National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
I thank the Minister very much.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
I am trying to finish my speech—in fact, I had finished my speech. This is a very important point, and we will push amendment 5 to a vote. As I said, we will challenge Labour MPs not to do the wrong thing for their constituents—for the young, hard-working graduates who are desperate to do the right thing.
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
The Pensions Minister is absolutely right that there is an awful lot that we agree on. It is always a great pleasure to spar with him and agree on certain things, but this Bill is not one of them. Let me be clear why we disagree with the Minister. First, the contributors to the research done by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were absolutely against this Bill. The report, which was published last year and which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, concluded that all the hypothetical scenarios explored in the research, including the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively. It also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated option presented. Given that the Government tabled no amendments to address the genuine concerns of savers and industry, it seems that the Minister is still apparently chuffed that he is implementing a policy that is, at best, the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment. Secondly, the Government are voting for a Bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses. The pensions system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public. That is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee does not fall below the national living wage. But what are the Government doing? They are going for the option that the report considered to be the most complicated. The Government are choosing to confuse with complications a system that is currently the simplest to deliver. The changes will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers—and this comes at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. What about the effects on businesses, which see a 15% employer national insurance bonus through helping people to save? The changes will mean that employers will be hit with a 15% increase on the costs of employment. The savings that employers achieve through salary sacrifice arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses, including through increased pension contributions to all employees, higher wages, or more investment into plant and machinery for growth. That is a good thing. The Government are now taking money away from the productive part of the economy and putting it into other parts. No wonder businesses think that this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless Government, who forget that businesses are the ones that create wealth in our economy, add value to it and drive growth. Thirdly, the Government are supporting a Bill that will not actually raise the stated revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) pointed out when winding up on Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029-30: the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. That is £4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor’s black hole—she will have one by then—in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule. This is a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. Frankly, it is also likely that the Government will not raise anywhere near the £4.8 billion budgeted for, as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029; and, in any event, people are figuring out a workaround. Fourthly, the Government are voting for a Bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals estimates that over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues—something that the Government apparently seek to target with this policy. And I always thought that Labour Governments were meant to be on the side of working people, Madam Deputy Speaker! Fifthly, and finally, the Government are voting for a Bill that will make the impending pension adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people are not saving enough, so why make the second largest revenue-raising measure of last year’s Budget one that goes after people’s savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. More importantly, it goes against the Government’s own financial inclusion strategy. As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out in November, “Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.” How does the Bill accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won’t, because it disincentivises employees from saving more in their pensions and it disincentivises employers from providing it as an option in the first place. Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. We gave the Government a chance to address some of those concerns earlier, and they did not take it. We hear all those concerns loud and clear from businesses, savers and all the rest of them, which is why we want the Government to think again on this issue and why we will vote against this Bill on Third Reading. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than restricting the options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives that encourage people to save more. Instead, the Government are pushing through a Bill that will do the opposite. It is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement by punishing the 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. Worst of all, it breaks another of Labour’s manifesto promises: that it will not increase taxes on working people. It remains the wrong policy to pursue, and that is why we will vote against it.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
This is all getting quite technical, so I want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. If the Secretary of State were able to, would he like to give immunity to our veterans?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
As well as the self-licking lollipop of legislation and compensation, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is a proxy war? It is all about relitigating the question, “Who won?” Does he agree that we are allowing our brave servicemen and women, who served the nation incredibly bravely in Northern Ireland, to be used as pawns in a dreadful proxy game to relitigate the question, “Who won?”
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I hope I am not misquoting the Secretary of State, but he said the Government are using this guillotine motion to withdraw parts of an existing law before they have another one in place because of the urgency, and that that urgency was created by a desire to “build trust” in both the civilian victims of terrorism and the military victims of terrorism. In wanting to build trust, he seemed to miss out one group: military veterans, who will also come under consideration if he drops the guillotine on the existing Act today.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
The shadow Secretary of State makes a very powerful point, but I think it is worth putting it on the record that it is pretty unlikely his words will carry the day on the basis that there are eight Labour Back Benchers here to hear this debate about applying a guillotine to gut a piece of existing legislation without putting anything else in place.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I am new in this place, but my sense of the hon. Member is that he a great parliamentarian, so I would like to understand how he has reconciled himself with this being the correct course for the Government to take—bringing in a remedial order that pulls a law out before we put a new one in?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I fear that the Liberal Democrat spokesman may have misspoken earlier in his remarks. I will quote from the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the first draft: “A declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect and does not affect the ongoing validity of the incompatible legislation. It is merely a tool by which the courts can draw attention to an incompatibility; it is then for the Government and Parliament to decide what action, if any, to take.”
