5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

   I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady. I know that there are plenty of local problems, but I also want to look at the national picture. In the first quarter of this financial year, Royal Mail’s performance under the existing USO targets fell well short of expectations. The target for first-class deliveries is 93%, meaning that 93% of first-class post should arrive the next working day. In practice, Royal Mail managed only 75.9%. For second-class deliveries, the target is 98.5% delivered within three working days, yet only 89.3% were delivered on time. That is millions of items delayed across the country. When we look at daily deliveries, the story is even more concerning. In 2024-25, the proportion of daily routes that were delivered was 87.8%. That is against a target of 99.9%. On any given day, more than one in 10 routes were simply not delivered at all. That explains why locally, even within a small village, some people appear to get a good service while others get next to no post at all. A constituent in Spaxton wrote to me to let me know that his postie had complained of severe staffing shortages and that the new contracts being offered were making the jobs unattractive to new starters.

   Hansard source
2. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

   Yes, I agree. We can all agree that Royal Mail faces real challenges. Many people now communicate primarily online and fewer letters are sent, which impacts revenue.

   Hansard source
3. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

   I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading out the Communication Workers Union press release. I did refer earlier to bad management and occasionally militant unions. I think good management will overcome the problems, but I do not think the solution lies in more regulation of other private operators. I want to make a little progress now. The national figures that we see represent a consistent decline in performance over several years, despite the clear legal and moral obligations that come with being the nation’s postal service. Ofcom has noticed. In 2022-23, Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. The following year, 2023-24, the fine almost doubled to £10.5 million. In 2024-25, it more than doubled again—a staggering £21 million penalty for failing to deliver the service that the public expects and deserves. In the face of mounting pressures, changes to the USO have been adopted. I must admit that I am sympathetic to some of the arguments that have been made. If I asked many of my constituents whether they would rather have post delivered consistently every other day, they would gladly accept, but I worry that that will not happen. Under the changes being discussed, the number of delivery days would be reduced, meaning fewer days on which post must actually be delivered. But that is not all. The performance targets have been watered down. On first-class mail, the target is set to drop from 93% to 90%. For second-class post, the target drops from 98.5% to 95%. The post will now come less frequently and Royal Mail expects to deliver even less of it on time. In my local survey, residents scored reliability at an average of only five out of 10—some, of course, scored as much as 10, and others, zero. They already experience an unreliable service. These changes will not improve either the perception or the reality. Let us be clear about what the situation means. This is not just a few percentage points on a chart; it is millions of people waiting longer for vital letters—legal documents, hospital appointments, prescriptions and personal correspondence. It is small businesses waiting an extra day or two to deliver goods. It is rural communities, already struggling with connectivity and transport, being pushed further to the margins. It also sets a dangerous precedent: instead of holding Royal Mail to the standards it has committed to, we simply move the goalposts to make failure acceptable. A constituent in Bridgwater complained that his letters were being delivered in bundles of 16, 18 and, once, 23 at a time, and up to four weeks late. Does the Minister think these changes will reassure that constituent? The Government and Ofcom need to remember that the universal service obligation is not just a technical regulation; it is a public promise. It is what makes Royal Mail more than just another delivery company and gives it a unique place in British life. Reducing delivery days, reducing targets and accepting lower standards risks eroding that promise. Once lost, it will be incredibly difficult to restore. It is important to ask ourselves what message is sent when a national institution misses its targets so widely, is repeatedly fined, and instead of being required to improve, is allowed to relax the very standards it is meant to meet. If the argument is that letter volumes are falling, which they are, let us have an honest conversation about how that service can adapt. Right now, targets are being missed and the answer should not be, “Water down the targets until they are met.” Royal Mail’s decline in performance is not inevitable. It is the result of choices about investment, priorities and accountability. The choice before us now is whether we accept decline or demand better. I urge Ofcom, the Government and Royal Mail to consider whether the changes, in the long term, will really improve services. Or do they, in fact, represent another step backwards? The last time this matter was debated in Westminster Hall, in 2023, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who was then the shadow Minister for business and consumers and is now a Minister in the Foreign Office, said that “Labour is committed to the universal service obligation as the company’s central mission. The next Labour Government will want to ensure that the USO is secure for the future and continues to be provided by Royal Mail in a way that is affordable and accessible to all users…We will also strongly oppose any attempts, whether by the Conservatives in the future or by the leadership of Royal Mail Group, to weaken or abandon the USO.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 324WH.] Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend? What do the Government think of these changes? Has Labour forgotten the promises it made only two short years ago? I conclude by referring once more to my local survey. Of those who did not use the postal service regularly, over a third said that was because it was too slow or too unreliable. My residents already consider the cost of posting a letter to be too expensive. The new system risks being slower, more expensive and less reliable. That is not a way to attract new custom. In April 2025, Royal Mail was acquired by the EP group, a Czech-based company owned by Daniel Křetínský. I wish the new owners well, and hope that the acquisition leads to improved levels of service and efficiency so that we have a postal service that serves everybody, everywhere. Mr Křetínský can be assured that we will watch him very carefully.

