5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Could the Minister give us a quantitative way in which we can judge whether that has been a success, so that we can decide whether further steps need to be taken? How many people coming here illegally would he be able to tolerate—would enable him to decide that actually that is okay?
I was very sorry to hear the story that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) shared. I will speak about a different aspect of the Bill: schools and admissions. Good schools, and the good teachers who run them, are exceptionally precious. At its best, a good school truly can transform the lives of its pupils by fostering their natural talents, by helping equip them to tackle challenges and by expanding their intellectual horizons. When good schools are working well, they should be able to grow, so that more parents can choose to send their children to a school where their talents can be cultivated and their interests encouraged. That is a simple principle—one that Members from across the House, and indeed everyone everywhere, should be able to agree to. A good education should not be the preserve of only those children who have parents who can afford to pay for one. Enabling more pupils to attend the best schools in the state sector means that that kind of education can be offered to more children, yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) has set out, the powers that this Bill will create on pupil admissions will achieve precisely the opposite. They allow the Government and regulators to limit the growth of good schools, or even force them to shrink, in order to make sure that schools that are performing less well can stay open. The most generous interpretation of the Government’s intentions is that this change is being made in the name of bureaucratic convenience. As the number of pupils entering the school system falls, it is true that local authorities will need to make decisions about which schools remain open and where. The Government Minister responsible for defending this legislation in the other place said that the proposals are “very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 2026; Vol. 855, c. 541.] Even if that was the case, it would be completely absurd to tackle this problem by limiting the growth of good schools in order to make life easier for bureaucrats in local government, and for headteachers at schools that are not performing well. Wherever possible, surely we should be enabling the growth of good schools so that they have the capacity to take on more pupils, if and when schools that are performing less well need to reduce their numbers. If parents make decisions that they believe are best for their children, who are bureaucrats to tell them otherwise? In practice, limiting the growth of good schools will keep more children trapped in failed schools for longer, deny them the opportunity to flourish and deprive them of the firm foundations for life that a good education can provide. Even if this was being done in the name of bureaucratic convenience, it would be grotesque, but I fear that the reality may be even worse. Since this Government came to power, we have repeatedly seen the Department for Education take steps that undermine the progress made by the last Government in this area, including by making it harder to turn failing schools into academies. Time and again, we have seen this Government put their ideological instincts ahead of what works in practice. Regardless of whether their proposals are motivated by ideology or convenience, the result will be the same: fewer children able to attend good schools, depriving them of the strongest start in life.
Those in the other place have asked us to reconsider Lords amendments 439E and 439F, which compel the Home Secretary to review the proscription of groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, including the IRGC. There can be absolutely no doubt about the threat that Iran and its proxies pose to this country and our national security. In 2015, terrorists linked to Iran were caught stockpiling explosives on the outskirts of London. In 2020, amid protests in Iran, the IRGC sought to assassinate two journalists on British soil. Just last year, the IRGC was linked to an attempted attack on the Israeli embassy in Kensington, which was foiled by counter-terrorism police. The organisation has been linked to at least 20 credible threats in the UK. Even beyond the direct risk posed by IRGC terrorism, the organisation is responsible for funding and supporting other extreme groups in this country, and has worked closely with criminal gangs to undermine our national security. We will be able to combat that threat only if we are willing to tackle it head-on, using every power available to us to do so. To that end, the very least we can do is make it harder for Islamist extremist groups to operate legally in this country. By proscribing the IRGC and other groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, Ministers would be able to protect not only those being attacked—actually, it is our Jewish community that we are really thinking about at this difficult time. These Lords amendments can only be a good thing. They would help to strengthen those protections. When Labour Members were on the Opposition Benches, many of them agreed. In April 2024, the now Foreign Secretary called for exactly this policy. Yet now, they are refusing even to review the proscription of groups such as the IRGC, which fuel the Islamist cause and are directly linked to the Iranian armed forces. I urge the Minister and her colleagues on the Government Benches to change their minds and accept the Lords amendments. The threat is far too grave to be ignored. By burying their heads in the sand, they will not make the problem go away; they will only put our country and its people more at risk.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether to stand at the Dispatch Box or on it. For want of a horseshoe nail, the kingdom was lost. The defence of our country today rests on modern nail-makers—the small and medium-sized enterprises supplying small but vital parts for frigates and fighter jets and for our fighting men and women. The endless delay in this Labour Government’s defence investment plan means that companies have no certainty about orders, and good jobs hang in the balance, from Pembrokeshire to Prestatyn. What pressure is the Secretary of State bringing to bear on Cabinet colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury to keep Welsh jobs, and indeed this United Kingdom, from being lost?
