Topical Questions
This is effectively going to ban the spraying of organic manures in the coming months. Is the Secretary of State categorically ruling that out?
5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement, and for providing early sight of it. Our ability to invest in public infrastructure is a positive for individuals, communities and the country as a whole, and it is right that the new Government set out their strategy. The last Government had to deal with a series of economic disruptions, including the impact of covid, the unwinding of quantitative easing across all advanced economies, and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The global impact was disrupted supply chains, increased inflation and raised interest rates. Notwithstanding those shocks, under the last Government, public sector expenditure on capital increased in real terms, from £81.7 billion in 2019-20 to £117.8 billion in 2024-25—an increase of 44%. Today, the Chief Secretary has confirmed expenditure of £725 billion, but has provided very little detail. There is no project pipeline today; will he commit to coming back to this House when it is published? In 2024, the last infrastructure pipeline analysis included an investment pipeline of 660 projects over a 10-year period, commencing from 2024-25. The Chief Secretary’s last statement to the House was, in very large part, a restatement of the investments in local transportation projects that had already been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Will he confirm how many of the 660 projects in the previous pipeline will be retained? Will he advise the House which major projects are being abandoned, and give some insight into his reasoning for doing so? Translating a pipeline into reality requires a labour force of sufficient size and with a range of skills—in construction, project management and engineering, for example. Again, the 2024 analysis by the Construction Industry Training Board indicated that that project pipeline would create labour pressures in many of those skills areas. Since coming to office, this Labour Government have increased national insurance and are proposing new regulations on employment, both of which will disproportionately affect the construction sector. Does the Chief Secretary have any concerns about the impact of those changes on the availability of labour? Will he advise the House what assessment he has made of skills pinch points and what steps the Government are taking to alleviate them? Fulfilling these plans will require investment by taxpayers and private capital. Will the Chief Secretary advise the House on whether there has been any significant change in the mix of private and public investments—within discrete sectors or overall—compared with the last pipeline analysis in 2024? The Government created the National Wealth Fund, and said that it was their principal investor—a critical part of the Government’s growth strategy for infrastructure. The Chief Secretary has given the National Wealth Fund £7 billion, but has made no mention of it today. Why has there been no mention of the National Wealth Fund? We are moving through an era with a rapidly accelerating pace of change, in which the period from technological innovation to obsolescence can be vanishingly short. The risk that public investment in new technology solutions will become redundant is increasing. While being forward-looking, the Government should also be careful to nurture both existing technologies and new but proven ones, so what are the Government’s priorities for technology choices in the energy sector, and what actions will he take to protect taxpayers from technology redundancy risk? The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced by this Government, includes a reserved power for the Government to mandate the investments of pension schemes. Has the Chief Secretary had any discussions about—or had the Treasury do any analysis of—the use of mandation powers to provide financing to the capital investments he has announced today? Have the projects announced today been assessed according to the revised Green Book rules? If not, will they be reassessed at some point on the revised basis, and what assurance can the Chief Secretary provide that these projects will give value for money to taxpayers? As this Government have stated, and as we acknowledge, when pressures on public expenditure increase, it is frequently capital expenditure that suffers. What actions is the Chief Secretary willing to take if finances are tight to protect the budgets for the projects he has announced today? Investment in infrastructure benefits from a stable economic background, a clear set of priorities, efficient delivery, and optimal returns for taxpayers and investors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I miss the Chief Secretary in his old guise as Chairman of the Business Select Committee, when there was less of the rhetoric and the partisanship. These big decisions need open communication and critical analysis if we are to improve value for money and get projects delivered on time and on budget. In those endeavours, the Chief Secretary will always have our support.
- Hansard source
Water Safety Education
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. I want to make a similar point to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore). A number of schools in my constituency have closed their pools over the past 20 years. When I grew up in Lewisham, I had access to a school pool. Does he agree that we need to work together on national policy to ensure that, although some school pools will still close, our young people can access their local leisure facilities at a discounted rate, through local government?
- Hansard source
Water Safety Education
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing the debate—he genuinely is an hon. Friend. We served together on Southampton city council, we have both been education lead members, and now we are constituency neighbours. I know that he consistently stands up for the great people of the great city of Southampton, and in particular the constituents he has mentioned today. I pay tribute to Joe’s mum for the work she has already done and the work she will do in future to make sure we lose fewer people on our waterways across the country. Although the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen and I share Southampton Water, which is the busiest part of the waterways around and into Southampton, I also have in my constituency the entirety of the River Hamble, which comes off Southampton Water. The River Hamble is internationally known as one of the most difficult rivers to navigate for our sailing and boating community. It is known as an international sailing hub but also as one of the most difficult tidal waterways to navigate across the world. We saw that, unfortunately, in 2020, early in my career here as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which is in the same area. Emily Lewis, who was on a fast boat in the Solent, was tragically killed after being catapulted out of it when it hit Netley buoy. She was travelling at 44 mph, and two charges were eventually made of manslaughter and failure to ensure safe navigation against the person who chartered the boat. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen is absolutely right that we need to have water safety education. I put it to the House and the Minister that we also need to have proper education for not only those who enter the water through our seasides, lakes and rivers, but also people who use the water on a daily basis. As I said, we have the whole of the River Hamble in the constituency of Hamble Valley, and a vast array of people use our rivers and Southampton Water—sailors, motorboaters, kayakers, paddleboarders and rowers. Many people use the river, as they should be able to, because that is intrinsic to the identity of those who grow up and live in my constituency. Given the hot weather this weekend, I intend to go out on the Hamble on Saturday to kayak, but I am aware of the intrinsic dangers of a river such as the Hamble. It is vital, as the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said, that we educate from a very early age. I also want to outline and make colleagues aware of the role of our independent lifeboats. Hamble lifeboat in my constituency has already been called out over 60 times this year. We must raise awareness of these services, because they play a very important educational role for many people in our constituencies. I was delighted to be a founding member of the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which looks after our independent lifeboats, alongside our former colleague Anthony Mangnall, who was the Member for Totnes. I encourage all Members who represent areas with independent lifeboats to get in touch with NILA and to raise awareness of water safety. