5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill

   As is now routine, I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Yesterday the Government voted not to introduce a backstop to decide on the Hughes report. I submitted a written question that also had a deadline of last night to ask when they were going to respond, and they have not answered that either. Taking their time about something is one thing, but for the Government to completely ignore victims, refusing to give an answer and refusing to provide a backstop or a deadline, is frankly shameful. Patient safety is really important, and one key element to improving it is striking a good balance between accountability and blame. If we do not hold people accountable for their actions, they may not be as careful, but if they feel that their superiors are looking to find fault, they will be defensive and may cover things up. That makes it hard to get to the root cause and prevent mistakes from happening again. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body, or HSSIB, was set up with this problem in mind. Like the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, it has a safe space. This means that people are not held legally responsible for what they reveal to that team. They can then get to the bottom of why things are going wrong and find system errors. People come forward because they know and trust that HSSIB is independent, but this Labour Government want to change that. The Health Bill will abolish HSSIB and transfer all its functions to the Care Quality Commission—the body responsible for regulating health and social care. This is the same CQC that, according to Ministers, is not fit for purpose. Why are the Government doing this? Ministers cite a review by Dr Penny Dash that said that the patient safety landscape was “cluttered” and “fragmented”, but too many different organisations are producing too many recommendations. That report was narrow in scope, and the clutter is not caused by HSSIB. In recent years, 30 public inquiries produced 1,400 recommendations, but HSSIB produced just 56. The Government have suggested that moving HSSIB into the CQC can improve the quality of care and safety, but it is not clear how. People come forward to HSSIB precisely because it is a safe space, and this Government are removing the confidence in that safe space. For the new set-up to work, frontline workers will need to believe that the new unit in the CQC is independent, despite the law making it clear that it is not. The Government’s impact assessment says that the national quality board will provide clear direction to the new investigations unit, but the national quality board is tied to the NHS, so how does that square with the new unit staying independent? The impact assessment also says that the vast majority of investigations are expected to be directed by the Health Secretary. How can we be sure that the new unit will have the power and resources to look at things that might be politically difficult for the Government? How will the people in charge of the CQC balance the responsibility of investigating with the responsibility of maintaining that safe space?

   Hansard source
2. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill

   Absolutely; my hon. Friend has obviously read my speech. What would happen if the new unit identified the CQC itself as the problem? Ministers have not provided good answers to these questions. To be honest, they cannot, because the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. Either HSSIB remains independent or it is folded into the CQC and loses its independence. The Government are either decluttering the landscape by removing an organisation or simply hiding it inside another organisation, to the detriment of both. We have tabled amendment 1 to protect HSSIB, and I urge the Government to support it in the interests of patient safety.

   Hansard source
3. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill

   As always, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. HSSIB has recently produced a report, which it would benefit the Government to listen to. The House will be aware that the advice and guidance service provides GPs with specialist advice, which sometimes avoids referrals. However, Ministers have made it mandatory to ask for advice before certain types of referrals, and set an aim for one in four referrals to be diverted back. The Government said that they were not rationing care or meddling with waiting lists—that there was nothing to see here, and that the Opposition were spreading misinformation—but HSSIB has published an interim report linking this process to delays in patient care, including cancer diagnoses. New clause 141 asks the Government to suspend the new process until they have properly considered it.

   Hansard source
4. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill

   I absolutely do. The Government have said that the CQC is not fit for purpose, yet they are now asking it to do things it did not do before, including not only HSSIB but event healthcare management, as the hon. Lady will be aware. It is absolutely right that the Government pause and think this one through again. One of our other amendments concerns puberty blockers. One of the first rules of medicine is primum non nocere—first, do no harm—and yet here we have a Labour Government sponsoring a £10.6 million trial to put 226 physically healthy children as young as 11 on puberty-blocking drugs. That was said to make the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), “uneasy”. Why was he uneasy? Perhaps because these are powerful drugs that could cause serious long-term harm, because most children get better by themselves, because we cannot reliably identify which children will persist with a trans identity and which will not, because the huge increase in girls experiencing gender dysphoria has not been adequately explained or because the Tavistock data has not yet been reviewed in the data linkage study. There are many reasons for concern, but I am aware that we are short of time. It is difficult for a clinician to tell which children’s symptoms will self-resolve and which will not. As a result, we risk putting a large number of children on puberty blockers to assess the effects on, as the former Health Secretary put it, a “very small subset of a very small group”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.] That means the results of the investigation may be unreliable, and it could cause unnecessary harm to children, so why are the Government not ensuring that the data linkage study is, at the very least, done first?

