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

1. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Oil and Gas

   For the purposes of today, I will leave aside the renewables market, but I notice that RenewableUK agrees with the chief executive of Octopus Energy that it is crazy, along with the heads of the unions responsible. They all agree that this is crazy. There is going to be a U-turn, and we are going to have the comic sight of the poor Minister on the Front Bench—a very likeable and very competent Minister—coming to this House to explain why the exact opposite of what he is arguing today is now the truth. That is going to happen, and it has to happen, because if the Government do not U-turn, we will lose jobs, tax revenue and energy security. I notice that those are the three qualities that are in the motion, because they are the vital things that we are missing by not drilling for oil and gas in the North sea while we continue to import it. We are importing more, with higher emissions than if we produced it here, and the net result is that we do not consume or burn a single drop less of oil or gas. The Labour party’s position is untenable.

   Hansard source
2. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Oil and Gas

   Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need to see the hydrogen storage and transport model issued by the Government as quickly as possible?

   Hansard source
3. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Oil and Gas

   Does the hon. Gentleman realise—he may not, because I know that some of the stuff he is fed by those on the Government Front Bench may not help him—that whereas only 6.5% of electricity came from renewables in 2010, the proportion was over 50% when we left power? He can criticise the Conservative Government all he likes, but suggesting that one of the greatest transformations and moves to renewables by any country in the history of the world was some kind of non-event is to mislead the House, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is an honourable man, would never seek to do that.

   Hansard source
4. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Oil and Gas

   I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I said anything to that effect, I withdraw it.

   Hansard source
5. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Oil and Gas

   The only doubling down being done is by the Minister, who insists that we import more from abroad. Where energy is produced makes no difference to how much we consume. It can either be produced abroad or it can be produced here, with jobs, tax and lower emissions. Why on earth would he choose for it to be done abroad?

   Hansard source
6. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Women’s Safety in Rural Areas

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to take part in this debate about the impact of planning on women’s safety in rural areas. Any concern about the safety of women and girls in their local communities is, of course, of real importance, and I welcome the opportunity to examine the issue from the context of the planning system. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing the debate. Let me start by setting out why this debate is important, because the safety of women and girls should be a whole Government effort and of concern to the whole of society. It is relevant to consider the context at the outset. In July 2024, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing described the problem of violence against women and girls as a national emergency, making up just under 20% of all recorded crime in England and Wales. Data has shown that in rural areas, convictions for domestic abuse are less likely, and victims in rural areas are subject to domestic abuse for 25% longer than those in urban areas, and are half as likely to report it. It is clear that a strong disparity exists between the safety of women in urban locations and those in rural locations—I appreciate the value of this aspect of today’s debate. I have no doubt that the Government share the police chiefs’ concern. Despite that, the Government’s “Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy” mentions rural locations just once. I suspect that is unintentional, but would welcome confirmation from the Minister in a few moments. When we think about safety, we often focus on laws, policing or personal responsibility. That is entirely understandable, but one of the most powerful tools we have is something perhaps less obvious and the subject of this debate: planning. The way we design and organise rural spaces, roads, transport systems, lighting, housing and community services can significantly shape how safe women and girls feel and actually are. It is important that women and girls feel safe in the built environment around them, and that choices are made to ensure that safety can be upheld. That is why it is noteworthy that the Government have said: “Design and planning are critical tools in achieving this.” The planning system may at first seem a somewhat unrelated aspect of Government policy in the context of women’s safety, but as the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset emphasised in her speech, that assumption is wide of the mark. Through the planning system, both central and local Government can shape the built environment around women and girls to provide the infrastructure necessary to make rural streets, hamlets, villages and towns safe places for local people in general, and local women and girls in particular. For example, we know that well-lit streets, accessible transport and thoughtful design can work towards reducing violence and opportunities for harm. Those examples do not guarantee women’s and girls’ safety. It is of considerable regret that so many women and girls do not feel safe on our streets, despite efforts made locally and centrally by figures of authority. But the changes that such planning choices can lead to in making women and girls feel safer in rural communities are none the less of great importance. That is clearly why the Government have announced that they will “update national design guidance to reflect a VAWG perspective, ensuring that safety considerations inform how public spaces are designed.” I hope the Minister will update us in a few minutes’ time on the progress regarding that pledge. What specific changes will be made and when? In addition, the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Transport launched a consultation regarding the third cycling and walking investment strategy recently. In that consultation, the Minister’s colleagues noted: “Investment in well-lit, safe, high-quality walking, wheeling and cycling routes increases feelings of personal safety, as well as improving road safety”. The Government are yet to release their response to the consultation, which closed in November 2025. I hope the Minister will confirm that he will investigate how that pledge can be enacted, and what impact it will have on rural areas and the women and girls who live within them. On rural issues specifically, I have already spoken about better lighting and creating safer spaces, but rural areas face a multitude of other issues that can actively work against the protection of women and girls. Technology and communication infrastructure are key parts of modern planning. Access to mobile networks and emergency services can literally be lifesaving in rural areas, but, according to a report from the House of Lords, although the situation is improving, rural areas often suffer from much worse access to the internet and worse phone coverage than urban areas. In January 2024, the proportion of rural premises with access to gigabit-capable broadband was only 47%, compared with 84% of premises in urban areas. Around 5% of premises in rural areas were not able to access a decent broadband service at all, compared with just 1% in urban areas. Access to efficient broadband and speedy ways to contact key agencies in emergencies, including the police, would intuitively seem to be an important part of increasing the safety of women and girls in rural areas. The lack of public transport in rural areas can force women and girls to take longer, less safe routes home. Given that, as I already mentioned, rural areas tend to be less well-lit and are often less heavily populated, the increased risk to women and girls caused by the lack of public transport is obvious. In the planning system as a whole, there is a difficult balance between more effective regulation and making the system not just work for everyone, but actively support everyone in all aspects of life. It is clear that it will require a whole-Government approach to get that right. Planning alone is not a complete solution; it must work, as the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, alongside other agencies, such as education, community engagement and strong legal protections. Without good planning, even the best policies can fall short if they attempt to work in isolation. The safety of women and girls must be improved and protected with a holistic and multi-departmental approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

