5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and for recognising the NATS issue. However, given its importance to the House, will she make a statement tomorrow so that questions can be asked then, rather than during a Second Reading debate? Members across House have lots of questions about this serious matter.
Before I turn to the Bill, let me comment on the events of the last 24 hours, which have shown just how important effective oversight of our aviation sector is. The shocking failure at NATS has left hundreds of thousands of passengers in the lurch, and serious questions have been raised about the resilience of our air traffic control system and aviation infrastructure. As we consider legislation that gives further functions to the CAA, we must ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny and ministerial accountability are not lost. When something goes wrong this badly, the House must be able to demand answers. Having spoken to Mr Speaker earlier today, it was my understanding that urgent questions requested by my party and by the Liberal Democrats were not accepted because the Government gave assurances that a statement will be made in the House tomorrow. The Government could have chosen to make a statement today, but they chose to prioritise other matters. If the Secretary of State would like to intervene to say that tomorrow there will be a statement in which all Members can ask proper questions about what has happened, I would welcome that. A Second Reading debate is not the right place for questions and answers, and only one hon. Member from the Labour Benches intervened on her. This is not an appropriate moment to have that discussion, so perhaps the Secretary of State would like to confirm that there will be a statement tomorrow. If not, I am afraid it looks like there has been a serious miscommunication between the Speaker’s Office and those on the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] Sorry, does the Minister want to speak from a sedentary position, or does he want to come to the Dispatch Box and speak?
Okay. If he does not want to answer the questions, we will have to drag him to the House tomorrow.
If the Minister would like to speak, he can stand at the Dispatch Box. No, he does not want to do that—fine. We will have him here tomorrow, then, as we were told today that our urgent question would not be accepted because the Minister would be making a statement. We will have to see whether that actually happens. Having said all that, I welcome the engagement from the Secretary of State and Ministers in the other House on this Bill, and the engagement that has taken place on this matter. I would like to see that engagement continue, and I hope that it can. The Conservatives agree with the stated aims of the Bill—namely, to promote economic growth and infrastructure development, to strengthen consumer rights and protections, and to enhance aviation security. For that reason, we will not divide on Second Reading. I also agree with the Secretary of State’s observation in her letter to colleagues on 1 September, in which she said that the contributions of the Lords have helped strengthen the legislation before the House today. At its core, this is broadly an administrative Bill. We on the Conservative Benches recognise that certain measures must be taken following our exit from the European Union to ensure that regulatory gaps are filled and continuity is maintained in a way that ultimately keeps Britain’s aviation industry working safely, as the Secretary of State highlighted. The Bill pays much attention to consumer rights and associated protections, and the Conservatives welcome parts of that agenda. Indeed, I appreciate the Department showing some flexibility on these issues, particularly with regard to safeguarding disabled passengers. However, given the violent agreement between the Secretary of State and me on these matters—I confess that it is not always this way across the Dispatch Box—I am slightly puzzled by one item. Why on earth did her party whip Members in the other place to vote against a review of airport drop-off charges? Why are passengers paying such exorbitant drop-off charges? It would appear that the Government do not want us to know that. Why is it, as The Times has reported, that charges at Gatwick have now reached £10 for 10 minutes, while Luton’s, under Labour-run Luton council, have increased from £2 to £7?
The hon. Lady makes a very clear case for why such a review of airport parking charges is necessary. One has not happened for a decade. It was great to get the support of the Liberal Democrats in the other place in backing Lord Moylan and the Conservative proposals in that space. Now that the provision is in the Bill, I hope the Government will not seek to remove it. There are obviously concerns about the impact that surface access targets have had on some airport parking charges, especially when, as the hon. Member has made clear, genuine alternatives often do not exist properly or are incredibly expensive. I genuinely find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State does not herself believe that there is a simple link between Gatwick having a minimum target of more than half of passengers getting to and from the airport by public transport and the soaring drop-off charges. I hope that this perfectly reasonable provision for a review that puts passengers first will not be removed from this Bill. It would be great to hear from the Minister winding up whether the Government intend to stick with that important review, which was inserted against the Labour party’s wishes in the House of Lords. Another point worth mentioning is that the Bill, for all the powers it rearranges and the regulations it enables, offers remarkably little vision for where British aviation should be heading. The Government have talked a lot about growth, yet have refused to set tangible targets to deliver it—whether in this aviation Bill, or indeed for passenger growth in the Railways Bill. The Opposition understand that economic growth and the competition that fuels it are essential not merely to the success of individual airports and airlines, but to maintaining Britain’s global reputation as one of the world’s outstanding aviation nations. Yet too often this Government appear to regard the aviation industry less as an engine of growth and more as an ATM. Indeed, Labour Members seem to be beset with Tigger-like pleasure at finding new costs to impose on businesses, while growing the welfare bill rather more successfully than they are growing the economy. Ministers must understand that every additional burden and every tax—air passenger duty or business rates—is having huge impacts on aviation. I was with Manchester Airport Group recently, which is now facing an effective tax rate of 77%, when corporation tax and business rates are combined, after facing a more than 100% increase in its business rates. Manchester is not alone; airports up and down the country are facing huge increases in tax. It will be really important for Ministers to address that as part of the broader concerns about growth. Every charge deters investment and makes new jobs, new routes and greater passenger choice that little bit harder to deliver. That principle must also apply to the new powers given to the CAA. Can the Minister assure the House that significant new regulatory, safety and airspace decisions will be evidence-based, proportionate and subject to the proper assessment of their costs and benefits?