   Hansard source
5. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill

   I am not sure why the hon. Member has reached that conclusion. I am saying that this is based on biology, and people who are trans require the same protections as people who are not—that is what I have said very clearly. The Darlington nurses were particularly brave in bringing their case forward. The cost was £187,000 in damages after an employment tribunal ruled in favour of them. That is a victory for dignity, for women and for common sense, but it is also a significant cost of public money to an NHS trust because it decided not to follow the law. That money could have been spent on patient care. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that this guidance is fully and properly implemented across the NHS? How will she ensure that a repeat of the Darlington nurses case does not happen again, and what guidance has been given to NHS managers on how to handle this? The Minister for Women and Equalities did not help matters. She had the responsibility to sign off the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice to inform businesses, services and public bodies how to implement the Supreme Court’s guidance in law. But for over a year, the Government failed to lift a finger to enforce the law. For over a year, businesses, hospitals, service providers and public bodies were left waiting for the Government to tell them what the official guidance said. Now that it is here, we need to know how it is being implemented. How will the Minister ensure that this guidance is implemented universally in our NHS? How will the Government ensure that single-sex spaces are protected? What provision will they make for transgender individuals? What reassurance can the Minister give to women working in our NHS that they are safe? Our new clause 143 makes it clear that both staff and patients in the NHS must have access to single-sex spaces to protect their dignity and their privacy. I hope the Minister will be able to support this; I cannot see why she would not. The Government have also decided to abolish Healthwatch and reduce the number of local Healthwatch branches. Healthwatch England has been engaging with patients since 2013, with more than 150 operating in a hub-and-spoke model, but that is about to change. Why? One reason seems to be to avoid duplication. The Government are clearly not keen on lots of Healthwatch branches doing the same thing in different areas of the country and feel that some branches may operate better than others. They say that they want to bring feedback closer to decision makers, but is that a good idea? The Government could have chosen to improve Healthwatch as it stands. In 2023-24, more than 925,000 people used Healthwatch to get advice and information, and more than 300,000 shared their experiences to improve services. They could have increased awareness further and developed a clear feedback chain, but instead they have decided to abolish Healthwatch altogether. That is of grave concern. How can patients be expected to complain to the system about the system? The Prime Minister previously wrote: “People speak to Healthwatch because they are outside the system—they are impartial, trusted, and provide a safe space for concerns to be shared.” On that, he was right, and I ask the Minister to accept our amendment on this subject. We have tabled a number of other amendments, including one on fracture liaison services, one that would produce a modern service framework for musculoskeletal care and others on radiotherapy, respiratory health, brain injury and the Government’s new medical devices regulations. However, I appreciate that we are short of time, so I will just make two short comments, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, First, I of course agree with the intent of the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 140, but it requires the presence of HSSIB, and since the Government seem hellbent on removing that, I do not know how the amendment would work. New clause 81, a Back-Bench amendment that has been selected by Mr Speaker, relates to another really important issue. As a paediatrician, I see the importance of what it suggests. The regulations would need to be carefully drafted for those who have a brief illness, to define life-threatening illness more clearly and to avoid duplication of work, but in principle, it is an important amendment. I commend our amendments to the House.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Topical Questions

   In his previous role, the Chancellor demonstrated that he is a man of principle who is able to advocate for change, even when politically difficult. Where the evidence shows that Labour policies are harming businesses and jobs, will he also advocate a change of course?

   Hansard source
7. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

   Currently, the Royal Navy has an offshore patrol vessel permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands, but given the threat that is being faced and our need to demonstrate resolve—the sort of thing that, sadly, we did not demonstrate in the early 1980s, which led to miscalculation—will the Minister consider speaking to her MOD colleagues to see whether naval assets might at least pay a visit to the Falkland Islands, with a significant platform?

   Hansard source
8. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Israel and Palestine

   Since the Foreign Secretary is not going to get the co-operation, fulsome or otherwise, of the Israeli state in differentiating goods and services made in the settlements from those that are assembled, repackaged, produced and grown in Israel itself, how is he going to distinguish the one from the other?

