Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about transparency, but it is not just about that. Does he agree that it is also about having an evidence base that allows reform and improvement of the regulator?
5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
My hon. Friend makes a strong point about having a review to ensure that the regulator is operating effectively. Does he share some of my concerns that a one-off review may not demonstrate ongoing oversight and scrutiny of the performance of the regulator?
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
The new clause is underpinned by noble intentions, but does the hon. Gentleman believe that patients would be better served if such a process were in guidelines rather than in the Bill? That would ensure that it is deliverable.
- Hansard source
National Security Strategy
Given the scale of foreign-influence operations, particularly those of China, does the Minister accept that Britain’s societal resilience remains far too limited? Without clear Government messaging, how can institutions or the public properly play their role? Will the Minister commit to expanding the defending democracy taskforce to include public education, support for free media, and curbing People’s Liberation Army-linked speakers at taxpayer funded events?
- Hansard source
China Audit
Given that China represents one of the defining geopolitical challenges of our age, I am somewhat sceptical about reports this morning that this much-touted, long-awaited year-long audit has significantly downgraded that challenge. Under this Government, there has been a significant increase in ministerial engagement and visits with China, a policy that is at best incoherent and at worst incompetent. Given that actions speak louder than words, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will no longer be making his proposed trip to China?
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. I mentioned my concern about this provision on Second Reading: a rough road is not the same as a broken bridge. We are dealing here with the most severe mental health issues. The new clause talks about wellbeing, which affects everyone. Trying to report that and fit it into this criteria risks diluting the very aim of the Bill in trying to deal with the most severe mental health issues. I would be grateful for clarification on the difference between mental wellbeing, which affects everyone, and mental health issues, which not everyone has.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I rise to speak in support of the new clause, which was tabled by the Conservative party. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the regulatory authority’s role under the Mental Health Act 1983 within one year of the Act’s passage. Allow me to provide the current legal and regulatory context. Under the framework in the Mental Health Act 1983, the Care Quality Commission, which is the regulatory authority in England, is tasked with monitoring and regulating providers of mental health services. We have debated some of this, and there are issues still to be addressed. The CQC inspects hospitals, community mental health teams, and other relevant services to ensure compliance with statutory safeguards and standards. It publishes reports on providers and issues recommendations where it identifies failings. Additionally, there is an existing reporting framework under the Act whereby the Secretary of State is expected to oversee and ensure the Act’s proper implementation, with periodic ministerial reports to Parliament and CQC inspection outcomes made publicly available. However, there is currently no statutory requirement to review the CQC’s own role and effectiveness in carrying out these specific mental health functions. The gap means that although providers are scrutinised, the regulator itself escapes similar structured accountability and review. This question was debated in the other place and I welcome the comments from the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Merron, who, in a letter, rightly highlights existing transparency measures. She states that, “findings from CQC’s monitoring activity are reported annually in their Monitoring the Mental Health Act report, which is laid before Parliament and published publicly.” That is true. She also notes the annual quality account reports produced by NHS healthcare providers under the Health Act 2009, which cover patient safety, treatment effectiveness, and patient feedback. True. Those are indeed important components of the current oversight framework, and we support the continuation and strengthening of those transparency mechanisms.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
I do, and to expand the point, this is about understanding the performance of CQC as well. We know from the Dash report and from Mike Richards that there are, and have been, concerns about CQC performance. That is at the heart of this new clause—to try to make sure we actually look at the performance and regulation of the regulator. Those reports focus on the performance of mental health services and providers, but they do not amount to a dedicated statutory review of the regulator itself—specifically, the CQC’s role, effectiveness, and capacity under the Mental Health Act. Annual reports primarily reflect the CQC’s monitoring outcomes rather than a comprehensive, independent evaluation of whether its regulatory functions are being discharged optimally, or whether it is adequately equipped to meet the new challenges posed by the legislation. In other words, reporting on what the regulator monitors is not the same as reviewing how well the regulator performs its duties. The new clause would address that distinct gap by mandating a focused review with a parliamentary report and a Government response, thereby strengthening accountability at the regulatory level. The new clause aims to establish an additional layer of scrutiny, not duplicative reporting. It would require the Government, within 12 months of the Bill becoming law, to conduct a formal review of the CQC’s effectiveness, specifically in regulating mental health services under the 1983 Act. It mandates an assessment of whether the CQC is adequately fulfilling its duties, including monitoring, inspection, and enforcement responsibilities, as well as whether it will be capable of carrying out its duties under the new legislation. Given the well-documented problems in mental health, it seems entirely appropriate to address the key point: is the regulator regulating effectively?
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
We do not want to introduce too much bureaucracy, but ensuring an accountable statutory mechanism to ensure adequate oversight is incredibly important. Much of the debate about the Bill has been about whether we put things in primary legislation or in policy, or whether we allow policy and legislation to be done at a secondary level—or even leave them for the organisation to deal with. My concern with the CQC is that we have not seen the organisation step up in the way that it should do. That does not mean that it is not making progress, but we need to see further progress.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
The Minister mentioned the Government’s annual reports, but at other times he has said that they will issue written ministerial statements. Will he clarify which it will be? There is a big difference between a couple of paragraphs in a written ministerial statement laid before the House, and a full report. When debating the other clauses, new clauses and amendments, the Government’s answer has been that they will report back to Parliament in a year’s time. I am grateful for that, but clarity would be helpful, because a full and comprehensive report would give more weight to the Opposition in terms of understanding and transparency.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
I will be brief. On this clause, I will be grateful if the Government can ensure good co-operation between the devolved powers, and if the Minister can set out how he will engage with the Welsh Government before exercising the power. On clause 57, what consideration has been given to cross-border issues to ensure that there are no unintended consequences between the likes of England and Wales or Scotland and England? Clause 58 covers commencement; will there be a clear published timetable for that over the next 10 years? Will Government allow Parliament sight of the transitional provisions? We have talked about the annual written ministerial statement, which we have clarified, but will there be further tracking reports that we can look at? Clause 59 states that the Bill will not impose new public spending or taxation, and yet the impact assessment lists £1.9 billion for the NHS in England, £396 million for local authorities, £2.5 billion for supporting housing and social care, and £287 million for legal costs and tribunals. Clearly, costs are associated with the Bill’s implementation over the next 10 years, so a money resolution is rightly required. When I raised those issues on our first and second days in Committee, the Minister rightly could not answer, because we had not had the Government’s settlement. We have now had that settlement, so I will be grateful to understand how the funding is to be applied to mental health on the community side and with regards to the Bill. Finally, given that we are dealing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, what are the Barnett consequentials of the Bill in ensuring the support implied in the clauses? I am grateful to the Committee, the Clerks, the Chairs, everyone here and everyone who has helped me prepare. Committee stage has been a joy, but also a long trial to get through. I am glad to be present as the Bill proceeds, because it is the right thing for the country.
