Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

   Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that. Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive. The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience. The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it. As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification. I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery. Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important. Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail. Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.

   Hansard source
2. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

   I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider. The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

   Hansard source
3. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   We welcome the provisions in clause 11, which relate to extending the time period in which the unduly lenient sentence scheme may be applied for. However, as the official Opposition, we still have concerns that the window of opportunity for victims to raise an appeal remains the same. The scheme can only be referred to for some of the most serious crimes—crimes that are likely to leave victims and their families with a degree of trauma or grief. How can we possibly expect that, within just a month of a sentence being issued, gathering together a clear, strong case for a sentence’s being unduly lenient would be on the minds of victims? We also know that many victims do not know about the scheme, or the opportunity to appeal. Baroness Newlove said that victims “really do not know” about it. She said: “Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking.”—[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 8, Q15.] During the oral evidence session, many notable sources raised issues with the current timeframe. Dame Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, described the current system as “disorienting” and said that “we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.”––[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 9, Q15.] Extending the window of opportunity will also surely allow a greater base of evidence from previous cases to be compiled, to bolster a referral under the scheme. It is only right that we allow victims, and the organisations supporting them, the time and space to make their case as strong as possible, ensuring that everything is laid on the table for the Attorney General to consider. Let us place victims and families at the heart of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, where they should be.

   Hansard source
4. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   China Audit

   The UK Government are still considering Mingyang as a credible supplier for turbines for the Green Volt offshore wind project, and the SNP Scottish Government have given Mingyang priority status for a factory to build turbines based in Scotland under their strategic investment plan. Both say to me that neither Government are taking seriously the threat that China poses to our energy supplies. China is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, hostile and should be nowhere near our critical national infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State finally rule out Mingyang being a permitted supplier for energy infrastructure in the future or at least give us a date for when we will hear a decision?

   Hansard source
5. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

   I am very sympathetic to the hon. Member’s concerns, but how does she see the new clause fitting in with the already established armed forces covenant, which protects and promotes healthcare for veterans across the country?

   Hansard source
6. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

   My hon. Friend is being slightly charitable to the CQC. Given Penny Dash’s review, we all know that the CQC has significant problems, otherwise we would not be reviewing it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause is absolutely vital because of the failures of the CQC up to this point, and our lack of faith in it being able to meet the challenges that this legislation will bring to the mental health sector? Does she also share our concern about the CQC’s ability to regulate and scrutinise properly?

   Hansard source
7. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   China Audit

   Will the Government publish a list of sectors considered overly dependent on Chinese input, starting with critical minerals and clean energy components, to promote transparency? Will the Foreign Secretary outline any clear Government targets for reducing those dependencies?

   Hansard source
8. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Department of Health and Social Care

   I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate. We have learned this week that rather than the Government ensuring that funding reaches the frontline, spending on staff at the Department of Health and Social Care and seven other arm’s length bodies has increased by more than 10% since Labour came to power, while GPs, social care providers and hospices are forced to do more with less. The situation is further compounded by rising financial pressures. Despite repeated promises that additional funding would improve patient care, the chief financial officer of NHS England has confirmed to the Select Committee that all the extra money allocated to the NHS will be swallowed up by national insurance increases, inflation and pay settlements, which means that none of it will go towards real improvements in frontline care. The rise in national insurance contributions was supposed to bolster the NHS and social care. In reality, it has landed like an extra tax on providers themselves. GP surgeries, care homes, hospices and community services are all grappling with the additional payroll costs, just as they struggle with surging demand and chronic workforce shortages. The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the average GP practice now pays an extra £20,000 a year in national insurance alone. Across the nearly 6,500 practices, that adds up to around £125 million a year—money that could otherwise pay for more than 2 million GP appointments, at a time when patients are struggling to be seen. Adult social care providers face an equally stark reality. The Nuffield Trust projects that employers will shoulder nearly £940 million in extra national insurance costs in this financial year, on top of the £1.85 billion required to cover the rise in the national living wage. Local councils already face a £665 million shortfall in delivering their legal social care duties. The Government have promised a 3% real-terms rise in NHS revenue spending each year to 2028-29, reaching £232 billion by the end of that financial year, yet despite the headline increases, capital investment is being held flat in real terms. NHS leaders have made it clear that it will not be enough to rebuild or modernise our hospitals, or to fund the facilities required to support more care in the community. The Health and Social Care Committee’s recent inquiry, “Adult Social Care: the Cost of Inaction”, has drawn attention to the enormous human and economic toll of the Government’s failure to reform the care sector. From the burden of unpaid carers to the economic impact of people leaving the workforce due to unmet care needs, the system is under severe and unsustainable strain, but rather than tackling this issue, the Government have once again kicked social care into the long grass and are waiting for a report from Baroness Casey that will probably not emerge until the very end of the Session. The cross-party talks that this Government promised have been scrapped again. Although the spending review includes £4 billion in additional adult social care funding and an increase in the NHS minimum contribution to the better care fund, there remains little clarity on how the Government will fund their commitment to deliver a fair pay agreement for care workers. It is also far from clear that the better care fund is currently structured to meet the real needs of the care sector, rather than simply alleviating pressures in primary care. These estimates are not abstract figures; they translate directly into longer waits for elderly patients, overstretched family carers and staff driven to exhaustion. Can the Minister confirm exactly how much funding the Government will allocate next year to tackle the social care workforce emergency, reduce waiting lists for assessments and services, and ensure that councils can meet their statutory obligations? What concrete recruitment and retention measures will be put in place to attract and retain carers, nurses and support workers in this vital sector, and how much new capital investment will be committed to help providers to modernise facilities and expand capacity to meet the needs of our growing and ageing population? When will the cross-party talks that the Government promised on social care happen? They must happen; otherwise, all the good effort—from Members on both sides of the House—on this issue will be lost. Finally, with social care vacancies entrenched and NHS productivity still trailing pre-pandemic levels, will the Minister set out what credible workforce and capital investment plans will be included in the forthcoming NHS 10-year plan to address these challenges once and for all? I pay tribute to all the health and social care workers—employed or voluntary—across this country. This Government, with their massive majority, have a real opportunity to make real changes. They must start doing so now, and quickly.