   Hansard source
9. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

   Conflict in Sudan

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), not just for her thoughtful contribution but for securing this debate. It is so important that we take every opportunity we can to shine a light on this conflict. The International Development Committee, of which I am a member, has relentlessly sought to bring forward evidence to enable discussion of the issue, but we have failed to get the widespread coverage and attention that it most certainly deserves. I recognise the focus that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), brought to the conflict during her time in office; the same applies to the former development Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I am sure that the new Minister, whom I welcome to her post, will do likewise. Nevertheless, as I said, Sudan remains chronically under-reported. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for development, I want to focus most of my remarks on the appalling reality of hunger and acute malnutrition, which represent some of the most brutal consequences of the ongoing conflict. Famine conditions are no longer a distant warning; they are an already present reality. Acute malnutrition among children under five and breastfeeding mothers is projected to surge from 3.7 million last year to nearly 4.2 million in 2026. Furthermore, Save the Children estimates that cases of severe acute malnutrition will rise by a further 4% to a devastating 800,000. We saw the horrific realities of the crisis just two weeks ago with the totally unacceptable attack on a World Food Programme convoy in Kordofan. Civilian personnel were injured and lifesaving aid was destroyed. Aid has become a weapon in this conflict, so I urge the Minister to continue to exert every possible diplomatic lever to ensure that El Obeid does not suffer the same fate as El Fasher, where starvation was used as a weapon of war, with local food supply chains systematically targeted in preparation for the siege and eventual massacre. I recognise that the Minister and her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must navigate delicate regional dynamics, but the Government must not shy away from forcefully challenging the covert actions of some of our Gulf allies in Sudan, both publicly and in private diplomacy. That would be totally consistent with the statement earlier in the House of Commons about elsewhere in the middle east. Crucially, as I understand it, the UN arms embargo is due to expire, so the UK must act. The United States has rightly called for its expansion and extension. As UN Security Council penholder, the UK has a distinct moral and diplomatic duty to lead these negotiations at the upcoming UN General Assembly and press relentlessly for a humanitarian truce, a permanent ceasefire, robust civilian protection, civic engagement and unhindered aid access. This war has created the largest forced displacement crisis on the planet. Egypt alone is currently hosting some 1.5 million refugees fleeing from the violence. Compounding that, severe El Niño weather events now threaten fragile food supply chains across east Africa, with UNICEF warning of intensifying drought, extreme heat and flooding that will further afflict vulnerable children. Our humanitarian response must be prioritised to mitigate that environmental pressure and include renewed efforts to secure a stable, civilian-led peace in accordance with the Berlin principles.

   Hansard source
10. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Conflict in Sudan

    I absolutely agree. I—and the Minister, I am sure—would like the Quad that was established to be more effective in relation to the involvement of the United States and neighbouring countries, with those neighbouring countries playing a positive role rather than supporting the protagonists in the conflict. As the right hon. Member for Oxford East has previously said, the greater involvement of the African Union would be most welcome, but that has not really developed. We are deluding ourselves if we believe that the consequences of the conflict can be contained in Sudan and neighbouring countries. Displacement will not stop at Egypt, particularly given that the camps are under pressure. Failing to properly support host countries and to address the conflict will ensure that the pressures are delivered closer to home, so it is totally in our interests to resolve the conflict. We must do everything we can to achieve that.

    Hansard source
11. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Conflict in Sudan

    Will the Minister commit—the previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) certainly indicated this—to being proactive in bringing statements to the House of Commons in relation to the situation in Sudan? Many of the previous statements have had to come as a result of urgent questions. Proactivity from her Department would be welcomed across the House and would be helpful in shining a light on the issue.

    Hansard source
12. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Health Bill

    I welcome the Secretary of State back, as it were, to the Department. As we debate Third Reading of the Bill, she is the third Secretary of State for this Bill. It was about 40 minutes after First Reading that the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) resigned. I wonder which bit he had just spotted. We wish the Secretary of State well, though, and not only because of her East Hampshire heritage. There will be times when we disagree entirely, and there will be times when we find commonality, but at all times it is our job to scrutinise the Government in the interests of the public and on behalf of the dedicated professionals and other staff in these most vital of sectors. It is also my first opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). He took on that responsibility in the very finest traditions of this House. He had and has respect and admiration across the House, and I know his approach was much appreciated by so many working in and in support of health and social care. This has been a big Bill, and I thank the Public Bill Committee for all the work they did. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who was the Whip and is now a shadow Minister, and everybody on that Committee. We will not divide on Third Reading, because there are important things in this Bill that we support. However, there is a great deal of concern about a huge IT project with no detail behind it as yet. It should put a shiver down any incoming Minister’s back when they hear that they have been bequeathed a large public sector IT transformation project. The Government are taking oversight out and putting that inside the body that is meant to oversee things, removing patient voice and, most of all, doing an enormous top-down reorganisation of the NHS. There have already been 10 of those since 1974. If the answer to the NHS’s problems was a top-down reorganisation, perhaps one of the previous ones would have worked. Whatever the outcome, and whatever this legislation ends up being, I know that the other place will be scrutinising it closely. We will scrutinise its implementation and what difference it actually makes in the end for patients. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    Hansard source
13. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Economic Growth