Thank you for agreeing to chair this important debate, Ms Lewell. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing it. We have heard a huge amount of unanimity across the political divide about our support for mountain rescue and the analysis of some of the challenges that it faces. Frankly, mountain rescue is easy to ignore because it operates by definition in remote areas, but there is something else: it is operated by people who are typically self-sufficient, independent and tough volunteers, and as a result it is a self-sufficient, independent and tough organisation. Those are not typically the kind of people who put their hands up and say they want the Government to do something for them, but—and this is an important “but”—when someone needs mountain rescue, it is the most important organisation in the world. There seems to be a qualification for being on the Front Bench at the moment. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) was stuck out on a mountain in Italy for 48 hours, and look where that has got him. I was an idiot myself when I was in my teens: I got stuck up above the snowline on a mountain overnight, with no equipment at all, wearing trainers. Unfortunately, that was before the days of mobile phones, and I just had to survive; I managed to climb down the following day. By the sounds of it, there is a link between risk taking and political careers, but I hope that both of us have learned our lessons; I look forward to further anecdotes from the Minister. We need mountain rescue, and we know that demand is increasing. We have heard about the 26 teams in Scottish Mountain Rescue, which in 2025 had 1,270 call-outs and assisted more than 900 people. It is worth remembering that that took more than 39,000 hours of volunteer time. We heard from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the many English mountain rescue teams—five, I think, in his constituency—and we heard from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) about Welsh mountain rescue. Like her, I want to raise the profile of Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team. In my former career, I was the managing director of Go Ape, working in outdoor recreation—often out in the mountains—and the Llanberis team was responsible for training for the mountain leader qualifications. It is at the heart of this country’s very good training and outdoor education, and was responsible for responding to 10% of all call-outs last year. There is plenty to support and give plaudits for. We have heard a number of arguments that more should be done regarding funding, and some of those arguments no doubt have merit, but we should be careful what we wish for with volunteer organisations. When I think, off the top of my head, about the most loved, must trusted and most supported organisations in our country, I think of the RNLI, the Air Ambulance Service, the hospice movement and mountain rescue. They have something important in common: they are not adjuncts of the state. They grow up from their local community, and they are therefore supported by, loved by and close to their community. It would be a terrible disservice to mountain rescue if, through some misplaced wish to support it, we brought it into the confines of the state.
That is a reasonable point, but the key argument made by all hon. Members today is about the state getting in the way through regulatory oversight. That may be by mistake, as I think it probably is genuine oversight in this case—that is, the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were debated in Committee on 15 April. Real concerns have been expressed by Members across the political divide about the potential impact of the draft regulations on mountain rescue. Those concerns were articulated in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is medically qualified and was previously a medical member of mountain rescue. She set out concerns about the impact on mountain rescue, the application of treatment by volunteers and the requirement to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale estimated that it would cost each organisation between £10,000 and £20,000 for regulation. There will be a clear impact upon onsite healthcare on the mountainside, but also on sports events, fell running, mountain bike events—which I used to attend—and music festivals. We want high quality care, but as Members from across the political divide have argued, the regulations need to be proportionate. I hope that the Minister is about to announce that there will be an exemption for mountain rescue. We wait on her speech with bated breath. That is just one example of regulatory burden; there are others. We should aim to have proportionate regulation. We should aim to reduce the regulatory burden in terms of bureaucracy while increasing the effectiveness of light-touch regulation to provide care and support when it is needed. The draft regulations appear to be the exact opposite, so I will be interested in the Minister’s response. I have a final point, though it is really an observation. On the increased demand for mountain rescue, we have to ask, “Why?”. It may be in part because of changed attitudes to how we live our lives as a response to covid and the lockdown, and a reassessment of the rat race. People want to get out, experience adventure, get closer to the outdoors and to nature more generally. If so, without hesitation I applaud and encourage, as we all should, that increased demand and appetite for the outdoors. There is an attitude on social media, however, where we seem to laud “extreme” activities, making very dangerous and difficult activities seem accessible and desirable to people like me when I was a teenager in my trainers. There is a concern that that attitude underplays the risk associated with those activities, when professional training is needed to build the layers of experience that make one capable of undertaking and surviving them. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging interest, involvement and engagement, and reinforcing the need for personal responsibility for one’s own safety—a responsibility that one addresses through training, experience and risk mitigation and management structures. We are lucky to have mountain rescue. Finance will always be a challenge. I accept that improvements can be made, but I repeat my caution about the need to stay close to one’s community. At the very least, the Government should not make matters worse with heavy-handed or stupid regulation. We seem to have an example of that going through Parliament right now. The Government have the opportunity, through the Minister, to address the sector’s very real concerns, and I look forward to her comments.
That sounds like progress in the right direction, but can the Minister address the absolute cost of registration, which we have assessed as being between £10,000 and £20,000 per organisation? How will that be reduced by the Government’s actions?
Some £400 billion was spent on public procurement last year, so I would like to ask the Minister a question that I asked his predecessor over a year ago, which she was unable to answer then: what is the Government’s precise savings target from that budget?