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Obviously, the air space does not exist within the Bill alone. The tax changes will have huge implications, whether at Blackpool airport or at Humberside airport, which I visited recently. They face life-and-death pressures that will decide whether they continue to be going concerns. This is not just about airports and the jobs that they create directly, but the connectivity that they provide for entire regions. He makes an incredibly important point. As has been the case with too much legislation of late, the Bill leaves plenty of questions up in the air. Where are the measures to secure the future of the workforce—our mechanics, engineers and next generation of skilled workers? Where are the measures to ease the burdens surrounding apprenticeships, an issue raised with me directly by the apprentices I met at Heathrow recently? Why is there no indication of how to champion our excellent aviation colleges at airports, such as the one at Stansted that I had the pleasure of visiting recently? Where is the plan to tackle pilot shortages? Has the Secretary of State not received representations calling for the Government to assist with pilot recruitment, or is she turning a deaf ear to them? Where is the vision for Britain being a world leader in single-aisle aircraft manufacturing, something for which the industry, as she knows, is clamouring to the rafters? I know that the Secretary of State is incredibly busy selling out taxpayers in her latest meetings with union barons who have her over a barrel; she was apparently too busy to join me and many of the shadow ministerial team at the Farnborough air show. My understanding is that not a single Minister from the Department for Transport went to Farnborough this year. Perhaps she could correct me if I am wrong. It is Europe’s largest airshow, a symbol to the world of Britain’s openness and our leading edge in aviation, so it does seem quite bizarre that, while they were all sat there waiting for the reshuffle, none of them popped down. Maybe that shows the Government’s general view of aviation—they are just not interested. [Interruption.] It seems shocking that the ministerial team did not get there. [Interruption.] If they do not want to do the job, then rather than shouting at me from a sedentary position, we could just swap sides of the House. Too often, it seems, the Department is in the business of delaying Bills. It leaves drafting to the last moment, and then tables reams of amendments to its own legislation, before expressing surprise that the Opposition might wish to scrutinise what has happened. We will not oppose sensible measures simply for the sake of it. Of course, we welcome stronger passenger protections where they are needed, and of course we want the highest possible standards of safety and security, but we also want a Bill that backs Britain’s aviation sector—a Bill that is backed by a ministerial team who also back Britain’s aviation sector. We want a Bill that gives the sector the space and the economic environment in which to succeed, and that creates the conditions in which competition, innovation and enterprise can thrive. I look forward to the opportunity to table amendments in Committee. Hopefully, we can work together to improve the Bill, as Opposition Members in the other place did, to ensure that British aviation remains safe, is more competitive and remains world leading.
I just wanted to make it very clear that I was in no way questioning what Mr Speaker decided. When he spoke to me, he made it very clear that his understanding was that the Government were going to make a statement. [Interruption.] Government Front Benchers may shake their heads, but that is what I was told by Mr Speaker.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was making was that I was basically being accused by the Minister of saying something that I had not said. I just wanted to make clear what was said, because the real question here is one of parliamentary scrutiny.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members have not had the chance today to properly raise the NATS blackout, which has affected over 100,000 passengers and cost UK aviation tens of millions of pounds. The Secretary of State has not indicated that the Government will provide a statement today in the Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you tell me what those of us on the Opposition Benches, and all Members interested in raising issues that affect their constituents, can do to get answers from the Government?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing such an important debate. Supporting our pharmacies is one of my long-standing commitments; I have spoken about the issue many times in the Chamber. Pharmacies are at the heart of primary care, and I am grateful for the contribution they make to our community—dispensing medicines, delivering vaccinations, offering advice for minor conditions and providing clinical services that would otherwise need to be delivered elsewhere. Pharmacies are accessible and embedded in our high streets. For millions, they are the front door to the NHS. I have had the pleasure of speaking to pharmacists from across my South West Hertfordshire constituency, visiting Abbey pharmacy in Abbots Langley, Boots in Kings Langley and Esom pharmacy in South Oxhey, and even undertaking work experience at Riverside pharmacy in Rickmansworth. As I have said in Parliament before, my discussions have made it clear that our pharmacies are under unsustainable pressure as a result of the Labour Government’s continued attack on retail businesses. I welcome the commitment in the Government’s 10-year health plan to move more healthcare responsibilities from hospitals into our communities, but that is not feasible unless pharmacies receive the necessary financial support. It is important to note that community pharmacies have not been exempted from any of the Government’s harmful economic policies against retail businesses. Since the Government’s announcements at the autumn 2024 Budget, their employer national insurance contributions and national living wage have increased, and their rate of business rates relief has reduced. Pharmacies now face significantly higher operating costs.