    I welcome the Chancellor to his new role. I paid close attention yesterday to the long speech he made to reset the narrative and drive growth Britain. In paying tribute to his predecessor, will he recognise that she left the highest tax burden on record? Instead of postponing the words he could utter to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), could he make a short speech today from the Dispatch Box to say that he does not plan to increase the tax burden further?

    Hansard source
14. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Online Safety

    I also warmly welcome this announcement. The sheer number of young people whose lives have been impacted by this issue is a damning indictment of a collective failure to keep children safe. Let us not forget that major tech companies have the capability to implement device-level controls but have chosen not to do so. As far as I am concerned, it is simply unforgivable that those companies innovate quickly on new products, yet so slowly on children’s safety. Given Ofcom’s sluggish implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, can the Secretary of State explain to me how compliance with this policy will be monitored, and what sanctions will be available to address non-compliance?

    Hansard source
15. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Health Bill

    I will speak about new clause 41, which stands in my name. We put enormous, unquestioning trust in those who care for the bodies of our loved ones when they die. However, in this Chamber six months ago, I told a former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), about Elkin and Bell, the Gosport funeral directors who left 46 bodies decaying in an unrefrigerated room. One of them, an elderly gentleman whose family had already paid for his cremation, was left decomposing for 36 days. I said then that the funeral sector was nothing better than a lawless wild west with no mandatory qualifications to practise, no accreditation for professionals, no licensing of businesses, no inspection of premises, and no law to fall back on when things go wrong. It was only persistence and ingenuity on the part of Hampshire constabulary that saw Elkin and Bell brought to justice. The Minister at the time told me that a decision on regulation would come in the Government’s full answer to the Fuller inquiry, and we are still awaiting. Since then, matters have worsened. In July, Robert Bush, a funeral director in Hull, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to 67 charges for bodies left decomposing in squalor. Forty-six grieving families had been reunited with the wrong ashes, but the real horror is that these will not be isolated cases. Under the law as it stands today, almost anyone can set themselves up as a funeral director.

    Hansard source
16. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Health Bill

    I genuinely could not agree more. This is not at attack on the profession. The vast majority of funeral directors do their job with extraordinary skill, great care and huge professional integrity. It is precisely because of the trust that grieving families place in them every single day that we cannot allow a rogue minority to drag the reputation of the whole sector through the mud. In a written statement on 1 September, the Government said they intended that proposals for regulation would be forthcoming, but they set out no timetable, and detailed plans were promised only “in due course”. Families have already waited years and cannot be expected to wait indefinitely. New clause 41 would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill passing, to extend the remit of the Human Tissue Authority beyond hospital mortuaries, which it currently covers, to funeral directors, private mortuaries, direct cremation services and any other organisation that transports or holds the bodies of the deceased.

    Hansard source
17. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Health Bill

    I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the fantastic work that he did as shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and he is absolutely right. We really need the full response to the Fuller report in order to implement not only changes to mortuaries, but all the other amendments that it recommended. New clause 41 would place a duty on the Human Tissue Authority to establish and maintain a register of every business brought within its oversight, with how that register operates set by regulation, so that for the first time a grieving family could check, before they hand over the body of a loved one, whether the business in front of them is properly overseen. I recognise that the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) has tabled new clause 42 on a new, bespoke freestanding regulator. Both new clauses would fix the same issue, and either will do. The key thing is that this is a moment for the Government to seize, not resist. Ministers have already said that, in principle, they agree with what new clause 41 would require of them. Every trade body agrees. Every family who has been failed agrees. Every Member from across the House who signed our letter agrees. It feels like the Government agree, so I ask the Minister to tell the House exactly when a statutory scheme will be brought forward by the Department of Health and Social Care, and to set out the timetable for implementation. None of us is comfortable dwelling on our own mortality, which is exactly why the funeral sector has gone on for so long without proper scrutiny. It is a truism—we hear it all the time—that funerals are for the living; they are for families to say goodbye to their loved ones with dignity. They should be able to grieve without the added horror of questioning whether the body they buried was the right one, or whether the ashes they scattered belonged to the right person. Robert Bush’s sentencing should be the last time that this House has to debate such a gruesome case, but it will not be unless the Government push ahead to close this regulatory black hole.