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen highlighted the key variations in access to swimming pools and water education. As I indicated in my intervention, we will both be aware, from our time leading the education system in Southampton, of the number of schools there that have had closures. This is not a political point at all, because we have both been in control of the Administration, and we have had national Governments of different colours, but he will be aware of a reduction in funding for our education system from local authorities, whereby many schools have had to close their pools. Partnerships that allow kids to be taken to local leisure centres for school lessons have been reduced as well. I remember being a young person—I used to be young once—growing up in Lewisham. The council school bus would come and take me to Lewisham swimming baths every week for a two-hour swimming lesson. That has diminished, and it is vital that we work on a cross-party basis to get swimming lessons and water education delivered to people across the UK. As I said, this is not just about young people. A brief story: a couple of summers ago, I was out on my kayak when I saw an older gentleman clinging to a kayak in very cold water. He had lost his energy and would have died that day, had I and my friend Jerry not gone past and rescued him. He was not wearing a life preserver, he was very cold, and he was running out of energy, clinging to his kayak. We managed to take him out of the water and save him, and get him medical attention. Frustratingly, such things still happen, which is why any measures taken forward by the Minister need to be attentive to not only young people but all users of the rivers and waterways across the UK. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen and all Members who will speak in today’s debate. He has my commitment, alongside that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and, I am sure, the shadow Minister, that this is a cross-party issue that we all need to work on. I wish the hon. Member well in his endeavours.
- Hansard source
Water Safety Education
The Minister is right and I agree with everything that she has outlined on ensuring that those lessons are delivered at school and particularly as early on as possible. May I have her reassurance, and will she briefly outline, how she intends to ensure that is enforced further down the line, once the national curriculum comes out?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Although they did not mention it before the election, Labour is committed to abolishing every district and borough council in Leicestershire. It has also invited proposals to expand the city’s boundaries, and the Mayor of Leicester has put forward such a proposal. This is universally not wanted in Oadby, Wigston, Great Glen and the surrounding villages—in fact, thousands of people have signed a petition against it—so can we please at least have a debate in Government time on that proposal? Will the Leader of the House encourage the Local Government Minister not to allow this expansion of the city? It is not just the higher council tax; people want to keep their local identity. If the Government are going to go ahead with the proposal, will they at least allow people to vote in a referendum?
- Hansard source
Water Safety Education
Let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for leading this important debate and for doing such a good job in setting out all the different issues at stake. Although he covered a huge amount of ground in his opening statement, we also heard some excellent speeches from across the House, with everyone adding important points. We have had excellent speeches from the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and the hon. Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). Various points will stay with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) raised the hugely important issue of safety on ice and the terrible, terrible case involving his young constituents. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) caught my attention with her description of the Barbados of south London, which I very much enjoyed. I also strongly agreed with her tribute to water safety groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) talked about the terrible case of Emily Lewis and the issue of safety on boats, which is a crucial part of this debate. The hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) raised the issue of those old Central Office of Information films that have stayed with all of us, particularly the chilling “The Spirit of Dark and Lonely Water”, which we all seem to have seen. The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) then brought us bang up to date by talking about what social media could do in this space. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) made the crucial point about the importance of not drinking and swimming, and the critical dangers there. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) reminded us of the benefits of being able to swim outside, yet there are certain places in which it is just not safe to swim. A number of other Members made the point that, in a more transient society, not everyone knows where those places are any more. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made a powerful speech, talking not just about Sam and his father, but about his private Member’s Bill, the Water Safety Bill. We also had a really interesting contribution from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who has a beautiful constituency, which I associate with seaside holidays as a child—and as an adult. A surprising fact in her speech was that this subject is not on the curriculum in Scotland, which seems like an obvious first step. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) talked about the awful case of the missing child in his constituency. We of course hope for the best for that family. I will turn in a moment to talk about some of the things that the previous Government did. I do so not to say that everything is wonderful, because of course it is not, but because I thought that it might be a way of prompting further reflections on what more we could do to go further. As has already been mentioned, it was the previous Government who updated the national curriculum in 2013 to add swimming and water safety education. It is surprising that it was so late. That was where we got this rule that pupils should be taught to swim at least 25 metres. A few people have talked about facilities. The previous Government announced the first £10 million and then £57 million to open up access to pools in schools, as it is obviously very sad to see good facilities not being used after school hours. We enabled 220 schools to open up their pools more than they had been doing, and we want to do more of that. We worked together with some brilliant organisations in the National Water Safety Forum, including the RNLI, Swim England, the Royal Life Saving Society and many more. We have heard from a number of Members about important local and individual campaigns that can be so powerful, and I pay tribute to all the people involved in those. I was involved in using the sugar tax to create and then expand the PE and sport premium, which has provided more funding for PE lessons in schools. In 2017, we doubled the funding that primary schools received to improve the quality of their PE and sport provision, including water education—it went up from £160 million to £320 million. However, there is still much more to be done, because about a third of adults—about 14 million people—still cannot swim. I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for leading by example and learning to swim as an adult—good on her for doing that. All of us are affected by these hugely important issues. Members might think that since my constituency is as far away from the sea as it could be, the main risk is normally people with metal detectors fishing in the canal and constantly fishing out hand grenades, but water safety is relevant everywhere. Just at Christmas a one-year-old girl was rescued from the River Welland. This has been an important debate. We welcome the Government’s decision to look carefully at what can be done to build on the existing statutory guidance and update it. We have heard excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Can we increase the tempo to ensure that there are fewer disappointed colleagues?
