—but let us not forget that Whitehall sometimes possesses a remarkable historic talent for abolishing bureaucracies ceremonially before quietly recreating them under another name with slightly different headed paper. We need to ensure that that does not happen in this instance. We also have to think about the huge amounts of public money involved—yes, nearly £202 billion; an extraordinary sum of money. We understand that pressures rise—of course we do—we understand about ageing populations, we understand that medical advancement increases costs and we understand the aftershocks of the pandemic. But when a Government spend record sums while presiding over delays, workforce uncertainty, transformation paralysis, productivity collapse and public frustration, eventually the British public are entitled to ask a simple question: where has all my money gone? The Government are not judged by the size of the press release; they are judged by whether the thing actually works. We must now do everything to ensure that the Bill goes through with great scrutiny, as it needs to do, because healthcare is difficult, trade-offs are real and workforce shortages cannot simply be rebranded as opportunities. Indeed, the public increasingly suspect something very different here: they suspect that too much of modern politics has become performance without consequences, announcements without accountability and presentation without delivery. That is ultimately why the Bill matters. If this enormous centralisation of power succeeds, Ministers will claim vindication, but if it fails and bureaucracy persists, waiting lists remain stubborn, workforce pressures deepen and promised transformation dissolves into another cycle of reorganisation, the Government will no longer possess anyone else to blame—not NHS England, local structures, quangos or the system—because the Bill places responsibility squarely where the Government claim it belongs, on the shoulders of Ministers. Perhaps that honesty will prove the Bill’s greatest contribution. The British people are patient, but they are not naive. They can distinguish between serious transformation and political choreography, and they increasingly understand that there is no technological shortcut around the fundamental challenge facing healthcare. The Government cannot run a service this large, pressured and so deeply connected to people’s lives and wellbeing primarily through presentation. Eventually, every Government collides with reality, and reality—unlike leadership campaigns—cannot be managed through slogans. That is the inheritance facing the new Health Secretary, and that is why the House should approach the Bill not with breathless excitement but with very hard-headed scrutiny indeed so that we get the NHS we all want to see.
My point flows from the important case that my right hon. Friend is making and from what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said. A key element of transparency is finding patterns of behaviour in covering up the crimes. It is not only about patterns in offenders; we also need transparency about where crimes were covered up and the patterns in that.
This issue is very real. Very close to here, a fun run organised by Tower Hamlets council did not allow women over 13 to join in. I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but let us be clear: it is happening, it is happening frequently and it is happening very close to where we are having this debate.
I pay tribute to the amazing work that my constituency neighbour has done over many years on this issue. The issue of taxi networks in the north of England, particularly those operating in Bradford and Keighley and in my area of Skipton and Ripon, is an example of the fact that analysing broader issues properly will require more funding.
2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of lead ammunition for defence purposes.
I thank the Minister for the answer. According to the ammunitions industry, the upcoming ban on lead in commercial bullets is going to cause significant problems for the police and armed forces, in terms of cost and supply. Viking Arms, in my constituency, which supplies the military and the police, is deeply worried about this issue. Will he meet it and any other suppliers to hear their concerns about the problem?
I fear I know the answer to this question in advance, but I shall ask it anyway. Would one way of reconnecting society with the armed forces at Armed Forces Day not be to revisit the testimony given to the then Defence Committee in March 2017 by four eminent professors of law? It showed how it is possible to protect veterans from being hauled before the courts for using lethal force against terrorists in the act of committing terrorism. That testimony deserves revisiting. Will the Government re-examine it and reinstate the immunity and the investigative processes that enable that protection to be done?
I think the country has a right to know how the Prime Minister reacted at the end of Mandelson’s vetting process. Have the Prime Minister’s comments on the outcome of the vetting been released, are they being withheld, or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), we have seen in the first tranche the box note that was sent from the Prime Minister’s private office to the Prime Minister setting out the issues and asking whether Peter Mandelson should be appointed, but that piece of paper bears no comment. When I asked the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office about this, she said that she would have expected there to be a record of the Prime Minister having written a comment or held a meeting to discuss it. There is apparently no record of either. Is the Minister saying that it does not exist, and if it does not, why not?