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
As the hon. Member says, we are considering this order alongside the Bill. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which he sits, for producing this very good report, but I would like to try to get an answer that I did not get earlier. How is he reconciled with the fact that this remedial order is being used as a guillotine to gut an existing piece of legislation before his Government have put something else in place?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
The hon. Member is describing the Bill, but we are not here to debate the Bill; we are here to debate the remedial order. I asked him why he was comfortable with the fact that the Government are guillotining a piece of law without putting something else in place, and he has not answered that yet. He has answered that they can, but he has not told us why they should.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He has glossed over another thing that he will potentially be voting for today: allowing Gerry Adams to claim compensation on the basis that his internment was illegal because the Minister of State signed the order not the Secretary of State. Would he like to tell his veteran friends and the people of Halesowen why he is happy to walk through the Lobby to vote to give Gerry Adams that right?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I want to make a couple of points, one about democracy and one about service and justice. I am deeply uneasy about this remedial order being brought in today. I will make no criticism of those who are here, but for major parts of this debate over the past three hours, the Government Back Benches were empty and yet 20-plus veterans have stayed in the Public Gallery to watch our proceedings and see justice being done. I find it worrying. It is 6.57 pm on a Wednesday. There will be Members in the Tea Room and the bars, and Members working hard in their offices. The bells will ring, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) said, and they will come down and ask each other, “What are we voting on?” and they will say, “Oh, it’s a Northern Ireland thing.” What they will not realise is that this remedial order removes a law from existence before another one is put in place.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I haven’t got time. I do not think that we are doing the House, or indeed Parliament, justice by proceeding in this way. I was a soldier for 25 years and spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland. I once made the mistake of saying that to Ronnie Flanagan—he was the chief constable at the time—and he told me that I am only on my first tour. Soldiers put up with a lot. I was not given any more powers by this House than those of a private citizen—not really. They just slung a rifle round my neck and sent me off to do the Queen’s bidding. I happily did it and so did others. In my first of four Northern Ireland tours, two guardsmen—Guardsmen Fisher and Wright—were in a judgmental shooting situation, and they were convicted of murder by one man in a Diplock court and sentenced to life imprisonment, so soldiers put up with stuff. But one of the things I find it very difficult to put up with is that when all the Government Members troop through the Lobby tonight, they will remove the prohibition on giving Gerry Adams compensation. I find that incredibly difficult because it is on an admin error: his internment order was signed by a Minister of State and not the Secretary of State. It is on that technicality that he will be able to get compensation for being interned and for trying to escape unsuccessfully—twice. He will get a triple whammy of compensation.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I will not. I challenged the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) earlier, asking him to speak to veterans and the people of Halesowen to justify why that triple whammy is okay, and why he is prepared to go through the Lobby to vote for it tonight. And he said, “The Prime Minister has told me that that’s okay, and that he is not going to allow it. I heard him here at PMQs.” Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I am delighted to see back in his place, is not aware that, immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that he could not guarantee that compensation payments to Mr Adams and other former troubles internees would be prevented. The hon. Gentleman is completely free to wander through the Lobby in blissful ignorance of the fact that what the Prime Minister said does not amount to a hill of beans. If he can summon up the courage, he should at least abstain.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
rose—
- Hansard source
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I welcome the tiny—absolute minuscule—support that the Government are offering in this legislation. We are continually told that most rates will be capped and the changes will not affect most businesses on the high street, but I have not spoken to a single business or pub on my high street that is not seeing a significant increase in its business rates, even with the relief. Let us take the Farmers Boy in Brickendon: its business rates are going to go from £4,000 to £8,000. I do not understand which businesses the Minister or people in the Department are speaking to out there to say that most are not going to see an increase. From the businesses that I speak to, that is simply not true. We continually hear from the Government, “You guys were in power before the last general election,” but they have had 18 months and they have done nothing. They had 14 years in opposition when they could have come up with a credible plan for government, but they have proved to the people up and down the United Kingdom that they were clearly incapable of doing that. I want to understand from the Minister what the Government will do to support businesses and stop these closure notices—because they are closure notices for many of my constituents in Broxbourne.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex were without running water last week. While the response of South East Water was shambolic, the Staplehurst emergency help team got a bottled water supplier, set up a collection station and delivered water to vulnerable people. Using only volunteers, they supported local people, businesses, farms and care homes with 20,000 bottles of water. Does the Prime Minister think, as I do, that South East Water should be ashamed to be schooled in crisis response by the volunteers of the Staplehurst emergency help team? Has he, like many of my constituents and many of our colleagues, lost confidence in South East Water’s chief executive?