- Hansard source
Care Settings: Right to Maintain Contact
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I declare my interest, as an NHS consultant. I know from my own professional experience that hospitals and other care settings can be distressing places for patients and their relatives. Even with our excellent NHS staff on hand, patients want more assurance and familiarity while they undergo care and treatment. For many, that support comes from the family and friends who visit them during their hospital stay, or while they are in a hospice or receiving care in a care home. I pay tribute to the very many excellent staff who work in those settings and provide care around the clock and during public holidays, and put themselves out to care for others. For residents, care homes are just that: their home. They should be entitled to have relatives and friends visit them as they would in any other home. Visitors also improve care. An inability to visit one’s relative in hospital leads to an increased feeling of not knowing how they are this morning—whether they are getting worse or better, whether they are in pain or are comfortable, or whether they can reach what they need to get. Relatives fear not being able to help the resident, and worry about whether they are lonely or stressed because they are not there to support them. That adds to the relatives’ stress. The patient or the person in the care home knows that staff are busy and may not want to bother them for small things, such as reaching a book or their glasses, passing them a drink—which is so important for hydration—helping them eat a meal, moving the curtains so the sun is not in their eyes or providing an extra blanket. Instead, many wait hours for their relative to come. Sometimes, they just want a cuddle and to hold hands with the person they love. Clearly, that is in the best interests of their health and wellbeing. Relatives know the person they are seeing the best, and are able to identify changes in condition that may go unnoticed by staff. I remember visiting a relative of mine who was getting better following surgery and was stepped down from the high-dependency unit to the ward. When I arrived, I realised that he looked grey, pale and unwell. He was indeed in shock and required urgent fluid resuscitation. I shudder to think what would have happened had that not occurred at the beginning of visiting time. It was with those things in mind that the previous Government introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and, in particular, regulation 9A. Like others, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for doing so. The regulations were designed to ensure that patients staying in hospital or residential care settings could receive visitors in a fair and consistent way. They also aimed to ensure that care home residents would not face barriers or discouragement if they wanted to take their visitors outside, and they made provisions for those attending non-residential hospital or hospice appointments to have guaranteed rights for friends or family members to accompany them. However, now that these regulations are in place, we need to ensure that they are working effectively and that systems are in place to detect any attempts to water down or remove the rights that they provide. I want to raise the exceptional circumstances limitation with the Minister. Members will know that the regulations grant visiting rights unless there are exceptional circumstances. The CQC guidance states that providers should base this assessment “on the health, safety and welfare of people using the service or other people involved. This should include giving consideration to the appropriate balance of a person’s rights, the needs of people using their service and any identified risks”. If concerns have been raised about current levels of compliance with visiting regulations, we must begin by identifying how and why this caveat in the rules is being used. Can the Minister tell us what kinds of circumstances private providers deem to be exceptional? Who is making these decisions and who is overseeing that process? The CQC guidance also states that where additional precautions or restrictions are needed, they should represent “the most proportionate and least restrictive option” that is available. Is the Minister confident that this principle is being followed, and what is she doing to provide transparency for patients and their carers about decision making? In summary, can the Minister tell us how many times the exceptional circumstances provision has been used in the last year by each institution and how many visits or accompanying visits have been blocked as a result? Is she monitoring such blocking? What steps is she taking to ensure that those with reduced mental capacity have their rights to visits upheld? It is important that these rules are followed. The vast majority of care settings provide excellent care, but the concern is that the better care settings are more open than others, and as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said, sometimes, visiting times may be restricted to cover up poor care, adding to the stress of the patient or resident and their carers. It is important that the Minister does what she can to improve the education and training of staff, and change the culture of settings so that everyone is able to receive the visits they need. Some providers are even using the realms of infection control measures to exclude visitors. Surely, if infection control measures are frequently being used to restrict visiting, that is a red flag that the infection control measures in that institution are not providing adequate safety for residents. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that staff follow the requirements placed on them and to make sure that individual providers are not being selective in their adherence to the rules? It is clear from what we have heard today that more needs to be done to ensure that patients receive the visits and accompaniments that they are entitled to. If we are serious about putting patients and residents first, more needs to be done to guarantee them the social and emotional support that they need to be comfortable, as well as the best treatment or palliative medical care available. As others have already said, the CQC is not able to prosecute for breaches of regulation 9A, although it can take action such as civil enforcement measures. Does the Minister believe that is a strong enough incentive for providers to meet their obligations, or does she recognise that increased enforcement powers might be needed to ensure that the rights of patients are protected? What other schemes has the Department considered to help providers to better facilitate contact and visiting arrangements? I will finish by saying that I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician, and in paediatrics we always have open visiting for parents. Parents are really helpful in providing the care and looking after the children as part of a teamwork approach between parents and staff. Can the Minister say why such visiting arrangements are not available for people of all ages when they are at their most vulnerable, because I cannot see why they should not be? Indeed, I think that it would help quite dramatically.
- Hansard source
Care Settings: Right to Maintain Contact
Can the Minister clarify what constitutes a visit in those circumstances? Would an hour’s visit once a week count, or is there a specific timeframe that qualifies?