   Hansard source
9. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Flood Defences: Chesterfield

   You mean give him an update.

   Hansard source
10. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    War Memorials

    Order. Speakers have around four minutes—that is an informal initial steer.

    Hansard source
11. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    War Memorials

    Twenty seconds.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    War Memorials

    Order.

    Hansard source
13. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    War Memorials

    We have, and I am chairing. You are not.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Department for Education

    I am extremely grateful to be cheekily coming in at this point, but the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded authority in the country for SEN. I hope we might hear from the Minister about how the distribution, as well as the quantum, can be made fairer. Unfair distribution exacerbates the strain in the system.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this excellent debate. We arguably do not spend enough time in this place discussing small and medium-sized businesses, which account for some three fifths of employment and half of all turnover in the entire private sector. The good thing about having a debate on this subject is that we have the Government in the room, rather than behind their keyboards. That is important, because I noticed while preparing for this debate that it comes hot on the heels of a written question on the same subject, which I am afraid to say received a textbook non-answer from the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire asked a perfectly reasonable question: will the Chancellor make an assessment of the growth impact of increasing the VAT registration threshold? That was a pretty direct question, yet the Minister’s response completely ignored the point about growth and instead merely stated that the threshold was £90,000. While we are very grateful for the answer, this is something that I am sure my hon. Friend already knew. As my hon. Friend is in this Chamber, I gently suggest that the Minister provide him with a fuller answer. In some senses, raising the VAT threshold on SMEs would be a tax cut, so there is cause for optimism, given the Government’s newfound enthusiasm for cutting taxes—for those who live in Mauritius. If the Labour party is happy to take 80% of Mauritian workers out of income tax altogether as part of their £30 billion Chagos surrender deal, I am pretty sure they will be sympathetic to taking British SMEs out of VAT registration. Surely the Minister will remember that last year, when we were in government, the Conservatives raised the VAT registration threshold to the current £90,000. That took 28,000 businesses out of registration, which helped them to compete and grow, and it reduced their administrative burden. We also introduced policies such as business rate relief and full expensing to reduce costs and encourage investment in our country. Put simply, we backed British businesses to drive economic growth. Contrast that with Labour’s approach—it is trying but failing to balance the books on the back of British businesses. In its very first year in office, Labour has introduced the £25 billion hike, and the reduction in the secondary threshold of employer national insurance contributions; the rise in business rates, which the party had promised to abolish, by the way; the £5 billion-a-year burden of the Employment Rights Bill; and, let us not forget, the inheritance tax raid on family businesses.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    I think the hon. Gentleman is accusing you, Mr Vickers, rather than me. I simply say to him that increasing the threshold made a big difference to the 28,000 businesses that were taken out of registration. I encourage him to speak to businesses in his constituency that benefited from what is essentially a tax cut, in addition to all the other measures that I mentioned that we introduced. The contrast between what the Conservatives did in office and the approach of the Labour Government in their first year is quite stark, and the consequences are even starker. Insolvency rates are at a 15-year high, new registrations have fallen at the fastest rate since the financial crisis, payroll employment is falling, and inflation is well above target and will be higher for longer. It is no wonder that only 14% of companies with fewer than 10 employees have confidence in the Chancellor’s growth plans. According to one survey, just 29% of UK small businesses are now predicting growth this year. Meanwhile, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that its members now view the tax burden as their second biggest barrier to growth. Here we see very clearly the vicious cycle that Labour has fallen into, just as it did in the 1970s: higher taxes and higher inflation, leading to lower growth and lower revenues, leading to still higher taxation. That is why, even though the Chancellor promised British businesses that she would not be back for more, she is now refusing to rule out even more taxes and tax rises in the autumn Budget. That is no wonder, because the National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts a £60 billion shortfall in the public finances—and that was before we had Labour MPs in open revolt about the slightly tiny welfare reforms and an unfunded commitment to increase defence spending by £40 billion. In that worrying context, I hope the Minister can stand up and provide some certainty to SMEs by giving his assurance that the next Budget will not see a reduction in the registration threshold, or indeed an increase in the rate of VAT. I would like him to stand up and rule those out right now, for all of us to hear. I know that these assurances will fall short of the increase in the registration threshold that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire and other Members are looking for today, but it will provide more certainty if the Minister rules those things out. I would also be grateful for an update on the so-called new business growth service, which the Government promised would be a “one-stop shop” for advice and support. That was supposed to launch in the first half of this year, but the Government’s industrial strategy has apparently now had to push that back to later this summer. Perhaps one reason for the delay is that the best advice a business growth service could possibly give anybody is “Do not vote Labour”. That is clear for us all to see. SMEs probably have quite a lot of advice of their own for the Government, but unfortunately the going rate for speaking to a Labour Minister is apparently £55,000, and one has to endure the inevitable gloom of the Labour party conference. In the spirit of this debate, perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the price tag for meeting him is before or after VAT. Either way, like most Labour policies, I expect it will bring in less revenue than was first hoped.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats are keen to meet us and are willing to pay for it. Perhaps we can speak afterwards, but his constituents can speak to me any time. We are always available, across the country. This has been an excellent debate, with many views. It has highlighted the great importance of business to all our constituents, and I mean that seriously. The comments from colleagues on my side have illuminated the many different businesses that we have, whether it is Bloom Weddings, Chris and Annie’s business in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire; the fish and chip shops Old Time Fisheries and Kirkgate Fisheries in Keighley and Ilkley, which no doubt provide fantastic fish and chips but are unfortunately reducing their hours, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley pointed out; or Carmela’s in the great constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. All are having a hard time of it, but they remain excellent businesses. Some are, no doubt, places where we can all eat out. The Liberal Democrats have made some important points. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) spoke about plumbers, and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) about the hair and beauty salons and high streets in Mid Dunbartonshire. This is an important debate to have. I am reminded of the last election when one party had a key policy in their manifesto around VAT thresholds, and that was Reform. However, I am afraid that when it comes to the hard graft of making the case in this place, the party is, yet again, nowhere to be seen. I hope we can all agree that our country is stronger because of the men and women who get up every morning, go to work and drive our economy forward, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said. At the heart of every successful economy is the simple fact that prosperity begins small. It begins with the family-run café on the high street, the corner shop, the book shop and the local butchers, and the single parent who is just launching their dream from their spare room or their garage. These are not just businesses. These are stories of people who had an idea, stuck it out and made it happen. When we pile on more and more burdens, when taxes climb too high and regulation tangles dreams in red tape, we do not just make it harder to do business; the hope of what might be possible completely dims. A free society depends on free enterprise. When we get out of the way and support small businesses, we are not just fuelling the economy but lifting communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire believes that lifting the VAT threshold will help achieve that, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
18. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about transparency, but it is not just about that. Does he agree that it is also about having an evidence base that allows reform and improvement of the regulator?