    Hansard source
18. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Topical Questions

    T2. I doubt that businesses in East Yorkshire will have taken much comfort from the Chancellor’s words today. With youth unemployment spiralling out of control, what is his message to young people in my constituency unable to find a job as a direct result of the punishing business taxes of his predecessor?

    Hansard source
19. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities

    On the surface, this revision introduces the legal right to reasonable paid time off for union equality representatives, ensures that representatives can hold multiple positions—thus increasing the provisions under which they qualify for more time off—puts a greater onus on employers in tribunals, and legally requires employers to provide reasonable means to support representatives in carrying out their jobs. Yet it does far more than that: it burdens businesses with yet more regulatory red tape, further decreases employment opportunities and compounds the hardship that employers already face. Higher employment costs through increased administrative expenditure, unaffordable additional paid leave and legal tribunal expenses are a fast track to job scarcity. A recent survey of more than 1,000 business owners found that one in five lacked confidence in the new trade union rules. Furthermore, 69% of employers believed that trade unions still have the power to cause serious problems for the UK economy, while 62% believed that the UK is entering a new, more unstable period of employment relations. Yet rather than heed those warnings and work with businesses to create a viable solution, the Government persist with such policies, despite being aware of the risks. This is a tough time for employers and workers. Employers are seeing rising costs all around them, and workers are watching their budgets get stretched thinner as the cost of living continues to mount. A solution is needed, but this approach will only create new challenges. The increased presence of trade unions is anticipated to escalate the number of strikes taking place across the economy. Data from the European company survey shows that strike incidence is directly higher in establishments where trade union density is greater. Furthermore, trade union membership in the public sector sits at 48.5%, compared with only 12.1% in the private sector. Research shows that since 2000 the number of days lost to strikes per worker has been 30 times higher in the public sector than in the private sector, despite public sector earnings rising faster. In a scenario of escalating industrial action, who is likely to be profoundly impacted? A persistent casualty demographic is the general public. It is unacceptable that the Government are looking to create a set of circumstances conducive to increased strikes, which burden the British public—and at the taxpayer’s expense, no less. That is why we will vote against this draft code. Rather than expand the scope of paid time off for union representatives, the Government should scrap this legal burden on employers and redirect important taxpayer funds to frontline priorities such as the NHS and national infrastructure. Businesses have already suffered harmful setbacks under this Government: increases to national insurance contributions, mounting energy bills, business rate modifications and the Employment Rights Act, which 86% of industry leaders warned would harm UK growth. The Government claim to be pro-worker yet continue to enact policies that shrink workforces and empty the public’s pockets. I am both pro-worker and pro-business, and so is my party. We are steadfast in our belief that we must support businesses and entrepreneurs, who not only prop up our economy but take risks needed to provide employment. I also firmly believe that the Government must support workers by ensuring that they can keep as much of their own money as possible. That is how to truly bolster UK business and meaningfully assist the hard-working taxpayer simultaneously. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plan to ensure that their policies on trade unions do not lead to further job losses? If not, will they accept our suggestions?

    Hansard source
20. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities

    Does the Minister accept that in settling trade disputes, the Government should emphasise increases in productivity, not just blanket above-inflation pay rises?

    Hansard source
21. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again and for securing this Adjournment debate. Does he agree that there is a particularly predatory aspect upon the death of a resident who has occupied one of these properties? I would like to use this moment to pay tribute to Alex Roll, a constituent of mine whose mother’s estate has been crawled all over by predatory management companies that have seen an opportunity to effectively seize the assets of someone who worked tirelessly through their life. This system urgently needs reform—it is desperate for it.

    Hansard source
22. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

    The Falkland Islands were British long before Argentina even came into existence, but the key is building a diplomatic ability to ensure that that message goes home loud and clear. What efforts are the Minister and other Ministers in the Foreign Office making to build that diplomatic alliance, so that we do not get into a position in which military action is necessary?