   Hansard source
7. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Middle East Conflict: Energy Security

   Given the recent jump in the price of oil, would it not be good for the UK economy, jobs and the Government’s tax receipts to maximise drilling for North sea oil, as Norway does, rather than phasing it out and closing those sites down because of this Government’s, and in particular the Secretary of State’s, left-wing dogma?

   Hansard source
8. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Middle East: Economic Update

   The sad truth is that the Chancellor weakened the UK economy with her tax-busting Budgets and jobs tax, and that has been exposed by this middle east crisis. The Energy Secretary’s actions are making things worse: he has just refused to maximise drilling in the North sea and issue new licences, which would provide much-needed energy security and affordability. Will she now see sense and overrule the Energy Secretary’s decisions?

   Hansard source
9. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

   Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

   It is an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to focus my remarks on amendment 8, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East set out, seeks to provide a clear and practical definition of due regard in the Bill. If Parliament is placing a legal duty on public bodies to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, it is only right that it should be clear what that duty requires in practice. The Bill places a duty on specified public bodies to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant when exercising certain functions, as set out in proposed new section 343AZA(5) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, including in areas such as healthcare, housing, education, transport and pensions. However, the term “due regard” itself is not defined in the Bill or elsewhere, which creates a very real risk of inconsistent interpretation or application. Amendment 8 would resolve that uncertainty by defining due regard as requiring public bodies to “think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors relevant to how they carry out their functions.” That would not represent a change of policy; it would merely clarify how the duty is to operate. It would make explicit what many would assume is already intended, but which is not currently set out in the Bill. The armed forces covenant itself is well understood by many. It reflects the principle that those who have served our armed forces, and their families, should not be put at a disadvantage compared with other citizens in accessing public services. It also recognises that, in some cases, special consideration may be appropriate. I think those principles are widely supported not just in this place but among the wider public. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that they are also reflected in the decision-making processes of public bodies. The effectiveness of the duty to have due regard to the covenant depends in large part on how due regard is understood and applied. In the absence of a definition, there is scope for variation. Some public bodies may interpret the duty as requiring active and meaningful consideration of the covenant in their decision-making processes; others may take a more limited approach, treating it as a procedural requirement that can be satisfied with relatively minimal engagement. That variation matters in practice. Members of the armed forces and their families frequently move between different parts of the country, and they rely on services provided by local authorities, healthcare systems and other public bodies. A lack of consistency in how the covenant is applied can result in uneven access to support in those circumstances. Let us take the example of a service family who move from one area to another. They may encounter different approaches to school admissions, healthcare provision and housing allocation. If due regard is interpreted differently in every area, the level of support available may itself vary significantly. Amendment 8 would support a more consistent and coherent approach. By defining due regard clearly, it would establish a common standard that can be applied across different public bodies. The proposed definition is deliberately balanced: it would require public bodies to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight, but it would not require a particular outcome in any given case, and it would not override other relevant considerations. It would simply ensure that decision makers exercise judgment and balance competing factors. At the same time, it would ensure that the covenant is not overlooked or treated as an afterthought. It requires active consideration—that is the way it must be interpreted. The reference to appropriate weight would make it clear that the covenant must be taken seriously, even if it is not determinative. That reflects the approach taken in other areas of public law where due regard is applied, in which contexts the courts have been very clear that the duty involves more than simple awareness; it requires informed and timely consideration of the relevant principles as part of the decision-making process. Amendment 8 would adopt that well-established understanding and apply it in the context of the armed forces covenant, providing a much clearer framework within which public bodies can operate. It is worth reminding ourselves that clarity is important not only for public bodies, but for those affected by their decisions. Members of the armed forces community need to know what they can reasonably expect when engaging with public services. A clearly defined duty would help provide that assurance to them and their families. It would also support accountability. Where a duty is clearly defined, it is easier to assess whether it has been properly discharged. With the proposed definition in place, Parliament and others would be better placed to scrutinise how public bodies are applying the covenant in practice. Without a definition, that scrutiny becomes much more difficult; it is less clear what standard is being applied, and therefore harder to identify when that standard has not been met. Amendment 8 would strengthen both the operation of the duty and the ability to hold public bodies to account for its delivery.