   Hansard source
4. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Welfare Spending

   Britain’s welfare system was created as a safety net. It is a system designed to protect people who face hardship through no fault of their own, but today, that net is becoming a trap—for individuals, for families, and for this country. Any welfare system must be fair, providing support for those who truly need it and a reward for those who do the right thing—who get up in the morning, go to work and provide for their families. Right now, too many people feel that doing the right thing is punished, not rewarded. Under Labour, Britain has stopped working, because for too many, it has stopped making sense to work. There are good fiscal reasons why we Conservatives plan to cut welfare spending by £23 billion, but there is also a moral argument. By making work pay less and welfare pay more, the Government are incentivising welfare over work, which is profoundly unfair. One of the best examples is the two-child benefit cap. We all know that the Chancellor is going to announce its removal in the Budget, and will no doubt be supported by the Liberal Democrats, by Reform UK and by other high-spending left-wing parties. She will do so because she and the Prime Minister are terrified of their own Back Benchers. The Prime Minister now says that the welfare reforms he is carrying out strike “the right balance”. Who does he think believes that? He is like brave Sir Robin in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. Brave Sir Keir ran away—bravely ran away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled; bravest of the brave, Sir Keir. He was forced to retreat and turn a Bill designed to save money into one that actually cost the taxpayer more. Why are we Conservatives committed to keeping the two-child benefit cap? It is not just because there is a limit on what the state can afford; it is also a question of fairness. Millions of families across Britain make careful choices about whether or not they can afford a child. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford a third or subsequent child be asked to subsidise one for someone who is not working?

   Hansard source
5. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Welfare Spending

   When we design welfare rules, it has to be for the whole economy and all our people, and I believe that the two-child benefit cap is fair. Under this Labour Government, unemployment has risen every month since they took office; 5,000 people a day are now signing on for sickness benefits, and, thanks in part to the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the number of graduate jobs has fallen by a third; and what is the Government’s response? It is more tax, more borrowing, more spending, and more excuses. When the Chancellor breaks her promise and raises taxes again in the Budget, what will be her excuse? Will it be 14 years of Conservative government? Will it be this mythical black hole that only she and her Back Benchers can see? The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot find it. Perhaps it will be the pandemic, or perhaps it is all because of Brexit. The Chancellor’s excuses are growing increasingly thin, and the people who elect us know that. They know that it is the Chancellor’s fault. We will cut welfare spending by focusing support on those who truly need it, not those who can work but choose not to. We will use those savings to get the economy working again for individuals and for businesses. We will scrap punitive taxes on family businesses, family farms and local shops. We will abolish stamp duty, because when people can buy a home and when businesses can hire and grow, Britain prospers. We respect the fact that taxpayers already paying too much. We respect small businesses that cannot just pass on additional costs to someone else, and we respect the next generation, who deserve to inherit opportunity and not just the debts of this Labour Government.

   Hansard source
6. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

   Welfare Spending

   Every one of us in this Chamber, and generations of MPs before us, want to help and improve the lives of our constituents. That is why this debate is so important, and we really have to tackle it. The issues with welfare go back generations. We talk about the welfare state as we know it now, coming in after the second world war with Clement Attlee and the establishment of the NHS, but the history of welfare goes back so much further. The National Insurance Act 1911 introduced insurance against sickness, invalidity and—unusually at that time—unemployment. We can even go back even further than that, to Henry VIII and the abolition of the monasteries; it was the monasteries that used to provide charity and care for the infirm and the needy. Since then, we have seen the development of welfare in various forms, and it is something that we have all struggled with. We saw it with the development of the Poor Law and the friendly societies. It has been an area of great change and it has been going on for generations. I appreciate that anyone coming to this topic comes with the best of intentions. I think there is consensus that welfare reform is needed, but the way in which the provision of welfare is developed at the moment is entirely damaging both to the public purse and to those who are caught in the welfare net. Today’s welfare state has become like the modern-day helicopter parent. For those who do not know, a helicopter parent is one who hovers over their child like a helicopter in every aspect of their life, managing their experiences and feeling that they always need to be involved in order to solve problems. But we know that is not healthy for the child. They can feel smothered, are unable to develop and become trapped. That is what is happening with our current welfare system; it is trapping people and not giving them opportunities.

   Hansard source
7. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

   Welfare Spending

   I am very sorry that that was the experience faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, but it is good that she has managed to get the opportunity to work. That is the thing; that is the difference. Changes need to be made. We have come to the Chamber today to try to find a route through this issue for all of us. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has offered help. I have a big issue with the language being used in this Chamber all the time. This is a very difficult and sometimes uncomfortable conversation, but it is absolutely essential that we take the action needed. Sentiments like “living within your means”, which I think all our constituents have to do from day to day, should not be replaced by words like “austerity” and then the idea slammed down. That is not helpful to any debate or any of our constituents. We always ask our constituents to look after their money—money in, money out—and the Government have to do the same. This depends on what our own views of the Government are. There are those who want the Government to be involved in absolutely every element of everyone’s lives—and so be it, but do expect cost rises, inefficiencies and abuse of the system. The most compassionate thing is to put people on the path to take their own opportunities, to have their own jobs and to grow. That is the place we are trying to get to. Sometimes we are too involved, and we are not creating the system of fairness that we all seek. Given the sums of money that we are talking about, it is even more imperative that we grasp this nettle. It cannot be right or fair that sickness benefit pays £2,500 more a year than the amount received by someone living on the national living wage. A responsible Government have to take proper action to tackle this issue. That is why the Conservative party has come forward with proposals that would reduce spending by £23 billion, through our plan to deliver £47 billion of savings. The pen sits with the Government. It is entirely with them to take these actions—the actions that constituents are asking for. Rather than dismissing our solutions, as Government Members have constantly done today, perhaps the Government should take some of them on, take up our offer for help and improve the welfare system.

   Hansard source
8. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Richard Fuller

   Topical Questions

   That is a very broad definition. Maybe the Chancellor should speak to the Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary, the Education Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who have all given different definitions of working people over the last 12 months. After last year’s Budget, the Chancellor said that she had wiped the slate clean, but that was not true, Chancellor, was it? She said that she would not be coming back with more taxes, but that was not true, Chancellor, was it? At the election, the Chancellor said that she would not raise taxes on working people, but that was not true either, was it, Chancellor? When will the Chancellor learn the truth that she is not a commentator on the country’s economic problems; she is the cause?