    Hansard source
19. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    My hon. Friend makes a strong point about having a review to ensure that the regulator is operating effectively. Does he share some of my concerns that a one-off review may not demonstrate ongoing oversight and scrutiny of the performance of the regulator?

    Hansard source
20. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    The new clause is underpinned by noble intentions, but does the hon. Gentleman believe that patients would be better served if such a process were in guidelines rather than in the Bill? That would ensure that it is deliverable.

    Hansard source
21. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    National Security Strategy

    Given the scale of foreign-influence operations, particularly those of China, does the Minister accept that Britain’s societal resilience remains far too limited? Without clear Government messaging, how can institutions or the public properly play their role? Will the Minister commit to expanding the defending democracy taskforce to include public education, support for free media, and curbing People’s Liberation Army-linked speakers at taxpayer funded events?

    Hansard source
22. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    China Audit

    Given that China represents one of the defining geopolitical challenges of our age, I am somewhat sceptical about reports this morning that this much-touted, long-awaited year-long audit has significantly downgraded that challenge. Under this Government, there has been a significant increase in ministerial engagement and visits with China, a policy that is at best incoherent and at worst incompetent. Given that actions speak louder than words, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will no longer be making his proposed trip to China?

    Hansard source
23. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. I mentioned my concern about this provision on Second Reading: a rough road is not the same as a broken bridge. We are dealing here with the most severe mental health issues. The new clause talks about wellbeing, which affects everyone. Trying to report that and fit it into this criteria risks diluting the very aim of the Bill in trying to deal with the most severe mental health issues. I would be grateful for clarification on the difference between mental wellbeing, which affects everyone, and mental health issues, which not everyone has.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I rise to speak in support of the new clause, which was tabled by the Conservative party. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the regulatory authority’s role under the Mental Health Act 1983 within one year of the Act’s passage. Allow me to provide the current legal and regulatory context. Under the framework in the Mental Health Act 1983, the Care Quality Commission, which is the regulatory authority in England, is tasked with monitoring and regulating providers of mental health services. We have debated some of this, and there are issues still to be addressed. The CQC inspects hospitals, community mental health teams, and other relevant services to ensure compliance with statutory safeguards and standards. It publishes reports on providers and issues recommendations where it identifies failings. Additionally, there is an existing reporting framework under the Act whereby the Secretary of State is expected to oversee and ensure the Act’s proper implementation, with periodic ministerial reports to Parliament and CQC inspection outcomes made publicly available. However, there is currently no statutory requirement to review the CQC’s own role and effectiveness in carrying out these specific mental health functions. The gap means that although providers are scrutinised, the regulator itself escapes similar structured accountability and review. This question was debated in the other place and I welcome the comments from the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Merron, who, in a letter, rightly highlights existing transparency measures. She states that, “findings from CQC’s monitoring activity are reported annually in their Monitoring the Mental Health Act report, which is laid before Parliament and published publicly.” That is true. She also notes the annual quality account reports produced by NHS healthcare providers under the Health Act 2009, which cover patient safety, treatment effectiveness, and patient feedback. True. Those are indeed important components of the current oversight framework, and we support the continuation and strengthening of those transparency mechanisms.

    Hansard source
25. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    I do, and to expand the point, this is about understanding the performance of CQC as well. We know from the Dash report and from Mike Richards that there are, and have been, concerns about CQC performance. That is at the heart of this new clause—to try to make sure we actually look at the performance and regulation of the regulator. Those reports focus on the performance of mental health services and providers, but they do not amount to a dedicated statutory review of the regulator itself—specifically, the CQC’s role, effectiveness, and capacity under the Mental Health Act. Annual reports primarily reflect the CQC’s monitoring outcomes rather than a comprehensive, independent evaluation of whether its regulatory functions are being discharged optimally, or whether it is adequately equipped to meet the new challenges posed by the legislation. In other words, reporting on what the regulator monitors is not the same as reviewing how well the regulator performs its duties. The new clause would address that distinct gap by mandating a focused review with a parliamentary report and a Government response, thereby strengthening accountability at the regulatory level. The new clause aims to establish an additional layer of scrutiny, not duplicative reporting. It would require the Government, within 12 months of the Bill becoming law, to conduct a formal review of the CQC’s effectiveness, specifically in regulating mental health services under the 1983 Act. It mandates an assessment of whether the CQC is adequately fulfilling its duties, including monitoring, inspection, and enforcement responsibilities, as well as whether it will be capable of carrying out its duties under the new legislation. Given the well-documented problems in mental health, it seems entirely appropriate to address the key point: is the regulator regulating effectively?

    Hansard source
26. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    We do not want to introduce too much bureaucracy, but ensuring an accountable statutory mechanism to ensure adequate oversight is incredibly important. Much of the debate about the Bill has been about whether we put things in primary legislation or in policy, or whether we allow policy and legislation to be done at a secondary level—or even leave them for the organisation to deal with. My concern with the CQC is that we have not seen the organisation step up in the way that it should do. That does not mean that it is not making progress, but we need to see further progress.

    Hansard source
27. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    The Minister mentioned the Government’s annual reports, but at other times he has said that they will issue written ministerial statements. Will he clarify which it will be? There is a big difference between a couple of paragraphs in a written ministerial statement laid before the House, and a full report. When debating the other clauses, new clauses and amendments, the Government’s answer has been that they will report back to Parliament in a year’s time. I am grateful for that, but clarity would be helpful, because a full and comprehensive report would give more weight to the Opposition in terms of understanding and transparency.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    I will be brief. On this clause, I will be grateful if the Government can ensure good co-operation between the devolved powers, and if the Minister can set out how he will engage with the Welsh Government before exercising the power. On clause 57, what consideration has been given to cross-border issues to ensure that there are no unintended consequences between the likes of England and Wales or Scotland and England? Clause 58 covers commencement; will there be a clear published timetable for that over the next 10 years? Will Government allow Parliament sight of the transitional provisions? We have talked about the annual written ministerial statement, which we have clarified, but will there be further tracking reports that we can look at? Clause 59 states that the Bill will not impose new public spending or taxation, and yet the impact assessment lists £1.9 billion for the NHS in England, £396 million for local authorities, £2.5 billion for supporting housing and social care, and £287 million for legal costs and tribunals. Clearly, costs are associated with the Bill’s implementation over the next 10 years, so a money resolution is rightly required. When I raised those issues on our first and second days in Committee, the Minister rightly could not answer, because we had not had the Government’s settlement. We have now had that settlement, so I will be grateful to understand how the funding is to be applied to mental health on the community side and with regards to the Bill. Finally, given that we are dealing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, what are the Barnett consequentials of the Bill in ensuring the support implied in the clauses? I am grateful to the Committee, the Clerks, the Chairs, everyone here and everyone who has helped me prepare. Committee stage has been a joy, but also a long trial to get through. I am glad to be present as the Bill proceeds, because it is the right thing for the country.

