5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
For the thousands of British national overseas people in my constituency, the prospect of the Chinese super-embassy is deeply worrying, and that worry is compounded by these unredacted plans. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether any Government Minister has called in the Chinese ambassador to discuss these issues, and if they have not, why not?
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the teaching in schools of skills relating to emergency situations, including life-saving skills; and for connected purposes. This Bill seeks to ensure that every child leaving school possesses the knowledge and skills to respond effectively in emergencies, including life-threatening situations. It is about equipping young people with capabilities that matter beyond the classroom—skills that can preserve life and, in certain circumstances, protect communities. Every year, thousands of people in England find themselves at the centre of sudden, chaotic emergencies, such as a child at the roadside following a road traffic collision, a victim of knife crime bleeding out, or a medical emergency unfolding while onlookers wait for an ambulance, watching as precious minutes slip away. All they want to do is help, but too many do not know how. Not infrequently, the question asked afterwards is not what went wrong, but why no one present knew what to do. Most emergencies do not happen in hospitals; they happen in our homes, on our streets and on our roadsides. It is in those first critical moments, before professional help arrives, that outcomes are often determined—not by advanced medicine, but by whether those present can recognise what is happening, act decisively, and summon help effectively. Evidence consistently shows that early recognition and rapid intervention save lives. Delay, confusion or failure to communicate accurately with the emergency services can be fatal, but despite this, our education system still leaves too much to chance. At present, whether a young person is taught how to recognise an emergency, to remain calm under pressure, to summon help accurately, or to apply basic lifesaving interventions depends largely on postcode, school discretion or family circumstance. Some pupils receive that knowledge, but many do not—there is simply no guarantee. That is not a criticism of our schools or our teachers, who already shoulder enormous responsibility; it is simply a recognition that we have not set a clear, national expectation that these skills matter. This Bill seeks to close that gap. The Bill is built around three core aims. The first is to ensure that pupils can recognise emergency situations quickly and accurately. The difference between an accident and an emergency is not always obvious, particularly under pressure, so training pupils to assess severity, identify immediate danger and understand when urgent action is required is foundational. Secondly, the Bill seeks to prioritise effective summoning of emergency assistance. Knowing how to contact the emergency services, what information to provide, how to remain calm, and how to follow instructions given by call handlers is not always instinctive; it must be taught. Clear communication saves time, and time saves lives. Thirdly, the Bill seeks to ensure pupils receive practical, hands-on instruction in the most critical lifesaving interventions, with particular emphasis on the management of catastrophic bleeding. Uncontrolled haemorrhage is one of the leading causes of preventable death in trauma. Pupils should learn how to identify severe bleeding, apply direct pressure, use tourniquets where appropriate, and act decisively to stabilise a casualty while prioritising their own safety. This should include formal “stop the bleed” training. These lifesaving skills are not, of course, confined to domestic accidents. In mass-casualty scenarios, such as terrorist-style attacks, the rapid recognition of danger, safe decision making and early bleeding control can save multiple lives before the emergency services arrive. What is equally important is that pupils should be trained to assess risk to themselves, to avoid secondary harm and to act only when it is safe to do so. It is not about encouraging recklessness, but fostering informed, disciplined action. The importance of that cannot be overstated. In emergencies, well-intentioned but untrained bystanders can inadvertently worsen outcomes or place themselves in danger. The training envisaged under this Bill should instil practical resilience: knowing when to act, how to act and when not to act. Evidence shows that repeated practice and realistic simulations significantly improve retention and the likelihood of effective intervention under pressure. The Bill’s objectives are reinforced by the work of such organisations as citizenAID, which has led the way in educating young people on safe responses to major incidents. CitizenAID was founded by two of my former bosses: Professor Sir Keith Porter and Major General Tim Hodgetts. I had the pleasure of hosting them for a drop-in event in Parliament last year. Its programmes demonstrate that pupils can learn to recognise threats, manage catastrophic bleeding, communicate effectively and act without panic. Its work shows that structured training builds competence and confidence, particularly in high-stress scenarios. This Bill is not about turning children into paramedics; it is not about overloading the curriculum; and it is not about replacing professional emergency services. It is about ensuring that every young person leaves school equipped with a core set of practical, age-appropriate skills: how to recognise an emergency, how to respond safely, how to communicate clearly with emergency services and, critically, how to provide basic lifesaving assistance until help arrives. Preparedness is not a niche concern, but a matter of resilience. One day, any one of us may depend not on a professional, but on a