- Hansard source
Department of Health and Social Care
I congratulate the acting chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), on securing this important debate. It is almost one year since the Labour Government took office. They came to power promising that they had a plan to improve our NHS. However, what they actually had was a plan to get a plan by launching a consultation asking professionals and the public for ideas. The consultation was launched in October last year, and I understand that more than 220,000 people have contributed, but despite it being promised for spring, there is still no sign of it. Will the Minister commit to publishing a plan before the summer recess? While the Secretary of State considers what the plan should say, over in No. 11 we have seen the Chancellor follow the usual Labour playbook: higher spending, higher borrowing and higher taxes. There will be more funding for the NHS, yet as the chief executive of NHS England noted, the NHS budget is now equivalent to the entire GDP of Portugal, reaching £226 billion in 2028-29. That is around 50% of public spending. It is said that 18th-century Prussia was an army with a state attached to it; 21st-century Britain is at risk of becoming a health service with a country attached to it. This is not the Government’s money; it is taxpayers’ hard-earned cash, yet the Government have provided no clarity—no meaningful detail and no credible plan—on how such vast sums will be used. In the autumn Budget, an additional £10.6 billion in extra funding was promised for 2025-26. However, Julian Kelly, NHS England’s former chief financial officer, told the Health and Social Care Committee that most of it will be consumed by pay settlements, the national insurance hikes and non-pay inflation. Today, 64% of NHS spending goes towards personnel wages and pensions, which is a far higher proportion than in other comparable systems, but the NHS still faces staff shortages and expensive agency costs. Will the Minister confirm how much of the overall funding will go to salary increases? How much will be diverted into covering the national insurance increases for hospitals, social care, pharmacies, GPS, NHS contractors and social care providers? As we speak in this Chamber, resident doctors and nurses are balloting for industrial action. Strikes would only add to the disruption and delay in care for sick and vulnerable people. Do the Government have a plan to minimise the impact of strikes, should they occur? Let us look at one proposal that the Government have announced: the scrapping of NHS England. This Government by press release announced NHSE abolition without adequate planning. Ministers have dodged basic questions about costs, staffing changes and structural reform. There is, once again, no plan. The details that we know about do not inspire confidence. NHS England has asked the ICBs to reduce their costs by up to 50% by October 2025. ICBs will have to cluster, with the number expected to fall from 42 to 27 in two years. Many have warned that services will be cut, and redundancy payments linked to those restructurings could reach £1 billion in 2025-26. Has the Minister costed that in the Department of Health and Social Care revenue settlement? The Government promised to restore the 18-week hospital waiting time within this Parliament. However, their departmental modelling shows that only 80% of patients may meet that standard for routine operations. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will deliver that promise? Moving on to capital spending, the Minister says that she wants to continue the new hospitals programme, albeit more slowly than we would have done, and invest in technology, but capital budgets remain flat in real terms. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation says that this leaves “a major shortfall in capital funding”. The Nuffield Trust said that “it will be difficult for the NHS to invest in the technology and facility upgrades it needs to meet the government’s…targets.” Will the Minister explain how they will prioritise, and what will be delivered? The Government have said that they want to shift funding from hospitals to primary and community care. Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that the NHS 10-year plan will delay the planned increase in spending on primary community care until 2035, instead of 2029, as was originally promised? A key part of community care is social care, but as Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, noted, “social care…hasn’t been given the focus it needs”, and that is “a significant blocker on progress for the NHS.” Cross-party talks on reform have quietly been abandoned in favour of an independent commission led by Baroness Casey, but that process is not due to complete until 2028. Yet again, we see headline-grabbing announcements from the Government, with no delivery plan and no real reform, leaving patients, staff and families waiting for the care they desperately need. The Government aim to deliver £13.8 billion in efficiency savings by ’28-29, with more than £9 billion of that total expected to come from DHSC alone. Will the Minister clarify where, within the Department, those savings will be found, and what impact assessments have supported those decisions? The Government say that prevention is better than cure, and I agree. A good example is the “Act FAST: face, arms, speech, time” campaign, which we will all be familiar with, but just last week, in an answer to a written parliamentary question, the Minister admitted that “the Government have made reductions in the Department and NHS England’s communications and campaigns.” Can the Minister tell us which public health campaigns are to be affected? Finally, the dental contract requires reform. The Government started negotiations a year ago, yet the Public Accounts Committee has noted: “NHSE and DHSC do not yet know what reform might look like or to what timescales it can be delivered”. Will the Minister tell us when the Government expect to conclude negotiations and get on with dental reform? In summary, the Government need to stop governing by headline. They need to publish a robust evidence-based plan, and start delivering.
- Hansard source
Saudi Arabia
The creation of the Abraham accords was one of the achievements of the first Trump Administration, and the President of the US has said that he aims for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to join those accords. What are the UK Government doing to encourage that process, and what preconditions does he believe Riyadh has for joining the accords?