    Hansard source
29. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Care Settings: Right to Maintain Contact

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I declare my interest, as an NHS consultant. I know from my own professional experience that hospitals and other care settings can be distressing places for patients and their relatives. Even with our excellent NHS staff on hand, patients want more assurance and familiarity while they undergo care and treatment. For many, that support comes from the family and friends who visit them during their hospital stay, or while they are in a hospice or receiving care in a care home. I pay tribute to the very many excellent staff who work in those settings and provide care around the clock and during public holidays, and put themselves out to care for others. For residents, care homes are just that: their home. They should be entitled to have relatives and friends visit them as they would in any other home. Visitors also improve care. An inability to visit one’s relative in hospital leads to an increased feeling of not knowing how they are this morning—whether they are getting worse or better, whether they are in pain or are comfortable, or whether they can reach what they need to get. Relatives fear not being able to help the resident, and worry about whether they are lonely or stressed because they are not there to support them. That adds to the relatives’ stress. The patient or the person in the care home knows that staff are busy and may not want to bother them for small things, such as reaching a book or their glasses, passing them a drink—which is so important for hydration—helping them eat a meal, moving the curtains so the sun is not in their eyes or providing an extra blanket. Instead, many wait hours for their relative to come. Sometimes, they just want a cuddle and to hold hands with the person they love. Clearly, that is in the best interests of their health and wellbeing. Relatives know the person they are seeing the best, and are able to identify changes in condition that may go unnoticed by staff. I remember visiting a relative of mine who was getting better following surgery and was stepped down from the high-dependency unit to the ward. When I arrived, I realised that he looked grey, pale and unwell. He was indeed in shock and required urgent fluid resuscitation. I shudder to think what would have happened had that not occurred at the beginning of visiting time. It was with those things in mind that the previous Government introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and, in particular, regulation 9A. Like others, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for doing so. The regulations were designed to ensure that patients staying in hospital or residential care settings could receive visitors in a fair and consistent way. They also aimed to ensure that care home residents would not face barriers or discouragement if they wanted to take their visitors outside, and they made provisions for those attending non-residential hospital or hospice appointments to have guaranteed rights for friends or family members to accompany them. However, now that these regulations are in place, we need to ensure that they are working effectively and that systems are in place to detect any attempts to water down or remove the rights that they provide. I want to raise the exceptional circumstances limitation with the Minister. Members will know that the regulations grant visiting rights unless there are exceptional circumstances. The CQC guidance states that providers should base this assessment “on the health, safety and welfare of people using the service or other people involved. This should include giving consideration to the appropriate balance of a person’s rights, the needs of people using their service and any identified risks”. If concerns have been raised about current levels of compliance with visiting regulations, we must begin by identifying how and why this caveat in the rules is being used. Can the Minister tell us what kinds of circumstances private providers deem to be exceptional? Who is making these decisions and who is overseeing that process? The CQC guidance also states that where additional precautions or restrictions are needed, they should represent “the most proportionate and least restrictive option” that is available. Is the Minister confident that this principle is being followed, and what is she doing to provide transparency for patients and their carers about decision making? In summary, can the Minister tell us how many times the exceptional circumstances provision has been used in the last year by each institution and how many visits or accompanying visits have been blocked as a result? Is she monitoring such blocking? What steps is she taking to ensure that those with reduced mental capacity have their rights to visits upheld? It is important that these rules are followed. The vast majority of care settings provide excellent care, but the concern is that the better care settings are more open than others, and as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said, sometimes, visiting times may be restricted to cover up poor care, adding to the stress of the patient or resident and their carers. It is important that the Minister does what she can to improve the education and training of staff, and change the culture of settings so that everyone is able to receive the visits they need. Some providers are even using the realms of infection control measures to exclude visitors. Surely, if infection control measures are frequently being used to restrict visiting, that is a red flag that the infection control measures in that institution are not providing adequate safety for residents. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that staff follow the requirements placed on them and to make sure that individual providers are not being selective in their adherence to the rules? It is clear from what we have heard today that more needs to be done to ensure that patients receive the visits and accompaniments that they are entitled to. If we are serious about putting patients and residents first, more needs to be done to guarantee them the social and emotional support that they need to be comfortable, as well as the best treatment or palliative medical care available. As others have already said, the CQC is not able to prosecute for breaches of regulation 9A, although it can take action such as civil enforcement measures. Does the Minister believe that is a strong enough incentive for providers to meet their obligations, or does she recognise that increased enforcement powers might be needed to ensure that the rights of patients are protected? What other schemes has the Department considered to help providers to better facilitate contact and visiting arrangements? I will finish by saying that I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician, and in paediatrics we always have open visiting for parents. Parents are really helpful in providing the care and looking after the children as part of a teamwork approach between parents and staff. Can the Minister say why such visiting arrangements are not available for people of all ages when they are at their most vulnerable, because I cannot see why they should not be? Indeed, I think that it would help quite dramatically.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Care Settings: Right to Maintain Contact

    Can the Minister clarify what constitutes a visit in those circumstances? Would an hour’s visit once a week count, or is there a specific timeframe that qualifies?