I am very conscious that I have a former Chancellor and Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), sitting to my left; he might argue for keeping it simple. I would argue that a pharmacy’s primary business is healthcare related, and that either we support our healthcare system or we do not. Doing it piecemeal is not in the best interests of what some of my residents regard as the frontline of the NHS system. In the past 12 months alone, more than 600 neighbourhood pharmacies have closed. That looks set to worsen, because business rates relief for retail businesses has been removed for this financial year—a significant shift from the 75% business rates relief afforded to retail businesses in 2024 under the previous Conservative Government. Although GP practices can have their business rates reimbursed by the NHS, and NHS dental practices can also qualify for reimbursement, community pharmacies receive no equivalent compensation, despite providing NHS services every day, as has been mentioned. How is this fair or reasonable at a time when the Government are shifting more responsibility to the sector? I have also been in contact with Community Pharmacy Hertfordshire. Although the 2026-27 community pharmacy contract provides additional investment in community pharmacies, it still falls short of what is needed to put the framework on a sustainable financial footing. Research conducted by the Independent Pharmacies Association, which has done a brilliant campaign on this matter, shows that an average pharmacy dispensing 10,000 items a month still faces a shortfall of £56,000 against what would be needed to keep pace with inflation—a very stretched financial situation. When I met with the previous Minister for Care, the right hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), earlier this year, I was disappointed that he could not outline clear steps as to how that situation could be alleviated. Without a sustainable, longer-term funding settlement, more pharmacies risk closing at the same time as the NHS is asking the sector to do more. It is also disappointing that the Government have delayed Pharmacy First payments. Under the previous Conservative Government, the Pharmacy First initiative was introduced to allow community pharmacies to support patients with common conditions, reducing the pressure faced by our GPs. Now, many pharmacies I speak to have said they are struggling to deliver this service as a result of the Government’s withholding of funding. The impact of pharmacies in delivering primary care should not be underestimated. Shifting more flu vaccinations into pharmacies could free up around 4.5 million GP appointments each year. In conclusion, pharmacies are accessible and already have the infrastructure and clinical expertise to provide more care closer to home. However, patients will benefit from an expanded role for community pharmacies if their pharmacy stays open. Currently, with unsustainable operating costs and limited Government funding, that has become increasingly difficult. Without the financial support to deliver these services, many pharmacies risk closing. If the Government want to shift care from hospitals into communities, the funding must follow.
My right hon. Friend rightly points out the tax increases that airports are facing combined with business rates and increased regulations. We are trying to build a business case for commercial flights from Blackpool airport again, and such things make it really hard for airports that are trying to reopen routes and start new ones. Does he agree that that should be looked at?
Let me begin by welcoming the new Secretary of State to her place. Just yesterday, new statistics from the programme for international student assessment showed that English pupils are now in the top 10 in the world for reading, for maths and for science. That is a huge achievement, and a real English success story. We are punching well above our weight, while other countries are falling behind. That did not happen by accident. It happened because of hard-won, evidence-led reforms and brilliant teachers. We raised expectations, we strengthened the curriculum, and we learnt from the highest-performing education systems in the world. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb built on Labour reforms to create an evidence-led school system that has catapulted us up international league tables. So why, when the Education Secretary herself has said that we should celebrate the PISA results and when the rest of the world is trying to learn from England, have the Government decided that now is the moment to change course? The Secretary of State said in her statement that everyone “can see the need for change.” I think that the opposite is true. The Secretary of State has also argued that there has been “an over-focus on academic outcomes”. I profoundly disagree. High academic standards do not hold children back; they lift them up. Instead of acknowledging that our schools are the one part of the state that is not just working well but is world-leading, the Government seem determined to point the finger at schools for problems that they have failed to solve elsewhere. Over the summer recess, while schools were closed and teachers were on holiday, our new Prime Minister used his so-called grand tour of the country to announce fundamental changes to our education system. Extraordinarily, this Government now seem to be blaming the NEETs crisis on schools—not those on their own Benches who, in government, failed to get a grip on the spiralling welfare bill, not their own “genius” plan to impose red tape on businesses and make it harder to hire young people, and not, critically, their huge rise in business taxes, which have made employing young people far more expensive. It is basic economics: if you make it more expensive for businesses to hire young people, fewer young people will be hired. Instead of addressing the problems that they have created, the Government are laying the NEETs crisis at the door of schools, and in response—as has been confirmed today—are tearing up the education system once again and returning to a policy that has failed before: introducing a vocational pathway for those aged 14. This is not about being against technical qualifications; quite the opposite. Conservative Members have championed technical education and apprenticeships. However, 14 is far too young to start closing down academic options. We have tried this before, and it failed. Labour's reforms of GCSEs in 2005 were intended to strengthen vocational education options, but what happened was that children from poorer backgrounds were channelled away from the rigorous academic subjects.