passer-by. That passer-by may be a young person standing there, willing and wanting to help, but uncertain what to do in the circumstances. That uncertainty is not inevitable. Importantly, this Bill does not propose radical change. Many countries already include emergency response skills within their education systems. Here, we teach elements of first aid and health and safety in different ways, but we lack consistency and the assurance that every child will receive that education. Concerns about pressure on the school curriculum are understandable, but the Bill does not require wholesale reform, nor does it impose excessive burdens. Training can be delivered through a combination of classroom teaching, practical workshops and simulations, all supported by qualified instructors, the emergency services and voluntary organisations. The focus must be on gaining those essential, high-impact skills. The intent behind the Bill reflects a broader societal responsibility. It is not about ideology; it simply recognises that preserving life is a fundamental public good. Pupils trained in these skills will carry them into their homes, their workplaces and their communities, thereby having a multiplier effect. In doing so, schools will contribute directly to national resilience and public safety. This Bill proposes clarity and coherence: a national expectation that lifesaving knowledge is a fundamental part of the curriculum, as much as literacy or numeracy, when it comes to preparing young people for the real world. International experience reinforces that argument. Countries that embed emergency response training in schools see higher levels of bystander intervention, improved survival rates and greater public confidence. It also reflects a broader truth that resilience begins long before a crisis occurs and is built through education, confidence and preparation. By equipping young people with these skills, we not only improve outcomes in emergencies, but foster responsibility, calm decision making and a willingness to act for others. This Bill is deliberately rooted in prevention rather than reaction, and in empowerment rather than fear. No legislation can prevent every tragedy, but we can ensure that when emergencies happen, as they inevitably will, the people closest are not left powerless. This Bill does not ask the House to make a dramatic leap in policy; it asks us to take a sensible, proportionate step to ensure that our education system reflects the realities of the world our young people will face. The hardest burden for any of us to carry is not that we tried and failed, but that a life was lost while we stood by, not through indifference, but through the absence of knowledge this House could have chosen to provide. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, John Cooper, Lincoln Jopp, Charlie Dewhirst, Blake Stephenson, Bradley Thomas and Jim Shannon present the Bill. Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May, and to be printed (Bill 362).
11. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Government’s house building targets on the availability of primary care services in Epping Forest constituency.
As my constituency neighbour, the Health Secretary will be aware that Chigwell parish has no GP surgery of its own, requiring many of my constituents to travel to his constituency to access primary care. Given the Government’s top-down housing targets, what assurances can the Health Secretary provide that any new developments in Epping Forest will be accompanied by the delivery of adequate primary care infrastructure, rather than placing further pressure on already overstretched services? Will the Government support the long-standing call, championed by me, local Conservative councillors and Chigwell parish council, for the provision of a GP surgery within Chigwell parish?
Community pharmacies are a vital part of the primary care infrastructure, including in Epping Forest. Using NHS Organisation Data Service data, can the Minister tell the House how many pharmacy contracts ceased in England last year?
I appreciate the Minister’s answer. However, the answer to my question is: 650 contracts across England and Wales. He only had to look at the newspaper headlines from yesterday to see that—this is his Department and his portfolio. The chair of the Independent Pharmacies Association, Leyla Hannbeck, has specifically warned that higher business rates and increases in national insurance contributions, which are both set by the Government, are to blame and are driving up costs, while pharmacy income—which, again, is set by the Government—remains fixed. Does the Minister accept that those tax decisions taken by his Government directly increase the costs and contribute to the loss of pharmacy contracts, and will he therefore raise this matter with the Chancellor immediately?
This new clause is even more important given the fact that the Government, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister understand the impact that the Bill will have on pubs. They have said that they will bring forward measures to help and support pubs, yet we have not seen those measures, because they are not in this Bill. We therefore need to have some form of accountability to be able to understand the impact of not only the measures before us, which we can vote on, but the proposed ones that will come in to support the measures that the Government are already looking to put in this Bill, which will have an impact. Does that make sense? Does my hon. Friend agree?
The hon. Member rightly points to the cumulative effect, but I am interested to see that her new clause 9 does not mention the Employment Rights Bill or the impact of the national living wage increase. Is it by design that the Liberal Democrats have not put those in, because they do not agree that they will have an impact on hospitality, or was it an oversight, and they are other cumulative effects that need to be considered when holding the Government to account?