- Hansard source
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
It has been a wide-ranging debate. I add my congratulations to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing it and introducing it so well. I pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues—my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking)—for sharing both their views, brought from their long experience in local government, and their great passion for their constituencies. I will start with the striking speech by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), who set out many of the challenges around local government finance in her constituency. I came away from that speech thinking, “Just wait until she finds out which party in government slashed the £8.8 million of rural delivery grant from her local authority, which has led it to say it is having to consult on reducing bin collections further—to just once every three weeks—and to literally turning the lights off in Shrewsbury to save the money necessary to balance the books following this local government finance settlement.” When we come to the Chamber to debate the resource departmental expenditure limit and the capital departmental expenditure limit, it is really important, as hon. Members have done, that we set out the story behind that: what it means in our constituencies for our local authorities. When we started the debate, we knew that it was against a backdrop of a Budget last year that left councils net £1.5 billion worse off because of the rise in national insurance contributions. That alone took £1.5 billion out of local authorities’ capacity. Since then, we have seen a developing backdrop of rising inflation, which is now pushing 3.5%, and deteriorating economic conditions —in particular, rising Government borrowing—which may be one of the reasons why the Government are seeking to push back borrowing the capital that funds the housing programme in the hope that costs will come down in due course. But all these things are imposing rising costs on our local authorities. I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who I know has huge experience in local government. However, as Members from across the House have demonstrated in their contributions, the impact of the Department for Education’s decisions on SEND, the impact of the Home Office’s decisions on asylum funding—for Hillingdon, which serves about two-thirds of my constituency, that is, on its own, an additional £5 million per annum cost pressure—and the impact of Department of Health and Social Care decisions on public health, which have a significant impact on the costs local authorities face, are all accumulating. That leaves the Minister and the Government with a series of difficult questions that they need to address. Having set out the existence of that substantial black hole in council budgets, and the black hole that a number of Members on all sides have referred to in housing delivery, the fact that the visible symptoms of council services, such as rough sleeping, are racing up—according to St Mungo’s charity, rough sleeping has risen by 27% in London alone—means we know that our local authorities face a significant challenge. The questions that I hope the Minister will begin to address in his summing up are around the underlying financial assumptions behind the figures that are set out in the report. We know that there is always a tendency in Whitehall to see local government finance as an opportunity to centralise credit by announcing the positive things that we want to see money spent on and localising the blame by forcing councils to fund that through rising fees and charges or increases to council tax. When it comes to ensuring that the 1.5 million homes in our country that already have planning permission are delivered, there needs to be a relentless focus on getting that money out of the door and into the hands of local authorities and others to ensure that those homes can be delivered. The Opposition will scrutinise relentlessly, in search of the evidence that that is happening. Our councils face this challenge against the backdrop of a potentially costly and disruptive reorganisation. We know that many councils have come forward with their own proposals for local government reorganisation. [Interruption.] The Minister says “All councils” from a sedentary position. All councils were asked, invited or, perhaps, required to put forward their proposals for reorganisation. However, we know that asking, for example, all the planning officers in the country to reapply for their jobs is unlikely to aid that focus on housing delivery. Will the Minister clarify the following points in his response? First, will he set out the Department’s underlying assumptions on council tax rises, fees and charges, and discounts? It seems clear from the analysis being done by local authority finance officers that the underlying assumption is that all those things will rise in every council to the maximum possible extent, simply in order to stand still. What are the Government’s underlying assumptions about business rate rises, discounts and redistribution? I note, for example, that North West Leicestershire district council, because of the business rates reset, expects to lose 67% of its spending power in one go as a result of the Budget. What are the underlying assumptions about the housing revenue account, parking revenue account and other ringfenced council budgets, so our constituents know what is coming, not just in their council tax bill but in what they may pay for parking, permits, waste services and other essential day-to-day services? Let us consider the individual cases coming in. I made reference to the impact on Shropshire of the loss of £8.8 million in rural services delivery grant, and South Holland, West Lindsey and Staffordshire Moorlands will see a 40% cut in their funding needs assessment as a result of the Budget. There are also authorities, such as Boston, that are seeing more than 40% of their budget driven to cover the costs of drainage boards. East Cambridgeshire district council sees a cut of £125,000 a year, and Fylde district council sees a rise of nil despite a headline announcement by the Government of 6.8%, once those calculations are taken into account. I know the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was here earlier on, and Harlow reports that as a consequence, the core funding—the revenue support grant—is cut by 25% this year alone. All that has a huge impact on local Government funding and what our constituents will see. I know that there are many in this Chamber with experience in local government. Our councils remain the most efficient part of our public sector, but it is clear from the many constituency-level issues and the insights we have gained in this debate that they deserve better from this Government in a much more transparent and open funding settlement, so that we know the underlying assumptions of Government and our constituents can understand what will happen to their council tax bills and their household budgets.
- Hansard source
Chagos Archipelago: Sovereignty
14. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago will come from his Department.
- Hansard source
Chagos Archipelago: Sovereignty
I had hoped for a more precise answer to my question. Rather than pressing again for exact figures or a departmental breakdown, let me proceed down a related line of inquiry. Is there any mechanism, legal or otherwise, that the Mauritian Government could use to reopen the Chagos negotiations or to request further financial or material assistance in a way that could result in additional cost to the British taxpayer?
- Hansard source
National Security Strategy
Labour has repeatedly stated that food security is national security—a point with which I and many of my constituents wholeheartedly agree—yet there remains a clear disconnect between that rhetoric and the substance of current policy. Beyond the announced biosecurity measures, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster genuinely believe that the national security strategy goes far enough to address the resilience of domestic food supply chains, the risk posed by climate change to agriculture, and systemic vulnerabilities in our food system?
- Hansard source
China Audit
On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China?
- Hansard source
Department for Education
This debate is a very important opportunity to discuss the upcoming cuts in the Department for Education. We know from the estimates document that overall resource departmental expenditure limits are coming down. We are told that that is largely a technical change as a result of changes to the student loan book, but I have to say that these are rather large numbers to come from such technical changes. From the comprehensive spending review document, we know that like other Departments, the Department for Education has agreed to 5% in savings and efficiencies. What that document does not explain, however, is 5% of what. Presumably, it is not 5% of the entirety of the DFE’s budget, because the DFE is different from many other Departments in that so much of its spend goes directly to schools, colleges and early years settings providing for children. According to the estimates, the DFE’s admin spend is actually increasing. Part of that, of course—in line with so many other private and public sector organisations across the country—is the extra costs imposed by the increase in national insurance contributions, so what are those efficiencies? I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today. So many things have already been cut, including the discretionary spend that helps children to achieve their best, with everything from Latin to computer science and the cadets programme. I do not think there are many more things that can be taken out, but perhaps the Minister can tell us. In particular, I would like her to reassure us that the primary physical education and sport premium is safe. Will she please do that in winding up?
- Hansard source
Department for Education
My right hon. Friend makes powerful points, including about the additional unfunded cost pressures for nursery providers—of course, that argument also extends to regular state-funded schools. The one thing I might quibble with is his statement that this Labour Government came in promising to do so much for education. Actually, the Labour manifesto was rather light on commitments on education. The biggest ones were, first of all, the commitment to roll out mental health support teams to cover all schools in the country. On closer examination, that commitment turns out to be not just similar to, but identical to, the policy of the previous Government, which was to roll out mental health support teams to cover all schools in the country. The second high-profile commitment was about breakfast clubs. The maths on breakfast clubs are something of a mystery to me, because I have heard Ministers repeatedly say that having a breakfast club is going to save parents £450 a year, but they are reimbursing schools £150 a year. Where is the rest of that money supposed to come from? It is also true that some schools—including some in my constituency—already have a breakfast club that is charged at a reasonable rate, so they will lose revenue from their existing breakfast club. Before anyone says, “You have to think about whether it should be charged for or not,” it is worth remembering that the breakfast club provision that already exists is typically reimbursable for families on universal credit at a rate of up to 85%, to the extent that it is childcare that is enabling parents to go to work. Then, of course, there is the famous—or infamous—commitment to 6,500 additional teachers. Colleagues might remember that that commitment was going to be paid for by the receipts on VAT from private schools. The Government now say that VAT from private schools is going to pay for housing, not for teachers. It is not clear that that policy is going to raise much revenue to spend on anything, given that the most recent figures show a fall in the number of children at independent schools. Those are the Government’s own figures. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon?