It is what happened. Instead of raising aspirations, the system lowered expectations. The danger in what the Government are proposing is obvious. History will repeat itself. Highly academic schools will continue to push their pupils towards academic qualifications while schools serving more disadvantaged communities will come under pressure to steer children towards technical routes far earlier, because that is what happened before. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what evidence she has that her reforms will produce a different result, and can she guarantee that choosing a technical pathway at 14 will not close down a young person’s opportunity to go on to complete academic GCSEs? Can she explain exactly how this approach differs from the failed approach in Scotland and in Wales? From where I am sitting, it sounds very similar. There are also serious practical questions about how any of this will work. The Government say that the new pathways will begin in 2028, but what qualifications will schools be expected to offer? What standards will those qualifications have to meet, and do schools have the specialist teachers, facilities and employer partnerships required to meet them? What assessment has the Department made of the additional burden that this will place on schools? What funding will be provided? This is not happening in isolation. Schools are already being asked to implement major SEND reforms, and—
I thank the Minister for his statement. In his final Prime Minister’s questions, Keir Starmer spoke emotionally about how he had saved jobs at Jaguar Land Rover. Two months later, we hear news of 4,000 job losses at Britain’s biggest car manufacturer and the new Minister for Reindustrialisation is forced to make his first statement to the House on de-industrialisation. JLR workers will have spent another weekend contemplating their future, wondering about the impact on their careers, families and communities, and questioning the sustainability of the British car industry and the countless businesses in JLR’s nationwide supply chain—firms whose vital industrial capability, once lost, will be hard to replace. JLR is still recovering from a crippling cyber-attack, of course, and the Minister has talked about the headwinds facing all car manufacturers. They include massive barriers erected by China to sell into its domestic market, while Chinese cars are aggressively sold into our own. Tech is changing the car industry from an engineering business to a component assembler and software installer. These shifts are huge and undisputed. The Business Secretary has said that JLR must become more competitive, but the question remains: what are he, the Chancellor and the new Prime Minister doing to make our country more competitive—and fast? I am not talking about tortoise-like speeches on triple helixes, sector plans, state-backed loans or union negotiations. I am talking about hard, urgent choices on tax, regulation and energy. Let’s take the ZEV mandate, which dictates that the manufacture of petrol and diesel cars will be banned in this country in just over three years’ time, and which is seeing our firms being fined right now for customers not buying electric vehicles that they do not want. Having been manoeuvred into joint ventures and having had their designs copied by Chinese competitors, British manufacturers are now being forced to subsidise the Temu Range Rovers that are gobbling market share. It is crazy economic self-harm. The Conservatives would abolish the ZEV mandate. That is what unions want too. Can the Minister tell us: will the Government act? Our industrial base is crippled by ruinous energy costs. We are being asked to applaud the Government’s industrial energy scheme, which does not start until next year, fails to address the underlying problem, and will not bring down prices for the whole economy. How will it position us against the competition? BICS will bring down energy costs by 25%, but given that our industrial electricity costs are four times that of the US, twice as high as France and 46% higher than the global average, our competitive disadvantage remains. The Conservatives have a cheap power plan to slash energy costs for the entire economy. It involves hard-nosed choices: repealing the Climate Change Act 2008, axing the emissions trading scheme, scrapping wind and solar subsidies, investing in nuclear and getting the North sea drilling again. Will this Government be similarly tough, or will they continue to pretend that British industry is not having its legs cut off by net zero? The Chancellor talked ploddingly this week about reducing the burdens on business, but the truth is that, through regulation and tax, the unemployment Act and the national insurance hike, Labour has made it riskier and more expensive to employ people. That is bad for business, because it adds another cost pressure, and it is bad for sales; 20% of JLR’s vehicles are for the domestic market, and right now too many Brits are too worried about tax bills, inflation and jobs to buy premium cars. How does this new iteration of Labour intend to untangle the mess of these past two years? JLR sells nearly a third of its cars to America. US tariffs on them are four times higher than when Labour came in, but it is because we are outside the EU that we at least got a better tariff deal than member states—and it is the same with the India deal. As this new Prime Minister ingratiates himself with Brussels, can we be assured that he will not negotiate away our competitive advantages? We know, too, that tariff and quota deals can change. The Foreign Secretary’s performative pronouncements on Israel and the Prime Minister’s ongoing failure to set out a defence plan risk antagonising the Americans and throwing us into another round of tariff negotiations that could cripple our car and life science industries. What will the Minister do to make sure that his colleagues are not jeopardising JLR jobs with dubious diplomacy, and are any trade measures being considered when it comes to China? Britain is de-industrialising before our eyes. In the west midlands and beyond, there will be pain in every postcode. More Whitehall schemes and an army of mayors are not going to stop the rot. The Government cannot solve all of JLR’s problems, but it is the job of Ministers to create conditions in which it and countless other businesses can manufacture competitively in Britain. Are Ministers going to accept that this involves tough choices and then act with the urgency that this crisis demands?
To tackle violence against women and girls, does the hon. Lady agree that men entering this country illegally from countries such as Eritrea, Afghanistan and Sudan pose a direct threat to the safety of British women and girls?
I know that the Minister is a wonderful champion for women, but does she agree that men who enter Britain illegally and need a leaflet to ask them not to rape women and girls should instead be deported immediately?
Following last night’s vote on puberty blockers, will the right hon. Lady set out exactly what her red lines are when it comes to experimenting on children, and at what age she thinks children are able to make life-changing decisions about their gender?
I declare my union activity as a former member of the National Union of Journalists. I do not miss it at all; it did nothing for me and took money out of my wages. My father was a marine engineer, and when he joined British Petroleum in the ’60s, the number of British-flagged ships that BP had alone was greater than the entire number of British-flagged ships in the modern era. If the Government are so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use their systems to generate revenue, while registering a ship in this country is a very expensive burden. Should we be looking at how to get more ships under the red ensign?
9. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.
More than 100 organisations have warned the Government that their early release scheme will put women and girls at increased risk. Can the Minister explain to the House and to those organisations how the scheme will help her to halve violence against women and girls?