   Hansard source
10. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    I am grateful, as always, to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has hit the nail on the head. This is not something novel; it is merely codifying—formalising in the Bill—what has already been written in evidence to us, which seems eminently sensible. It is important to consider the practical impact of the amendment on public bodies. The definition would not impose a new or onerous requirement. Public bodies are already accustomed to taking into account statutory duties and policy considerations in their decision-making processes. A requirement to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight would fit squarely within that existing framework. It would not require extensive additional processes or resources. It would not mandate detailed reporting or specific outcomes. Instead, it would provide a clear instruction about how the covenant should be treated alongside other relevant factors. In practice, that may involve ensuring that decision makers are aware of the covenant and understand its implications. It may involve considering how policies affect members of the armed forces community and whether adjustments are needed to avoid disadvantage. Those seem eminently sensible and wise factors to put in this piece of legislation. In education, that could mean taking into account the particular challenges faced by a service child who moves schools frequently. In healthcare, it could involve considering continuity of care for families who relocate. In housing, it could involve recognising the impact of service-related mobility on access to accommodation. In each of those cases, the duty does not require a specific result; it requires consideration of the relevant factors, including the covenant, and a balanced decision based on those factors. Amendment 8 would therefore support decision making without constraining flexibility. We often hear concerns that defining duties in legislation may increase the risk of legal challenge. In my view, in this case, the greater clarity that the amendment would introduce is more likely to reduce that risk and be a protective factor. Where duties are clearly defined, public bodies are better able to understand and comply with them, which reduces the likelihood of disputes arising from uncertainty about what is required. Conversely, where duties are unclear, there is a greater risk of inconsistent application and challenge. By setting out what due regard means in this context, the amendment would provide a clearer basis for compliance. Importantly, it would reduce ambiguity. It is also relevant that the definition is framed in general terms; it does not describe details or steps that must be followed in every case. That would allow public bodies to apply the duty in a way that is proportionate to the circumstances that they face. That flexibility is important given the range of functions and decisions to which the duty will apply. The amendment aligns with the overall purpose of the Bill. The intention is to embed the principles of the armed forces covenant in the work of public bodies. A clearly defined duty would support that objective by ensuring that the covenant is considered in a consistent and meaningful way. If the duty is left undefined, there is a risk that its impact will vary significantly between organisations, which would undermine the aim of the Bill. The amendment would strengthen the Bill by supporting a more effective and consistent implementation. It would also reflect the practical realities of service life. Members of the armed forces and their families frequently experience moves and disruption as part of their service. They rely on public services in different parts of the country and need those services to respond in a consistent and informed way. A clear definition of due regard would help to support that consistency, providing a common framework for decision making that recognises the particular circumstances of the armed forces community. It is not about giving preferential treatment in all cases; it is about ensuring fairness in line with the principles of the covenant. That includes avoiding disadvantage and, where appropriate, providing additional support. The amendment would ensure that those principles are properly taken into account. Amendment 8 would make a targeted and practical improvement to the Bill. It would support a more consistent application of the armed forces covenant by public bodies, provide greater clarity for decision makers and those affected by their decisions, strengthen accountability, and reduce the risk of inconsistent interpretation. Most importantly, it would help to ensure that the covenant is applied in a way that has a real effect on day-to-day decision making. For those reasons, I view the amendment as a useful and proportionate clarification that would strengthen the operation of the duty as set out in the Bill.

    Hansard source
11. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    Does the Minister not accept that there is inconsistent application of the covenant across public bodies, and that to try to fix that, which all of us on the Committee are seeking to do, there is strength in codifying it in the Bill?

    Hansard source
12. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    I am grateful to the Minister for indulging me. I do not disagree that, to a greater or lesser extent, this is a matter of education, but there is the issue of guidance being guidance and not being mandatory. If a definition were included in the Bill, it would provide a much stricter framework—alongside the education piece for local authorities—to ensure that we are getting this right. Does he agree?

    Hansard source
13. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    I promise the Minister that this will be the last time I intervene.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    That was a lawyer’s promise; the Minister can read it as he wills. Does the Minister not think that having a definition of due regard in the Bill would assist the courts in interpreting its application in cases where a public body’s decision is challenged by a member of the armed forces community?