   Hansard source
9. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Supporting High Streets

   Napoleon’s famous remark that “England is a nation of shopkeepers” was meant as an insult. However, for many of us up and down these isles, the high street and its many small businesses are a source of immense pride. My constituency is home to one of the highest concentrations of small businesses in the country, with more than 3,000 operating locally. Although not all are on the high street, they are all part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that makes up the local economy. I have seen at first hand the sacrifices that SME owners right across my constituency make day in, day out: the sleepless nights as financial pressures hit; the long hours away from family, working six or seven days a week; and people’s Herculean efforts to make sure that they might even take a holiday. Those are the challenges facing the self-employed, the sole traders, the family business and the small team. For over 30 years, my parents had their own small business, which is called Mainly Kitchens. They made huge sacrifices. Dad worked six days a week. They survived the recessions of the 1980s and the financial crash in the early noughties. Because of their financial prudence, they had a business to sell to my brother when Dad retired. Britain is built off the back of small businesses like those in my constituency and the one owned by my family. They account for 99.2% of the business population, employ 16.9 million Britons—60% of private sector jobs—and contribute £2.8 trillion to the UK economy. Many of these businesses can be found on high streets like the Broadway and the Ridgeway in my constituency—businesses including Therapy Hair and Beauty Boutique, owned by Effi and her husband Daniel; the new Plymstock post office, which postmaster Steven Boyd has opened this month, taking a huge risk at a time of great uncertainty; and Tubb pharmacy in Newton Ferrers. There are also many off-the-high-street businesses in my constituency, such as Serpells farm stores, owned by Scott. That is a classic example of a business that is a critical part of the local rural economy, and which, because of the Labour Government’s Budget decisions, has had to stop hiring new staff as employment costs rise. In addition, it is experiencing a doubling in its business rates, not the reduction that was promised by the Chancellor. For the avoidance of doubt, the jobs that are not being given are to the young people we have heard much about this afternoon. The contribution of small businesses cannot be measured purely in pounds sterling. Our high streets form the centre of our communities, and are places where generations have shopped, socialised and worked. For many, the decline of the high street is the clearest sign of the nation’s decline, so it is surprising that this Labour Government seem so determined to kill Britain’s entrepreneurial spirit. The Labour Government’s business rates reform is nowhere to be seen. Subsequent Treasury reforms have raised concerns that larger businesses, which act as anchor tenants by drawing people to town centres, may be forced to close, which has an impact on smaller retailers by cutting the number of visitors to high streets. This was compounded by the Chancellor’s £40 billion tax raid, funded off the back of hard-working small business owners. Thanks to the small business rates relief brought in by the previous Government, a third of properties were taken out of business rates all together, but this Labour Government seem intent on undoing that progress. Finally, last week I visited Bidfood UK in Lee Mill, which raised with me serious concerns about the knock-on effects of these rising costs on food wholesalers. This is important because wholesalers play a key role in connecting food producers with local shops, restaurants and public services. The pressures they face from increased operating costs and changes to business rates risk driving prices higher throughout the entire food supply chain, ultimately placing additional strain on small business owners and putting our high streets at risk. If this is not taken seriously by the Government, the impact on food costs and inflation will be huge. The one thing I would love to hear from the Minister about is the point on food wholesalers; in that respect, what is he going to do at the big end to make sure that our high streets remain intact?

   Hansard source
10. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Welfare Spending

    I want to start the debate by acknowledging the fact that many Members here do not know that much about me. The debate so far, with this caricature of Conservatives who do not care, has saddened me. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, I am entirely motivated by social justice and care for the most vulnerable, as are many colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend who founded the Centre for Social Justice, which I know feeds in a huge amount of work to what the Labour party is doing. So I just want to set the record straight. We just differ in how we help. We are also that voice for the voiceless, the hard-working individuals and families who want the system to be fair for them, as well as for the most vulnerable. That is why I believe that reforming Britain’s welfare system is a moral imperative. As Conservatives, we believe in the dignity of work. We believe that work provides purpose, independence and, ultimately, a path from poverty to prosperity. We want to empower people to take control of their own lives, not abandon them to a lifetime on benefits. But right now, as we have heard multiple times this afternoon, work simply does not pay. A person on sickness benefits can get between £2,500 and £5,000 more per year than a worker on the minimum wage, which is something that my constituents have been at pains to ensure that I am aware of. They are hard-working business owners who cannot believe that those figures mean that somebody working is often less well-off than somebody who is not. Faced with such a disparity, it is easy to understand why living off welfare is a more attractive option for many. I am a Conservative because I believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. I see our welfare system as a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as has been mentioned several times in the debate. However, that safety net has reached its breaking point. By 2030, around £1 in every £4 of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits. That is nearly £100 billion—an eyewatering sum that surpasses our entire defence budget. Only the Conservatives have a realistic and sustainable plan for reforming the welfare system. We will get more people into work, while providing support for those facing genuine need. When our Government left office, over 4 million more people were in work than in 2010.

    Hansard source
11. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Welfare Spending

    I am going to make some progress, if I may. Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs. I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030. To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals. First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance. Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

    Hansard source
12. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Welfare Spending

    I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have. Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty. Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits. Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments. Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle.

    Hansard source
13. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Welfare Spending

    Sorry; I am going to continue. Motability is a lifeline for those with serious mobility issues, yet under Labour, Motability costs have surged by almost 10%.