What a difference a week makes. When the hon. Gentleman rose to conclude our debate last Wednesday, he delivered from the Dispatch Box what I can only describe as a tirade. Serious and considered concerns—not just from me and my hon. Friends, but from noble Lords and many respected people across the industry—were met with accusations. We were told that those concerns were “nonsense on stilts”. He said that I had been “infected” by my party. If by that he meant that I have strong opinions—that I believe in a smaller state because Governments do not have all the answers and often need to get out of the way—then I must break the news to him that I have held those views for many years. I came to Parliament after a career in business. I knew my views then, and I still know them now. Last week I thought that the Minister could and should do better, and I am glad that since then he has. His tone has shifted, and I am grateful for the discussions he has had with me and my team. His engagement has been constructive, and we have indeed made progress. Turning to the amendments tabled since our last debate, I first welcome the Government’s commitment on the local government pension scheme. A faster and wider review of the triennial valuation by the Government Actuary’s Department is sensible and significant. If the review is to be meaningful, it must focus on what actually drives employer contribution rates, and we welcome that the Government have now recognised that. Secondly, the Government have committed, in their amendment in lieu of Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s amendment 77, to examine the costs and sustainability of public sector pensions. That too is welcome. That review should consider questions of intergenerational fairness, long-term sustainability and how best to protect the benefits already promised to people, particularly at a time when demands on the state are rising and taxpayers are being asked to contribute more than ever.
As I think the right hon. Gentleman will have heard in my speech, there is widespread agreement that we want to see more investment by pension funds in the UK; the debate is about whether mandation is the way to achieve that. Actually the Minister’s main argument for the mandation powers is not about investment in the UK; it is about solving a collective action first-mover problem in trying to improve returns and the risk that that will put up costs to pension funds and for savers. That is what he’s really arguing, rather than the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about investment in the UK.
On the ABI report that he referred to—he has referred to it before—yes, the ABI has agreed with the diagnosis of the problem, as I set out, as a collective action problem. However, it does not agree with mandation as the remedy. The Minister needs to be clear about that.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The last Division we voted on was on a motion proposed by the Government that grouped a series of amendments with which we agreed, alongside amendments on mandation, with which we had strong disagreements. What steps can be taken to bring about a separate Division on the mandation clauses, with which we disagree?
I think it is the first time, Ms Vaz, that I have had the pleasure of serving with you in the Chair; I very much look forward to it. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he just made. As the Minister said, in 2020 the previous Government began the process of looking into policies to provide a more transparent picture of the control of land through the creation of a freely accessible dataset. This came out of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which provided the framework for greater transparency on contractual control agreements in England and Wales such as—as the Minister also pointed out—option agreements used to control the land short of outright ownership. The process began with a call for evidence, which was followed by an eight-week consultation in which respondents demonstrated broad support for the increased transparency of contractual arrangements, including for key stakeholders such as developers and local authorities. However, respondents also made it clear that they had some reservations regarding unintended consequences in respect of things such as commercial sensitivity and the potential burdens on small and medium-sized businesses. On that latter point, it is vital that the Government fully and meaningfully engage with small and medium-sized businesses in the sector ahead of implementation, to ensure that this statutory instrument leaves no one concerned about additional costs and red tape to a detrimental effect. The previous Government hosted targeted engagement sessions before and during the consultation period to ensure that those who were going to be impacted by the regulations were fully aware and given adequate opportunity to put forward their thoughts and views on the matter. Times are, however, a little different now, and there is an important context for this debate. Small and medium-sized businesses such as developers, land promoters and conveyancers face increasingly higher costs and difficult market conditions. Not the least of their concerns is this morning’s data release regarding the inflation rate, which showed an increase to 3.3% in the year to March and forecasts of a potential high in excess of 4% this year—double the rate the Government are aiming for. For the construction and development industry, the impact on input costs, supply chains, material and, in particular, fuel could be severe. The data release shows that fuel inflation increased by 8.7% month on month—the highest rate since the beginning of Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine. Even before the data release, the Building Cost Information Service had forecast that building costs will increase by 14% over the next five years to 2031. That will hit SMEs especially hard and make it harder for them to compete as the major house builders dominate the more expensive land acquisitions, which data from the BCIS showed to happen in 2025. In addition to that are rising staffing costs, driven by increases to the minimum wage and employers’ national insurance contributions, and only compounded by the shortage of skilled workers available to the industry. All that is alongside the regulatory and fiscal environment, which the industry tells us is stifling house building and development. Well-intentioned regulation is performing an important but far from perfect role in balancing the vital priorities of any Government to deliver a sustainable housing stock and ensure that homes are safe. That issue is much larger than the scope of this statutory instrument, but I know the Minister takes it very seriously and I look forward to further parliamentary time being spent on it. Ultimately, I highlight all this because, for SMEs, this instrument produces new costs that are predicted to be about £4.2 million per annum. When that is added to the higher