I want to make a small point following the strong and powerful point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the gang-related stuff. The petition that the public signed does not selectively go for gangs only. It refers to all offenders, including gangs. Surely the key is to get the knowledge. That sunlight will help us to solve those other crimes.
I just want to point out a clear example of why this is necessary. In 2022, the Home Office asked police forces to collect ethnicity and other data to have a display of evidence. Out of 43 forces, only one complied. That is why it must be statutory and enforced; does my right hon. Friend not agree?
Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has not deleted any of the messages that he received electronically on any personal or Government devices in relation to Peter Mandelson?
As far as the House of Commons generally is concerned, this statement is fairly meaningless, because it is impossible to ask questions about hundreds of pages, having had a few minutes to read them. So many general debates are damp squibs, so will the Minister undertake to answer every single question that has been put to him by the time he opens the debate on Wednesday?
I see that he is nodding; that is very helpful. In my experience, these scandals are always made much worse by any covering up, so I am sure that the Minister will want to be completely open. I listened to the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and it is strange that the Prime Minister seems to have so little involvement in this whole affair. I am reminded of the wartime film, “The Man Who Never Was”. Does that sum up this premiership—the man who never was?
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I congratulate him on his appointment. He has inherited this policy—it is not his own. I assure him that the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body is a dreadful mistake, because which other investigative function in the healthcare system is completely unconflicted in what it does? By abolishing HSSIB he is taking its functions into the CQC, which is a regulator and compliance enforcer, not an investigator, so that there is no longer any independent, unconflicted body conducting healthcare investigations. Has he consulted the royal colleges about this? I have not spoken to a single royal college that is in favour of the abolition of HSSIB.
I very much welcome the idealistic vision that the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) sets out for us, but I am afraid that it is far from what is in this Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), I shed no tears for the demise of NHS England; it was never an organisation independent of politics, but always looked upwards at the political leadership and did what Ministers wanted. It was created as an unnecessarily complex organisation. However, I ask myself whether reasserting the principle—unspoken in this debate—that somehow the man in Whitehall knows best is not reverting to the previous failures of the system, when we need to be looking for a much more organic and local system. I speak in this debate to lament the demise of HSSIB, as proposed in this Bill. It is a profound mistake. It represents a downgrading of safety as a priority in this Government’s health policy, because HSSIB is the only organisation that can independently investigate safety incidents in the NHS and is not conflicted by any other function or role. It does not compromise any other functional role in the NHS, yet the Government have decided to get rid of it. It will not save any bureaucracy. This tiny organisation costs a few million pounds, yet it is pioneering a new system of safety management in the NHS that the NHS culturally barely understands. We forget that NHS reform is really about people and leadership, not management structures and organisational structures. HSSIB was one of the catalysts that was beginning to transform attitudes towards safety. It was a safety valve for clinicians and patients and their families. It was the one place they could go to tell their story, without fear nor favour, in a safe space, and it was instructive.
Well, no, and the abolition of HSSIB is an example of that. It was the one organisation that could independently hold any part of the system to account. If its functions are transferred to the CQC, those functions will be compromised in their independence —and they are explicitly intended to be compromised. The Government set great store by the Dash review, but it is a flawed and dishonest document that misleads the public by what it says. The Dash review is not about patient safety. It puts far more emphasis on quality. It elides quality and safety, which are not the same thing, even if many people believe them to be so. That concern is reflected by the fact that there are too many recommendations flying around and too many resources being diverted to recommendations that the NHS does not want to implement. All those recommendations are coming from this plethora of public inquiries that Secretaries of State keep setting up. Surely we want to replace the public inquiry system with something much more effective, as we did for rail accidents. After the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, we replaced public inquiries with the rail accident investigation branch in the Department for Transport. There has not been a public inquiry into a rail accident since the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, because we have the rail accident investigation branch. There has not been a public inquiry into an aviation accident since 1972, because we have the air accidents investigation branch. Why can we not have the same principle for safety in healthcare, instead of this ridiculous Dash review, which is full of falsehoods and misleading statements? I will give the House just one example of that. The review says: “HSSIB was not able to retain the maternity programme because the Health and Care Act 2022 does not make provision for maternity investigations under HSSIB.” That is wrong. It had to give them up, because it did not have the capacity to do them.