    Hansard source
23. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Israel and Palestine

    This is a sad day for the UK-Israel relationship, given the risks of what the Foreign Secretary is doing. Affecting the Israeli elections by making even moderate politicians even more hawkish is a huge risk. Equally, this is strengthening the Arabs’ view that suddenly they can actually destroy the state of Israel, and indeed giving a victory to the BDS movement, which will look at full sanctions. He will know that it is very difficult to differentiate between products and services on either side of the green line, and this runs the risk of a full boycott of Israeli goods. What assessment has he made of the impact of his proposal, and what discussions has he had with his opposite number in Israel?

    Hansard source
24. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

    I am glad to see the Government adopting a robust posture when it comes to the Falkland Islands, but this time last year at the UN General Assembly, when the President of Argentina staked a claim on the Falkland Islands, neither the former Minister for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), nor the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), had anything to say about the matter. I would like some assurances that the Prime Minister will tackle President Milei at the UN General Assembly later this month. The Minister talks about the military capability in the Falklands, but I gently remind her that three of the offshore patrol vessels that we currently have rotating through the Falklands are due to be sold to the Uruguayan navy in the next 18 months, and four of the Typhoons that we have down there—the Tranche 1s—are due to be decommissioned next year. As a staging post to get to the Falkland Islands, the Ascension Island is a key location, but it is shared as a base with the US. Is she confident that the US would have no problems whatsoever with our using that base should we need to take military action against Argentina?

    Hansard source
25. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Topical Questions

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me pay tribute to my own predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and let me welcome the Chancellor to his role. He is already responsible for the highest borrowing costs for 28 years. One in six of our young people are unemployed and yesterday we had the news that one of Britain’s top taxpayers is leaving our country. Every time a billionaire leaves, our country becomes poorer. Chris Rokos is reported to have paid over £300 million in taxes last year. Could the Chancellor tell us how many average taxpayers it will take to replace him?

    Hansard source
26. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Topical Questions

    The Chancellor does not know the answer. On the Treasury’s own statistics, it would take 38,000 average income tax payers to make up for the loss of Chris Rokos. That is a lot of breathing space paid for. It means higher taxes for everyone else, or lower public spending. We know what Labour will choose. The last Chancellor raised taxes on farmers, family businesses and jobs. Conservatives will reform welfare to cut taxes; Labour always puts them up. Which, if any, of his predecessor’s damaging decisions will the Chancellor reverse?

    Hansard source
27. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alan Mak

    Economic Growth

    This week, Arthur Laffer, economic adviser to three former US Presidents, said Britain is being taxed to death under this Labour Government, so will the Chancellor rule out tax rises in the Budget?

    Hansard source
28. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Topical Questions

    Despite what we have heard from the Minister, colleagues have been talking about the issue of developments near railway stations. That has a practical consequence for the rural village of Long Buckby in my constituency. Land that is currently in open countryside, beyond the village boundary, will now be designated as a priority area. That gives no consideration to the distinction between a rural village and an urban area. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue in detail?

    Hansard source
29. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

    Will the Minister clarify how many people are within scope of benefiting from the regulation and what the total cost will be, in terms of the savings they will get?

    Hansard source
30. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

    I speak to my brief exchange earlier with the Minister. As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, said, the draft regulations are fairly benign and very welcome to help people who are struggling with their bills. Fundamentally, however, when changing the law, it behoves us to understand who is within the scope of that change and what adverse impacts there might be as a result. A cohort of people will be just about managing to pay their bills, yet there will be a cost to this measure, welcomed though it has largely been by the Committee in the speeches so far. What is unclear to me, however, is the cost. For this measure to substantively help people with their energy debt in a meaningful way, one assumes a significant cost as a result of being able to share the data in order to write off those bills. Therefore, for the Minister to make the claim that it is helping—as she did—one assumes that she will know what the cost is of the change to the law that she has brought to the Committee. Given that, it also behoves us to understand who will pick up the cost of the measure. I was therefore surprised that in the Minister’s remarks, she did not touch on that cohort just above the other one—some people who can pay the addition to their energy bills without any difficulty whatever. We all represent constituents—indeed, the Government frequently talk about the pressure of the cost of living on them—who are just struggling. Indeed, they are those who, to coin a phrase, need some breathing space. They are just about affording their bills, but they will not be covered by the protections in the draft regulations; quite the reverse—they will be the ones who bear the cost. One assumes that the Minister has not brought in a change in the law without being clear about what the cost of that change is or what the impact might be on some of those struggling to pay their bills. In her wind-up, will she clarify those two figures? What is the cost of the amount of debt that is going to be written off, and how many people are potentially within scope of being pushed into that cohort because their bills will go up? We did not have those figures, but I hope she now has the inspiration from the Box to answer those points.