    Hansard source
15. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who— (a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted. (2) The regulations must specify that the relevant health body must take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is appropriately transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “appropriately transferred” means— (a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies. (4) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on— (a) ‎the transfer of patient records, (b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care as a consequence of the member of the armed forces on whom they are dependent’s military posting.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I will confine my remarks to amendment 10, concerning the continuity of NHS secondary care services for the dependants of members of the armed forces. The amendment addresses an issue that has very real consequences for the health and wellbeing of service families, and therefore for the broader integrity of the commitment we make to those who have served and do serve. At the heart of this amendment lies a simple maxim: those who serve their country, and the families who support them, should not be placed at a disadvantage when accessing essential public services as a result of the demands placed upon them by service life. That principle is, of course, recognised in the armed forces covenant; the question is whether we are giving full and consistent effect to it in practice. The difficulty arises from a defining feature of military service: members of the armed forces are required to move. They are often asked to move frequently, often at short notice, sometimes across significant distances within the United Kingdom, and sometimes further afield. Those moves are not discretionary; they are intrinsic to the operational readiness and effective functioning of our armed forces. And when service personnel move, invariably their families move with them. That reality carries with it a number of challenges, but one of the most pressing, and one that is too often overlooked, is the disruption to ongoing medical treatment for their dependants. While primary care is generally able to accommodate patient movement with relative ease, the same cannot be said for secondary care. Hospital treatment, specialist pathways and waiting lists are typically organised on a regional or trust basis. When a family crosses those organisational boundaries, continuity is not guaranteed. The consequence, in too many cases, is that dependants find themselves required to re-enter the system. A child undergoing specialist treatment, a spouse awaiting elective surgery or a family member under the care of a consultant may be told that because they have moved into a new area, they must obtain a new referral, join a new waiting list and effectively begin the process again from the start. It is important to be clear about what that represents—not a clinical judgment or a decision taken in the interests of patient care, but an administrative consequence of the way services are structured and commissioned across different parts of the NHS. It is in effect a failure of co-ordination. For the individuals concerned, however, it has a much more significant impact. It can mean delayed diagnoses, prolonged pain, deterioration in conditions that require timely intervention, and significant anxiety for families already managing the pressures of service life. It can also undermine confidence in the system and create a perception, justified or otherwise, that service families are being treated less favourably. The amendment seeks to address that problem in a proportionate manner. It does not attempt to redesign the structure of the NHS—that would be a fool’s errand—nor does it impose a rigid requirement on how services should be delivered.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    The hon. Member makes a valid point. Of course there will need to be a degree of clinical judgment, but the premise that somebody has to start at the bottom of the system by virtue of the fact that they are a dependant of service personnel is inherently unfair, and one that needs to be addressed in the Bill.

    Hansard source
18. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. This is about placing a clear, time-bound duty on the Secretary of State to secure continuity of secondary care for dependants within six months. We want their clinical need to transfer horizontally across, as opposed to vertically downwards. That is the nuisance that amendment 10 is intended to address. Amendment 10 sets out the substance of the regulations that I have suggested that the Secretary of State introduce. They are deliberately straightforward. First, where a patient is already receiving treatment, their status should be preserved when the responsibility for their care is transferred to a different health authority—that is, a horizontal move across. In practical terms, it would mean that a patient should not lose their place in the system because they crossed administrative boundaries. Instead, they should have a seamless transfer of care. Secondly, the amendment would ensure that patients are not required to obtain a new referral solely by virtue of having moved, which would be ridiculous. The need for a referral is, and should remain, a clinical matter. It should not be triggered by geography and movement. Requiring a new referral in those circumstances adds delay, creates duplication and serves no meaningful clinical purpose. Thirdly, the amendment calls for clear guidance on the practical steps necessary to support continuity, including the timely and efficient transfer of patient records, the recognition and continuation of existing treatment pathways, and the preservation of procedures that have been booked or recommended. Those are not novel concepts; in many ways, they are already part of good administrative practice. What is lacking is the consistency of application across the country. It is perhaps worth emphasising what amendment 10 would not do, as much as what it would. It would not confer preferential treatment on service families. It would not seek to move them ahead of others in the queue, nor to secure access to services beyond what is clinically necessary. Its purpose is much more modest: to ensure that service families are not disadvantaged as a result of circumstances beyond their control. That is entirely in keeping with the armed forces covenant, which commits to removing disadvantage, not to creating advantage. In that context, the disadvantage is clear; it arises not from clinical need, but from the intersection of mobility and administrative fragmentation. Addressing it is therefore both entirely justified and absolutely necessary. There is also a broader point about fairness and the implicit contract between the nation and those who serve. Service personnel accept a range of constraints and obligations that do not apply to the general population. They relinquish a degree of control over where they live, where they move and how they organise their family life. In return, it is entirely reasonable for them to expect that the state will take reasonable steps to ensure that those constraints do not translate into avoidable hardship for their families. Continuity of healthcare is a particularly important aspect of that understanding. Health is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the wellbeing and stability of service families. Disruption to care can have a cascading effect on education, employment and the overall resilience of the family unit. In that sense, addressing the issue is a matter not only of fairness, but of operational effectiveness. A serviceperson who is worried about the health of their family cannot fully focus on their duties. At a time of critical need, their ability to do so is absolutely essential. Some may raise questions about the practicalities of implementing such a system, particularly in the context of devolved health systems across the United Kingdom. It is therefore important to be clear about the scope and intent of amendment 10. It would not seek to override devolved competencies or impose a uniform model of service delivery. Rather, it would require that whatever the organisational arrangements are, mechanisms be in place to ensure continuity when patients move between them. In many respects, the steps required are administrative rather than structural. They involve ensuring that information flows effectively, that existing clinical decisions are recognised, and that waiting positions are honoured, based on clinical need. These are matters of co-ordination, communication and guidance; they do not require wholesale reform of the system. There are already examples of good practice in this area. In some parts of the country, arrangements have already been put in place to facilitate the transfer of patients between trusts with minimal disruption to their care. The amendment seeks to ensure that such practice becomes the norm rather than the exception. It is also worth noting that the increasing digitalisation of healthcare records and the development of more integrated healthcare systems provide a foundation upon which this kind of continuity can be built. In many cases, the infrastructure already exists; what is needed is a clearer expectation, backed by regulation, that it should be used to support service families consistently and reliably.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about not only streamlining the process, but giving more heft to those who wield the power to ensure that we get improved patient outcomes at the end of it. That is what we should all be seeking. Ultimately, the question before us is very straightforward: are we content to allow a situation to persist in which service families can lose their place in the healthcare system simply because they are required to move in the course of service, or do we consider it reasonable to take targeted steps to prevent that outcome? In my view, the answer is clear. Where treatment has begun, it should continue. Where a place on a waiting list has been earned, it should be respected. Administrative boundaries should not dictate clinical outcomes. They certainly should not impose additional burdens on those who have little choice but to cross them. The amendment provides a measured and practical mechanism to achieve that objective. It respects the structure of the NHS, acknowledges the reality of devolution and focuses squarely on the removal of a specific and identifiable disadvantage. In doing so, it gives tangible effect to the principles of the covenant. It recognises that our obligations to service families are not merely symbolic; they require a practical expression in the design and operation of public services.