    Hansard source
14. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Welfare Spending

    I am going to continue because I am running out of time. We will stop taxpayers subsidising new cars for people with ADHD and tennis elbow, and will ensure that the scheme is targeted at those with genuine mobility issues. It is not compassionate to pretend that our welfare system can solve everyone’s problems. If we continue turning a blind eye to misuses of the system, it will not be robust enough to help those who need it most. Lastly, we must keep the two-child benefit cap in order to encourage people into work and to strengthen our economy. Having parents with a stable job is the best foundation from which a child can better their prospects in life. Of course we want children and families to thrive, but fairness requires that families on benefits should face the same decisions as those in work about whether they can afford another child. The Conservatives are the only party that believes in keeping the cap and living within our means; Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats would all scrap it, costing £3.5 billion by the end of this decade. As I have said before, scrapping the two-child benefit cap, like rolling out universal free school breakfasts, is a sticking plaster at best that will not tackle the root causes of poverty—something that I believe we all want to do. By returning to sustainable levels of welfare spending, a Conservative Government will build a stronger economy. These welfare savings will enable us to axe stamp duty on primary residences, helping first-time buyers to get on to the property ladder. We will introduce a permanent 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, enabling a quarter of a million businesses to invest in better premises, more staff and lower prices. We will deliver a £5,000 first jobs bonus, giving a boost to young people’s savings or home deposit. The Conservatives are the party that backs ordinary working people who play by the rules, while Labour seems bent on making our country into a welfare state with an economy attached. We urge the Government to reform the welfare system. They must continue to provide support for those who need it, while refusing to consign people to a lifetime on benefits.

    Hansard source
15. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Supporting High Streets

    My wonderful constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is also home to many SMEs, and they tell me that they are being punished because of the irresponsible decisions taken by this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree?

    Hansard source
16. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Supporting High Streets

    The hon. Lady is right to recognise the advances made as a result of our having named neighbourhood officers. Will she therefore congratulate the Conservative police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, who brought in that policy before the hon. Lady’s Government did?

    Hansard source
17. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Topical Questions

    From her CV to her tax promises, would the Chancellor know the truth if it stood right in front of her?

    Hansard source
18. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Regional Economic Growth: Pension Funds

    Pension scheme trustees have an obligation to make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of savers, which is otherwise known as their fiduciary duty. The reserve powers in the Pension Schemes Bill could force investment in Government vanity projects, which is contrary to that duty. Does the Minister agree with me and much of the pension industry that mandation is a massive state overreach and is gambling with the futures of those saving for retirement?

    Hansard source
19. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Welfare Spending

    The welfare bill is out of control. A system with laudable aims that was designed to act as a safety net for those who fall on hard times now threatens not only the nation’s finances but the spirt of hard work and self-reliance. That is why I will support the motion. My Conservative colleagues and I believe in fairness. We are the party of the strivers—the men and women who rise early, work long hours and provide for their families. The shopkeeper who opens up before dawn, the construction workers on site in all weathers, and the parents balancing multiple jobs—these are the people who make Britain great. They keep our economy going and our communities alive. This Government are letting people down. People see many others gaming the system, while their taxes continue to rise to fund a welfare bill that has spiralled out of control. Of course, I understand that there must always be a safety net—I say that as someone who has lived experience of being on the breadline growing up—but this safety net has turned into a fishing net, with a culture that promotes the idea that it is okay not to work, that it is fine for others to pay for our lifestyle choices and that it is acceptable to rely on the state forever. Since the general election, we have seen over 1 million more people added to universal credit—1 million more people. For all the Government’s talk of saving the NHS and helping people back into work, the numbers tell a different story.

    Hansard source
20. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Welfare Spending

    When the Conservatives left office, there were just 2 million people on universal credit for health-related reasons. Today, that number stands at 3 million—a remarkable increase that highlights the sheer lack of action by this Government to get welfare under control. It tells the younger generation that aspiration is no longer the British way and that it is easier to depend on the state than to strive. While the Government continue to spend, it is our constituents—hard-pressed taxpayers—who are footing the bill. We in this House would be wise to remember that there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money. Unfortunately, taxpayers are getting a rough deal. Our approach is different. Only the Conservative party is on the side of the taxpayer. The Government published proposals to save £5 billion in welfare spending.

    Hansard source
21. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Welfare Spending

    Anyway, to go back to the £5 billion of welfare savings the Government proposed, that was a small but important step in the right direction that we on the Conservative Benches would have supported. Embarrassingly, they conceded to the hard left in the Labour party, so we are now in the perverse position that their welfare changes will invariably end up costing the taxpayer more and not achieve even the smallest of savings they intended. Other parties that claim to be fiscally conservative are now openly supporting the removal of the two-child benefit cap—a move that undermines the very principle of personal responsibility.

    Hansard source
22. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Welfare Spending

    Of course not. We on the Conservative Benches know that the hard-pressed taxpayer deserves better. I am proud that the shadow Secretary of State has outlined tough but fair proposals to cut the welfare bill. Our plan to make work pay and to stop the unfair gaming of the system would make savings of £23 billion for the Exchequer. First, we will clamp down on the ridiculous system that enables people with mild health conditions to receive thousands of pounds from the state, when people with the exact same conditions go out to work and pay their dues. Secondly, we will reduce fraud and error in the system by bringing back face-to-face assessments, which are a means of ensuring that support is in the right hands. Finally, we will restrict benefits for non-UK nationals. We all know that migrants are attracted to the UK, because of our welfare system perhaps being too generous.

    Hansard source
23. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Welfare Spending

    I am not giving way. The welfare system should be there for British people who need it, not for others who perhaps just want it, and Conservative Members will never apologise for believing in aspiration over dependency.

    Hansard source
24. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Supporting High Streets

    As many have said, our high streets are the heart of our communities. From small retail and hospitality ventures that allow people the opportunity to own their own business, to post offices and pharmacies where the more vulnerable can go to see a familiar face and get support, to our pubs, where people have gathered together for years, our high streets give us everything we need. We must support them, not restrict them. I spend much of my time in South West Hertfordshire on local high streets, hearing at first hand from many business owners about the struggles that they face due to Labour’s increase in national insurance contributions, and their worries about the upcoming Employment Rights Bill.