up-front capital costs, supply chain delays, increased taxation and the regulatory burden, it is vital that this important step to create better market transparency does not become overshadowed by the costs that come with it. The instrument is right to promote a fairer and more open land market. Indeed, it is right that almost any market must be open to competition to allow SMEs to compete alongside major players. That is the foundation, of course, of any capitalist system, and I welcome regulation that provides more choice for consumers as well as fairness for small and medium-sized businesses. However, how does the Minister plan to ensure that that is exactly the impact of the regulations? The regulations come with a real risk of unintended consequences. In particular, there are concerns about how the instrument will impact land values, landowners’ and developers’ behaviour, and community engagement. For landowners and developers, it is vital that the Government monitor the market to ensure that the regulations do not encourage the tying up of capital and shrinking of the land stock available for development by encouraging a wholesale shift to outright land purchases to avoid the regulatory requirements introduced by this instrument. For landowners especially, the Government must work with the sector to ensure that the public visibility of agreements does not foster an environment in which less land is brought forward for development. Without tackling those issues, the Government may only exacerbate the situation we increasingly find ourselves in—a situation in which the land, especially brownfield land, is preponderant, but where the high costs of construction and development preclude the laying of bricks or concrete. I finish with a simple but essential ask: will the Minister commit to a regular review of the potential trends and ensure that the regulations work as intended? Without that, efforts to build a transparent and competitive market, which are essential to the success of the housing market, could end up being lost in the shadow of prevailing economic downturn, be it global or national. The previous Government pursued this policy in 2024 to increase competition and transparency, and the potential of the intended consequences is why the Opposition will not divide the Committee today. However, the Minister must ensure that the regulations help to get Britain building and do not hinder British building, and must work with the industry to see that they work as intended.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on securing this debate and giving a great speech. I need to declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician in the national health service, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and a member of the British Medical Association. Going back a little while to when I was young—in fact, we are going back 25 years—I graduated as a doctor in 2001. I had done a five-year degree and I had provisional registration with the General Medical Council. In order to get full registration, I had to complete a year as a pre-registration house officer, most commonly referred to as a house officer. That was six months of medicine and six months of surgery in adult care in either order. It was, to some extent, an extension of medical school. Indeed, it was supervised by the medical school in terms of placements, and almost everyone—I say “almost”; I will come back to that in a moment—stayed local. In the process that I followed in Newcastle, where I was a student—I am recollecting this from 25 years ago—we had to apply for two medical and two surgical jobs. I applied for the Royal Victoria Infirmary and the Freeman hospital, but there were other options across the north-east where people were involved in training and medical school placements, such as Carlisle, Sunderland, North Tyneside—which was particularly popular at that time—South Cleveland and others. As with any other job, one was shortlisted, interviewed and potentially offered a job. The system worked so that, if a person was offered both jobs, they had to pick one. When the first round went out, people said which job they wanted and that was theirs. All the other jobs that were not allocated were put back into round two, people applied again, and by the time it got to round three essentially everyone had a job. The benefit of the system was that everyone knew that they had a job in the region where they trained to complete their full registration with the GMC, and the Government knew that all the people they had invested in for that training would become fully qualified doctors, provided they put in the requisite effort and attainment. However, changing over deaneries was extremely difficult. I applied for the RVI and the Freeman, and I got offered both. That was straightforward, but then I fell in love. I was proposed to, I accepted and I planned a wedding for no more than a week before I graduated. I did not fall in love with another member of hospital staff; I fell in love with a farmer, and farms are quite difficult to shift. I then decided that I wanted to move to Nottingham deanery. It is fair to say that Newcastle deanery was not keen on that idea, although it was supportive, and Nottinghamshire deanery was really not keen on the idea because it had to fit an extra person into the system. It made that clear, saying, “Well, you’re not having a job in a big teaching hospital.” That was fine: I just wanted a job near to where my husband’s farm was. I was allowed to move deaneries under those special circumstances. I first spent time at Lincoln under Dr Patterson, a wonderful consultant, as a young doctor. He was a respiratory physician, and I very much felt part of his team. I then went to Mansfield, where I worked for Mr Moulton, an orthopaedic surgeon. He was a lovely man; we used to do French verbs together during knee operations. After that, I worked for Miss Patterson, a vascular surgeon. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket put it, I very much felt part of a firm or part of a team. There was continuity of care, as I was looking after my consultant’s patients. I was not part of a massive group of people performing a list of tasks for a whole range of consultants on a group of patients who I did not know, which is how it can be for many junior doctors now. The other thing provided at that time was accommodation. Part of the system with a PRHO job was that accommodation was provided for free, on the hospital site or very close to it, for the first year. That meant that when junior doctors were doing those two six-month jobs straight out of medical school, they had accommodation. In their wisdom, the people negotiating the pay and conditions decided to give that accommodation up for a little bit of extra money. At the time I thought that was mad, but since I had passed that stage, at the time I considered that it was really none of my business. However, I think that it caused a problem, particularly because the European working time