    Hansard source
20. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his broad support for the intent of my amendment, if not for its practical workings. I am grateful for the invitation to meet him and his ministerial colleague to see how we can reach a settlement to ensure equality for armed forces personnel on this issue. On the basis of his reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Hansard source
21. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

    My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he not consider one advantage of these action plans to be shared learning across local authorities, as those with more experience can aid those with less experience in improving the standard and delivery of support for veterans and the armed forces community?

    Hansard source
22. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Endometriosis Services

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Hon. Members have share powerful and distressing stories and experiences from their constituents. They are typified by Monica and I pay tribute to her for coming here to explain her story. We must recognise the reality faced by many women and girls living with endometriosis. For too many, it means years of pain and possibly being dismissed, and it definitely means lives put on hold. From a GP’s perspective, the diagnosis is frequently delayed because symptoms overlap with other conditions such as fibroids, adenomyosis, irritable bowel syndrome, PCOS or pelvic inflammatory disease. However, this debate is really about access, and there is a risk that current changes will make access worse, not better. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) is a stalwart for raising that point as a central issue. The last Government drastically increased testing. They rolled out 161 community diagnostic centres across the country, which carried out ultrasounds, MRI and CT scans, and blood tests. That has helped with diagnosis by ruling in endometriosis and, equally importantly, ruling it out. That is not to mention the elective surgical hubs, 48 of which were delivering gynaecological procedures by March 2024. Those were important steps, but capacity remains constrained. The first women’s health strategy, which committed to reducing diagnostic times for endometriosis, was also published in 2022. That strategy is now due to be renewed. In March 2026, the Women and Equalities Committee published a report from its inquiry into the menstrual health of girls and young women, which states that women’s health has not been “sufficiently prioritised” in recent proposed reforms to the healthcare system. The Government’s plan to renew the women’s health strategy is an opportunity to do so. Will the Minster confirm that those recommendations will be considered, and confirm when the renewed women’s health strategy will be published?

    Hansard source
23. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Endometriosis Services