    Hansard source
25. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Supporting High Streets

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The small businesses that I speak to say that they feel abandoned by this Government. They face high energy bills and rents, and poor footfall. They have been harmed by Labour’s decisions, and have ever-growing worries about the Budget later this month. We already know that hospitality is struggling. One in five high street premises are empty, and 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since Labour’s Budget. Two thirds of those jobs lost were done by 18 to 24-year-olds. That is simply not sustainable. Business owners do not want that to happen, but they have no choice. A third of businesses are reducing their opening hours as they simply cannot afford to staff up. They include Kitchen Croxley in my constituency, which warned me that as a result of Labour’s policy changes, job losses are inevitable, if it is to keep its doors open. Businesses of all sizes are affected. Hubs, a franchise owner in my constituency, made me aware that due to Labour’s national insurance contributions increases, his NICs amounted to £138,000 for April to September. He has been warned that his contributions could increase to over £275,000 for the business’s first full-year cycle. That franchise owner is creating 90 local jobs and filling a large high-street unit that sat unoccupied for over a year and a half. It simply seems unfair. Business owners are willing to contribute their fair share—they are investing significant amounts in our high streets—and they should not be penalised for trying to grow their business. The spirits industry disproportionally faces the effects of these policies; it has contributed £676 million less in taxes than expected, despite the rise in alcohol duty. One business in Kings Langley, Fells, which employs over 70 people in the area and regularly supports charitable causes in the community, faces mounting costs and regulatory burdens. It urges a freeze in duty rates to mitigate the need for further price increases. We are talking about an industry that contributed over £75 billion to the UK economy in 2022, according to the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. Why are we stifling it? This summer, I spent a week visiting pubs across South West Hertfordshire, to see how they are being affected by Labour’s decision making. I spoke with Nick, the manager of the Coach and Horses in Rickmansworth, who told me that the rises in the minimum wage and NICs have made staffing incredibly difficult. As I have said before, many businesses sympathise with the need to ensure job security and good working conditions. However, that comes at the cost of rising prices, which just pushes the issue on to customers. Rising prices lead to fewer people visiting pubs and putting their money back into the community.

    Hansard source
26. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Supporting High Streets

    My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Members on all sides of the House claim to support pubs, but our policy means that our position is a lot stronger than this Labour Government’s. As I have said before, where this Labour Government get it right, they will have our support. They should not be fearful of changing direction—I will not use the word “U-turn”, because they have done a few of them already. We will absolutely support them changing direction for the better. Post offices remain critical to our high streets. They are a credible and trustworthy high-street brand, and a place where constituents regularly see a friendly face. I represent seven post offices in South West Hertfordshire and visit them regularly, including the one in Croxley Green, which I visited just two weeks ago. I have seen in person how busy postmasters serve the community. Many postmasters see their regulars frequently; they are often the first to see how their customers are doing. Post offices have evolved to provide services that go beyond just post. Many now also provide banking services, owing to the closure of high-street banks. Danny, the postmaster at the Rickmansworth branch, is able to offer enhanced banking services. Without them, my constituents would be stuck waiting for unreliable buses to travel to their nearest bank, just to access their money. In 2023, when we were in government, we extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme. We will reverse this Government’s decision not to support our high streets. When it comes to helping our high streets, I look forward to support from across the House, rather than political point scoring.

    Hansard source
27. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Cross-border Healthcare