I have come here to talk about duty, but not duty in the conventional sense. I feel that I owe a duty to the cafés, restaurants and pubs in my constituency to tell the Government just how poor their impact is and to hold them accountable. That is why I support new clauses 9 and 26. Let me start with new clause 9, on the review of the cumulative impact. I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that there is a cumulative impact, but I would go further, as I have done, and call it a toxic concoction. It is true that the Conservative Government raised taxes, and I can imagine that in the future another Conservative Government may need to do the same, but the toxic concoction that this Government have set out on, with the Employment Rights Bill, raising the minimum wage and the reduction in support on hospitality exemption all at the same time, is compounding the problem. I am here to use my voice and do my duty to ask the Government to be accountable and able to show their workings, and these two new clauses are an attempt to do that. We saw the Government come forward in their first Budget and say that they did not need to raise any further taxes, yet the subsequent Budget in 2025, which we are debating now, brought taxes further forward by £26 billion. The Chancellor said that the slate was wiped clean, by her own admission, but it seems that she has hospitality in her sights, and it is not clear why. What does she have against cafés, hotels and restaurants? She seems to be softening, because she has heard from her Back Benchers about the impact that all this is having on pubs.
My right hon. Friend is very charitable, because the Chancellor has said that she does not know. However, we also know that the documentation released in the Budget says that the Treasury did know. What has gone wrong? As we have heard today in Committee, the rateable value of 5,100 pubs will double, but the Lib Dem spokesman missed the other point: one in eight pubs will see an increase of more than 100% in their rateable value. The Government have a question to answer. Did they wilfully ignore that and choose to impact hospitality, or were they mistaken and not competent in seeing that there was a problem?
My right hon. Friend has served in government, so he understands why it is important to have a fixed point that all of us in this House can reference, as well as—most importantly—his constituents who own a pub, a café or a hotel and are going to be impacted. That is why I want to see new clause 9 passed, because it will go a long way towards helping us understand the impacts those people are facing. If the Government are going to do something for pubs, as is rumoured, I simply pose the question, “Why pubs, and not cafés, restaurants or hotels?” Turning to new clause 26, if my memory serves me right, the biggest cheer that the 2024 Budget got from Labour Members was when the 1p reduction in the pint was announced. What do we see this time around in the Budget? A 2p increase—that did not get cheered. Again, maybe Labour Members did not see it, or maybe it was hidden in the detail, which brings us to where we are today. This seems to be the problem: whether we are debating thresholds, as we did last night, or pubs, rateable values and duty today, either the Government do not know what they are doing, or they are wilfully pulling the wool over our constituents’ eyes. Fortunately, though, the Opposition are here to point out the wrong that is happening—to do our duty as an Opposition and hold the Government to account by tabling amendments such as new clause 26. That is why I will be supporting new clauses 9 and 26. Until we see some support for pubs, this is the only way that we in this House can hold the Government accountable and apply transparency to what is actually going on in the Treasury, in No. 10, and in the country.
Does the hon. Member share my concern that often the only way that publicans can get around this issue is to either reduce their hours, reduce their staffing or take on more themselves, when they are already working 24/7 to try to deal with the costs? With this kind of change, the impact will be irreconcilable.
We sometimes talk about political courage in this country, but that pales in comparison with the courage shown by young people in Iran, such as 26-year-old Erfan Soltani, who reports suggests is to be hanged today, alongside other protesters. I know that these situations are complex and carry political risk, but given the risk that those young people are facing, will the Foreign Secretary commit to showing whatever political courage she can to help them in all sorts of different ways if opportunities arise in the coming days?
The Secretary of State has previously said that he accepts all the recommendations in the Cass review. One such recommendation is that the Secretary of State mandate the release of data for the data linkage study. Can the Minister tell us what specific steps have been taken to mandate the release of that data?
The maternity and neonatal plan is due in the spring, nearly two years after the Secretary of State took office. The maternity review has been delayed. There are no signs of the 1,000 additional midwives the Secretary of State said he would train. Gynaecology waiting lists are rising, with the number waiting for admission 6% higher than it was a year ago. The Secretary of State has an opportunity to save many lives, and I know that he wants to use all the opportunities available to him. May I ask him to concentrate on making more improvements in maternity care?
I am sure that Tower Hamlets building control is very good, but it is not a security expert. If this plan goes ahead—I very much hope that it does not—will the Minister at least assure the House that the agencies will be fully involved in monitoring the demolition of the wall along Mansell Street and around the Wapping exchange? Will the replacement be monitored closely to ensure that our critical national infrastructure is safeguarded?