- Hansard source
Department for Education
The most recent figures—the Government’s own figures—show a fall of 11,000 in the number of children at independent schools. Of course, the number of teachers in the state sector is not going up in this country; it is coming down. The Government have tried to have this every possible way. There is a line in their manifesto that is very clear—it comes up more than once. It says that Labour is going to recruit “6,500 new expert teachers in key subjects”. When asked repeatedly what key subjects they had in mind, they refused to say. Eventually they said that these teachers will be recruited—I think am I quoting this correctly, but if not absolutely accurately then pretty close—from schools and colleges across the country. Then some numbers came out showing that the number of teachers in primary schools had gone down. Funnily enough, the target was then redefined so that it did not include primary school teachers; it would include only secondary school teachers. That brings us back to this question: if it is only secondary schools, where teachers have specialist subjects, what are the key subjects that will count towards this number? If the Government just meant any subject, the word “key” would not be there. What do they mean by expert teachers? If they mean simply teachers with qualified teacher status—[Interruption.] I think the Minister might be readying herself to intervene.
- Hansard source
Department for Education
No? If the Government simply mean teachers with qualified teacher status, then I gently remind the Minister of something we covered in Bill Committee, which some colleagues might recall. The number of teachers today who do not have qualified teacher status is 3.1%, which does not sound all that high. What do colleagues suppose it was in May 2010, the previous time that there was a change of Government? The answer is 3.2%. So the number of teachers without qualified teacher status has hardly changed, and to the extent that it has, it has slightly gone down. We know that other RDEL—revenue spending, effectively—is going up, but it has to cover an awful lot. There is £1 billion-plus in national insurance contribution costs. We know from reports from teachers and headteachers in the sector press that shortfalls in the range of 10% to 35% are being reported. School suppliers are also facing higher national insurance contributions, which will also have a knock-on effect on the cost of other services into those schools. Schools are also picking up the cost of breakfast clubs, and there is an extension in free school meals eligibility and so on. Overall, if we look at the detail in the estimates and the spending review, all these increases are front-loaded—that is to say, for 2024-25 the increase is 6.8%, but that then comes down to 5.2% the following year, and then 3.4%, then 2.1%, and then 1.6%. The main point I put to the Minister—constructively and co-operatively—is that things are changing significantly in schools because of demographic change. We have reached a point where I do not believe it is legitimate to use the measure of real-terms per pupil funding as the yardstick for whether effective school resourcing is increasing or decreasing. That is because the number of pupils will fall. We know already from TES, which used to be called The Times Educational Supplement, that surplus secondary places have increased by some 50% in just two years. Labour MPs may well argue—and I kind of hope they do—that when there is a smaller number of children there will obviously be less funding, and there is some logic to that argument, but in a sense it does not matter what arguments they make in this Chamber, because back in their constituencies, if they talk to headteachers, they will hear something different. When pupil numbers are rising, if real-terms per pupil funding is held constant, that is a net increase in resourcing to the school. When numbers are falling, and even if real-terms per pupil funding is increased by a few per cent, that feels very much like a cut. Let us think about it in the following practical terms. If a primary school class of 27 goes up to 29, that is an increase in revenue to the school of something like £10,000, £11,000 or £12,000, but the vast majority of costs do not change. It works the same way in reverse. If a class moves from 29 pupils to 27, the school loses £10,000 to £12,000, but there are still the same costs, and the teacher is still being paid the same and so on. In an urban setting, some whole schools may close—some already have. That is a painful process to go through, and no MP wants to represent an area where schools close, but at least that way the numbers can be made to work over a wider area, and some of those schools can convert to nursery schools, I hope, or to special schools. A big secondary school might reduce, say, from an eight-form entry to a six-form entry and manage the numbers that way. For a rural primary school, neither of those things is an option. There are major indivisibilities. Right now, 92% of DFE funding for schools is driven by pupil numbers, and I just do not think that will work over the years ahead. What will Ministers do to reform funding so that it is fair and effective at a time of falling overall pupil numbers?
- Hansard source
Draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. We are scrutinising the draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations. That may sound dry, but I imagine that every colleague here has come across a case in which someone’s identity has been stolen because of the information about them that is available on the Companies House register. I am pleased that these regulations show this Government building on the good work of the previous Government. I therefore certainly will not object to their passage this afternoon, but I have a few questions for the Minister, in the interests of parliamentary scrutiny. First, I could not see any mention in the explanatory memorandum of how long it will take for individuals to have their application actioned. Will the Minister shed some light on how quickly Companies House thinks that it will be able to process applications and, from approval, how long it will take to have the information removed from the register? Secondly, what are the Government doing to ensure that the application process at Companies House for removing details is straightforward? Thirdly, what is the administrative cost of these regulations to Companies House, and will those costs be recouped through any planned changes to the fees for registering a company? Fourthly, how many individuals are expected to make use of these regulations? I note that an impact assessment has not been published, and given the limited financial implications, I can understand why. However, given that the intention of this statutory instrument is to remove information from the register that puts individuals at risk of theft and fraud, will the Minister please inform us how many people are thought to be the victims of crime as a result of the information that is currently publicly available in Companies House? How many cases are estimated to be prevented as a result of the statutory instrument that we are considering today? Finally, given that the statutory instrument is intended to reduce the risk of theft and fraud by removing personal details from a public register, how does Companies House plan to publicly let people know about this change and its effective date? Has Companies House explored a more proactive approach, and has it thought about using artificial intelligence to remove this information automatically? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T4. At the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, the Minister for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was unable to give clear guarantees about the future of the Chagos marine protected area once the sovereignty of the Chagos islands is surrendered to Mauritius. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his Chagos surrender deal does not currently secure the marine environment, and that a future environmental protection agreement may result in the UK paying even more money to Mauritius?