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising her constituent’s case; Eleanor must be suffering, and the aim is to try to get more people into primary care so they can get the support that they need. That view is shared by both sides of this House and that leftward shift into primary prevention would be helpful. Access will be crucial, which is why some of the Government’s changes to that access—which I will touch on later—are concerning. Women’s health hubs were intended to improve access to care for menstrual problems. They were rolled out by the last Government with £25 million of investment and 39 out of 42 were in place. However, after Labour came in, it removed the national targets in January 2025, leading to an article from the Health Service Journal in April 2025 that stated: “Most integrated care systems lack a women’s health hub offering full services—contrary to government claims—according to research seen by HSJ.” It is not clear whether those numbers have improved and what the situation now looks like. I ask the Minister to provide any updates she has on those women’s health hubs, how they are functioning and whether they are fully operational; if she does not have that information—I know she is a new Minister—I would be happy to receive a letter on that. That leads on to Endometriosis UK pointing out that there have been shortages in trained clinicians and diagnostic specialists. We know that as we expand community diagnostic centres, that will be really important. Under the last Government, there was a workforce plan. We have heard talk of a workforce plan, but it has been delayed multiple times by the Government. I wonder whether there is a date for when that will be finalised, because it is really important. Finally, the heart of this debate is access to primary care. In a debate on endometriosis at the start of this month, the Minister for Secondary Care said: “We have introduced Jess’s rule, which requires GPs to rethink diagnoses for their patients.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 1068WH.] That rightly encourages GPs to rethink the diagnosis and refer when needed, but at the same time, every referral will now have to be routed through advice and guidance. In effect, it is moving to a single point of access, with a system explicitly aimed at diverting a significant proportion of referrals back to GPs. The new advice and guidance are aiming for about 25% of GP referrals to be diverted back to GPs for “10 high volume specialities”—of which gynaecology will be one—meaning one in four referrals will be bounced back under the neighbourhood health framework released 17 March. On the one hand, GPs are told to refer; on the other hand, the system is designed to send those patients back, which risks patients being kept on waiting lists and away from secondary and specialist care. That really matters for endometriosis. It is a perfect test case, and the new NICE guideline is crystal clear. Recommendation 1.1.3 states: “Gynaecology services for women with suspected or confirmed endometriosis should have access to: a gynaecologist with expertise in diagnosing and managing endometriosis, including training and skills in laparoscopic surgery; a gynaecology specialist nurse with expertise in endometriosis; a multidisciplinary pain management service; a healthcare professional with an interest in gynaecological imaging and fertility services.” All those services are gatekept as secondary care. Someone might have a normal scan in primary care, primary care treatments might fail and a GP might know that they will need to be referred to a specialist—yet they will not be able to get access. Women’s waits could become longer, not shorter. I have tabled multiple parliamentary questions on advice and guidance and have received only holding answers, despite the changes coming in on 1 April. I ask the Minister three questions. First, does she accept that mandating advice and guidance risks delaying referral? Secondly, how will this system avoid conflicting with Jess’s rule? Thirdly, will GPs retain the ability to refer directly into secondary care when clinically necessary? Endometriosis is already hard enough to diagnose and treat; for patients, it is harder still. If access is to improve, the Government must set out clearly how this new system will work. If they cannot do that, they risk making access worse, rather than better—and that is something none of us wants to see.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Endometriosis Services

    Those were the words that the Minister’s colleague read out in the previous debate, but I have no gripes about the Department saying the same thing. My question is about Jess’s rule and its interaction when there is a single point of referral. There will be a rub between GPs who say that someone needs to be seen because they might have a diagnosis of endometriosis and the system saying that those patients will be bounced back. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what that rule will look like in practice, because endometriosis is a good example to demonstrate it.

    Hansard source
25. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Defence

    I thoroughly enjoyed the Minister’s interview on Times Radio, in which he talked about his role in defence and his history and was asked about his leadership. I will not ask him about his leadership ambitions, but I would like to know where the DIP is stuck. Which Minister is it stuck with? Is it stuck with the Chancellor, or does the Ministry of Defence itself have a problem? I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Defence

    The Minister gave us an extensive list of some of the spending commitments, but will he set out the exact spending commitments, and explain about the 1.5% required by NATO, which is not included in the defence spending? It was a great big list, but I have not heard the other side of it, and I should be grateful if he could provide those categories.