- Hansard source
Clean Energy Projects
Mid-Wales is beautiful, but plans for 200 metre tall wind turbines in Radnor forest—turbines twice the height of Big Ben—will blight the landscape, impact local communities and harm the area’s vital tourism sector, and we are seeing similar proposals across Brecon and Radnorshire. The concerns of local communities, businesses and councils must be properly considered in planning decisions for energy infrastructure, not simply overridden by Government Ministers in Cardiff Bay to meet their own agenda. Does the Secretary of State agree?
- Hansard source
Warm Homes Plan
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister asked whether or not Chinese supply chains—slave labour supply chains—will be allowed in the procurement of any part of the solar panels involved in this scheme, but the Secretary of State did not manage to answer. Can he please confirm that not a single aspect of this project will come off the back of slave labour supply chains?
- Hansard source
Warm Homes Plan
That is not what I asked about.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate and congratulate him on the excellent points he made in his speech. Local government holds a special place in our multilayered and multifaceted democracy. It is democratically accountable, inherently bottom-up and strongly community-minded. The average local authority delivers more than 800 different services, providing key day-to-day functions that represent, for most people, the most noticeable interactions with political choices and democratic management. Whether it is bins, potholes, recycling and waste, libraries, adult social care or SEND services, the most obvious impact of many people’s choices at the ballot box are those delivered at the local level in their parish, district or county council. I am especially aware of that having served as a local councillor in the London borough of Bexley for 23 years and, on a regional level, as a London Assembly member for 13 years. It was a privilege to serve my constituents in those positions, just as it is as a Member of Parliament. That is why I know that local government deserves support and respect. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that the Labour Government do not share that view. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), I noted that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He is completely correct on that. However, my right hon. Friend was also completely correct to say that there was nothing in the Labour party manifesto that suggested a top-down, nationwide structural reorganisation of all local councils. There was no mention of riding roughshod over the wishes of local people and local government, but that is exactly the course the Government are pursuing. We have heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how the Government’s plans, which stretch far beyond the platform that they stood for at the election, will impact their local area and constituents. The Government’s programme of so-called devolution is already having sweeping impacts on councils and local people—not least, as we have seen for the second time in as many years, with the likelihood of the cancellation of local elections across vast swathes of the country. It is telling that of the 63 councils offered the chance to postpone elections by the Government, nearly three quarters of those doing so are Labour run or have a Labour majority. Following on from the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), there are a further four local authorities where the Liberal Democrats have at least a share of power, and one where they are in outright control. It is widely believed that Labour is denying democracy and running scared of voters by cancelling elections where it feels it will get a pasting. Independent voices—from academia to politics and the Electoral Commission—are urging that the elections should go ahead. Just recently, the Government told us they would. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, told the House on Monday: “Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead…I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 58-59.] Her argument was supported by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), who said: “As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 60.] He is surely correct in his assertion that this is what lies behind the Government’s actions. When 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote and the Government’s excuse is their own radically top-down and botched reorganisation of local government, it is no wonder that local people feel so ignored and insulted, as hon. Members have made clear today. Let me make it clear again: the Conservative party’s position is that the elections should go ahead. Our line has been completely clear and consistent. This mass suppression of democracy is, perhaps, the most egregious of the many negative outcomes of the Government’s bungled restructuring programme, although it is far from the only one. The greatest scandal comes in the Government’s approach to local councils as they seek to carry out this unmandated position. It is vital that local councils—the elected representatives of local people—and the communities in which they live are heard throughout any process affecting the make-up, functions and form of their local democratic institutions. Instead, Labour’s approach has been to dictate from Whitehall, forcing councils to sign up to a prescribed model of restructuring, imposed from the centre and leaving local people without a voice. We believe that true devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, elections and structure, but the Government have offered none of those things. While local referenda are expensive and non-binding, they provide another collective voice that could feed into the debate about how people want to be represented. The voices of local people should be front and centre of any restructuring process, but sadly, given their current approach, even if there were local referenda, it appears likely that this Government would simply ignore any view that did not correspond with their own.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
Three local elections were delayed by one year in 2021, all of which were the result of local government reorganisations; a consultation took place with the authorities affected in advance and their views were taken on board. That is in complete contrast with what the Labour Government are doing right now. They are riding roughshod over the views of local people and cancelling elections for the second year running. It is vital that communities get the real empowerment they deserve, that taxpayers get the accountability they pay for and that new structures face proper scrutiny. That is why, on Report and Third Reading of the devolution Bill, the Opposition urged the Government to look again and accept amendments to ensure that the Bill provided those key tenets; true to form, the Government ignored those entreaties. The Opposition will continue to vote against the Government in Parliament on their botched handling of this issue. If the Government do not listen to local people, through whatever democratic means, we face a future for local government in which power is stripped from genuinely local authorities and people—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions—and centralised within geographically and demographically distant authorities instead. While the Government’s track record speaks for itself with rushed, top-down reorganisations of local government and higher council tax burdens on residents, the Conservatives believe that communities deserve a voice—not another expensive restructure that sidelines local priorities, moves decision making further away from voters and inflates the cost for taxpayers. While referenda, like elections, could be ignored by a Government who appear indifferent to the views of voters, the Opposition believe in local voices and will continue to stand up for our local democratic institutions. Our electoral process should not be abused or bent to the will of a particular party for its own partisan benefit. Ministers should treat voters with respect instead of disdain, stop undermining our democratic system and let the people of this country make their own decisions.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak and that interventions should be short. We will come to the Front-Bench speeches just before 3.30 pm.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, we have a Division. I think there will be three Divisions, so Members should come back in 35 minutes.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
I just wanted you to get to the end of your sentence.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
Well, we will leave it there anyway. There is a Division, so we will suspend the debate for 15 minutes—unless Members are back sooner. If you all leg it back, we will start again sooner.