    May I take a moment to say how pleased and honoured I am to respond to this important debate—we have heard why it is important—on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this incredibly timely debate examining cross-border health services, constituents’ experiences of them and the wider challenges across the health service in Wales and Scotland. Some formal points have been put on the record about Wales in particular. There have been passionate and concerned approaches from Members this afternoon, particularly the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). Today, the Chamber has heard pertinent and passionate contributions from across the political divide regarding disappointing healthcare affecting people, despite the best efforts of staff members, as has been drawn out in the comments today. These first-class, dedicated and hard-working teams are in essence grappling with the challenges of devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly highlighted that before devolution, services were connected to people’s communities, places of convenience or connection and shorter car journeys. It led to services that actually worked for them, and that matters. The challenges of the reality facing our constituents and those we care for have been highlighted in today’s debate. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe rightly mentioned the ridiculousness of “too quickly” and how some constituents looking for hospital care were asked to give slower responses. How on earth can someone receive that message and be able to manage it? That affects not only the staff on the ground. Lack of access and issues around medical records were raised today. The hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) rightly talked about joined-up thinking. It is not clear where people will be sent and referred to, whether in Scotland or around the English border. We need a British healthcare system that works in the situations that people or their loved ones may find themselves in. Staff on the ground are putting in their very best efforts. It is simply not good enough to be still looking at this issue. Since taking up this role, one of the things that has been front and centre when meeting and listening to people is their experiences across the NHS in Wales as a whole: how they worry about their families and their care, the disjointed nature of the process and, frankly, what feels like a lack of interest and joined-up approach from Ministers. I ask that the Secretary of State for Wales takes note of what is said in this Chamber this afternoon—and indeed the Secretary of State for Scotland. Similarly, I hope that the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) will take a similar interest, given that it is the Welsh NHS that delivers for his constituents. We know too many people, whether our family or friends, who are waiting in pain and in vain. Given the changes in the NHS in England, they want this Government to be interested in what happens in Wales and Scotland, and that they are using the fabled two Governments. I know the need for this debate, which in parts has been strident. We are here to make sure that this challenge is taken up and pursued in the places where it exists, by both Labour Governments in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster. Since I have taken on this role, I have continually pointed out that since 1999—yes, since Tony Blair was Prime Minister—the Labour Welsh Government have controlled the health service in Wales. Despite some pleasant colleagues from Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, it is important to remember that parties there have been backing the Labour Government in Wales, and there has been far too little change. I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) taking the opportunity, rightly, to point out that for her constituents, change needs to happen. The people of Wales and those using cross-border health services will not accept it if this debate does not lead to change. The answer is simple. People should not be holding their breath to see a change in their experiences; they should be seeing different outcomes. The Conservatives tried to take up this task, but as we heard today, the challenge around devolution has left it in a difficult state. During the last Parliament, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), reached out to the Health Minister in Wales—the now First Minister, Baroness Eluned Morgan —recognising the disparities. He asked that they bring officials together—as has been asked for again today—to see how all our UK nations could work together to reduce NHS waiting lists and support the people of Wales. It was bitterly disappointing to see that opportunity to engage not taken up. It was a vital and genuine offer, based on all the reasons that we have heard in the Chamber this afternoon. I would love to hear the Minister tell the House whether that decision is regretful. It seems short-sighted, especially given the ongoing messages in today’s debate. Can the Minister reveal whether she would like to do the same thing and reach out and offer to assist Welsh Government Ministers, as my party did? We would all be assured by that, and we would all assist in any way to make this change. We also committed in last year’s general election to accelerate investment into new hospitals in Llandrindod Wells, Flint and Newtown to improve cross-border services. Can the Minister commit to an update on that, as it will make a real difference in people’s lives? I was fascinated to hear from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), that where technology, co-operation and partnership is focused, it can change lives. That is the outcome we are looking for here. Despite the feeling that this issue is about funding, it feels more about delivering and making sure that cross-border services work, no matter what party someone belongs to or what part of the country they live in. Wales desperately needs more nurses and doctors, not more politicians in Cardiff Bay. My colleagues, the Welsh Conservatives, led a debate on this topic in July, making it clear that they felt some of the funding could and should have been redirected at cross-border waiting times. I will conclude by asking the Minister—given the cross-border experiences discussed and what hon. Members have pleaded for on behalf of their constituents—whether she will work with the Wales Office to deliver an inquiry into the preventable deaths, particularly those under the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board. David Jones from Flintshire and many others want that inquiry to be delivered under the Inquiries Act 2005. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how, by delivering on our commitment and listening to what has been said in this debate, she can take forward people’s experiences so that they are at the heart of what Parliament discussed this afternoon, and real change can be delivered.

    Hansard source
28. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Supporting High Streets

    I thank the shadow Business and Trade Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), for ably setting out the Conservative case for restoring our high streets, and the costs and consequences of the Government’s decisions. As a former Woolies worker, and having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, I am particularly passionate about our high streets and their role as the lifeblood of our local communities. We have heard brilliant examples from right hon. and hon. Members of fantastic high-street businesses in their communities. Few will be as incredible as those in Yarm, Stockton and Thornaby, but valid points were made. We heard about the huge threat to the full English in greasy spoon cafés across the country, but price rises for mushrooms, tomatoes and bacon pale into significance when compared with Labour’s slashing of small business rates relief, its job tax and its unemployment rights Bill. From Bognor Regis to Windsor, and from Doncaster to Crewe, we see the butcher’s, the baker’s and—less frequently—the candlestick maker’s. Our high streets apparently offer everything, from wigs to corned beef and spam, and Members are rightly clearly proud of them. One of the messages we have heard today is, “Shop local and support local small businesses,” but another message was heard loud and clear. It probably came from Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is a message that is familiar to any Member who engages with local small businesses: our high streets face an existential threat, and the problem is compounded by the choices of this Government. We are a nation of shopkeepers.

    Hansard source
29. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Supporting High Streets

    It is a clear message: “Stop scrolling through Amazon, and go buy local—it’ll benefit your local economy greatly.” High streets define places. Their success allows us to feel pride in our towns. They are a place where people come together. They help us to tackle social isolation, and they are often the place where people get their first job, and their last. The retail, hospitality and leisure sector employs 5.8 million people, and generates billions of pounds for our economy.

    Hansard source
30. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Supporting High Streets

    My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs made a very good point: we do not support workers by bankrupting their employer. In the nine months before this Government took office, 22,000 jobs were created in the hospitality sector, and in the nine months since the last Budget, 100,000 people lost their job—their ability to provide for their family, and to live out their aspirations and dreams. That is a disgrace. The sector is also the natural home of social mobility. It allows people to climb and achieve incredible things. There are so many stories of people who started by stacking shelves and serving coffee, and who went on to reach the boardroom. Without doubt, our high streets are really struggling. The truth is that they were battered by the Chancellor’s Budget last autumn—a £25 billion tax bombshell on British businesses and jobs, as a result of measures including the jobs tax and the slashing of small business rates relief. Conservative Members understand that businesses need to be supported, not tied up in red tape and taxed into extinction. If this Labour Government do not change course, we risk making our high streets unrecognisable and unrecoverable. The problems are clear for all to see: higher taxes, punitive business rates, soaring energy costs, rising crime and more red tape and paperwork for employers. The Government must take urgent action to fix that.