I appreciate the difficulties around timetabling, but this is no ordinary Bill—so important is it to the Government that the Prime Minister presented it on Second Reading. Given that, does the Leader of the House not believe that the House was entitled to something more than the chaos we appear to be seeing in how the process is being handled?
The technical issues around proscription are well understood, as they were understood by the last Government. But eight months ago, Jonathan Hall KC offered a remedy to get around them: his statutory alert and liability threat notice vehicle. When will the Government bring that forward because it is now urgent? Does the Foreign Secretary envisage it being used for the IRGC overall or simply its constituent entities that are particularly problematic, such as the Basij militia and the Quds Force?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Dowd. The Opposition are supportive of the direction of travel outlined in the order, and we do not propose to divide the Committee. I have a couple of questions that I would like to put to the Minister, but as he has clearly outlined, the provisions build on the principles outlined in the Localism Act 2011 and the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 to enable local authority procurement to be used more flexibly to support local economies. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the consideration the Government have given to previous debates and legislation on the issue of boycotts, divestment and sanctions. He touched on that in his introduction, but it might be helpful for the record if we have real clarity about how the proposed statutory instrument ensures that the principles, which were agreed cross-party, continue to be enshrined in the procurement rules that local authorities have to follow. Could the Minister set out in a little more detail how the Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, envisages widespread reorganisation? The regulations will either be updated or are sufficiently flexible to enable the new combined authorities, and multiples of those combined authorities, to work together. There are already good examples, such as in London, where trading standards are delivered under a central contract operated by the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea for all 33 London local authorities. We have the Kent commercial framework, which is an existing and established commercial procurement process that multiple different local authorities use. I want to ensure that there is nothing in the order that would frustrate existing and effective commercial arrangements that also support local economies. Can the Minister set out whether the Government are giving any consideration, following the greater flexibility that we have around procurement following EU exit, to implementing the EU model of service concessions in the procurement of local authorities, which always gave a much greater degree of flexibility around procurement in respect of statutory functions? That is a provision that, historically, has never been open to local authorities in the United Kingdom. It is used as a means of achieving many of the same ends that the order seeks to work towards, but without anything like the level of bureaucracy that is inherent in some multi-stage competitive tendering processes. Finally, the Minister outlined, and I totally agree with him, the importance of this order for local authorities in implementing measures that support local economies and key industries in their area. Can he set out for the Committee what, if any, follow-up there is going to be? We know that in the past one of the challenges for the Government was that, although greater flexibility was introduced, the take-up or use of that flexibility was extremely limited in practice. What measures will there be to assess the impact that this order has, to ensure that it is operating in the way intended or, if not, to prompt a reconsideration or re-examination of the opportunities to take this kind of approach on a greater and more productive scale in the future?
Making the same mistake repeatedly is a form of stupidity. As a country, we keep doing the same thing. If we cast our minds back to the debacle with Huawei, we will remember that we let the Chinese Communist party essentially into our 5G network. We did not listen to our national security advice, but we stopped and pulled back, and we have done the exact same thing with civil nuclear. The Minister has responsibility for this matter; he can step in and pull the plug. At what point will Ministers wake up and realise that we are making the same mistake again?
I place on record my thanks to the Met Office, which is based in my constituency, for its sterling work throughout Storm Goretti and all year round. It has international expertise and is a real asset to our country. One of the main issues that comes up when we have big storms such as Goretti is rail in the south-west. Our main line from Paddington was cut off, and many constituents from across the south-west were unable to get home. There are practical solutions to put in place, such as a passing loop on the Waterloo line. I have raised that directly with the Rail Minister and the Prime Minister, and although I get warm words, no action seems to be taken. From a Cabinet Office perspective, what more can be done to add resilience to our train infrastructure?
What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the Iranian regime employing foreign militias from countries such as Iraq and Lebanon to crush internal dissent? If that is happening, what is the international community doing to limit this activity?
I was fascinated by the Minister’s earlier answer about the closure of pharmacies, because there has been fantastic news in Lee-on-the-Solent in my constituency: a new pharmacy wants to open there. Local people are desperate for a second pharmacy in Lee-on-the-Solent and the local GP practice supports it. The problem is that the Hampshire ICB has rejected it. Does the Minister share my disappointment that local people are not going to be served in the correct way by pharmacy provision, and will he meet me to discuss this?