directive has meant that instead of working really long shifts, people work much shorter shifts but have much longer travelling times. I was working long shifts but not having to do a lot of travelling. Junior doctors now have to do shorter shifts—more of them, on a much less flexible rota, to get all the required shifts in—and they are also travelling for miles at the beginning and end of each shift. I think that change has been counterproductive; I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts about it. The other thing is that the system was based on merit—whether or not I got the job at the RVI or the Freeman was based on merit. I had to apply. I had to say that I had done things such as presenting at an international conference as a final-year student. That sort of thing was considered important, as was getting good grades in my exams or in my project work at medical school; now it is not. I just wanted to examine what happened between that time and now. In 2005, the then Labour Government introduced a modernising medical careers programme, which changed the one-year foundation programme to a two-year foundation programme—I am not clear why that was thought necessary—and the placements were changed from six months to three or four months in duration. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket that that is too short for someone to really get into a job, and to understand the team they are in and what they are doing, before they have to move on again. People have virtually just arrived and then they are going. There was then the medical training application scheme, or MTA scheme, in 2007, which was a national scheme. There were lots of errors and data breaches. The Secretary of State apologised, and we went back to the deanery approach. There was then a lot of concern that that system was not fair, and that it was stressful; it required people to perform well in exams, and people did not like that very much. So we have gone to the Oriel system—this preference-informed allocation system that matches people with places. In the engagement process before it was brought in, there were 14,500 responses, mostly from students, and 66% of respondents said they wanted the system, while about 30% said they did not, so it was brought in. The education performance measure and the situational judgment tests, which have been referred to, were removed, and a lottery system was brought in. Essentially, it means that junior doctors are given a completely randomly allocated number, based on nothing but chance. Junior doctors are then allowed to express a preference for particular foundation programmes. However, when I refer to foundation programmes, I mean areas of the country. As I said, in the case of Newcastle that can mean an area that goes all the way from one coast to another—for example, right down to Middlesbrough and up to Hexham and Berwick. Those are not small areas; they are quite chunky bits of the country to travel around, requiring many hours of travel, from north to south to east to west, in some of them. Nevertheless, applicants get to express a preference. The computer system will allocate places on the basis that if someone’s first preference is available, they get it, but if it is not they effectively get put back in the box for later. The computer will go down the list until it has allocated all the first preferences and, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, quite a lot of people do get their first preference although, as he also said, whether or not it was their first preference in truth is another matter. Then an applicant gets to look in the foundation area that they have been allocated to, and to express a preference regarding the jobs within that region. The computer, using the same number—if the student was lucky the first time, they are lucky the second time—goes down the list and allocates them. If they are not allocated, it has to go round again and allocate them a later preference. That means that people either get their first preference or go very much further down the list: a Newcastle medical student, as I was, could get sent to Penzance, which is a lovely place but a long way from Newcastle. There is nothing the student can do about that. They have no control over their life. Even if they are the best-performing medical student in every capacity in the whole country, they still get sent where they get sent—and that is tough.
I congratulate that person on his prowess in university. He is clearly an incredible person, and it is a shame that he has been lost to medicine. I am sure Northern Ireland is a great place to work, and it is disappointing that he did not want to go there, but he should have been able to apply for the jobs that he wanted in places where he wanted to work, and to compete fairly for them. That is a bit stressful and competitive—but getting into medical school is competitive. You may not know this, Mrs Barker, but the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and I grew up on the same street, in the same town, and went into similar-ish careers. We competed for medical school places and for our jobs. We are all here today having competed against others for election—that is the reality of life. To remove the competition, which is based on meritocracy, and replace it with a random allocation is more unfair and stressful than the alternative. One of the issues raised about the old scheme was that it was difficult to recruit in some areas. The competition for the best jobs, or at least those perceived to be the best or most wanted jobs, means that some areas of the country and some specialties could find themselves with the people who did not succeed in getting the jobs they wanted. How do we manage that? It used to be managed with rotations. When people went to the interview for specialist jobs, they would be called in one at a time and told, “These are the rotations available. Which one do you want?” The best jobs—the most popular ones—would be mixed with the least popular, so that would mitigate the problem. There is one issue that I want to raise briefly. Some medical schools in the UK, including Newcastle, have overseas campuses in Malta, Cyprus and Malaysia. Some British people have gone to those branches of UK medical schools and have found themselves completely excluded from places in the United Kingdom under the medical training changes that the Government have made in the past couple of months, which seems wrong. We talked about that when the Bill went through, and the Minister was keen to reassure us that all would be well, but we have found that British students have not been able to get jobs in the British training programme. Will the Minister look at prioritising at least those who went to medical school before the changes for British jobs? The current system gives junior doctors—resident doctors, as they are called now—no agency, no control, no appeal and no alternative. It is clearly unfair. Could the Minister update the House on how he intends to fix the system?