- Hansard source
Royal Assent
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures: Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
- Hansard source
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
As Mr Fuller knows, there were three of us on that Committee back in those good old days.
- Hansard source
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
Order. The Minister missed the Mexican wave that took place behind him. It was down to Chris Vince mostly, although probably it was also down to the length of the answers, which could be shorter.
- Hansard source
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
I am hoping that the next question will be as entertaining as his constant chuntering. I call Alan Gemmell.
- Hansard source
Warm Home Discount
That is the end of the statement, so I will allow the Front Benches a few moments to shuffle over as we continue the business for the rest of the afternoon.
- Hansard source
Licences and Licensing
Just before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, it would be remiss of me not to mention my local football club, Crowborough, and that we are a family of Gooners.
- Hansard source
Chalk Streams
The River Chess in Rickmansworth is one of the chalk streams that goes through my constituency. The volunteers at the Rickmansworth Waterways Trust are keeping our canal heritage alive, despite funding for the Canal & River Trust being cut. I believe the cut is short-sighted, because these waterways tackle water shortages, boost biodiversity and protect 2,500 miles of national assets for a modest cost. Will the Minister rethink the funding cuts and back the Fund Britain’s Waterways campaign, so that local champions like David Montague and his team at Batchworth lock are not left to sink or swim on their own?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Daniel was a very happy and full-of-life 13-year-old boy in Fylde until, just over two years ago, he was diagnosed with a serious brain tumour. With multiple surgeries, a 70-week chemo treatment and, very sadly, a stroke while going through that treatment, Daniel has now been in hospital for over two years. He cannot move without assistance and requires assistance to breathe overnight. The local authority and the NHS have been working together with his family to help design how he can move home and live with his parents, but there is no funding available. He is falling through the cracks between different policies for the funding to pay for those changes, which the family simply cannot afford. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that no family falls through the cracks in such a way and that children are not left inevitably in hospital, and on how to get Dan home?
- Hansard source
Licences and Licensing
We are delighted to support the temporary licence changes, as I am sure are Members on all sides—although, to be fair, I do not think I would have much choice on the matter, for if I ever stood at this Dispatch Box and opposed more time in the pub to watch football, my dad would probably disown me. The changes, as the Minister has outlined, will extend licences by two hours for venues that already have licences until 11 pm and apply if England or Wales, the two qualifying teams in the UEFA women’s Euro, reaches a semi-final on 22 or 23 July, or the final on 27 July. There is no reason we should doubt that they will reach that threshold because we are the defending champions, after England’s magnificent performance at the 2022 tournament, hosted in the UK at Wembley. The final saw a 2-1 victory and, of course, it was made all the sweeter by beating the Germans. This is a fantastic time to support our local as well as our national teams. It is also worth taking the time, however, to note that since the autumn Budget, the hospitality sector is sadly reporting a spike in the number of pub closures. That is no surprise, as the Chancellor’s raid on pubs has cost them at least £2,500 per full-time employee. Sixty per cent of pubs say they have cut jobs and three quarters say they have increased their prices as a direct result. Therefore, even though the licensing changes mean we might all be able to go to the pub for a little longer, it will cost us a bit more for a pint—and sadly, for many, the local might not even be in business any more. Now, more than ever, we need to support our locals, such as the 63 pubs that were nominated in my Fylde pub of the year competition, which was won by the Coach & Horses in Freckleton. I am sure that the two Grahams who run that cracking establishment will be delighted with a shout-out from this Dispatch Box, but they will be even more delighted with the Minister for having a bit of extra time to sell some more pints of Ponkys ale. That just leaves me to finish by wishing the England and Wales teams good luck—though, of course, I am biased and hope to be raising a glass to England, once again, thrashing Germany.
- Hansard source
Victims and Courts Bill (Third sitting)
Does my hon. Friend agree that people wishing for further clarification of the phrase “grossly disproportionate force” might be advised to consider the guidance on the matter issued by the Crown Prosecution Service?
- Hansard source
Victims and Courts Bill (Third sitting)
I am struggling to understand either the legal or the ethical distinction that says that someone who is acquitted at trial should be in a fundamentally different position from someone who is acquitted following an appeal and has their conviction overturned. Surely the practical results should be the same. In every other part of the criminal justice process that I have encountered, they are.