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I welcome the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to her new role and congratulate her on her appointment. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing this most important debate. She spoke very powerfully about the pressures facing community pharmacies and I want to build on her speech by discussing what is happening both in my constituency and nationally. In Farnham and Bordon, we have access to 15 community pharmacies, which collectively dispense around 142,000 prescriptions every month and deliver around 6,500 flu vaccinations. The Government’s 10-year plan wants more healthcare to be delivered in the community, which is an aim that I think we all support. At the same time, however, the Government appear to be making it harder for those very pharmacies to deliver such care and to remain sustainable. The reality is that community pharmacies are being asked to do more while facing rising costs. We have seen higher national insurance contributions, increases in the national minimum wage, rising business rates and persistent inflationary pressures. At the same time, pharmacies are dealing with medicine shortages, higher procurement costs and disruption to international supply chains. The financial picture is impossible to ignore. Funding for community pharmacies in 2025-26 was actually £800 million less in real terms than it was in 2015-16. In the last year alone, the number of NHS-prescribed items dispensed by pharmacies and the service volumes increased by 2.3% and 17% respectively. As the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) has already highlighted—he was echoed by a number of Members around the Chamber today—the Government’s own independent economic analysis in March 2025 identified a funding gap for pharmacies of £2 billion a year, and trade bodies that have spoken to me identify a structural funding problem. Of course, we on this side of the House welcome additional funding, but pharmacy is not made sustainable by giving with one hand and taking with the other. We need to ensure the long-term viability of community pharmacy and I am very sceptical that the Government’s approach will achieve that. I turn now to Pharmacy First, which is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we make better use of the skills and expertise available within our NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) is absolutely right to be proud of his Government’s record on this matter. Created and implemented by the last Government, Pharmacy First shows what NHS reform should look like—the right professional, with the right responsibility, delivering the right care in the right place. It should be a game changer and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for its introduction. Pharmacy First recognises that patients with seven common conditions can be safely assessed and treated by qualified pharmacists without there always being a requirement for a GP appointment. However, the scheme is currently limited and not as expansive as it is in Scotland, where it covers up to 30 common conditions. I would like the Government to move rapidly to expand Pharmacy First elsewhere. We should be ambitious about the skills and clinical expertise of our pharmacists.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we can use pharmacists and pharmacies much more creatively and in a manner that would in no way put patient safety at risk. In fact, it would allow patients more choice, and free up GPs and other health professionals to do other parts of their job, so he is right. Community Pharmacy England’s 2026 pharmacy pressures survey makes the scale of the challenge facing pharmacies clear. Drawing on responses from nearly 4,000 pharmacy owners and staff members, it found that 75% of pharmacies are currently losing money, while only 14% reported being profitable. There is little value in providing additional funding for services without recognising the wider cost and workforce pressures facing the sector: 30% of pharmacies have reduced their opening hours and 76% report an impact on patient care, including longer waits and delays in accessing medicine. That brings me—briefly—to the issue of business rates and the wider cumulative costs facing pharmacies. A pharmacy might occupy a storefront on a high street, but it is not simply another retailer; it is part of the national health service and is an essential provision in our community. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined, pharmacies are also part of our national resilience. The Government want pharmacies to take on more responsibility, but they face rising costs that have been caused by the Government. Pharmacies need to be properly considered within the system and not treated simply as another high street retailer. The same issue applies when we consider national insurance increases, and indeed the national living wage. These cumulative increases are having a real impact. Unlike a high street retailer, a pharmacy has contractual obligations to the NHS and a moral responsibility to its patients, so it cannot just increase prices or stop providing a service like other businesses could. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) rightly put it, the Government have to recognise the cumulative impact of these terrible decisions when considering future policy.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and his point goes to the heart of the debate. Pharmacies are businesses that must make a profit, and pharmacists must pay their staff and make sure that they can feed their own families, but they are also public servants. They are people who have decided to work in our national health service to provide for our patients, and the Government should recognise that. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) mentioned independent prescribing. If properly supported, it will give patients quicker access to treatment, but it brings greater clinical responsibility, greater governance requirements and greater pressure on pharmacists’ time. Given the limited capacity that we have already talked about, I want to ask the Minister three questions on independent prescribing. Does she believe the sector is ready? Does it have the workforce and the capacity to do it? What additional funding and support will be provided? We also need clarity on the timetable. Pharmacists have trained to prescribe, and they should be able to use that skill. That brings me to the pharmacy workforce, because none of these reforms—independent prescribing, Pharmacy First or any other idea—will work without a sufficiently large and properly supported workforce. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members about recruitment and retention pressures, including concerns about the number of full-time equivalent pharmacists. At the same time, the demands placed on existing staff are increasing. We cannot continue to add responsibilities to community pharmacy without considering whether there are enough people to deliver them safely and effectively. The previous Conservative Government’s NHS long-term workforce plan included an ambition to increase pharmacist training places by 29%, taking them to around 4,300 by ’28-29. That ambition will clearly not be met under this Government, and we are still waiting for the long-promised NHS workforce plan. Despite my asking the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), in July when the plan was coming out, we still have no answer. Finally, I will move on to medicines supply. Pharmacies are facing global supply chain disruption and rising medicine costs, with repeated price concessions adding further pressures. They cannot absorb these pressures indefinitely, so what are the Government doing to mitigate the impact of geopolitical disruption on medicine supply and prices, and what assessment has the Department made of the financial burden that these pressures are putting on community pharmacies? They are being felt by pharmacies across my constituency, including Vaughan James and Lalys in Farnham, Chase and Headley pharmacies and Day Lewis in Haslemere, and Grayshott pharmacy, all of which have contacted me about the issues that I have raised. In conclusion, community pharmacy has a crucial role to play in the future of our NHS. We all want to see care delivered closer to people’s homes. Pharmacy First has shown what can happen when we give pharmacists greater responsibility and trust them to use their expertise, but ambition needs to be matched by capacity. The Government cannot say that community pharmacies are central to the future of neighbourhood healthcare while making it harder for those pharmacies to remain financially sustainable. I urge the Government to recognise the cumulative impacts of their policies on businesses, to look again at the treatment of business rates for community pharmacies, to ensure independent prescribing is properly supported, to protect the supply of medicines, and to provide clarity on when the NHS workforce plan will be published. The fact is, we cannot ask pharmacies to take on more responsibility and deliver more NHS care while simultaneously making it harder for them to survive. The Conservative party believes that community pharmacy is absolutely central to the future of the NHS. If the Government agree, they must make sure that pharmacies have a future, too.