- Hansard source
UK Wine Industry
I will call Tristan Osborne to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
- Hansard source
UK Wine Industry
It’s nearly over!
- Hansard source
Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I also remind them that the latest that this debate can go to is 6.8 pm.
- Hansard source
Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands
Order. Before you do, I think we are going off topic. Can we keep to the topic?
- Hansard source
Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands
The intervention needs to be short.
- Hansard source
Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I agree that post-market surveillance is important for patient safety, but predictability for businesses and reducing the burden on them is also important. On 12 May 2025, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), said that the SI that we were discussing on that occasion—the Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2025—would increase the fees across the MHRA for devices from June. That included fees for various things, most of which were increased by between 9% and 16%, but some fees, such as for clinical investigation charges, were increased much more. She said at the time that this would “ensure cost recovery until 2027”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 12 May 2025; c. 3.] It is now January 2026 and the Government are back for more money. Why is that? They increased the fees for regulation 53 of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002—a regulation that the regulations that we are debating today also affect—from £240 to £261 back in June, and they plan to increase them again. Let us consider why. In May, I raised some questions about the impact assessment produced for that legislation, for two reasons. First, it did not appear that the national insurance increase or the reduction in the national insurance threshold had been accounted for in the calculations. Secondly, the impact assessment assumed a 2.2% pay rise for civil servants for the years 2024-25 to 2026-27. Even then, that level was below inflation. Regarding staff costs, the Minister in that debate said she thought they were NHS staff, but she later wrote to me to confirm that the national insurance contribution hikes were payable by the MHRA because the staff were civil servants. In response to my written questions, the Minister declined to say whether national insurance was included, but assured the House that the MHRA had “modelled…future costs”, that the uplift would be enough until April 2027 and that the MHRA would find “efficiency savings” if required to manage any future shortfall. I asked the MHRA, by way of a freedom of information request, what increases it faced in national insurance costs as a result of reductions in the thresholds and increasing the rate. It said that it faced a yearly cost of £1.9 million. I also asked: “What estimate has the MHRA made of the additional cost arising from the difference between” the pay rise estimated in the impact assessment and the actual pay rise that was given. The answer was £1.2 million. That is a shortfall of £3.1 million, or 20% of the increase in fees from the last SI. The MHRA said at that time that “we believe that, while this extra cost” —national insurance— “was not included, our fees cost-recovery methodology and approved fees are still sufficient to cover projected costs over the next two years, without any negative impact on service delivery or financial sustainability.” That letter was dated 1 August 2025, which is after that PMS legislation came into effect. There was a significant difference between the calculations that the MHRA produced and the £3.1 million figure, which raises questions about their accuracy and the grip that the Government have on the detail and our public finances. The Government are now here again, wanting to increase the registration fee by an additional 15% to £300, but this time with no impact assessment. The regulations that we are discussing today not only increase the registration fee by 15% from April 2026, but add a maintenance fee of £300 for each device in a category listed, starting with “the fee period immediately following that in which the person paid the fee for the device registration…due on the first day of each…period”. That would seem to mean that if a device is registered between now and April, they pay £261 now and £300 on 1 April, which will presumably incentivise delaying any current registrations. I can see that the Minister has adjusted for this in future years, but he does not seem to have done so for those registering this year. I am interested in how sure the Minister is that his estimate for the increase in the post-market surveillance of £17 million is robust, given that we are back six months after the Government were sure they had enough. This year, the de minimis assessment says that £6 million will come from grant in aid from DHSC, £4.9 million from DHSC financial support and £6.1 million from the fee income. The current registration fees are predicted to produce £1.6 million, leaving a difference of £4.5 million to be covered by fee increases. The de minimis assessment’s best estimate says that the MHRA needs to make £4.3 million of that, which is £300 a year on each of the devices, in the way that the Minister described. However, it also says that “we plan to seek approval for full cost recovery fee for subsequent years”, which the Minister has confirmed is his plan today. Why is that not in today’s regulations? Is that because it would have required an impact assessment? How much will this cost businesses? This will be a further £10.9 million and, if £300 a year will get the Minister £6.1 million, then for £17 million he will need about £836. That is a massive increase on businesses coming down the track next year, which I do not think he has fully considered. Burdens on businesses are important because they stifle activity and innovation. This Government have already added significant burdens to businesses: higher taxes and national insurance rates, the reduction of the national insurance threshold, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and, for family-owned businesses, the business property relief. They are now adding further costs, and I am concerned about the effects on innovation and early access to devices for patients. What is the Minister’s assessment of international comparators? In recent times we have seen a loss of pharma investment in the UK. Will the extra fees this year, and the prospect of hikes next year, deter investment? There is no impact assessment, so how can we be sure? I am particularly concerned about small businesses and microbusinesses. The de minimis assessment says that it is not possible to exempt microbusinesses. Why is it not possible? It is a political choice not to exempt them, but it is certainly possible to produce regulations that do. As the Minister described, the consultation revealed widespread concern, with only 10% support. Changes have been made following discussion with a trusted advisory group. Who is in the trusted advisory group? Whose voices from micro and small businesses were heard in that group? There has been no further consultation and no impact assessment on the regulations the Minister has presented today. I also have some specific questions about obsolescence. Do businesses need to pay a registration maintenance fee for putting a product on the market to sell or lease? That was previously a single charge that lasted for the product’s lifespan, however long that would be. There is now an annual fee. What provision is made for the clinical use and post-market surveillance of items that cease to be registered because a company goes bust or stops selling the item? Can the item still be used? How would a clinician know that the lapse of a previous licence had stopped, particularly if it was a personal piece of medical equipment such as a stethoscope? How does that affect post-market surveillance? Could registration be discontinued for some items, where someone has several categories possible, in order to register another category and force obsolescence? For example, I have seen one case where the failure to produce spare parts lead to an entire trust having to replace every single defibrillator, at great expense. If a company went bankrupt and was no longer able to pay its post-market surveillance fee, the item would no longer be registered. How would that work? I also want to ask about categories. Originally, as described in the consultation, the GMDN category was level 5, which is extremely specific. It is now level 2, which is better, but microbusinesses still pay the same charges as larger businesses, so a business selling one product would pay the same as a business selling dozens of products in the same category. Also, there is no accounting for the size of the product or the surveillance required. For example, the charge for an MRI scanner, worth £2 million, would be the same for as a single-use scalpel worth less than £1. Is that fair? I appreciate that people may sell more scalpels than scanners, but what about an umbilical artery dilator, of which not too many are used, at £24 each? Producers of inexpensive but highly specific and useful devices may be disadvantaged. What will the effects be on costs for patients? Again, there is no impact assessment, so we do not know. How much of the cost produced by these regulations does the Minister expect to be transferred back to the Government in paying for more expensive devices? Overall, there are many more questions raised than answered by these regulations. Patient safety is paramount. There is, of course, a cost to ensure that devices are properly and proportionately regulated, but the Government also need to be responsible and careful with money. As they are, the regulations are a blunt tool adding costs to businesses and a promise of much more cost to come. There is no proper impact assessment, and there is a risk to small businesses and microbusinesses and to inexpensive, low-volume items. As such, I cannot support the regulations.
- Hansard source
Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026
The Minister is making a great speech, but he is not answering lots of the questions—I appreciate that he may not have all the answers. Can he commit to answering them by letter? Will he also talk about the possibility of obsolescence? If an item ceases to be registered—he is encouraging people to deregister things that they are no longer selling—can it still be used in the NHS? How would a doctor know whether something had ever been registered in the past and was safe?
- Hansard source
Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026
Will this post-market surveillance continue if a device ceases to be registered?
- Hansard source
Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026
If a device ceases to be registered, can a doctor still use it in the NHS—legally?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
It is worth bringing to the House’s attention again the fact that the legacy Act, whatever its legality or otherwise, was predicated on our membership of the European convention on human rights. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will he reflect on the fact, that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Act at the time of the general election by the previous Government, and this Government decided to ditch it?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
On a serious point—