    Hansard source
31. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I congratulate the acting chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), on securing this important debate. It is almost one year since the Labour Government took office. They came to power promising that they had a plan to improve our NHS. However, what they actually had was a plan to get a plan by launching a consultation asking professionals and the public for ideas. The consultation was launched in October last year, and I understand that more than 220,000 people have contributed, but despite it being promised for spring, there is still no sign of it. Will the Minister commit to publishing a plan before the summer recess? While the Secretary of State considers what the plan should say, over in No. 11 we have seen the Chancellor follow the usual Labour playbook: higher spending, higher borrowing and higher taxes. There will be more funding for the NHS, yet as the chief executive of NHS England noted, the NHS budget is now equivalent to the entire GDP of Portugal, reaching £226 billion in 2028-29. That is around 50% of public spending. It is said that 18th-century Prussia was an army with a state attached to it; 21st-century Britain is at risk of becoming a health service with a country attached to it. This is not the Government’s money; it is taxpayers’ hard-earned cash, yet the Government have provided no clarity—no meaningful detail and no credible plan—on how such vast sums will be used. In the autumn Budget, an additional £10.6 billion in extra funding was promised for 2025-26. However, Julian Kelly, NHS England’s former chief financial officer, told the Health and Social Care Committee that most of it will be consumed by pay settlements, the national insurance hikes and non-pay inflation. Today, 64% of NHS spending goes towards personnel wages and pensions, which is a far higher proportion than in other comparable systems, but the NHS still faces staff shortages and expensive agency costs. Will the Minister confirm how much of the overall funding will go to salary increases? How much will be diverted into covering the national insurance increases for hospitals, social care, pharmacies, GPS, NHS contractors and social care providers? As we speak in this Chamber, resident doctors and nurses are balloting for industrial action. Strikes would only add to the disruption and delay in care for sick and vulnerable people. Do the Government have a plan to minimise the impact of strikes, should they occur? Let us look at one proposal that the Government have announced: the scrapping of NHS England. This Government by press release announced NHSE abolition without adequate planning. Ministers have dodged basic questions about costs, staffing changes and structural reform. There is, once again, no plan. The details that we know about do not inspire confidence. NHS England has asked the ICBs to reduce their costs by up to 50% by October 2025. ICBs will have to cluster, with the number expected to fall from 42 to 27 in two years. Many have warned that services will be cut, and redundancy payments linked to those restructurings could reach £1 billion in 2025-26. Has the Minister costed that in the Department of Health and Social Care revenue settlement? The Government promised to restore the 18-week hospital waiting time within this Parliament. However, their departmental modelling shows that only 80% of patients may meet that standard for routine operations. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will deliver that promise? Moving on to capital spending, the Minister says that she wants to continue the new hospitals programme, albeit more slowly than we would have done, and invest in technology, but capital budgets remain flat in real terms. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation says that this leaves “a major shortfall in capital funding”. The Nuffield Trust said that “it will be difficult for the NHS to invest in the technology and facility upgrades it needs to meet the government’s…targets.” Will the Minister explain how they will prioritise, and what will be delivered? The Government have said that they want to shift funding from hospitals to primary and community care. Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that the NHS 10-year plan will delay the planned increase in spending on primary community care until 2035, instead of 2029, as was originally promised? A key part of community care is social care, but as Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, noted, “social care…hasn’t been given the focus it needs”, and that is “a significant blocker on progress for the NHS.” Cross-party talks on reform have quietly been abandoned in favour of an independent commission led by Baroness Casey, but that process is not due to complete until 2028. Yet again, we see headline-grabbing announcements from the Government, with no delivery plan and no real reform, leaving patients, staff and families waiting for the care they desperately need. The Government aim to deliver £13.8 billion in efficiency savings by ’28-29, with more than £9 billion of that total expected to come from DHSC alone. Will the Minister clarify where, within the Department, those savings will be found, and what impact assessments have supported those decisions? The Government say that prevention is better than cure, and I agree. A good example is the “Act FAST: face, arms, speech, time” campaign, which we will all be familiar with, but just last week, in an answer to a written parliamentary question, the Minister admitted that “the Government have made reductions in the Department and NHS England’s communications and campaigns.” Can the Minister tell us which public health campaigns are to be affected? Finally, the dental contract requires reform. The Government started negotiations a year ago, yet the Public Accounts Committee has noted: “NHSE and DHSC do not yet know what reform might look like or to what timescales it can be delivered”. Will the Minister tell us when the Government expect to conclude negotiations and get on with dental reform? In summary, the Government need to stop governing by headline. They need to publish a robust evidence-based plan, and start delivering.