- Hansard source
Victims and Courts Bill (Third sitting)
As the Minister will be aware, where the Court of Appeal overturns a criminal conviction for a serious offence such as this, it will generally be because there was a serious flaw in the original trial that has left it invalid. Even in those circumstances, the Court of Appeal may grant a retrial rather than overturning the conviction. I understand the point the Minister is making about the trauma to the family and child, but would that not apply equally to someone who is acquitted at the original trial, in which case should the court not also be considering it in the event of a not guilty verdict? I really am struggling to understand why a conviction being overturned on appeal is substantively different from a not guilty verdict.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Last week, I was heartbroken to hear of the loss of Norma Burton, one half of the much-loved social media duo Jess and Norma. Norma captured the hearts of millions with her warmth and humour, and her amazing bond with her granddaughter, Jess. Can we have a debate on the vital role that grandparents play in educating the next generation, and will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Norma, who was a remarkable and inspiring woman?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I would like to start by congratulating the right hon. Lady. This is the third time I have had the pleasure of responding to her at business questions, and they have proved to be remarkably fruitful encounters. At our first encounter, I asked her to press the Chancellor to U-turn on winter fuel payments. The Leader of the House is clearly very influential, because the U-turn on that shameful attack on pensioners came just a few weeks later. At our second encounter, I asked the right hon. Lady to get the Government to U-turn on a national inquiry for the victims of the rape gangs, and this week the Prime Minister finally did the right thing and delivered a U-turn on that as well. The Prime Minister may be getting dizzy from all his U-turning, but I congratulate the right hon. Lady on listening to the Opposition, using her influence and securing those U-turns. Let me turn to one of the most important tasks of any Government: getting people into and keeping them in work. On the Conservative Benches, we know that economic growth comes from the success of businesses and risk-taking entrepreneurs. The Labour party has never understood that, and we are now seeing it have disastrous consequences for our country. Unemployment reached record lows under the Conservative Government. Labour Governments are always incredibly successful at driving unemployment higher. This Government seem determined to be the best ever at putting more and more people out of work. Last week, we saw the devastating impact of the Chancellor’s reckless national insurance tax raid, which businesses warned her would cost jobs. They were right: the UK unemployment rate is now at its highest level since the pandemic. Job vacancies have collapsed. Last month, there were 109,000 fewer employees on payroll. These are the direct results of a Chancellor and a Government who do not understand business. It is about to get a whole lot worse. Businesses are clear that the Employment Rights Bill will cost more jobs. The UK’s leading business groups have collectively told the Government that the Bill will damage economic growth and jobs. The Government are giving people rights in jobs that they simply will not have. The truth is that this Government are beholden to their union paymasters and cannot listen to businesses. They are a Government who have taken a time machine back to the employment nightmare of the 1970s, when union barons gave Labour Ministers their marching orders. While the Government and the unions try to refight the battles of the 1970s, the world of work is changing at a rapid rate because of artificial intelligence. AI brings many benefits, but it is also a clear and present risk to the stability of our labour markets and the livelihood of millions of people in this country. Despite their love of regulation in all other aspects of our life, this Labour Government have yet again delayed their Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, so AI is developing unchecked and changing jobs in ways that will have a long-term impact. While businesses and workers grapple with the new reality of a 21st-century AI economy, the Government are determined to burden them with taxes and regulations from the last century, so will the Leader of the House use her considerable and proven influence to deliver a U-turn on the Employment Rights Bill before it is too late? If not, will she grant us a debate in Government time on the impact of their union-inspired tax and regulation policies on businesses? Will she bring her party back to the 21st century and grant us a debate in Government time on how we address the role of AI in the future of work? The story of this Labour Government and their economic policies is now clear. If it moves, they tax it; if it does not move, they still tax it. If they can find a way, they send unemployment higher. If businesses warn them that things will get worse, they do not listen. If the unions want something, they give it to them. This is a Government fighting the battles of the 1970s and behaving like they are still student politicians. It is a Government making the people of this country poorer as each day passes.
- Hansard source
Warm Home Discount
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement—what a delight it was to receive an update on the warm home discount on this, the warmest day of the year. I know that the Minister is a tireless champion for the people of Peckham and for the most vulnerable, and I thank her for all the work that she does behind the scenes for those causes. Exactly one year ago today, the Chancellor said: “Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300.” What has happened since? Bills have not fallen by £300, as was promised so many times by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Energy Secretary and Labour MPs. In fact, bills have gone up by almost £300—the opposite of what they all promised just a year ago. On top of that, this Government took the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners through a cold winter. This announcement will provide support for some, but it is nothing more than a sticking plaster—the fact is, this Government’s energy policy is making people colder and poorer. The Minister has not said a single word about how this expansion will be paid for. It is a £400 million commitment, but there was no detail in either the Government’s press release or the Minister’s statement about how it will be funded. Will the warm home discount still be funded by levies on everyone’s energy bills? If so, this policy means that energy bills will increase for the majority of bill payers, yet the Minister did not say so in her statement. Will she therefore inform the House whether she has asked her Department to calculate by how much levies on everyone’s bills will increase to pay for the £400 million of extra spending? If so, will she inform the House so that our constituents know how much their bills will increase by under this Labour Government? The Government’s press release said that the expansion of the scheme will be offset by efficiency savings across the energy system, but we have no detail about what those efficiencies are, or how much money will be saved. In fact, the system is becoming less efficient. The National Energy System Operator recently said that the cost of balancing the grid by paying wind farms to switch off when it is too windy increased by 10% to £2.7 billion a year, warning that this will triple to £8 billion a year by 2030 as this Government rush to build more wind farms and solar farms on agricultural land than ever before. That is what this Government are delivering: more subsidies, more levies, more payments for wind farms to switch off, more tech imported from China, and more costs added to everyone’s bills. Will the Minister share some proper detail with the House on exactly how much this will cost the British people? I suspect the answer will be a resounding no. This is a statement devoid of detail because it is designed simply to distract from the fact that this Government’s energy policy is in chaos and driving bills higher and higher. This is a Government driven by the ideology of net zero, not by making energy bills lower for families across Britain. It is a Government of broken promises.
- Hansard source
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
The creation of another new authority will be met with an eye-rolling sigh in Scotland, because although it is called the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—a very shiny title—the reality is that it will have little oversight in Scotland. The plan announced today will generate Barnett formula money, which will go to Holyrood and disappear—it will go into ferries that do not float and things like that. In my constituency the A75 road is a piece of critical national infrastructure. It services the ferry ports to Northern Ireland, and it is vital for all the countries that make up the United Kingdom. Will we see any money coming for that road through today’s innovation, or will the money once again disappear into the coffers in Holyrood?