- Hansard source
Planning (Flooding)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the consideration of flooding risk in the planning process; to make internal drainage boards statutory consultees for certain planning decisions; and for connected purposes. During this Parliament, we have heard a lot about the problems in the planning system. In particular, the Government have spoken about the blockers—those who, for reasons that the Government seem not to understand, oppose developments they see as bad for their communities. This Bill intends to go some way to fix the Government’s problem. In reality, the reason that many people in our communities become blockers is that they have no faith that the planning system will deliver houses that make their lives better. They are hard-working people, but rather than listen to their concerns, the Government have sought to bash them at every turn. One of the biggest problems in the planning system is the total failure of many local authorities—as a councillor, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—to properly understand and consider flood risk in new developments. Policy that the Government think ought to be sufficient to prevent development on floodplains in all but exceptional circumstances, for example, is being circumvented by developers. Due to lack of suitable expertise in planning, we see such developments often going ahead without suitable drainage infrastructure to protect our communities from flooding. What does this all mean? It means that many communities in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country who have done the right thing, and taken the houses that the Government want them to take, now find themselves with a higher flood risk, while developers have got away high and dry with their profits. When they stand ankle-deep in water in their once dry living rooms and desperately attempt to stop the next bad development making their situation worse, the Prime Minister calls them blockers. We are letting them down. This is not a hypothetical situation—it is happening in our communities in Mid Bedfordshire right now. Take the village of Maulden, historically developed as a linear settlement running along the greensand ridge, where developers saw an opportunity to develop up the slope of the ridge. That upslope development has caused a huge increase in flooding in Maulden, to the point that homes that have stood for centuries with minimal flooding have now been reclassified by the Environment Agency as being within flood plain. Are the developers stopping there? Of course not. Another 40 hectares of land has been put forward for development around Maulden as part of the call for sites for the next central Bedfordshire local plan. Who gains from planning like this? It certainly is not the hard-working people who already live in Maulden, who saved up to buy the house that they had been dreaming about and wish to be able to peacefully enjoy it, without having to worry about getting sandbags out every time grey clouds form overhead. It is not the people who worked hard to get their new-build home in Maulden, only to discover the planning system let them down and allowed developers to get away without building the right protections for their homes from flooding. It is not the Government, who are left puzzled as to why all these people are opposing their plans to build thousands more homes in our communities. The only people who gain are the big box developers who have thrown up the houses with minimal restrictions and mitigations, and taken their profits whilst our communities pay the price. Maulden is just one example, but there are many places in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country where our planning system has failed the people who need it most—the people we serve. That is what this Bill will try to fix, starting by ensuring that where we have an internal drainage board—experts on flooding and flood management—we take advantage of their expertise and make them a statutory consultee on development that is likely to have an impact on flood risk in the broad area they cover. Many internal drainage boards are already contributing to that work by making representations on planning applications, but putting them on a statutory footing would ensure that their advice is given the consideration it deserves and would cost us nothing. This Bill will make a simple amendment to schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 to insert internal drainage boards as a statutory consultee in the planning system. It will also ensure that we take the politics out of protecting people from flooding by ensuring that the Secretary of State may remove internal drainage boards as a statutory consultee only if they replace them with an alternative body, which should provide advice on flooding risk. The Environment Agency already acts as a statutory consultee on planning matters that impact on flood plains, but it lacks the resources to effectively and efficiently identify flooding risk more broadly. That is why internal drainage boards, where they exist, should be brought into the planning process to complement its role and ensure that proper consideration is being given to the flooding implications of developments for current and future residents. This Bill will also ensure that planning authorities give appropriate weight to flood risk in the planning system and prevent developers avoiding their obligations to build liveable homes rather than just their own profits. It will introduce a simple presumption against development where the lead local flood authority, the Environment Agency and/or the internal drainage board, considers that the development would increase flood risk for existing properties when taking into account sustainable drainage infrastructure and flood mitigation measures. The Bill would require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance, prepared by a panel of experts, for planning authorities and lead local authorities on the minimum expected standards for drainage and maintenance in new developments. It would build on recent Government announcements on build-out rates and give planning authorities the ability to reject future planning applications from developers on the basis of past failures to deliver or maintain sustainable drainage infrastructure. We must do better for the hard-working people in our communities who want to return from work to a warm, dry home. That is the least they deserve, and I present this Bill for them. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Blake Stephenson, David Simmonds, Nick Timothy, Mr Gagan Mohindra, Dr Ben Spencer, Sarah Bool, Alison Griffiths, Jack Rankin, Rebecca Paul, Lewis Cocking and Paul Holmes present the Bill. Blake Stephenson accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 270).