    Hansard source
31. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

    When I was reading the draft regulations, I was confused, because I thought they mentioned a Department that had been scrapped. It seems odd to bring in a change in the law for a Department that the Government have already scrapped.

    Hansard source
32. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Less than two months ago, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor rushed to the House on the last day before recess, to say how essential these measures were, and Conservative Members warned that it was gerrymandering. It is not that the Secretary of State has listened; she has been told by her lawyers that it is gerrymandering. The warning signs were there two months ago when plans for Cambridgeshire were paused. When again announcing a pause for Cambridgeshire, will she tell my constituents how long the pause will be, and how much it will cost?

    Hansard source
33. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Economic Growth

    Is it not bizarre that just a few hours after the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government came to the House to pause local government reorganisation on the basis of legal risk, so that she can have more consultation, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “We will bring an end to consultation culture and, with guidance from the Attorney General on legal risk, give Ministers the confidence to make decisions”? Will they have a greater appetite for legal risk, or will they pause to have more consultations? The two Ministers are saying opposite things.

    Hansard source
34. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Health Bill

    I rise to speak to clause 1 on the abolition of NHS England and clause 6 on promoting innovation. What characterises the first of those is an announcement without any clear plan. That is what has driven the cost and confusion that a number of Members across the House have spoken about. Those in any doubt about that can just look at NHS England’s own 2025-26 annual accounts, which show that the costs are already more than £100 million higher than forecast and now sit at above half a billion pounds. I do not recall seeing that on election leaflets. Indeed, just six directors at NHS England are being paid over £800,000, and that points to the cost. Sometimes such big figures are hard for constituents to get their heads around. Just to localise it to my own constituency, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB alone paid out £14 million in redundancies last year. It merged with a number of other ICBs to form the Central East ICB, yet we know hear from the Government that it should align with metro mayors, which means going back to exactly what it was before: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB. That is just one of many confusions around the announcement. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about confusion over the timetable and what was described to the media as now an impossible timetable. We also saw reports in the media this weekend about the destination of staff in NHS England. Can they actually go into the Department, or will another body be set up because of the pay disparity between the two? All this is around 18 months on from the actual announcement. The confusion seems to extend to the Government themselves, because they seem unable to answer pretty straightforward written parliamentary questions. Given the time limit, I will give just a few examples. I asked how many people have been hired to NHS England since the announcement of its abolition, not least given the huge cost—over half a billion pounds—of voluntary redundancies. Despite the deadline passing, the Minister has not answered the question. We know from another written parliamentary question that more than 1,000 jobs have been advertised. It is relevant to know, in an organisation that is paying people to leave, how many people it is hiring. I also asked how many people had accepted voluntary redundancy, another written parliamentary question that has passed the deadline without answer. The process is characterised by a lack of transparency.

    Hansard source
35. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Health Bill

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government are spending millions of pounds and there is no plan. The measure was announced without working that out, it came as a surprise to many within the system, and it has had a chilling effect on many decisions. That is not isolated. Just today, we had the complete shambles of local government reorganisation. On the last day before the summer recess, the then Secretary of State rushed to the House to push through an announcement, which the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is now reversing, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is contradicting her by saying that the Government want to have a higher legal appetite for risk and fewer consultations. There is confusion across Departments, and the issues with clause 1, which a number of Members have spoken to, illustrate that. Given the time limit, I will turn to clause 6. I do not doubt for a minute that the Health Minister and the Secretary of State—anyone in the Department—want to promote innovation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) spoke a lot about capital to revenue switches in his book, and the pressure that takes away from innovation. As Health Secretary, I used to have a wry smile at the battles I had with him, when I was pushed by the Treasury to do exactly the same thing. The issue is not the lack of will; the issue is the alignment between procurement, regulation and clinical leadership, particularly in the colleges, as well as the ability to scale innovation—it is not about having more ministerial pilots. Finally, because I am almost out of time, I will pick up on the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee’s good points around data. When I was in the Department, my frustration was that I often had to go on open-source dashboards to get information that should have been available to me as a Minister, and I suspect that that is still the case. We should make data dashboards a common theme—the CSV files that the Department publishes are extremely difficult to access. Make data more transparent; it will help the debate in Parliament and, I dare say, it will help Ministers get more support.