    Hansard source
32. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Saudi Arabia

    The creation of the Abraham accords was one of the achievements of the first Trump Administration, and the President of the US has said that he aims for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to join those accords. What are the UK Government doing to encourage that process, and what preconditions does he believe Riyadh has for joining the accords?

    Hansard source
33. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

    It has been a wide-ranging debate. I add my congratulations to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing it and introducing it so well. I pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues—my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking)—for sharing both their views, brought from their long experience in local government, and their great passion for their constituencies. I will start with the striking speech by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), who set out many of the challenges around local government finance in her constituency. I came away from that speech thinking, “Just wait until she finds out which party in government slashed the £8.8 million of rural delivery grant from her local authority, which has led it to say it is having to consult on reducing bin collections further—to just once every three weeks—and to literally turning the lights off in Shrewsbury to save the money necessary to balance the books following this local government finance settlement.” When we come to the Chamber to debate the resource departmental expenditure limit and the capital departmental expenditure limit, it is really important, as hon. Members have done, that we set out the story behind that: what it means in our constituencies for our local authorities. When we started the debate, we knew that it was against a backdrop of a Budget last year that left councils net £1.5 billion worse off because of the rise in national insurance contributions. That alone took £1.5 billion out of local authorities’ capacity. Since then, we have seen a developing backdrop of rising inflation, which is now pushing 3.5%, and deteriorating economic conditions —in particular, rising Government borrowing—which may be one of the reasons why the Government are seeking to push back borrowing the capital that funds the housing programme in the hope that costs will come down in due course. But all these things are imposing rising costs on our local authorities. I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who I know has huge experience in local government. However, as Members from across the House have demonstrated in their contributions, the impact of the Department for Education’s decisions on SEND, the impact of the Home Office’s decisions on asylum funding—for Hillingdon, which serves about two-thirds of my constituency, that is, on its own, an additional £5 million per annum cost pressure—and the impact of Department of Health and Social Care decisions on public health, which have a significant impact on the costs local authorities face, are all accumulating. That leaves the Minister and the Government with a series of difficult questions that they need to address. Having set out the existence of that substantial black hole in council budgets, and the black hole that a number of Members on all sides have referred to in housing delivery, the fact that the visible symptoms of council services, such as rough sleeping, are racing up—according to St Mungo’s charity, rough sleeping has risen by 27% in London alone—means we know that our local authorities face a significant challenge. The questions that I hope the Minister will begin to address in his summing up are around the underlying financial assumptions behind the figures that are set out in the report. We know that there is always a tendency in Whitehall to see local government finance as an opportunity to centralise credit by announcing the positive things that we want to see money spent on and localising the blame by forcing councils to fund that through rising fees and charges or increases to council tax. When it comes to ensuring that the 1.5 million homes in our country that already have planning permission are delivered, there needs to be a relentless focus on getting that money out of the door and into the hands of local authorities and others to ensure that those homes can be delivered. The Opposition will scrutinise relentlessly, in search of the evidence that that is happening. Our councils face this challenge against the backdrop of a potentially costly and disruptive reorganisation. We know that many councils have come forward with their own proposals for local government reorganisation. [Interruption.] The Minister says “All councils” from a sedentary position. All councils were asked, invited or, perhaps, required to put forward their proposals for reorganisation. However, we know that asking, for example, all the planning officers in the country to reapply for their jobs is unlikely to aid that focus on housing delivery. Will the Minister clarify the following points in his response? First, will he set out the Department’s underlying assumptions on council tax rises, fees and charges, and discounts? It seems clear from the analysis being done by local authority finance officers that the underlying assumption is that all those things will rise in every council to the maximum possible extent, simply in order to stand still. What are the Government’s underlying assumptions about business rate rises, discounts and redistribution? I note, for example, that North West Leicestershire district council, because of the business rates reset, expects to lose 67% of its spending power in one go as a result of the Budget. What are the underlying assumptions about the housing revenue account, parking revenue account and other ringfenced council budgets, so our constituents know what is coming, not just in their council tax bill but in what they may pay for parking, permits, waste services and other essential day-to-day services? Let us consider the individual cases coming in. I made reference to the impact on Shropshire of the loss of £8.8 million in rural services delivery grant, and South Holland, West Lindsey and Staffordshire Moorlands will see a 40% cut in their funding needs assessment as a result of the Budget. There are also authorities, such as Boston, that are seeing more than 40% of their budget driven to cover the costs of drainage boards. East Cambridgeshire district council sees a cut of £125,000 a year, and Fylde district council sees a rise of nil despite a headline announcement by the Government of 6.8%, once those calculations are taken into account. I know the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was here earlier on, and Harlow reports that as a consequence, the core funding—the revenue support grant—is cut by 25% this year alone. All that has a huge impact on local Government funding and what our constituents will see. I know that there are many in this Chamber with experience in local government. Our councils remain the most efficient part of our public sector, but it is clear from the many constituency-level issues and the insights we have gained in this debate that they deserve better from this Government in a much more transparent and open funding settlement, so that we know the underlying assumptions of Government and our constituents can understand what will happen to their council tax bills and their household budgets.