The Secretary of State referred to the Government’s SEND reforms as having been “built in partnership with parents”. I can assure her that many parents of SEND children in Mid Buckinghamshire are deeply concerned about the shape of those reforms and their one-size-fits-all nature. Before she brings forward any legislation or response to the consultation, can I urge her to look very carefully at what all campaigners on this subject are saying? As she is new in post, will she look again at the Government’s axing of a new SEND school for Buckinghamshire, and build it?
We are talking about resilience, and one of the things that has made resilience worse is Labour’s policy on mandatory advice and guidance, and single point of access. We know that secondary care doctors and GPs are struggling but, more importantly, it is causing actual harm to patients. Those are not my words, but those of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, the health watchdog, which has asked for a review to be commissioned to look into this specifically. Has the Secretary of State read that report, will she commission that review and, if so, who will do it and by when will it be done?
The Jaguar Land Rover hack started over a year ago: manufacturing ground to a halt and the Government stepped in and made the UK taxpayer the insurer of last resort to the tune of £1.5 billion. Yet the Government have still not said who did this to our country. It has been widely reported that the attack was state-sponsored. At a time when we should be having a national conversation about the threats we face, will the Government use this opportunity to tell us which country did this to us, and, more importantly, have there been repercussions?
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. To date, preparedness statements have tended to focus on winter, as she said, but she is right that we now need such an approach for summer. I welcome the statement today, but we must also ask about this year—the summer just gone. Yes, the intensity and length of high temperatures was new, along with the spikes that it brought in emergency admissions and all the cancelled appointments, but it was also predictable: high temperatures were forecast. What lessons has the Department learned from the UK Health Security Agency reports on adverse weather and health? What preparations had it made in advance of the summer? What guidance was given? Were trusts left to develop protocols themselves? Specifically, what guidance was given to care and nursing homes? Of course, the high temperatures this summer were not unique to the United Kingdom—nor indeed is the UK, by quite some way, the hottest country in Europe. What conversations have the Secretary of State and her Ministers been having with counterparts in other countries to make sure that each learns from the other? Right now, the NHS is amid a massive top-down reorganisation. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the effect of the uncertainty and upheaval that always comes with a major reorganisation on the NHS’s ability to put in place changes at short notice? Given the extreme heat that staff were enduring, what steps is she taking not only on building and ambient temperature, but to ensure that the design of personal protective equipment, for example, reflects the changed needs? What specific consideration is being given to the ambulance service? There is a connected issue: the cost of energy, for summer as well as winter. What is the right hon. Lady doing across Government to make heating and cooling more affordable for households and individuals? That would bring down admissions. Will the Government now adopt the cheap power plan that we have set out? Finally, although we are talking about the summer, it is September already; it is reasonable and timely to ask also about winter. We understand that supply of the RSV vaccine is in place, but what guarantees can she give about wider preparedness? When will the Secretary of State come to the House to set out those plans? The number of people waiting more than 12 hours in A&E for admission is up significantly since the change of Government. What is she doing to grip that well ahead of the coming winter pressures?
Order. I am sure the Secretary of State has the gist of the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Before I call the Secretary of State, I remind Members that statements are an opportunity for the Secretary of State to make a statement and for Members to ask questions, not make statements of their own.
Order. The right hon. Lady has had over five minutes. If I am going to be tough on Back Benchers for asking long questions, I should also be tough on Front Benchers.
Order. I am sure the Secretary of State meant to say the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak).
I remind Members that the Minister has 10 minutes, the shadow Minister has five and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has two, and that statements are an opportunity for Members to question the Minister, not to make statements of their own.
Order. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) will allow the hon. Lady to ask her question undisturbed.