Could the Minister highlight the timing of that in relation to the workforce plan, and when that will be published?
The Minister talked about less-than-full-time training, which has obviously had an impact on the number of doctors we need. The Secretary of State said before the general election that if Labour was elected, it would double the number of medical school places. Is that still the Government’s intention?
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I believe that it relates to postgraduate training places. I was asking whether it is still the intention to double the number of medical school places?
As a doctor, I feel uncomfortable with the morality of going on strike and leaving patients to suffer in order to get more money for oneself. I think the morality of the strikes is outrageous. However, does the Minister regret the repealing of the minimum service levels legislation, which could have enabled the Government to put in firmer boundaries around the strikes to prevent harm to patients? Will the Government consider banning doctors from striking altogether, as a Conservative Government would, in the same way that people in the Army and the police are banned from striking?
I thank the Minister for being extremely generous with his time. He says the Government will not consider removing the right of doctors to strike, but he seems to be going further and suggesting that doing so would be wrong in principle. Do the Government therefore intend to allow the right to strike for those who are currently not allowed to, such as the police and armed forces?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to have heard the last few speeches, which made very important points, but even with five minutes, time is still short for me. I will speak briefly about a couple of aspects of social media and mobile phones. On social media, let us get on with it. We have had this issue come back from the Lords multiple times, and we can do this. There is a glaring logical flaw at the heart of the Government’s argument for not taking action—we have also heard it from a bunch of Labour MPs today—which is, “We can’t do this one thing, because there are some other things we could do as well.” That just does not hold water. All those other things—around gaming, other types of applications, chatbots, addictive features and so on—could be additive to a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. They would still, by the way, be very relevant to child safety. I remind the House that our duty to children extends to those aged up to 18, as per the Children Act 1989 and our commitments to the United Nations. There are issues to resolve about a ban—exactly where the lines should be drawn; exactly what is in and what is out—and yes, of course, the Government have to consult on those issues, but they do not need to consult further on the principle of whether the country and the House of Commons want a ban on young people under the age of 16 accessing social media, a conclusion that so many other countries are also coming to. On mobile phones, throughout the progress of the Bill, I have found a remarkable contrast. The Government said for so long that they would not ban phones in schools because there should be some discretion for headteachers, but they are going to tell them precisely how many items of branded school uniform they are allowed to specify, and will tell them that in secondary schools that could include a tie, but in primary schools, for some bizarre reason, it cannot. I am pleased that the Government have partly seen the light. The Minister, whom we all like and respect, said last week that the problem had already been solved—and presumably it has now been re-solved, as the Government have come back to the issue—but I have to say that that is not what children say. What children tell us, both informally and when they are answering surveys about the actual use of mobile phones in schools, is how often lessons get interrupted, teachers are filmed, and bullying and other stuff happens at break times and lunchtimes. We need to act. Of course, there can be individual exceptions for those using assistive and adaptive technology, for young carers, and for others, but the one exception that we must not have is on the type of ban. The critical question is about having a policy of “not seen, not heard”. Every school in the country, pretty much, already has at least that, but I am afraid that it is not effective as a ban. If you have this thing in your pocket, or in your bag at your foot, it is still there, and you feel its presence. If it vibrates, you might actually feel it, physically; but even if you do not, you feel that compulsion towards it. The only way to make a school truly free of the scourge of mobile phones is to have them away from the child. The “not seen, not heard” approach does not work. The main argument for saying that we have to allow “not seen, not heard” is about cost. I understand that. Pouches, which a couple of colleagues have mentioned, do have a cost, but we do not have to do pouches. There are other ways of doing this. I mentioned the Petersfield school in my constituency, which has a phones-away-from-children ban, and which uses a simple device—a plastic box that can be purchased in most large-format Swedish retailers. That is locked away in a cupboard, along with a number of other boxes, until the end of the day. The biggest cost has been the foam inserts, with numbered slots in which each child puts their phone, but the sum total cost is very reasonable. I want to answer the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), who is no longer with us, so to speak. He asked why had we not taken this measure when we were in government. That is a perfectly reasonable question. There are two reasons: first, the issue has become more acute; and, secondly, the attitude of headteachers. It has changed. We have gone from headteachers and their representative bodies saying, “The best way for you to support me in this school is not to impose a national ban,” to them saying the exact opposite—that the best way to support schools and headteachers is to have a ban written into law.
I think that would try Madam Deputy Speaker’s patience. Today is the day that we can take action on those two points.
Like colleagues from across the House, I have constituents—veterans and former public servants—who have been treated appallingly by Capita, and who have been unable to access the money that they paid in. The Minister previously promised a standardised mitigation letter that those individuals could take to lenders, so that they did not necessarily have to lend at a commercial rate. I appreciate that there is £7.2 million in interest-free loans as well. Has the Minister delivered on his promise of a standardised mitigation letter, and will he go further, if required, on the £7.2 million in interest-free loans?