- Hansard source
Incontinence
Incontinence is no respecter of person, and no respecter of sex, and it is male incontinence that I rise to speak about. The wry old joke is that men do not know they have a prostate until their other half reads about it in the Daily Mail. Campaigning newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, and charity groups like Prostate Buddies in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency have done a power of work to make men aware of prostate disease and prostate cancer—just as well, given that prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. One in eight of us will be diagnosed with it, and that figure rises to one in four for black men. It is well recognised that early diagnosis is key, but it is less well known that as many as 60% of those treated with surgery will face urinary incontinence, outwith surgical intervention. Prostate Cancer UK says that one in 25 men aged over 40 will experience some form of urinary leakage every year. The scale of the issue, and the number of people facing the problem who report feeling shame, embarrassment and isolation, is greater than many suppose. The guardedly good news is that far from being alone, people suffering incontinence are a very large portion of society. It has been another silent epidemic, and people have been left to suffer in obscurity. Today is part of the solution to that. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on securing the debate. Given her medical background, I defer to her for advice on what can be done to relieve the physical symptoms of incontinence—and much can be done. According to the American Urological Association, better prostate treatment is cutting the number of men who suffer incontinence after prostate treatment. Pelvic floor exercises can help both men and women, as can bladder training. But what can Government do, aside from making health policy decisions on treatment for incontinence in all its forms, be it suffered by men or women, and be it post-op, prostate-related or childbirth-related? Small steps can help. When the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) asked whether there had been discussions about providing bins in men’s toilets for disposal of sanitaryware made necessary by incontinence, a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave a rather technocratic answer, promising a Health and Safety Executive review of workplace regulations dating back to 1992 on the provision of disposal facilities in workplace toilets “in due course”. I hope the Minister can today confirm that the consultation can be fast-tracked. I hope that we have taken a giant stride in this place today by stripping away some of the stigma merely by giving an airing to the issue of incontinence. There has been much talk recently about Parliament at its best, but surely this is Parliament at its best, considering unfashionable yet critical issues. Today we bury the myth that this condition is somehow shameful. With this first ever debate on the subject, we take a modest but significant step towards improving the life of those who struggle with the burden of incontinence.
- Hansard source
Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution
Earlier this week, I was unsuccessful in trying to amend the Government’s proposed new spiking law to ensure that reckless spiking is an offence. Will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss the challenges of prosecuting violent crime towards women and girls if the Government are unpersuaded to ensure that reckless spiking becomes illegal?
- Hansard source
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
I cannot believe it, but I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). It is a shock to the system, but the Chief Secretary has announced the return of the public-private partnership. The last Labour Government were a byword for disastrous contractual negotiations, and that led to the infamous £1,000 lightbulb. Given that Labour was so bad at these contract negotiations last time around, what confidence does the Chief Secretary have that he will be any better this time around?
- Hansard source
Water Safety Education
Firs, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first outing on the Front Bench—he is doing a very good job. Secondly, I will not quibble over who it was who obtained the funding from the Conservative Government—the Conservative Member of Parliament or the Liberal Democrat district council—so let us leave that to one side. Thirdly, I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the development of having a swimming pool in Fakenham. Does he agree that that will go a long way in helping people in Fakenham and the surrounding area to learn to swim?
- Hansard source
Water Safety Education
Was that the hon. Gentleman’s next point? I intervened too soon! [Laughter.]
- Hansard source
Warm Home Discount
Will the Minister confirm that park home residents in North West Norfolk and across the country, who pay their bills directly to the site owner, will also benefit from the extended £150 discount, and that when they apply, funding will not be limited, so that everyone who is entitled to this payment will receive it?
- Hansard source
Immigration: Government Legal Advice
Nine of our European allies have written to Strasbourg, requesting a reset of the European convention on human rights to allow national Parliaments to remove foreign offenders who threaten public safety. Britain’s signature is missing. In fact, we were not even asked to join. Unfortunately, that says everything about the way in which this Government are viewed by others. Can the Solicitor General confirm whether the Government will now back that initiative, or will they leave it to others to defend the primacy of democratic lawmaking?
- Hansard source
Immigration: Government Legal Advice
According to press reports, Qari Abdul Rauf, a convicted ringleader of the Rochdale child rape gang, is still living in the town. That is nearly 10 years after a judge ordered his deportation. Repeated appeals under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to family life —have blocked his removal. What action are the Government taking to stop criminals abusing article 8 to defeat Parliament’s clear intention to deport them?
- Hansard source
Social Mobility: Careers Education
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this debate, and all Members for their contributions. I am, of course, very pleased to respond to today’s important debate on behalf of the Opposition. It is an undeniable truth that while talent is spread evenly across the UK, opportunity is not. We in the Conservative party take real pride in our record on expanding opportunity and social mobility to ensure that every young person, regardless of their background, no matter where they are from, has the chance to achieve their full potential and build the best possible career for themselves. More than 5.8 million apprenticeships across 700 occupations, from level 2 to degree level and backed by £2.4 billion by 2024-25, were started under successive Conservative Governments, giving young people the chance to gain real-world experience, to earn while they learn and to develop the skills needed to succeed in the workplace. We are equally proud of our achievement in the schools system. The Conservatives drove up school performance across the board, with 90% of schools rated good or outstanding at the end of our time in office, up from 68% under Labour. Under the Conservatives, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world. It was named “best in the west” for reading, and recently for maths, and it is in the top five globally for science. This transformation did not happen by accident; it happened because the Conservative party relentlessly focused on standards, rigour and ensuring excellence to help drive opportunity for all. We can contrast that with other places in the UK—for example, Scotland. Nowhere is the effect of a Government allowing ideology rather than evidence to drive education policy more obvious than in Scotland. After almost two decades of the SNP being in power, its failure to close—indeed, its unrivalled ability to increase—the attainment gap in our schools is a record that should shame the SNP. Every day, the impact of this failure is being borne out in the life chances of children and young people across Scotland. The attainment gap between the poorest and wealthiest school leavers is at a five-year high. Young people from the most deprived areas in Scotland are over three times less likely to enter work or further education compared with those in the least deprived areas. Across science, reading and maths, there is an average performance gap of over 90% between the top and bottom socioeconomic classes, and pupils from the poorest areas are 23% less likely to leave school with at least one national 5, increasing to 38% for highers. Scotland’s schools were once rated among the best in the world. We are now ranked 14th in Europe for reading, 30th for maths and 32nd for science. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said: “something, somewhere is going wrong in Scottish education.” That “something” and “somewhere” can be found in the ideology of consecutive SNP Governments at Holyrood. I return to the Conservatives’ record at Westminster. We encouraged every secondary school to have a trained careers leader, to make the most of available connections and to co-ordinate and integrate the careers programme throughout schools. We launched the new careers programme, offering young people strengthened careers advice that would see all year 8 to 13 pupils have at least six opportunities to meet a range of providers of technical education, giving pupils an understanding of the full range of opportunities available to them, including apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications —not just the traditional academic routes. If social mobility is to continue to improve, there must be no drift on the education and skills agenda under the current Labour Government. However, we have already seen the Government cut the minimum duration of apprenticeships from 12 to eight months. They have also ended the requirement for adult apprentices to complete English and maths functional skills. There is a proposal to divert half of the apprenticeship levy into other non-apprenticeship schemes—a change that will halve the number of quality apprenticeships available to young people—and level 7 apprenticeships are to be scrapped, which has been described as a direct attack on social mobility. We should also be clear that careers education and facilitation of social mobility are not delivered in a vacuum; they depend on stable staffing, adequate funding and overall stability in the education sector. Changes to the national pay and curriculum rules in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risk undermining the very autonomy that has driven improvement in some of the most disadvantaged communities. The tax on independent schools is projected to push up to 90,000 pupils into the state system, swelling class sizes and putting even more pressure on local schools already struggling to balance the books. The rise in employer national insurance contributions has hit schools and colleges hard. When she winds up today, I hope that the Minister will outline how schools can continue to provide meaningful careers guidance and prioritise maximising social mobility for their students when they are struggling to pay their staff overheads and manage rising class sizes. If we are serious about social mobility, as I believe all hon. Members present are, then careers education cannot be an afterthought. It must be embedded in the curriculum design, teacher training, local employer partnership and the national policy. The Conservative party will continue to champion opportunity and to support high standards, academic excellence and rigorous technical education. We will always stand up for the right of every young person to choose their path, find their passion and make the most of their potential.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. You and the Committee will be pleased to know that my hon. Friends have made most of the points I wanted to flag. In poll after poll and survey after survey, patients feel they do not get information in a timely and constructive way. Our amendment 46 would give patients a stronger say in their future care if they lose capacity. It clarifies that patients must be given clear, proactive support to understand, prepare and use the documents. It is about ensuring that advance choice documents are not just theoretical paperwork, but living, respected statements of a patient’s wishes. I therefore support the clause and the amendment, and I ask the Minister three questions. How will NHS England and local integrated care boards ensure that commissioners are trained to respect and use ACDs in practice, especially in emergencies? Secondly, what oversight will ensure that ACDs are not simply ignored at the bedside, when a patient is most vulnerable? Will the Government consider a review mechanism so that we can assess how well ACDs are working in a few years’ time, after the Bill is passed? I turn briefly to Liberal Democrat amendment 18. Like other hon. Members, I feel that the inclusion of financial information in an ACD is not appropriate, both from a practical and a personal security, safety and information point of view. I do, however, completely support the hon. Member for Winchester’s overall view that there is a significant problem with how financial stress can affect a person’s mental health. Like him, I call on the Minister to think about how we as a country, whether in this Bill or somewhere else, can address the impact of financial stress on mental health.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of clause 54, but with the caveat that it would be much more effective if new clause 12, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, were added to the Bill. Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 requires healthcare providers to notify the Care Quality Commission of certain serious incidents. However, it may not comprehensively cover all mental health-related admissions of minors. Clause 54 responds to concerns about transparency and safeguarding in child and adolescent mental health services, and aims to ensure that all relevant incidents are properly monitored and reported. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, we welcome the Government’s shift to improve these standards; there is support for that across the Committee. The clauses about children and young people are some of the most vital parts of the Bill. They are vital not only to get the Bill right but, more importantly, to ensure that children are protected. That is why new clause 12, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, is so essential to strengthen the Bill. The new clause would amend section 131A of the Mental Health Act 1983, which governs the accommodation of children in mental health settings. It responds to ongoing concerns about the inappropriate placement of children on adult wards, which can be distressing and unsafe, and which is clearly contrary to best clinical practice. The new clause would introduce a requirement that hospital managers must justify such placements in writing, including an explanation of why no alternative was available, and the steps being taken to ensure the child’s safety and transfer to more suitable accommodation. The new clause would also introduce mandatory reporting to regulatory authorities when a child was placed on an adult ward for more than 24 hours, and to local authorities when the placement exceeds 28 days, or involves an out-of-area admission. The new clause would ensure that children are placed on adult wards only when absolutely necessary. It requires the written justification and formal notification of placements. It involves local authorities and regulators in monitoring prolonged or out-of-area placements, and strengthens and clarifies existing provisions of the Mental Health Act. Most importantly, it aligns with clinical guidance on age-appropriate mental health care. I turn to new clauses 17 and 20, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I think that their purpose is in some ways similar to that of our new clause 12. However, they put the cart before the horse, or the horse before the cart —it depends on which way round we are. We are trying to fix the system by ensuring that nobody enters an inappropriate place unless there are exceptional circumstances; new clauses 17 and 20 try to exclude those circumstances, but without necessarily fixing the problem in the first place. Although I understand, as ever, the motivations and sentiments of the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats, I do not think they will have the intended consequences; at least, I do not think they will be effective. I have two questions for the Minister about clause 54. First, will the Department publish regular summaries of the notifications mentioned in the clause showing trends and disparities across the services or regions? Secondly, will the Care Quality Commission be resourced and empowered to act swiftly where patterns of overuse or misuse emerge?