This code of practice grants a legal right for trade unions to access workplaces with more than 21 workers, and it poses a severe risk to UK business stability and national economic vitality. Looking at workplace dynamics, cultivating harmonious manager-employee relationships is a proven catalyst for business growth. It is therefore concerning that a recent survey found that one in four workers believe that managers and employee representatives are ineffective at working together to prevent and resolve conflict. That would suggest the increased presence via workplace access may not be as beneficial as the Government suggest. The Government should focus on action that is guaranteed to improve employment relationships actively, thereby preventing the workplace productivity lag that is estimated to cost the UK economy £257 billion per year, rather than rolling the dice on a policy that industry leaders have warned will disrupt business output and autonomy. The cost of strikes is already significant. London tube strikes are predicted to cost the UK economy up to £760 million this year alone, and the resident doctor strikes of 2025 cost the NHS approximately £240 million. Increasing that cost through more frequent strikes, which we know are linked to greater union presence—as I demonstrated to the Government yesterday—and now lowering productivity via disrupted employment relations and burdening businesses with the high cost of facilitating mandatory union access is highly counterproductive. No Government should want to threaten the financial viability of domestic businesses; yet here we are, discussing legislation on trade union access to workplaces that research has found will cost businesses over £1 billion to facilitate. To add further insult to injury, experts have warned that the proposed frequency of weekly access will cause excessive disruption. Extremely concerning is the notion that small and medium enterprises are the ones that will take on the higher proportion of predicted costs which are estimated to reach almost £600 million. The Government will claim to be supporting small businesses with their exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. What they fail to account for is that thousands of small businesses will be left in a precarious position. A key criterion to meet the definition of a small business in the UK is having 50 or fewer employees. The remarkably low threshold of 21 employees leaves thousands of small businesses completely unsupported—small businesses that are already struggling and with trust in the Government to support them being at an all-time low. Numerous surveys have revealed their widespread frustration, with 58% feeling ignored by politicians in one and over half feeling unsupported by the Government in another. So what incentive is there to be an entrepreneur or small business owner any more? The UK needs small businesses. We need the risk takers that provide jobs and generate economic growth. Yet all the Government appear to be doing is throwing more hurdles their way, with the latest being the momentous cost and disruption of mandatory trade union access, not to mention the financial penalties of up to £500,000 for non-compliance that could destitute many small businesses instantly. The UK should be proud of our small business community; they consistently endure challenges and hardships to maintain their position as a fundamental pillar of the British economy. Rather than continuing to introduce policy that claims to be pro-worker yet has the potential to wreak havoc on British businesses and the economy, the Government need to take a simultaneously pro-business and pro-worker approach, one that supports businesses and helps workers to keep more of what they earn by addressing the mounting cost of living. It is for those reasons that we will vote against the instruments. For those same reasons, I also ask the Minister what the Government’s plan is to ensure that small businesses do not become financially or administratively overwhelmed by the Employment Rights Act 2025 or its secondary legislation.
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?
Thank you, Sir Alec, for chairing the debate so very well. I welcome the Minister her to her place. I know that she is standing in for the Policing Minister today, but I congratulate on her elevation none the less. I commend the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for his service and for securing this important debate. I am aware that he is exceptionally active on this subject, both as a friend of the police who argues for the importance of supporting our officers—rightly—and as a constructive critic, which I am sure is less appreciated among certain forces. The title of the debate is instructive. Debates centred around the police can all too often focus on their actions. That is undoubtedly something that we must consider, but we must also consider the actions of Government. The policies we debate and vote on in this place can directly impact how the public feel about the police. I am afraid that can cause support to be undermined in some cases, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) so eloquently outlined. Achieving the combination of effective and just operations, in the interests of the country, is one of the critical foundations of policing. As the second of the nine principles of policing sets out, we must “recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.” When that principle is not properly thought about, public confidence is inevitably lost and the quality of our policing is diminished. There is a reciprocal relationship between the police and the public. That is necessary, but we need to appreciate that the best way to achieve success is by having effective forces preventing crime and delivering justice for the victims of crime. In this Labour Government’s two years, many issues have challenged public confidence in policing. I will be cautious about delving into some of the details given the ongoing investigations into the conduct of forces, but incidents such as the Henry Nowak murder, the decisions pertaining to the banning of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, and the inappropriate use of non-crime hate incidents, have all raised concerns. Only recently, the families of the victims of Valdo Calocane’s attacks in Nottingham said that the police did not tell them that a man who had taken an interest in them had a history of violence when he attempted to visit, leading to an IOPC complaint. Furthermore, the heinous death of Sarah Everard exposed the very worst of the Metropolitan police, and rightly made it clear that changes were required. In July, a report on the force by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services pointed to progress but still noted the substantial work needed to improve vetting, professional standards and anti-corruption arrangements. The list of incidents fails to fully scratch the surface of the extent of complaints and problems experienced among forces. However, we know only too well how local and national failures can undermine them. If we combine that with the feeling many have that the crimes they experience are not followed up on, it is little surprise that trust is being eroded across many parts of our society. We must work to improve that trust by improving our police forces. Although the last few years have demonstrated stability in the IOPC public perceptions survey, and more people feel positively rather than negatively towards the police by a rate of two to one, a rate of 49% in 2024-25 should still be a cause for concern. The country needs much higher levels of confidence in the police. Worryingly, the positive percentage falls further when individuals are asked about their local force, and further still when they are asked about the Metropolitan police. That is unsurprising given the decline demonstrated in the public attitude survey produced by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Those numbers are less surprising when we consider that just 8.5% of crimes were solved in the year to March 2026, leaving an extraordinary 92% of reported crimes unresolved and many people wondering what to do when they face criminal activity. That problem is compounded by crime increasing 