    Hansard source
27. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir John. I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician and as a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing today’s important debate. The death of a child is every parent’s worst nightmare. It is perhaps even more horrific when such a death happens suddenly, without warning and when no explanation can be found. I would like to convey my condolences to the family of Frankie Grogan, to Cheryl, Darren and Louis, to Nathan and Fiona, to the Rogers, Pitts and Williamson families, and to all other families grieving such a profound loss. Childhood death is thankfully rare. However, more than 3,400 children aged nought to 17 die in England each year, and in around 40 cases the death cannot be explained. Parents are left with more questions than answers. Why has this happened? Why now? Since many cases are unwitnessed, did the child suffer? What was the cause? Could it have been prevented? Will it happen again to a sibling or a future child? I want to focus on two questions today: how do we identify the cause of death in more cases? And how can we use that information to prevent future deaths? We can do that because we have done it before. In the 1980s, 2.35 children per 1,000 live births died within between a week and two years. That has been reduced by over 90%. The key factors were research, the Back to Sleep campaign, general safe sleeping advice and the avoidance of cigarette smoke. There is more to be done, but with the right plan, we have shown that lives can be saved. I would first like to acknowledge some progress, including through the work of Baroness Kennedy, whose 2004 report and subsequent work with the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health led to the introduction in 2008 of a standard set of clinical samples, called Kennedy samples, that must be taken in the event of a sudden child or infant death. In most of the trusts I have worked in, there is now a box in each emergency department with all the samples and a list of what needs to be taken so that nothing is missed in any cases. Child death overview panels, which were also established in 2008, are multidisciplinary panels to review the deaths of all children aged nought to 17. That process was further updated in 2018. When a child dies, all registrars must inform the child death overview panel, of which there are currently 58 in England. An expected death goes to a review meeting to look at the detail of the causes and whether it can be prevented in the future. In an unexpected death, there is an urgent joint agency response meeting including police and education, and a review meeting takes place later. All that information then feeds into the national child mortality database, set up in 2019, which is there to spot patterns and aims to prevent future deaths. It produces several reports each year with detailed guidance for Government on how deaths can be prevented. It might be helpful to discuss an example. In December 2024, the NCMD published a report on child deaths due to asthma or anaphylaxis. I commend those who produced that report, including my medical colleague Dr Emilia Wawrzkowicz. They found that certain factors increased the risks of asthma or anaphylactic death in children, and that milk was most likely to trigger a fatal reaction. They found problems with auto-injectors that were forgotten, out of date or not with the child, or that the training had not been adequate, particularly in schools. They found issues with indoor air pollution, a failure to recognise life-threatening asthma and that children did not have asthma action plans. Work has been done in many of those areas, which will have saved children’s lives since. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) has been promoting Benedict’s law, which hon. Members voted for just last week, to ensure that children at school are protected from anaphylaxis. Can the Minister update the House on progress in delivering the recommendations of the national child mortality database’s report? At the moment, the Government are not obliged to produce a response to the recommendations of the national child mortality database’s reports, unlike many other reports, and I think they should be. A more recent report was on the effect of consanguineous marriage on the rate of child deaths. It would be helpful to have Government responses to show that those reports are being read and acknowledged, and that the work that has been done is leading to change. I worry about the effect of the imminent abolition of NHS England on the national child mortality database’s work. Child death overview panels do very good work in investigating each child death individually, but ICB funding cuts mean that not only bereavement staff, but investigatory staff, are being cut. The mergers of ICBs mean that local knowledge may be lost as the areas become very large. That is not in line with the statutory guidance in the Children Acts. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s plans in that area? Whole genome sequencing offers an increased likelihood of finding children’s causes of death, but there is a long wait for results; it can take six months. Families are in great distress while they wait for those results, as we have heard. The Government suggest that they want to expand genome sequencing work, but it has already taken a very long time and the workforce plan has not yet been published. What are the Government doing to make sure we have the right staff and the right capacity to deliver that ambition? Skin biopsies can be very helpful, particularly in diagnosing inborn errors of metabolism, which in children can cause illness and death, but they are not yet available everywhere. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to roll out these tests so that, where possible, all causes can be found? The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), mentioned the fact that there are not enough pathologists. That is very important because it causes distress and delays, including to post-mortems, and it means that families have to wait much longer for results. Also, some children tragically die overseas, as happened to one of my patients relatively recently. In such cases, SUDC panels rely on being told about it and find it more difficult to investigate. Does the Minister have any comments on that? Hon. Members talked about research. The Lullaby Trust has been doing gene sequencing on tissue samples from children who died of sudden unexplained death. In four of 20 cases, the tests were able to find evidence of infection, so there is hope that people who have been bereaved by a sudden unexplained death in the past can, with more modern techniques and retained tissue samples, discover the cause in the future. However, that will only happen if the research takes place. This research is charitably funded. We heard about the charity-funded research being done in Bristol, but the Government also need to fund research so that we get as much information as possible to prevent these deaths. Lastly, I will talk about bereavement support. We have heard about the vital role that it plays in helping families, including siblings, in their time of grief, but I have heard about cuts to that as a result of mergers and funding changes to ICBs. In one case, a phone line has been taken away, meaning that families who want to approach bereavement support have to email and wait for a response—I can see hon. Members frowning. This is clearly not good enough, so I urge the Minister to look carefully at it and take the time to find out what is going on in each ICB regarding the commissioning of these services, so that we are not leaving families without the support they need during the most awful time they could ever experience. What we have heard today is a call for action. We have heard a call to explain the unexplained, support families better, improve on research and, ultimately, to prevent the deaths of children.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

    My point was less that mergers of ICBs would make services more efficient, but more that that is leading to services being cut, which may make them less good, and that the principle that CDOPs look at the local area is diluted if the local area becomes very large.

    Hansard source
29. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Oil and Gas

    Why does the Minister think the strategy of this Government is so different from that of Norway? Nobody doubts the commitment that Norway has to the environment and net zero, and yet it is pumping more oil and gas than it has done for a very long time, notwithstanding its longer-term commitment to net zero.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Oil and Gas

    Offshore Energies UK does not agree. It said that at the current rate of the Government crashing the North sea industry, we will be three times more reliant on gas by 2035 than we are at the moment. Is the Minister right or is Offshore Energies UK right?

    Hansard source
31. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence

    Does my hon. Friend agree that another example is Coventry-based NP Aerospace, which I met again this morning? It is producing body armour for Ukrainians, but because of the delay in the DIP, it has no confidence that it will be able to do the same for the British Army. It is a bit reminiscent of 2003, when several in this House went to Iraq with the most shoddy, appalling personal kit that took months to rectify.

    Hansard source
32. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence

    I am following the hon. Member with a great deal of interest. Is he able to name a single major western economy that after 1989 did not take a peace dividend?

    Hansard source
33. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I was elected as a councillor for the first time at the age of 22; at that time, someone had to be 21 to stand in local elections, although they could vote at 18. Inevitably, I think, the Government accepted the argument that there was a serious inconsistency if someone could vote in an election but was unable to stand in it. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend is making. There is an old saying: “If you are not a socialist in your youth, you have no heart; if you are not a Conservative when you grow up, you have no brain.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is solely about trying to garner the vote of 16-year-olds, not about a change based on principle?