I would like to speak in support of new clause 25, which would require the Government to assess the effects of an increase in gambling duty, because just as I believe individuals have a right to spend their hard-earned money as they like, I believe it is important that they do so in a sensible, regulated and safe environment. Whatever we may think about gambling companies, gambling is already a very heavily regulated sector. Since the gambling White Paper was published in 2023 by the previous Government, the industry has already absorbed over 62 policy changes. Those changes include a limit on slot stakes, financial risk checks on transactions, tightened market rules and the statutory levy. The sector is so well regulated that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee warned the previous Government that the finance risk checks should be as minimally intrusive as possible. The Committee concluded that the Government must strike a careful balance: preventing harm for all, while allowing those who gamble safely the freedom to continue to do so. I have concerns that this vast increase in taxation on online betting and gaming does not strike that balance. The combination of an existing regime of strong regulation and a sudden jump in the levels of remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% is the kind of environment that I believe risks pushing people into the black market. As a floor, 40% is very high for remote gaming tax by international standards. It has been suggested that such high taxes could double the size of the online black market. Does the Minister recognise research from the Netherlands, highlighted by the shadow Minister, which found that after steep tax rises were introduced on remote slots, visits to black market domains increased fivefold over a three-year period? That is what we have to worry about if we are concerned about the oversight of those making bets and playing slots. That is why I am supportive of new clause 25, tabled by the Opposition. It requires the Chancellor to assess and report back on the effects of the increase in gambling duties on the number of high street betting shops, the black market, the employment rate, the public finances, and sports and horseracing. On sports and horseracing, I was glad to see a carve-out from general betting duty for UK horseracing. I was among many Members calling for that in recognition of the unique place horseracing occupies in British cultural life, as well as the 85,000 jobs and £4 billion contribution to the economy that horseracing offers. The Government have slightly dressed up their raid on gambling companies as being driven by concerns around gambling harms. In November 2024, I spoke to the Bacta convention about the then recently announced statutory levy and my concerns about how it would be distributed to organisations that conduct harms research. The Committee recommended the year before that the Government ensure that service providers, which were operating via the voluntary funding system, were adequately supported to make the transition to the statutory levy. However, we have now received very concerning reports that voluntary organisations in particular are facing a funding cliff edge, with delays and a lack of information about the transition to levy payments from the NHS. I am not entirely sure the Minister is listening to what I am saying, but I am hoping she will be able to address that point. She has not looked at me once while I have been speaking, but hopefully she is furiously writing notes about what I am talking about and will be able to address those concerns. Hopefully, she will tell me that she will discuss them with colleagues and act to ensure that no charitable organisation currently operating within the gambling harm prevention sector will have to fold due to delays with levy funding. The Chancellor is looking around for money and believes that she can raise it from gambling companies, but, as with many of her other measures, such as national insurance rises, she will be a victim of the law of unintended consequences if she is not careful. On this occasion, the consequence will be that more people are dragged into the black market, where they will quite simply find better offers than those offered by gambling companies.
Not only is the despotic Iranian regime gunning down protesters in the street, but it continues to support terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, it provides drones to the Russian military in Ukraine and it remains a very real threat to this country. While I welcome the statement, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the police and the security services have all the tools that they need to keep Britain safe from Iran and its proxies?
I thank both Members for their points of order. As they will know—the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made a salient point from his long-standing experience in the House—the choice of Minister and responding Department is a matter for the Government, not the Chair. Mr Speaker and I are frustrated and understand the frustrations that Members rightly have. Those on the Government Front Bench have heard those concerns and might reflect upon them. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) is perfectly free, as is every Member, to resubmit an urgent question on this matter, but I obviously cannot comment on whether that will be granted; that will be a matter for Mr Speaker.
Order. Before I call the Minister, I make it clear to Members that I intend to prioritise those representing areas of the country most affected by Storm Goretti. This may be a test of my geography.
Order. I very much appreciate the Minister’s comprehensive response—as, I am sure, do Cornish Members—but it was twice as long as his initial response to the urgent question. Perhaps answers could be slightly shorter.