    Hansard source
31. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Supporting High Streets

    Basically, Labour’s trade union paymasters seem to have written a large part of the Bill. In fact, we found a really rare thing today: one employer on the face of the earth who apparently supports the Bill was mentioned earlier, but of course, they were not British. In my constituency in Stockton, almost every time I visit a small business owner, they tell me the same story: since the Chancellor’s Budget, they have had to let staff go or reduce their hours; they have had to put up prices, and some are now considering whether there is any future at all for their business. As the chief exec of UKHospitality has said, pubs, bars and restaurants are already closing earlier because of the jobs tax, and more than 200 leading hospitality businesses have written to the Chancellor to warn that her decisions will force companies to cut jobs and reconsider investment. Too many businesses are closing. Too many jobs are being lost. Boarded-up high streets will eat away at the pride people can have in their communities and town centres. Throughout today’s debate, we have heard Labour MP after Labour MP—soon, I am sure, to be followed by the Minister—talk about the virtues of their Government’s policies. I have to ask them, have they seriously had a conversation with the small businesses on their local high street about the challenges they face? We are now just a couple of weeks away from the Chancellor’s next Budget. She has the opportunity to change course, yet this morning we heard the same old story, with the Chancellor laying the groundwork for more tax rises—another nail in the coffin of our high streets, alongside people and businesses across the country. But we on the Conservative Benches have a clear plan for stronger high streets. First, we would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. That would benefit a quarter of a million businesses—savings that would not only help them thrive, but could be reinvested in better premises, low prices, and more jobs. It would lift thousands of businesses out of business rates all together.

    Hansard source
32. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Supporting High Streets

    They need to go back on YouTube—we’ll encourage a bit of online interaction—and listen to that fantastic speech from the Leader of the Opposition about the £47 billion of savings that can be made, that will be supported by the public, and that can help us balance the books and save high street businesses. Another issue facing businesses that has been highlighted by many hon. Members is the impact of energy bills. Britain has the highest electricity prices in the world. It does not have to be this way. The situation is making our high street businesses less competitive and stifling economic growth. That is why we would axe the carbon tax and scrap net zero subsidies to reduce the cost of electricity. That would of course benefit consumers, but also businesses; the average restaurant would save £5,100 a year. The third point in relation to our plan for stronger high streets is stronger policing. Under this Labour Government, crime is on the rise in high streets across the country, eroding community trust and public safety. It is having a huge impact on our high streets. Indeed, just a few weeks ago I met Costa Coffee, a well-known high street chain. Despite its huge resources, its representatives told me that they face constant thefts, and even ram-raids to steal sandwiches and drinks—an unbelievable situation. Even Greggs—one of the nation’s favourites, and mine—has had to start locking up its sandwiches, soft drinks and sausages rolls in some locations, because of prolific shoplifting. In fact, shoplifting has risen by 20% in this Labour Government’s first year in office. That is the highest figure since modern records began, but it is no surprise because police numbers are falling. There are 1,316 fewer police officers since this Labour Government came to power. As part of our plan, we will hire 10,000 extra police officers backed by £800 million in funding. We will end Labour’s early release scheme to keep criminals behind bars, introduce intense police hotspot patrolling in areas to cover serious violent crime and robbery, and treble stop and search to take knives and weapons off our streets. We will also redirect resources to catch real criminals, abolishing non-crime hate incidents so that police can spend 60,000 more hours policing our streets and not our tweets.

    Hansard source
33. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Supporting High Streets

    That is a complete and utter myth. The hon. Gentleman will be able to check the Government facts and stats that will confirm that 90% of all cases of people charged with shop theft related to goods under £200—would he believe it? Indeed, I have a question for him and I will let him answer: could he name a single police force in the country that had a policy of not actioning thefts of under £200?

    Hansard source
34. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Supporting High Streets

    Not a single police force in the country had that policy, and 90% of all cases with charges for shop theft involved goods under the value of £200. That is a fact, and what the hon. Gentleman says is a myth. At the heart of our high streets lies entrepreneurship—those incredible people who get up early, take the risks and build something. They create jobs, wealth and opportunity. This Labour Government have spent the last year making it harder to start a business. That means that now just one in four young people who want to start a business do so, as highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses. We need to cut red tape so that our businesses can breathe again. We need to make it easier for entrepreneurs to open a bank account and engage with HMRC, and we need to expand business coaching in schools. It is no surprise that those on the Government Benches just do not get it; just one member of the Cabinet has started their own business, and less than half of them have ever worked in the private sector. Let me conclude with this point. The high street is suffering. As a result, people who have invested their lives in creating businesses are suffering, those youngsters who might have been able to get their first job on the high street are suffering, and those older people who felt pride in their town for years and decades are now watching as shops are boarded up and they are suffering too. Analysis of insolvency notices has revealed that businesses are closing at the fastest rate since the world economic crash, and as a result 17% more people are without a job. Tonight is a chance to join the Conservatives in backing the people who work hard and do the right thing. Any Member of this House who wants to support our high streets, the entrepreneurs who work hard and do the right thing, and more job opportunities for people—young and old—and any Member who wants to ensure that people can continue to have pride in their town centres should support the motion and our plan for stronger high streets. I commend the motion to the House.

    Hansard source
35. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Topical Questions

    Since the Chancellor delivered her speech this morning, the FTSE 100 has dropped by over £22 billion—the real £22 billion rather than the fantasy £22 billion black hole. What can the Chancellor say right now to steady the markets so that all our constituents’ pensions are protected?

    Hansard source
36. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Supporting High Streets

    My hon. Friend will know that cafés, including small cafés, play an important part on the high street and bring people to it. Is he aware that under this Government, mushrooms are up, bacon is up, eggs are up, sausages are up, bread is up, tea is up and milk is up? Therein is a threat to the full English breakfast. This Government might be forgiven for many things, but taking away the full English breakfast from the high street is not one of them.

    Hansard source
37. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Supporting High Streets

    I know that, as a London MP, the Minister spends a lot of time reading the Shropshire Star, so I am sure she will be aware of its recent report that, year on year, there has been a 15.5% increase in businesses in severe distress; across the west midlands, year on year, the figure is 11.9%. Does the Minister not finally get that raising taxes does not grow the economy?