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motion: That this House insists on its amendments 439C and 439D and disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 439E and 439F in lieu.
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. As he will know, ministerial responses, including those of the Prime Minister, are not the responsibility of the Chair. However, he has put his point clearly on the record and the Treasury Bench will have heard it; if a correction is needed, I am sure that one will be brought forward.
Q4. We know that the Prime Minister has been playing fast and loose with ministerial appointments in his chumocracy, so I want to ask him about the first one. [Interruption.] Labour Members’ boos mean nothing to me; I have seen what makes them cheer. Jonathan Powell was appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory on 6 September, but throughout August he held meetings with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials and was given access to classified information, including a minute of a meeting between the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary, who is sat next to him on the Front Bench. My question is very simple: when was Jonathan Powell appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and what security clearance did he have upon that appointment?
I think all of us on the Opposition Benches would be keen to understand why, if the Minister is so confident that pension funds will invest, he does not make it a choice rather than a mandate.
The House of Lords has identified clear gaps and proposed practical solutions, and has sent improvements back to us. The Lords has acted to put in place clear safeguards, and the Government respond by stripping them out and pressing ahead regardless. Let us take Lords amendment 38. The Lords were clear that they required action to protect children from harm online, including stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress within 12 months. The Government have chosen to strip that out, and replace it with a broad power to make regulations at some future point. If the Government agree that there is a problem, and Ministers clearly do, why remove the mechanism that would ensure something is actually done about it? Similarly, Lords amendment 102 was straightforward. It said that high-performing schools delivering good outcomes and in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless that decision is necessary and proportionate. The Government have rejected that safeguard. Instead, they offer softer language, asking the adjudicator to “have regard” to certain factors, but “have regard” is not a protection. It does not guarantee that parental preference will carry any weight. I ask the Minister directly: why remove a clear safeguard for high-performing schools and replace it with something that offers far less certainty? Why take out measures that provide clarity, certainty and protection, and replace them with looser powers and softer language? Once again, we see the same approach—sensible safeguards that have been put forward are being swept aside by this Government. That is why I cannot support the Government’s position at this stage, and why I urge Ministers to think again.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could get your guidance on seeking a correction of the record from today’s Prime Minister’s questions. In response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that Sir Olly Robbins “was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment.” I am afraid it is very clear from Sir Olly’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee that he believed that pressure was put on him. I refer to Question 532, to which he said: “Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing”. I refer, too, to Question 580, in response to which he said: “while I think the Department felt under pressure, we were proud of the fact that we had not bowed to that pressure.” I also refer to Question 615, in response to which he said that Philip Barton’s “handover to me has contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure and a certain dismissiveness about this DV process”. I could go on. Strongly contrary to the impression that the Prime Minister wished to create, Sir Olly Robbins clearly said that his Department had been placed under pressure. I wonder if you can help explain to me how we might achieve a correction to the record.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest during a debate on 16 July 2025 about the Committee on Standards’ third report of the 2024-25 Session, which concerns the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff. During the debate, I inadvertently failed to declare a relevant interest: I employ my wife, who is subject to the rules about the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff. This was in breach of the House’s rules and I apologise to the House for this error.
In recent months, western sanctions have really been biting Putin, with the foundations of Russia’s economy failing. However, as we highlighted with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in December 2025, concerns have been reported that Russian crude is reaching refineries—including one part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal—via shadow fleet vessels, showing that gaps remain. Will the Government now lead efforts to crack down on those networks and press those refineries in Turkey, China and India to stop processing Russian oil?
The Minister made a statement to the House on 26 February. Sadly, that has not been followed by the detail that Parliament was promised. In his most recent answers to my written parliamentary questions he says that the final treaty will be laid “As soon as possible” after EU processes conclude, yet the Government of Gibraltar have stated that it is provisionally due to come into force in July. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation and confirm when Parliament will be given proper time to scrutinise the full details? Will he guarantee that scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process will take place before provisional application?
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time this evening. If this Labour Government were really serious about a brownfield-first approach, they would accept these amendments from the House of Lords, because they are exactly about ensuring that developers develop on that sort of land first. These amendments would protect communities and the environment in places like mine, which are coming under attack from her Government, who want to impose 20,000 homes on Walsall.
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the west midlands under the leadership of Andy Street, it was proven that we can regenerate brownfield sites—we have done it in the Walsall borough. The Government must be prepared, as we were when we were in government, to put in some funding to unlock those sites. It can be a win-win as we develop brownfield sites, regenerate our towns and cities, create the housing wanted by young people and old people, and protect the green belt and our green spaces for as long as we possibly can, allowing communities such as those I represent—600 people came out last weekend to protest against the Government’s measures—to enjoy the amenities of life that they currently do.