I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. I ask them please to use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. Clause 63 Tax to be charged on certain pension interests Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 64 to 68 stand part. New clause 18—Review of the effect of sections 63 to 68— “(1) HM Treasury must carry out a review of the effect of sections 63 to 68 of this Act (Pension interests). (2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of— (a) the impact of those sections on individuals’ pension savings and beneficiaries, including on estate values and inheritance tax liabilities, (b) the administrative effects on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and HM Revenue and Customs, and (c) any behavioural effects on how pensions are used during life and on death. (3) HM Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1) no later than six months after the date on which sections 63 to 68 come into force.” This new clause would require HM Treasury to review and report on the effects of Clauses 63 to 68 of the Bill, which introduce inheritance tax charges on unused pension funds and death benefits, including their impacts on individuals, administrators, and behaviour, and to publish the findings to Parliament. New clause 19—Report on the impact of inheritance tax liability on personal representatives in relation to pension assets— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of the changes to inheritance tax treatment of pension assets on personal representatives of deceased persons made under this Act. (2) The report must consider— (a) the legal obligations of personal representatives to collect the assets of an estate, settle all liabilities (including inheritance tax), and distribute the estate to beneficiaries, (b) the extent to which personal representatives may be personally liable for inheritance tax due on assets, including pension funds, which do not form part of the estate and do not come into their possession, (c) any risk of increased litigation arising from the imposition of personal liability on personal representatives in respect of inheritance tax due on pension assets, (d) the impact of any such liability on the willingness of personal representatives, particularly those who are not beneficiaries of the estate, to distribute estate assets promptly, (e) any practical difficulties faced by personal representatives where pension assets, lifetime gifts, or other chargeable assets are discovered after initial inheritance tax calculations have been completed, including the requirement to recalculate inheritance tax liabilities and re-apportion the nil rate band, (f) any administrative and timing challenges associated with identifying multiple pension arrangements, particularly where a deceased person held several pension funds arising from different employments, and (g) whether the existing six-month timeframe for inheritance tax reporting and payment adequately reflects those practical difficulties. (3) The report must assess whether the current framework operates fairly and proportionately for personal representatives and whether legislative or administrative changes are necessary to reduce uncertainty, delay, or unintended personal liability.” This new clause requires the Government to report on the impact of inheritance tax rules on personal representatives, including personal liability for tax on pension assets outside the estate and the practical difficulties of identifying and valuing multiple pension arrangements within existing time limits. New clause 20—Administration of inherited pension pots— “(1) HM Revenue and Customs must review the tax administration arrangements relating to inherited pension pots. (2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to ensure that— (a) inheritance tax and related tax checks do not cause unreasonable delays in the payment of pension death benefits to beneficiaries, and (b) bereaved families are able to receive pension benefits within a reasonable period following a member’s death. (3) In carrying out the review, HM Revenue and Customs must have regard to— (a) the cumulative administrative burden placed on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and beneficiaries, (b) the interaction between inheritance tax reporting, clearance processes, and pension scheme payment rules, and (c) any evidence of prolonged delays in the payment of inherited pension benefits. (4) HM Revenue and Customs must publish the outcome of the review, including any proposed changes to its processes or guidance, within 12 months of the passing of this Act.” This new clause would require the Government to address delays in the payment of inherited pension pots by reviewing HMRC’s tax administration processes, with the aim of preventing prolonged waiting periods for bereaved families. New clause 22—Statement on inheritance tax on pension interests— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the charging of inheritance tax on pension interests made under sections 63 to 68 of this Act. (2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include analysis of the impact on— (a) pension saving levels, (b) household saving decisions, and (d) personal representatives.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement on the effects charging inheritance tax on pension interests on pension saving levels, household saving decisions and personal representatives. New clause 23—Consultation on changes to inheritance tax on pensions interests— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, before 6 April 2027, undertake a consultation on the potential impacts of the changes made by sections 63 to 67. (2) The consultation made under subsection (1) must consider the extent to which the changes to inheritance tax on pension interests deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. (3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report summarising the responses to the consultation.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to consult on the potential impacts of the changes made by sections 63 to 67. The consultation must consider the extent to which the changes to inheritance tax on pension interests deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. A report summarising the responses to the consultation must be laid before the House of Commons. New clause 24—HMRC guidance on inheritance tax on pension interests— “(1) HM Revenue and Customs must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish comprehensive guidance on the implementation of sections 63 to 68. (2) HMRC must establish a dedicated helpline for enquiries relating to inheritance tax on pension interests. (3) The guidance published under subsection (1) must be reviewed annually and published in accessible formats.” This new clause would require HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the implementation of sections 63 to 68 and establish a dedicated helpline for enquiries relating to inheritance tax on pension interests. The guidance must be reviewed annually and published in accessible formats.