    Hansard source
34. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    Does my hon. Friend recall the last Labour Government’s measures to raise the participation age? They took a very clear view that people at 16 were not mature enough to be trusted to leave school and start working life, and there was legislation compelling them to remain in education or employment-based training until the age of 18. Does that not give a very clear indication that this is a marked inconsistency—a departure? If we were to have MPs and councillors at 16, they would be compelled to still be in education at the same time. That would require, for example, under the laws passed by the Labour party, Parliament to implement its own college system so that those 16-year-old MPs were able to continue their education while serving their constituencies.

    Hansard source
35. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I am sympathetic to the case put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I understand where he is going with it, but there is a distinction between the internal rules of political parties and the law of the land on electoral participation. Conservative party policy is that all members can vote to elect the leader of the party, but only those who have attained the age of majority can participate in elections to public office, whereas the Labour party recently changed its rules so that that only people over the age of 18 can participate in its internal processes for the same purpose. Does my hon. Friend think it is inconsistent for a political party to say internally that people have to be 18 to participate in leadership elections, but seek to allow 16-year-olds to vote in national public elections?

    Hansard source
36. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    On the hon. Lady’s point about consistency, we often hear about the age at which one can purchase alcohol on licensed premises, but that is not a restriction that applies at home, so there is a significant inconsistency. Essentially, one is free under the laws of this land to consume alcohol at home from the age of 5. That is what the law says; one simply cannot purchase it on licensed premises. It is not the case that 16 is the point at which this becomes part of a consistent approach in the way that the hon. Lady describes.

    Hansard source
37. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    There is a high degree of cross-party agreement on this point, but I have a technical question. The Minister referred earlier to the status of secure accommodation for children. Such an order is made by the family court rather than the criminal court, but it is often handed down when a local authority youth justice team is concerned particularly about the risks of self-harm. Under existing legislation, any child who is in custody of any kind is de facto in the care of the local authority where they reside. Under the terms of the Bill, that local authority then has a duty to support those who may be in secure accommodation to access their vote. Could the Minister briefly set out what discussions, if any, she has had with the Department for Education, which owns that children-in-care legislation, so that we have clarity about what arrangements would be in place so that a child who is in secure accommodation, of which there is a very limited amount, often some distance from someone’s home, is able to exercise their right to a vote, which they would retain under these provisions?

    Hansard source
38. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    This is, again, a bit of a technical question, but both my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and I served previously as lead members for children’s services, and one of the groups for whom this will be particularly relevant is those young people who may be in the care system because they are asylum seekers. My local authority has among the highest populations of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the country. There are existing arrangements, but at the moment, because the voting age is 18, it is completely clear: someone is an adult in the system and their eligibility to attain their vote depends upon the determination of their claim. However, there is a significant population of young people who have age assessments that are being disputed, or for whom there are issues around where residence may take place and whether leave to remain will be granted, and therefore at what point the individual, not because of their age but because of their immigration or asylum status, will attain the right to vote. What discussions have there been with the Home Office, which owns that legislation, and potentially the Foreign Office, which may have sight of what arrangements are in place in the countries from which those young people may be moving to the United Kingdom, to ensure a degree of consistency and certainty?

    Hansard source
39. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    I am sure that everyone is aware that the arrangements with Ireland, for example, provide a degree of eligibility and commonality, not just in the electoral system but in all sorts of other areas. In terms of enfranchisement, we have eligible Commonwealth voters who may participate in our electoral system by virtue of their Commonwealth status. That does not apply to all countries in the Commonwealth, but it does apply to a significant number of them. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that issue too, particularly given that we can envisage, for example, service families from the military of an allied country—in my constituency, with HMS Warrior just over the border, we have a significant number of families who come from Canada and Australia and, indeed, Europe—who may be here for a period of time, which would mean that they fall within the scope of this legislation. It would be helpful to understand what arrangements are in place to ensure that they are treated fairly.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

    To some extent, I have another version of my earlier question. In respect of children in care, within the provision there will need to be a process for registration and, in due course, a process for the administration of casting the ballot. If we consider the original judgment on prisoner voting, the European convention on human rights does not trump parliamentary sovereignty. The judgment went against the UK because, at that stage, there were no arrangements in place for prisoners to be able to vote, although the law did not specifically prohibit them from doing so. The court said, “You can’t effectively lock them up so that they can’t get to the ballot box, but at the same time say that they are still legally entitled to the vote; you have to make a choice.” Parliament made a choice and said, “We are going to ban those people from voting.” The Government have been very clear that young people in secure accommodation will be eligible to vote. We are also aware that those in the 16 to 18-year-old category who are treated as care leavers will often be in what is known as move-on accommodation as they transition from a fostering placement or children’s home to semi-independent living. What arrangements will the Government make to ensure that, in practice, under the terms of this legislation, those young people are not deprived of their ability to vote by virtue of moving around the country or simply lacking access to the service that they require, as opposed to being deprived of it by a deliberate decision of Parliament as part of the punishment inherent in a custodial sentence?

    Hansard source