10% and antisocial behaviour 15% in the past year alone. To combat this, the police obviously need to get better at solving crime. They are using new technologies such as facial recognition, which I know a little about, having spent time with my own Bedfordshire police, who have been trialling and using that technology effectively. Its benefits were showcased recently at the Notting Hill carnival. However, that is not enough; we need more officers. Members have mentioned the hokey-cokey of police numbers. The Conservative party has set out a funded plan to deploy 10,000 extra police officers, to introduce hotspot patrolling of 2,000 crime hotspot areas to prevent an estimated 35,000 crimes and deter antisocial behaviour, public drug consumption, shoplifting and knife crime, and to triple stop and search to take knives and drugs off the streets. Those are clear targets to hold any future Conservative Government to account, which is a different approach to this Government’s abstract promises on neighbourhood policing. From my conversations with police officers and the police and crime commissioner in my constituency, it is yet to be determined how we will effectively monitor the promises on neighbourhood policing. Will the Minister provide clarity on how can we hold the Government to account on their commitments to neighbourhood policing? Furthermore, we must be tougher on dealing with crime. That requires more policing, but also stronger enforcement throughout the justice system. Nothing quite illustrates this Labour Government’s failure to achieve that than their rushed and ill-conceived early-release schemes. Those policies have inevitably placed enormous strain on police forces across the country, burdening officers with poor decisions made here in Whitehall. In August, His Majesty’s chief inspector of probation said that he was ultimately “not fully confident that the probation system will be able to cope with this massive work and there’s a risk that things will go wrong”. Although I appreciate that there have since been a number of iterations of the policy, his statement seems as true now as it did then. Quite simply, these policies are a Government failure that will put all our constituents at risk. I appreciate that improving forces is not a simple task. Improvement will always be accompanied by challenges as well as successes, but with the right attitudes in leadership and the right resources directed effectively, we can enhance confidence in our police forces. Where the Government make sensible improvements to issues that improve accountability, such as vetting, they will always have the support of the Opposition. The tragic deaths of officers Matthew Blades and Tom Clough demonstrate the sacrifice of our officers and the danger that they place themselves in. I echo the comments of hon. Members from across the Chamber in commending them for their service. Subsequent events have demonstrated why our police officers are so important, and why the shadow Home Secretary was right to say in the main Chamber last week that “only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 103.] It is that culture of zero tolerance among politicians and police leaders that will improve public confidence in the police.
I met with my force in Bedfordshire over the summer and spent a couple of days with the neighbourhood policing teams. One of the challenges they have is that their officers often get dragged off neighbourhood policing to deal with more complicated policing operations because there is a higher risk and they need to prioritise their work. What assurance can the Minister give my constituents, and all Members’ constituents, that under the neighbourhood policing guarantee, the new neighbourhood policing officers will not be hired and then re-tasked with other work in their police forces?
This has been a positive debate. I reiterate the call of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for the Government to make a statement on the third catastrophic systems failure of NATS. It is simply not good enough that the Secretary of State has come to the House only for Second Reading, and not to take questions from hon. Members. I am also deeply concerned to hear that she thinks six months is an acceptable time to take to report on this subject. The Opposition’s ambition is to foster the conditions for a safe, competitive and world-leading aviation industry, which appears to be an uncontroversial aim. However, as was highlighted by the shadow Secretary of State, while this is an important administrative Bill, the soaring ambition the sector deserves is sadly missing. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) provided significant support for Lord Young’s amendment in the Lords, but I particularly enjoyed hearing about his British standard suitcase. The wider consensus has related to airport drop-off charges, and we have heard Members from right across the House endorse a review and keeping clause 7 in the Bill. The Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) all mentioned that subject—and spoke at length, in some cases. I endorse their thoughts on the issue. The Opposition believe in the world-leading potential of our aviation sector. We want to encourage the enterprise, innovation and competition that will help it to thrive. However, on the searing cost to consumers of drop-off charges at airports, we urge the Government to keep clause 7 in the Bill. The Government’s surface access strategies and targets incentivise such charges while penalising drivers. Airports openly use them to discourage people from travelling to the airport by car. At Gatwick, an airport heavily used by my constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, it now costs £10 for 10 minutes—that is £1 a minute to drop off a loved one. This cost is felt disproportionately by disabled and elderly passengers and others with limited mobility. For them, using public transport to get to the airport may not be an option. The Opposition welcome the fact that the Bill will provide greater protections for disabled passengers at the airport, yet it must not make it more expensive for them to get there. The Government must address that contradiction, and they should accept clause 7. Yesterday we saw the limits of the consumer protections put in place by the Bill: a national air traffic control systems failure that has resulted in 900 flights—so far—being disrupted. The knock-on disruptions are likely to last for days. In the Lords, the Government voted down Lord Young’s amendment, which would have mandated a scheme to reimburse airlines and passengers for failures outside their control. The Government assured peers that a reimbursement scheme was unnecessary, yet now airlines and passengers will be forced to pick up the tab for cancellations over which they have no control. Is that fair? I want to close by expressing my thanks to Conservative and Lib Dem colleagues in the other place, led by Lord Moylan. After their hard work, the Bill now delivers the necessary continuity of regulation that keeps our aviation industry safe, following our departure from the European Union, and it enhances the safeguards around travel arrangements for disabled passengers. Despite the concerns that we have outlined, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support the Bill’s progress through the House, together with its aims of driving economic growth, strengthening aviation security and enhancing consumer protections.
Q7. I hope that the Prime Minister likes South Leicestershire as much as he likes the southern parts of England. Blaby, Enderby, Huncote, Cosby and Countesthorpe, to name but a few, are rural or semi-rural villages that have little in common with the urban area of the city of Leicester. The Government are going against the wishes of the residents of those villages, who have responded to the Government’s consultation and said that they do not want to be part of the city of Leicester. This has nothing to do with devolution; it is local government reform changing the boundaries. I have a very easy ask of the Prime Minister. He said that he is in listening mode; will he therefore meet me, the villagers of the areas that I have mentioned, and other stakeholders to discuss the issue of local government reform?