- Hansard source
Incontinence
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your place today. It is an honour to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing it. Her speech included the wealth of experience that she brings to the topic, and I especially congratulate her on putting this issue so clearly on the agenda today in the House. It was a powerful and wide-ranging speech that demonstrated the wide range of issues and conditions that can lead to incontinence. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) told us earlier, incontinence is a condition that affects around 14 million people across the UK, yet too often it remains misunderstood, under-discussed and—worse still—dismissed. One in three women experience urinary incontinence, and half a million adults live with bowel incontinence. Incontinence does not discriminate; whether bladder or bowel, temporary or chronic, or mild or severe, it touches people of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life. It affects new mothers, people recovering from surgery, those with neurological conditions, the elderly, and even children. However, too many suffer in silence, held back by stigma, isolation, or the belief that nothing can be done. Like other Members, I received some heartbreaking stories from my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. Incontinence is a medical issue, not a personal failing. It is not something to be ashamed of; it is something to be addressed through compassion, awareness and proper care. The impact of incontinence can be profound. It affects people’s confidence, their work, their relationships and their mental health. That is why Continence Week, which we are currently marking, matters. We cannot expect people to reach out for help unless we first create a culture where they feel safe and supported in doing so. We also need to ensure that services are in place to respond when they do seek help. That means better access to continence nurses, urologists, and physiotherapists, such as the hon. Member for Dudley. It means investing in community support, and in research and innovation, and recognising that continence care is a core part of our health system, not an afterthought. I therefore welcome the Government’s stated ambition to tackle inequalities in women’s health and to address conditions such as incontinence more seriously, but warm words and long-term ambitions are not enough when so many continue to struggle. For example, the “Excellence in Continence Care” guidance, first published in 2018, was a groundbreaking piece of work, but we now need clear next steps, funding and measurable outcomes. We must not allow this to drift for another seven years while millions suffer in silence. Under the previous Conservative Government, we delivered real and lasting progress in this area. In 2022, we published England’s first ever women’s health strategy, a genuine turning point shaped by listening to more than 100,000 women’s voices. That strategy committed to trauma-informed care, expanded research and, crucially, improved the quality and accessibility of information on the NHS website so that women could make informed choices about their own health. Under our leadership, women’s health hubs were launched with a clear mandate to exist in every integrated care system, bringing services closer to communities and breaking down barriers to care. We also ensured the creation of specialist mesh centres across England, delivering multidisciplinary, regionally-based care for women facing the severe consequences of surgical complications. At a recent roundtable I attended with lecturers from Bath University on mesh, Primodos and valproate, it was clear that there is still more work to do to support these women and to learn from the past. I thank the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for raising the mesh scandal so passionately earlier. On incontinence, the Conservative Government backed National Institute for Health and Care Research funding for vital research into patient-reported outcome measures, empowering patients, improving clinical care and ensuring that the lived experience is properly reflected in decision making. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) so powerfully elucidated earlier, men are often forgotten in this area. On the Opposition Benches, we support any culture and any steps that will help men with incontinence. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, we men are pretty poor at going for diagnosis and treatment, and that needs to change. The scale of the issue remains significant. Nearly half of women experience incontinence after childbirth and one in 10 experience faecal incontinence, yet only 17% seek help. That is often because they are told subtly or directly that it is simply part of ageing or the price of motherhood. That attitude was unacceptable then and must not be tolerated now. When a third of women suffer pelvic floor disorders after giving birth and still face barriers to care, when men living with incontinence are afraid to leave their homes, and when people are forced to depend on charities for access to basic hygiene products, it is clear that we have a public health problem that transcends mere inconvenience. Will the Department commit to publishing an updated “Excellence in Continence Care” strategy this year, with clear timelines and accountability? Will we see dedicated funding to expand women’s health hubs further, so that continence care is a core service, not a bolt-on? Will the Minister also bring forward a plan for better health services for male incontinence? Will NHS England guarantee national consistency of access to continence services and products, ending the unacceptable postcode lottery? Will the Government protect and grow funding for continence research to improve treatments for men and women? Finally, I pay tribute to the organisations, including Bladder and Bowel UK, Prostate Cancer UK and the Urology Foundation, that are breaking taboos and supporting patients so tirelessly, but it is not their responsibility alone; the Government must lead. We Conservatives made a start, and we now need the current Government to have the same urgency, ambition and delivery to ensure that these hard-won improvements are built upon so that no one is left to struggle in silence.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I want to speak in support of amendment 46. It is eminently sensible and would give all eligible patients the statutory right to create an advance choice document to record their treatment preferences in a formal legal document. Those preferences would be enjoyed only in the event of a future mental health crisis or detention under the Mental Health Act. The amendment would give important control to patients and to those around them to know that their future care decisions would be applicable at the point at which they become incapacious. It would quite rightly place a requirement on NHS England—for as long as it continues to exist—and ICBs to ensure that those individuals are aware of their rights and, more importantly, that they are not just aware of them but are supported in creating an advance choice document if they so wish. The amendment is all about empowering patients. The more we can empower patients who face these challenges, the better. It would increase their autonomy and help with the planning of their future care. It would help both in the understanding and the honouring of patients’ wishes. Critically, it would reduce conflict. In these circumstances, tensions are high and pressures are acute, so conflict can arise in the most unintended of ways. Having an advance choice document minimises that risk. If the Government will not support amendment 46, what reassurances can the Minister give in relation to the code of practice? How will this be accounted for in the code of practice to ensure consistency in the information imparted to patients across the country by NHS England and the ICBs? We must ensure that there is not a postcode lottery and that everybody, regardless of where they live in the country, gets the consistency of care that they are entitled to.