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 13, tabled by the shadow Minister. The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to review the functions and effectiveness of the regulatory authority, which is currently the Care Quality Commission, within one year of the passage of the Bill. The new clause is a timely, necessary and constructive addition to the Bill. As colleagues will know, the Care Quality Commission plays a dual role in relation to the Mental Health Act. First, as the regulator of services, it ensures that providers meet fundamental standards of care and safety. Secondly, through its specific responsibilities in visiting and speaking to those detained under the Act, it ensures that people’s rights are protected and that the law is used appropriately and humanely. That is no small task. It is a balance that requires the CQC to be not only reactive but proactive, and not only independent but responsive to the lived experiences of patients—especially to the voices of the most vulnerable. That is why the new clause matters. As we bring forward significant reforms to the Mental Health Act through the Bill, and rightly modernise and improve safeguards and place greater emphasis on autonomy, dignity and therapeutic benefit, we must also ensure that our system of oversight and regulation is fit for purpose. I welcome the direction that the Bill sets. Its four core principles are rightly placed at the heart of the legislation: choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and seeing the person as an individual. Those principles must shape the way that care is delivered on the ground. That means they must also shape the way that care is monitored, inspected and held to account. A review of the regulator’s role is not about criticism for its own sake; it is about ensuring that the regulatory framework supports and reinforces the ambitions of the Bill and that it can respond to emerging challenges, shine a light where services are falling short and, crucially, act to protect patient rights.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen examples where regulators have not intervened quickly or robustly enough, and where systemic issues went unnoticed or unaddressed for far too long. We need to strengthen the remit and ensure that the CQC is properly equipped and held to the high standards that we expect of it. I am an economist by background, so evaluation is something I think about a great deal. Reform, however well intentioned, must be followed by evidence, scrutiny and a willingness to learn and improve. The new clause ensures that we do not just set change in motion, but that we stop to ask whether it is working, whether the right things are being done, and if not, how we can improve. The review required by the new clause would look not only backwards at whether the regulator has effectively carried out its existing duties under the Act, but, crucially, forwards, assessing whether it is ready to meet the responsibilities placed on it by the new reforms. I particularly welcome the requirement for the review to be published and laid before Parliament. Transparency is essential. It would allow Parliament to scrutinise but also gives patients, families, professionals and the public confidence that those questions are being asked seriously and answered publicly. Ultimately, the new clause is about improving outcomes. When regulation works well it safeguards dignity, prevents harm, identifies and spreads good practice, develops trust and helps us build a system where the principles of this Bill—choice, autonomy, less restriction and greater therapeutic benefit—are not just written in statute, but visible in practice. That is especially important in mental health care, where so often the people subject to the Act are among the most vulnerable. Those in in-patient settings, particularly those who are detained, are often not in a position to advocate for themselves. They rely on a system that is vigilant, takes its safeguarding responsibilities seriously and puts patients’ rights first. I hope that all members of this Committee will support the new clause. It is collaborative in its intent, constructive in its purpose and essential to delivering the meaningful reform that we all want to see. It reinforces the importance of accountability, transparency and listening to those most affected by this legislation. We owe it to those individuals and their families to make sure that we not only change the law, but also the culture and oversight that surrounds it. This review would help us do exactly that.
- Hansard source
Chagos Archipelago: Sovereignty
Labour’s surrender of British sovereignty has been welcomed by China, Russia and Iran, and now we learn that the UK will have to notify Mauritius of any military operations coming from Diego Garcia, jeopardising our national security. Far from upholding our international obligations, this treaty is a shameful betrayal of British Chagossians, with no guarantee of access to the Mauritian-controlled £40 million trust fund and British taxpayers forking out £30 billion to subsidise tax cuts in Mauritius. Why will the Government not allow this House a proper debate and a vote before next week’s 21-day deadline under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010? Should we not keep the Chagos islands British and under the protection of the Crown? Would that not be a better policy?
- Hansard source
Draft Nuclear Installations (Compensation for Nuclear Damage) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is an unusual experience to be in full agreement with most of what the Minister has said. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Do not get used to it. I took the Energy Act through the last Parliament, and it is under section 22 of the Act in which the amendments necessary to implement the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage are contained. Section 306 of the Act outlines the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the CSC. The regulation before us today seeks to amend the classification of claims for compensation in respect of the convention on supplementary compensation, as set out under section 22 of the Energy Act/Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, if compensation claims, excluding CSC-only claims, reach an aggregate of €700 million from the responsible person, the appropriate authority may be required to satisfy further claims, including CSC claims up to the equivalent of the aggregate €700 million and the value of the CSC international pooled funds. For CSC-only claims, the responsible person’s liability limit is 300 million special drawing rights, after which the appropriate authority’s liability is limited to the aggregate of 300 million special drawing rights and the value of the CSC international pooled funds. Regulation 2(3)(b) will omit section 16(1ZAA) of the Nuclear Installations Act. Subsection (1ZAA) sets a financial limit on the compensation payable by a responsible person for CSC-only claims. Thereby, this regulation seeks to remove the lower liability cap for claims that relate only to the CSC, which is in place for claims arising under the convention on third-party liability in the field of nuclear energy: the Paris convention. As a result, the liability for claims under either convention is brought to €700 million. Any claim brought under the CSC, or under the CSC and the Paris convention, would have a cap on liability of €700 million plus the value of the CSC international pooled funds. As a nation seeking to build a golden age of new nuclear—not quite as golden as it might have been had the Government stuck to our plans, but a golden age none the less—and to implement a revival of civil nuclear in the UK as part of our secure, affordable, clean energy ambitions, it is incumbent on us to put in place the necessary mechanisms to ensure consistent liabilities in the event of damages. That is what the draft regulations seek to do. I am in violent agreement with the Minister on this point, and we do not oppose any of these changes today. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Pride Month
It is a real pleasure to follow the Minister and to speak in this important debate. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House, across my Daventry constituency and across the country a very happy Pride Month. The Minister is absolutely right to say that Pride is still needed. I have certainly seen significant changes over my lifetime, including things that I never thought would be possible when I was growing up as a young gay man in Anglesey, but he is right to say that these are important issues that we should continue to discuss. On the whole, I have been privileged to have a life in which I have been accepted pretty much everywhere I have lived, but I have had those difficult occasions that I have spoken about before, not least being badly beaten up and my father coming to my rescue and being beaten up too, trying to protect his son. Those are the things that we need to remember. We also need to remember people like the young man that I heard about in Manchester a few years ago who had been kicked out of his home because his parents could not accept his sexuality. His life took a nosedive and, sadly, he ended up selling himself for sex to survive. He was eventually murdered by someone who he was supposedly trying to get some money off. These are the disgusting consequences that may happen if we do not remind ourselves of the journey that we have been on as a country. I have to say that things are pretty good for me. Most of the time, most people do not care that I am a gay man—