    Hansard source
38. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Banking Services: Rural Areas

    In this month of blaming everyone else for every woe that befalls the Government and using it as an excuse to bust manifesto pledges left, right and centre, it seems that the Government are claiming credit for more banking hubs, but we all know that the rolling out of banking hubs is a purely commercial decision by the banks. It is the banks that are choosing to do this, to serve their customers. Is it now the Government’s policy to blame everyone else for their own incompetences, and to claim credit for everyone else’s good ideas?

    Hansard source
39. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Topical Questions

    T8. In a new poll, FairFuelUK has found that three out of four road users who voted Labour want fuel duty to be kept frozen or reduced. Will the Chancellor listen to the people who put her into Government and ensure that that regressive tax, which hits low-income families and economic growth the hardest, is not increased?

    Hansard source
40. 4 Nov 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Cross-border Healthcare

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing the debate. I am going to give a Scottish perspective, similar to that of the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) but from the Scottish side of the border. My constituency runs along the border between Scotland and England, touching both northern English counties of Northumberland and Cumbria. To the east of my constituency, many of the people living in the southern Berwickshire towns and villages of Eyemouth, Hutton, Paxton, Burnmouth, Chirnside, Foulden and Lamberton look to Berwick-upon-Tweed as their economic centre for shopping, work and other services—I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Northumberland is taking part in the debate. To the far south of my constituency, residents of Newcastleton and Hermitage are drawn to Carlisle—similarly, I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her place. For generations before devolution, and certainly long before the SNP took control of the Scottish Government, patients from those areas were able to obtain NHS treatment in Northumberland and Cumbria without any difficulty—not because it was necessarily any better or different, but because it was more convenient. It was a reflection of the transport links that cross the border between those communities: the bus links, shorter car journeys and community ties. The border between Scotland and England is, for those communities, simply a line on the map. This is absolutely not a criticism of the quality of care provided by NHS Borders—quite the opposite. We have first-class NHS provision at Borders general hospital and across the Scottish Borders, provided by hard-working and dedicated health professionals, to whom I pay tribute. It is not about tearing up the devolution settlement. The NHS in the Borders is absolutely the responsibility of the Scottish Government, and no one is suggesting a retreat from the Scotland Act 1998 or taking powers away from the Scottish Parliament. But it is about recognising the day-to-day challenges that people face in terms of public transport links and fitting medical appointments around work and family life. It is also about highlighting the fact that since the SNP came to power in Holyrood, the real-life experience of many people in the Borders is that the option of cross-border healthcare has been diminished. It is about reaffirming that we are still part of one United Kingdom, and that the NHS is rightly an institution that we should be able to use regardless of which side of the border we live on. The easiest way to describe the challenges that people face in my constituency is to share some of the stories that have been told to me in recent weeks. Margaret Merry said: “I live in Eyemouth. Once I had to take a full day off work and 4 buses to travel to the Borders General Hospital for an x-ray, when I was working in Berwick, a 5 minute walk from where I could have had it done and only taken maybe 15 minutes out of my working day. It is ridiculous.” Pauline Hutton said: “I am currently under the care of BGH for cancer treatment and have to travel from Ladykirk to BGH daily for chemo. The treatment is excellent and I can’t praise the staff enough…but a simple thing like giving a blood sample means a 40 mile journey as I can’t give blood at our local surgery in Norham (1/2 mile away) because it’s in England and Borders General Hospital can’t access my results cross border. In this day of technology I can’t fathom out why medical records are all computerised yet one NHS trust can’t have access to patients medical records from another trust.” Dennis McKeen said: “Some patients in Newcastleton would also prefer to go to Carlisle rather than a 90 mile plus round trip to the Borders General Hospital...it’s ridiculous”. Brenda Walker said: “I am currently travelling from the east coast 3 times per week for dialysis at Borders General Hospital thanks to their transport system getting picked up at 6.40 am. The nurses do a brilliant job looking after us”. Trixie Collin said: “Currently I live in Scotland but was told that if I moved to England I would no longer be able to be seen by the consultant at Western General who had been treating me for 10 years.” The Brucegate dental practice in Berwick-upon-Tweed said: “As a healthcare provider in England it’s a daily problem on both sides of the border. I get rejections of referrals from both England and Scotland based on postcodes. Thanks for standing up for common sense.” Kirsty Jamieson from Berwick-upon-Tweed said: “We campaigned hard for reciprocal care between people living in the Borders and North Northumberland, during the 2018 A Better Hospital for Berwick campaign. No joined up thinking whatsoever.” Lastly, Kate Tulloch highlighted the fact that this is not just a Scotland-England problem. Kate lives in Cockburnspath, which is Berwickshire in Scotland. Her GP is in Dunbar, which is also in Scotland, but Kate cannot get NHS Borders results because the two health boards, despite both being in Scotland, do not communicate. So this is not just a cross-border issue for Scotland and England; it is an issue of different health boards in Scotland not communicating properly. All these stories clearly demonstrate the difficulties that my constituents face in accessing treatment across the border. I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but I would be grateful if she could relay my asks to her colleagues. First, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can address the challenges that some of my constituents face when it comes to cross-border healthcare? Secondly, does the Minister recognise that we need to find a solution, and can she commit to working with the Scottish Government to overcome the perceived challenges that they are putting in place? This is not just about extra money or funding; it is about putting in place common-sense solutions. NHS Northumberland has indicated that it is more than willing to accept patients from the Scottish Borders and other parts of Scotland, and NHS Cumbria has indicated similarly and is, I think, currently doing that for some patients. We must break through the ideological barrier that many of us believe the Scottish National party Government have put in place to stop what has happened for many years—people accessing NHS treatment on either side of the border.

    Hansard source