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Having taken your clear instructions, I will be very brief in speaking to clauses 46 and 47. Clause 46 is a positive step in principle, but there are concerns that the recommendations remain non-binary and may therefore lack the practical effect—or the teeth —without enforcement or review mechanisms. I have three questions that I hope the Minister will address. First, will he clarify whether there are any plans to give legal weight to tribunal recommendations, perhaps by requiring a written response or justification where those recommendations are not followed? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that resource-constrained local authorities can implement recommended aftercare plans promptly and fully? Thirdly, could he please provide data on the expected impact of this provision on readmission rates? Clause 47 clearly sets out and improves on the legal clarity, which is welcome, but I have a couple of questions. What steps will be taken to ensure that frontline practitioners understand and consistently apply the revised ordinary residence test? Has the Department conducted an assessment of the administrative burdens or delays that may result from the implementation of the clause? Apart from those questions, I welcome the provision.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
I fear that I may test your patience a little further on this occasion, Mrs Harris, but I rise to address clause 48. Although much of the Bill aims to modernise and humanise our mental health framework, and in many ways it does so commendably, clause 47 presents not only an opportunity, but a challenge: to ensure that we get the balance right between liberty and protection. The clause will make an amendment to section 72(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983. As the Minister said, it will shift the burden of proof in tribunal proceedings concerning patients who are subject to a guardianship order. Under the current legal framework, it is the patient who must demonstrate that the criteria for guardianship are no longer met, by showing either that they are no longer suffering from a mental disorder or that continued guardianship is no longer necessary for their welfare or the protection of others. Clause 48 would reverse that burden. It would place the onus instead upon the local authority to demonstrate, in the mental health tribunal, that the individual still meets the statutory test. The tribunal would be required to direct a discharge unless the authority can prove otherwise. Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the principle of this reform. On the contrary, I believe that there is a strong case for rebalancing the legal dynamics in favour of the individual, particularly when we reach situations in which their liberty and autonomy are at stake. The principle of least restriction is not, or should not be, merely aspirational; it should be foundational to any mental health regime in a liberal democracy. I say with equal conviction that the practical operation of such a change requires careful thought and adequate resourcing. It must be done under clear legal parameters. Precisely on those fronts, I seek clarification from the Minister and, if I may be so bold, I seek some improvements to this aspect of the Bill. First, we must consider the legal principle at play. A reversal of the burden of proof in this context is not technical or incidental; it marks a constitutional shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Traditionally, as the Minister well knows, the burden of proof lies on the party making an assertion that departs from the status quo. In this case, that would ordinarily be the patient applying for discharge from the guardianship. However, when the state exercises more coercive powers—particularly powers that have an impact on an individual’s liberty and private life—it is appropriate that the state be required to justify those powers afresh, especially when challenged. That is the logic that clause 48 seeks to embrace. In broad terms, as I say, I support it. The approaches are reinforced by our obligations under article 5 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to liberty and security of the person. It is clear that any deprivation of liberty must be justified not just initially, but on an ongoing basis. Jurisprudence from Strasbourg has repeatedly emphasised that periodic review mechanisms must be substantive and not merely procedural in nature. The state must show continuing justification and must not rely on past assessments or presumptions in its favour. Clause 48 helps us to move closer to compliance with those principles, but the legislation, as drafted, does leave some important questions unanswered. What, precisely, is the standard of proof that local authorities must meet? Is it the civil standard on the balance of probabilities, or is it something higher, given the gravity of what is at stake? If we are to take this shift seriously, we must also give tribunals clear statutory guidance on how to interpret the new burden. Otherwise, we will fall into the trap of risking inconsistency in decision making, confusion among professionals and a potential increase in appeals and legal challenges. Secondly, and crucially, I would like to press the Minister on the question of practical implementation. Changing the legal burden is not merely a matter of legislative drafting; it requires a systematic adjustment in how evidence is gathered, how professionals prepare for tribunal hearings, and how decisions are reviewed internally within local authorities. As hon. Members will know, local authorities are already operating under intense financial and operational pressures. Mental health social workers are often working with caseloads that stretch the limits of what may be considered reasonable. Legal teams within councils are often overstretched and under-resourced; if we now place them under a legal obligation to present a comprehensive, evidentially sound case for continued guardianship—perhaps at multiple intervals across an individual’s care pathway—we must ensure that they are adequately supported to do so. What assessment have the Government made of the financial and operational impact of clause 48? Will local authorities receive new funding to enable them to meet that duty? Will social care professionals receive specific training on the evidential requirements now expected of them? Without such support, we risk not only undermining the intent of the clause, but creating a perverse outcome in which discharges may occur not because the patient no longer meets the criteria, but because the local authority lacks the capacity to make the evidential case in time. I also caution against the risk of overcorrection. Although I fully support the principle that individuals should not bear an unfair evidential burden, we must not move so far in the other direction that we weaken the legitimate protective mechanisms that should be in place. Guardianship is not detention; it is a community-based measure designed to provide oversight and structure for individuals who may struggle to live independently due to serious mental illness. It is used infrequently and only where strictly necessary.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
You will be pleased to know that I will be briefer this time, Mrs Harris; I want to leave room for my Opposition colleagues. The intent of the clause is entirely sound: to treat mental health as a health issue, not a criminal one. However, the capacity of NHS services to provide timely and suitable alternatives remains in question. With that in mind, I have three questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address. First, will the Government commit to publishing the implementation plan for ensuring adequate numbers of health-based places of safety across regions before the clause comes into force? Secondly, what contingency measures are currently in place or foreseen if no place of safety is available and police powers have been limited? Thirdly, can the Minister commit to an annual publication of data on hospital-based places of safety, their capacity and their use?