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 84 and 85 stand part. Schedule 13. New clause 21—Review of the impact of sections 83 and 84: free bets and freeplays— “The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the impact of implementation of sections 83 and 84 of this Act in respect of the treatment of free bets and freeplays for calculating general betting duty on remote bets.” New clause 25—Statements on increasing remote gambling duty and introducing a new rate of General Betting Duty— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase in gambling duties made under sections 83 to 84 of this Act. (2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on— (a) sports and horseracing, (b) the number of high street betting shops, (c) the gambling black market, (d) the employment rate, and (e) the public finances.” This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in gambling duties.
Order. It might be helpful to explain that interventions are not allowed from the Opposition Front Bench, so the hon. Member will not take the intervention.
This is a complete farce, to be quite honest. We have seen reports in the media that there will be a secret room less than 1 metre away from sensitive cabling, and that since 2018, the Chinese authorities have been cutting off utilities to the UK embassy in China. National security should surely trump the planning system. This is a decision that should be taken by the Prime Minister in Downing Street—it should be a very quick and resolute no. If the Government are not in a position to do that, the framework needs to be changed. If necessary, the Government need to come before Parliament to do that, where they will find a very warm reception.
I completely understand that the Government will want to move business around given the circumstances they are under. However, as the Backbench Business Committee will be meeting this afternoon, will the Leader of the House update the House on whether we will be allocated Thursday 22 January for debates—hopefully we will decide that this afternoon—as well as 29 January? On Monday, the Lords amendments to the Holocaust Memorial Bill will not be debated. From a personal perspective, as I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on holocaust memorial, it would be helpful to know when those amendments will be debated so that we can be ready for the discussion.
Right now, peaceful protesters who are unarmed are being gunned down on the streets not just of Tehran, but of every city and town in Iran. They are being hunted down to hospitals if they are injured, or hunted down to where they live. The difference between 2022 and now is that this is a nationwide protest calling for regime change. What people desperately want to hear—I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement—is not more words, but action. We are told repeatedly that the Home Office and the Foreign Office cannot agree on proscription of the IRGC, but could the Foreign Secretary go away, speak to the Home Secretary and get that organised now as a demonstration that we will not tolerate this, and that we will stand four-square behind those brave people of Iran who just want liberty and freedom?
Constituents of mine have been reporting that they have been directed to hospital for regular blood tests, rather than having them at their GP surgery. Will the Secretary of State outline how he will ensure that blood tests are done in a community setting, which surely must be much better value for the taxpayer and much more convenient for patients?
London is a critical global financial centre; we all rely on it, as do all of our constituents. Does the Minister recognise the very serious risk that approving this Chinese super-embassy could, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, pave the way for economic war—not just on our country, but on the western world, including by undermining the security of critical data travelling under the site to and from the City of London?
Mr Speaker, I am not ashamed to say that I have had a finger up my bum—not like that! In all seriousness, as a black man in the target age range, and with a family history, I am a keen advocate for prostate cancer screening. One of my constituents has been told by his GP surgery that, as there is no national screening programme for opportunistic testing, they follow national guidance and patients cannot request a screening without GP authorisation. What advice does the Secretary of State have for those of my constituents who are struggling to get screening for prostate cancer? I say a big thank you to the team at Kingston hospital for their swift action in moving my dad from active surveillance to treatment—he raves about them.
We seem to be in the Chamber every three weeks to address espionage and security concerns with regards to China, be it spying, hacking, or the Government’s failure to add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. China is not an ally, and it features as a security threat in our own security strategy. The Chinese previously stated that they would not resubmit their application after it was rejected unless they were given assurances that it would be approved. To that end, what assurances have been given to China; what are we expecting as a quid pro quo with regards to the rebuilding of our own embassy in Beijing; and what concerns have been raised by our Five Eyes partners, specifically the US?
I have been contacted by concerned doctors in Chester South and Eddisbury who, after five or six years at medical school and a further two years of foundation training, are now struggling to secure specialty posts and are being forced to consider leaving the NHS altogether. While I will reserve judgment on the medical training Bill to be presented later today until I have seen it in full, I welcome the fact that the Government are finally treating this issue with the urgency it deserves. Can the Minister set out how this legislation will be accompanied by a credible plan to expand training numbers, so that the number of places is sufficient to meet the NHS’s short, medium and long-term workforce needs?