- Hansard source
Pride Month
Yeah—but I am butch like you! [Laughter.] As I was saying, most people do not really comment on the fact that I live with a man. They are more interested in the fact that he works for Marks & Spencer and gets 20% off. But it is important that we have these conversations because there are still people around the world, and in communities in this country, who cannot come out. There are people in communities in our country who live a different life from the one that they want to live, and there are people around the world, as the Minister rightly says, who will be put to death if they love the person they really want to love. That is why Pride Month is important, and its theme of activism and social change emphasises a reflection on the contributions of LGBT individuals and communities in creating a better world for us all. We are lucky in this country that we have a host of people in our history who have been at the forefront of fighting for equality. Yes, there are the famous people—Dame Kelly Holmes, Tom Daley and Sir Ian McKellen, to name but a few—but there are so many inspiring LGBT people from right across the decades, as the Minister mentioned. I would like to mention Sophia Jex-Blake, Scotland’s first female doctor, who fought for so many women to be allowed to train as doctors and founded medical schools up in Scotland, where she eventually met her life partner, whom she lived with until her death in 1912. I also want to mention Patrick Trevor-Roper, who was one of only three witnesses who could be convinced to appear before the Wolfenden committee. His evidence helped to start the journey to decriminalisation. Those people, in my view, are incredibly brave. Given that we have commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day this year, I think we should also remember one of my personal heroes, Dr Alan Turing, a man whose brilliance cracked the Nazis’ Enigma code. This was an incredible feat, given that Enigma had 159 million million million settings. He played a crucial role in cracking the intercepted messages that enabled the allies to defeat the enemy in the Atlantic and in other engagements. We owe him so much, but his treatment later, when he was prosecuted for being gay, is a shame that I know we all find abhorrent. The Government rightly apologised and he was later posthumously pardoned. In my view, he is a true hero of our nation. Of course, we have had champions in this place, too—people like Chris Smith, who bravely became the first openly gay MP; Edwina Currie, who led a debate on changing the age of consent; and too many other hon. and right hon. Members to name. I do want to name one or two from the Conservative side because I know everyone will do their own pitches. There are people like our former colleague Eric Ollerenshaw, who was on that first Gay Pride march in 1972. He recalled to me that he was actually spat at by the police—that is how bad it was. There are people like Mike Freer, who campaigned hard on issues like PrEP, and our former colleague Elliot Colburn. I would like to take this opportunity to say happy birthday to LGBT+ Conservatives, which celebrates its 50th birthday this year, making it one of the oldest LGBT-affiliated groups for a political party in the world—a title it shares with LGBT+ Labour. I wish LGBT+ Labour a happy birthday as well. In 1975, the LGBT Conservatives were established by Professor Peter Walter Campbell. I am that old that I have seen LGBT Conservatives go through several guises over the 30 years since I first joined. Back then, it was known as TORCHE—Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality. I pay tribute to the work it has done over those 50 years. Little did those founders and that first generation of our LGBT Conservatives and Labour know it, but they were merely years away from a global HIV/AIDS epidemic. Around the world, hundreds of thousands of people would lose their lives, including people here in the UK. Gay and bisexual men lived in fear, and many felt powerless and hopeless. If we fast forward to 2025, we find ourselves in a truly different world, and I want to thank all those who have made that change possible. I recognise that those contributions have come from parties across this Chamber, and I thank them all for it. I am proud of our record as a party over the last 14 years for the lives of LGBT people, not least the rolling out of highly active antiretroviral therapy treatment for HIV in England and funding the first ever HIV testing week. In 2013, we introduced same-sex couples’ marriage in England and Wales, which was one of the most memorable debates in my time in the House and one of my proudest moments here. We introduced the legalisation of self-testing kits for HIV, as well as a host of other things that we are proud to have done. I also want to remark on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is no longer here, about people in the armed forces and to pay tribute to Lord Etherton. When I was the Equalities Minister, I had the privilege of meeting him several times as he went through that report. He did not just get evidence from thousands of people; he personally read every single testament because he wanted to know those stories inside out, and thank goodness he did that. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done. Thinking about all these achievements and those of former MPs and other inspirational figures, I find it appalling and deeply disappointing that some Prides across the country have banned our political parties from this year’s parades. LGBT Conservatives, LGBT Labour, LGBT Lib Dems and all others are not allowed to attend. Like the Minister, I also remind the organisers that it was these groups and so many MPs in this House that brought about the changes we enjoy today. As Jo Cox said, there is more that unites us than divides us. Them causing this divide is a retrograde step, and I pay tribute to the likes of Owen Meredith and others who have taken up this fight. I call on the organisers to think again, especially as two parties celebrate their 50th birthday in terms of LGBT issues. I am aware that many colleagues want to contribute, but I have a couple of questions for the answering Minister. I would like an update on the HIV programme. It touched me that people across the House want to embark on that ambition of having no new HIV infections in this country by 2030; of course, we have only one Parliament left to get that done. Could the Minister set out where the Government are up to on that and what plans they have to ensure that we meet that ambitious target? Will the Government ensure that they are working with our devolved regions to ensure a UK approach to eradicating new HIV cases—not just England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too? We can end new HIV cases without a vaccine or cure, and wouldn’t it be great for the UK to be the first place to do so? We want the Government to succeed on this issue, building on a lot of the work that we did in office and working with great organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust. Let us make that an ambition for all of us. Let us remember why we have Pride in the first place, and make this Pride count.
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
Order. As is the custom, the Minister’s statement will be circulated to both sides of the House, but before we proceed, Members will notice that it will not be complete, in the sense that the Minister delivered a preamble prior to going into what will be circulated. That was to try to reflect the fast-moving nature of the situation. I understand that, courteously and properly, the Front Benchers have been informed of that. I hope that everybody understands that and will make allowances for it. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
Order. As it is Armed Forces Week, it is entirely appropriate for the Chair to have allowed the Minister to respond to that question, even though it was not strictly in line with the statement. But from now on, given the time that we have available, we have to come back to the statement itself.
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
Last but by no means least, I call the ever-patient Jim Shannon.
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
I am sure that the whole House, on both sides, will concur with the Minister’s final remarks. I thank him and the Opposition Front Benchers for their attendance.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I thank the Secretary of State for his point of order and for placing that on the record.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
The shadow Secretary of State has placed his view on the record. He will understand that that is not a matter for the Chair any further, but I hope that whatever lessons need to be learned will have been learned, and I am sure that, on both sides of the House, that is correct.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to imply that the Foreign Secretary was deliberately misleading the House. [Interruption.] That said—