The hon. Lady makes an important point, with which she knows I have a lot of sympathy. In my area, it is estimated that 5,000 homes could be unlocked if we had a proper brownfield-first approach to planning. Does she agree that the whole issue around housing is about not a lack of land but a lack of funding to regenerate some of the sites, a lack of political will from this Government and a lack of ambition? The Government should look at the brownfield sites and the empty buildings, and then look again at the housing targets that have been arbitrarily put on areas which will do nothing to protect us from urban sprawl.
Urban sprawl is exactly why the green belt was put in place. Its purpose was to protect areas such as mine, my hon. Friend’s and many others that are on the periphery of some of the biggest conurbations and urban areas from urban sprawl. Does he agree that this Labour Government do not care about our communities? All they care about is an arbitrary housing target.
I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement. The UK has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is crippling our economy and pushing up the cost of living, and it leaves us particularly exposed to energy shocks such as the one we are experiencing right now. Yet the Government seem totally unwilling to accept the scale of the problem and to shift in their dogmatic commitment to a net zero agenda, which is making us poorer. Last year, we Conservatives came forward with our cheap power plan. We said that the Government needed to scrap carbon taxes and the renewables subsidies, which are pushing up bills, and reverse the nonsensical decision to rely on imported oil and gas instead of pursuing the common-sense approach of extracting our own resources from the North sea. Under pressure from this Conservative Opposition, there has been some progress at least, but it has been made at a snail’s pace. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been dragged, with oh so much reluctance, in the direction that we have set out. The action taken goes nowhere near far enough and is not fast enough. At the Budget, the Government announced they would take 75% of the cost of renewables off bills, but they did not abolish the subsidies, as we called for them to do. They are still being paid—maybe not out of people’s energy bills, but out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. When it comes to the vast majority of businesses in our country, this Government have done nothing for them. The proposals announced today risk locking in the costs of those subsidies by including them in the new contracts for difference, to which the Government are hoping that energy producers will sign up. Can the Chancellor confirm that this is the case—that under these arrangements, these subsidies will not only persist but will be guaranteed? The new contracts announced today are, of course, voluntary, so on what basis do the Government think these changes will lead to an overall reduction in energy bills? Presumably, generators will only sign up to these arrangements if it is in their commercial interest to do so. How will the Government ensure that companies do not simply game the system and end up being guaranteed higher prices? By how much will these announcements reduce energy bills? Has the Energy Secretary even provided the Chancellor with an estimate of the impact on bills? If there is no estimate, how can the Chancellor be confident that bills will indeed be reduced, not increased? On that point, we can put a number on our plan: it would mean £200 off household bills. Why can the Chancellor not do the same with this latest announcement? The Government have also said they will get rid of carbon price support. That is welcome, but they are not doing it until next year, and the CPS is only part of the carbon tax, which the Opposition are clear needs to be scrapped completely. It costs both households and businesses, and it needs to go. Why will the Chancellor not commit to removing these taxes completely? On taxes, the Chancellor noted the importance of keeping fuel duty down, but once again she had nothing to say about the onerous increase that she still plans to bring forward in September. Finally, we have had no meaningful action today on the issue of North sea oil and gas. The Chancellor says she wants to reduce our exposure to global energy prices, yet the Government are choosing to leave us more reliant on imported hydrocarbons. We all know that she is in a completely different place on this to the Energy Secretary. He is committed to the gradual smothering of our oil and gas sector, regardless of the cost to our economy and the loss of those jobs and tax revenues. Why does the Chancellor not urge the Prime Minister to overrule the Energy Secretary on these matters? The revenues from new oil and gas extraction are vital, given the state of our public finances. The current crisis shows how exposed we are and how damaging the Government’s net zero obsession has been to our economy, to households and to businesses. The Government are right to want to reduce that exposure, but they are doing too little, too late. We need an urgent change of course, not dither and delay. We need a proper cheap power plan to get bills down, and we need it now.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as a matter of objective fact, this House was misled about the circumstances of Mandelson’s security vetting, even if that misleading was inadvertent?
May I welcome the couple of positive references that the Chancellor made a little while ago to civil nuclear power? Given that we have in this country Rolls-Royce, a world-leading specialist in the design and construction of small modular mobile nuclear reactors, what plans do the Government have to support this particular sector so that we are less dependent on the whims of Iranian dictators in future?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance, in what I believe is truly a genuine point of order, as to how Parliament and the public should understand the terminology in “Erskine May” about inadvertently misleading the House. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) pointed out: “The Prime Minister has said various things about Peter Mandelson’s vetting process…that have now turned out not to be true.” He asked: “Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House of Commons?” The Prime Minister replied: “No, I did not mislead the House of Commons.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 51.] He then argued that other information that had been withheld from him had led to this situation. My understanding is that giving the House wrong information, but in good faith, is precisely what is meant by inadvertently misleading the House. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand that, and nor does the Foreign Secretary, to whom I asked a similar question this morning. Is it me who is misunderstanding the meaning of the term “to inadvertently mislead the House”?