    Hansard source
36. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Economic Growth

    For some years I have known the proprietor of a small to medium-sized aviation company that has come up with revolutionary aircraft designs with both civilian and military applications, but every time the Government of the day have ended up supporting the big operators in this field. How will the right hon. Lady’s new policy towards unicorns benefit somebody like that?

    Hansard source
37. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Local Government Reorganisation

    My constituents never asked for local government reorganisation. They do not support local government reorganisation, which they see as leading to decisions being taken by a more remote, more expensive and less accountable authority. Will the Secretary of State confirm that maintaining the status quo is at least an option as a part of her review, and will she also say whether the intention is still to go ahead with the mayoral election in Essex in 2028?

    Hansard source
38. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Health Bill

    I want to start by thanking the Minister for the emphasis that the Bill places on a single patient record. Despite many problems in NHS care, that is an area where the NHS is a world leader, but putting a single patient record on the right legal footing, making it possible to share data with proper governance, gives the NHS an opportunity to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, and it creates the opportunity to transform care for patients, so that has my full support. I speak in support of new clause 25. The biggest structural reform in this Bill is the abolition of NHS England, but my worry is that there are other structural reforms that are not in the Bill that would have a much bigger impact on patient care. New clause 25 is about continuity of care, particularly in general practice and maternity. It is now very clear to many people that the abolition of the old GP list system in the 2004 contract changes was a huge mistake. In fact, restoring the system so that GPs have their own patients was part of the Labour manifesto, so that is an issue that the Government understand, but it is not in the Bill. A study in Norway, published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2022, of over 4 million patients showed that patients who have their own doctor for more than 15 years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need hospital care and 25% less likely to die. Why is that? Because GPs who know their patients are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to give an accurate diagnosis and will better calibrate risk, as they will have situational awareness of a patient and their family. The experience of a patient is infinitely better when they are dealing with a GP whom they know. Instead of that, we have moved to a system in which many GP surgeries effectively operate like call centres. People will contact a GP and they may never see that GP again. It is exactly the same when someone calls 111, if you get put through to a clinician. Contacting a GP in the NHS should never be like calling an Uber driver who will never be seen again.

    Hansard source
39. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Health Bill

    My right hon. Friend is speaking wisely. Of course, this is not just about massively improving care for patients—it is also about improving motivation for doctors and GPs, who are among the most demoralised groups in the NHS. There is a GP surgery in Horfield, in the Bristol area, that kept the old GP list system, as 10% of surgeries have done. When I chaired the Health and Social Care Committee, I interviewed Dr Lee from that surgery and he said that because around 60% of the patients they see every day are their own patients, they do not have any problem with GP retention. The GPs who go to work there are happy, because they are seeing people they know. That would be transformative for morale inside general practice. People might very reasonably say, “Well, you were in that job for rather a long time. Why didn’t you restore that system?”. I want to share a little secret with the House: I did actually try to do that. I changed the GP contract in 2015 so that every NHS patient in England has a named, accountable clinician. Unfortunately, I was outfoxed by the system. As a result of that change, on every electronic patient record, every one of us here will have a named accountable GP on the record. However, absolutely nothing else changed, and the NHS continued as it had done. The Bill offers a real opportunity to transform care, as well as transforming life for GPs and patients. The same principle applies to maternity care. We know from inquiry after inquiry that despite reams of recommendations, things have not been getting better. If every mum was told at the moment she knew that she was pregnant, “This is the team who will be responsible for the safe delivery of your baby, in antenatal, birthing and post-natal,” we would restore the personal connection to maternity care. That is one of the biggest issues coming from so many mothers; they say that they feel anonymous in the system, and not listened to. At its best, the NHS delivers absolutely incredible care—I have three wonderful children who exist because of amazing NHS care—but at its worst, it turns patients into numbers and human suffering into box-ticking. Lots of things are necessary to turn that around, but one of the biggest things is restoring continuity of care, so that every patient always knows who is the doctor responsible for their care. That is why I urge the Government to consider how to restore continuity of care in both general practice and maternity, if that is not going to be done through this Bill.

    Hansard source
40. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Topical Questions

    Increased energy costs, increased material costs, the increased cost of employing people, particularly young people, the increased cost of bureaucracy and business taxes are all pushing up the cost of building and squeezing the viability of projects. Does the Secretary of State not realise that her Government’s policies are making it harder for young people to get on the housing ladder, or does she simply not care?

    Hansard source