    Hansard source
34. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    Chagos Archipelago: Sovereignty

    14. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago will come from his Department.

    Hansard source
35. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    Chagos Archipelago: Sovereignty

    I had hoped for a more precise answer to my question. Rather than pressing again for exact figures or a departmental breakdown, let me proceed down a related line of inquiry. Is there any mechanism, legal or otherwise, that the Mauritian Government could use to reopen the Chagos negotiations or to request further financial or material assistance in a way that could result in additional cost to the British taxpayer?

    Hansard source
36. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    National Security Strategy

    Labour has repeatedly stated that food security is national security—a point with which I and many of my constituents wholeheartedly agree—yet there remains a clear disconnect between that rhetoric and the substance of current policy. Beyond the announced biosecurity measures, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster genuinely believe that the national security strategy goes far enough to address the resilience of domestic food supply chains, the risk posed by climate change to agriculture, and systemic vulnerabilities in our food system?

    Hansard source
37. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    China Audit

    On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China?

    Hansard source
38. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Department for Education

    This debate is a very important opportunity to discuss the upcoming cuts in the Department for Education. We know from the estimates document that overall resource departmental expenditure limits are coming down. We are told that that is largely a technical change as a result of changes to the student loan book, but I have to say that these are rather large numbers to come from such technical changes. From the comprehensive spending review document, we know that like other Departments, the Department for Education has agreed to 5% in savings and efficiencies. What that document does not explain, however, is 5% of what. Presumably, it is not 5% of the entirety of the DFE’s budget, because the DFE is different from many other Departments in that so much of its spend goes directly to schools, colleges and early years settings providing for children. According to the estimates, the DFE’s admin spend is actually increasing. Part of that, of course—in line with so many other private and public sector organisations across the country—is the extra costs imposed by the increase in national insurance contributions, so what are those efficiencies? I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today. So many things have already been cut, including the discretionary spend that helps children to achieve their best, with everything from Latin to computer science and the cadets programme. I do not think there are many more things that can be taken out, but perhaps the Minister can tell us. In particular, I would like her to reassure us that the primary physical education and sport premium is safe. Will she please do that in winding up?

    Hansard source
39. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Department for Education

    My right hon. Friend makes powerful points, including about the additional unfunded cost pressures for nursery providers—of course, that argument also extends to regular state-funded schools. The one thing I might quibble with is his statement that this Labour Government came in promising to do so much for education. Actually, the Labour manifesto was rather light on commitments on education. The biggest ones were, first of all, the commitment to roll out mental health support teams to cover all schools in the country. On closer examination, that commitment turns out to be not just similar to, but identical to, the policy of the previous Government, which was to roll out mental health support teams to cover all schools in the country. The second high-profile commitment was about breakfast clubs. The maths on breakfast clubs are something of a mystery to me, because I have heard Ministers repeatedly say that having a breakfast club is going to save parents £450 a year, but they are reimbursing schools £150 a year. Where is the rest of that money supposed to come from? It is also true that some schools—including some in my constituency—already have a breakfast club that is charged at a reasonable rate, so they will lose revenue from their existing breakfast club. Before anyone says, “You have to think about whether it should be charged for or not,” it is worth remembering that the breakfast club provision that already exists is typically reimbursable for families on universal credit at a rate of up to 85%, to the extent that it is childcare that is enabling parents to go to work. Then, of course, there is the famous—or infamous—commitment to 6,500 additional teachers. Colleagues might remember that that commitment was going to be paid for by the receipts on VAT from private schools. The Government now say that VAT from private schools is going to pay for housing, not for teachers. It is not clear that that policy is going to raise much revenue to spend on anything, given that the most recent figures show a fall in the number of children at independent schools. Those are the Government’s own figures. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon?

    Hansard source
40. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Department for Education

    The most recent figures—the Government’s own figures—show a fall of 11,000 in the number of children at independent schools. Of course, the number of teachers in the state sector is not going up in this country; it is coming down. The Government have tried to have this every possible way. There is a line in their manifesto that is very clear—it comes up more than once. It says that Labour is going to recruit “6,500 new expert teachers in key subjects”. When asked repeatedly what key subjects they had in mind, they refused to say. Eventually they said that these teachers will be recruited—I think am I quoting this correctly, but if not absolutely accurately then pretty close—from schools and colleges across the country. Then some numbers came out showing that the number of teachers in primary schools had gone down. Funnily enough, the target was then redefined so that it did not include primary school teachers; it would include only secondary school teachers. That brings us back to this question: if it is only secondary schools, where teachers have specialist subjects, what are the key subjects that will count towards this number? If the Government just meant any subject, the word “key” would not be there. What do they mean by expert teachers? If they mean simply teachers with qualified teacher status—[Interruption.] I think the Minister might be readying herself to intervene.

    Hansard source