Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The gov.uk website, which has not been updated since 8 May, states that the Prime Minister negotiated the 25% steel tariff down to zero, but that is not right, is it? Steel faces a tariff of 25% today and runs the risk of a 50% tariff being imposed next month. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to updating the website, updating this House and updating steelworkers on the state of the negotiations?
We have been promised a modern industrial strategy for nearly a year. First, it was going to be with us in the spring; then it was going to be published at the spending review; and now it will be here “shortly”. The industrial strategy seems to be a strategy to clobber industry with higher taxes and higher business rates. Will the modern industrial strategy have greater longevity than the Office for Investment? It was announced in October, and we were not given an update until last Thursday, when it launched. Yesterday, we were told in the spending review that it is now being restructured. What is the future for the Office for Investment?
Postmasters who were hit by the Horizon scandal will be concerned to hear Sir Alan Bates describe the compensation process as a “quasi-kangaroo court”. Can the Minister reassure postmasters about the redress that they are due, and reassure taxpayers about the redress that he is seeking from Fujitsu?
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the tone of his statement and the tributes he paid to not only his predecessors, but the officials and diplomats who have been involved in the negotiations for many years. I do not think I heard an answer to the question asked by the shadow Foreign Secretary, which was: can a British citizen flying from the UK to Gibraltar now be stopped by a Spanish official as they land? On the sovereignty clause, will he clarify whether it means that Spain has abandoned its claim altogether, or does it plan to follow the same route that Mauritius did with Diego Garcia?
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Father of the House.
After more than an hour of diligent bobbing, I call Chris Vince.
I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. I ask anyone who is leaving before the Select Committee statement to do so quickly and quietly.
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee. Liam Byrne will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; these should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not to the relevant Ministers, and that Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Order. I can run this only until 2 pm, so can questions and answers be brief, please?
A third of my constituents emanate from Gujarat, so my thoughts and prayers are with the families and relatives who are obviously concerned about the plight of the 242 passengers on that flight. I understand that the plane came down in a residential area, so the people who live there will also be affected. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and for announcing the estimates days. Estimates day applications can be obtained from the Table Office or the Committee’s website. We welcome applications. They will close tomorrow at the rise of the House, and we will be considering applications for debates at our meeting on Tuesday at 4.15 pm. Anyone applying should expect to turn up and present their case. We intend to allocate three debates each day, with a preference given to those who were unsuccessful in the supplementary estimates days. In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, in Westminster Hall next week, on Tuesday there will be a debate on hydrogen-powered aviation, and on Thursday there will be a Select Committee statement from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, followed by debates on the role of careers education in improving social mobility and on Down’s syndrome regression disorder. On Tuesday 24 June, there will be a debate on the right to maintain contact in care settings. On Thursday 26 June, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, followed by debates on the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit during the second world war and on the funding of the BBC World Service. In recent weeks, I have raised the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh. I have also raised the atrocities in Pahalgam, but now things have come home to this country. Earlier this week, three young Indian boys were playing cricket in Headstone park. They were approached by three slightly older men. An altercation took place, and the three young boys were hospitalised, one with a fractured eye socket. We understand that the police are dealing with this as an aggravated racial assault. It took place between young Hindu boys and older Muslim men. The police are appealing for witnesses to come forward to see who the perpetrators are, and community leaders are trying to take down the temperature so that there is no escalation. But if this type of religious hatred is going to come to this country, we desperately need the Home Secretary to make a clear statement about what the Government will do to prevent it from happening. I ask the Leader of the House to facilitate that next week.
It is clearly in the best interests of Spain and Gibraltar for there to be a free flow of individuals backwards and forwards across the border. For UK citizens who fly into Spain or Gibraltar and hire a car to cross the border into Gibraltar or Spain, what checks will there be at the border? Clarity on that point would help.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate, and for his work on this issue. According to the latest figures, there are around 1.7 million school pupils in England with identified special educational needs. That equates to 18% of all pupils. Of those pupils with identified SEN, around 1.2 million receive SEN support, and around 400,000 have EHCPs. In Huntingdon, the schools that I represent have expressed many concerns about the whole SEND system, and funding consistently underlies many of the issues that they face. Schools pay the first £6,000 towards meeting the outcomes of an education, health and care plan. The rest of the funding is topped up by the local authority. Often the funding provided does not cover the cost that the school incurs in supporting children with needs. I urge the Government to address that as a matter of urgency, as this is stopping schools from providing help to children suspected of requiring SEND support. I thank Yasmine Trace, the headteacher of Sawtry infant school, and Jo Dyke, the school’s SEND co-ordinator, for highlighting this matter. I know that they speak on behalf of other schools in Huntingdon, and across the country. The unacceptably long wait to obtain an EHCP in Huntingdon—one child at Wheatfields primary school waited 62 weeks for a draft—has led many desperate parents to seek to fund them themselves. The cost of a private educational psychologist’s assessment in Huntingdon varies, depending on the services required and the provider, but it might be in the range of £900 for a full assessment, or £450 for an assessment of an under-three. For example, a full assessment could be £775 with a £400 deposit, and one provider offers an assessment for £900 with a £400 deposit. These figures are a significant barrier for most families that I represent. It is yet another burden for parents, and yet another reason why we need more support on offer. The Government have hinted at sweeping changes to the EHCP system, and I would welcome further detail and clarity for the many parents, carers and teachers in Huntingdon who are uncertain about what these changes will mean. There is a fear among parents that the rug will be pulled from under their feet. I would welcome it if the Minister could confirm the ongoing support for EHCPs going forward. To conclude, I want all children to get the education, care and support that they need. There are a growing number of children with SEND, and we must adapt to ensure that they are catered for and do not fall by the wayside. I would welcome plans from the Government on how they will support schools in meeting the costs of EHCPs—or of whatever they are replaced with. I wish to hear that parents will be supported throughout the process, and that the Government will not force parents down expensive routes, which most of them cannot afford, to ensure that their children get the education and support that they need.
It was strongly suggested the other day that the Government were going to look at changing EHCPs and possibly even scrapping them completely. Can the Minister give some reassurance to the House, and to constituents who may be watching this debate, that EHCPs will remain extant and will be worked on?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Government amendments 26 to 29 risk undoing some of the good work done in the other place, where careful improvements were made to strengthen the Bill and ensure a more compassionate and effective response to mental health crises. I am concerned that by removing the words “by a constable or other authorised person” and deleting clause 5(7), which provides a clear definition of who the authorised persons are, we will open up ambiguity about who is permitted to detain someone under the Mental Health Act. This is not just a technical or drafting issue; it has very real consequences for the people involved. I understand and support the principle of enabling more flexible and clinically led responses to mental health incidents. We all recognise that the police should not be the default option in every case. The amendments made in the Lords acknowledged that and broadened the group of people who could respond to mental health crises beyond police officers to trained and equipped professionals: mental health nurses, approved mental health professionals, paramedics and, crucially, someone trained and equipped to carry out detentions under the Act and who would not be put at unnecessary risk by doing so. “Trained and equipped”—that is the key point. The definition of “authorised person” in the Bill as it stands makes it clear that those given such a serious responsibility must have the appropriate training and experience and must not be “put at unnecessary risk” when carrying out that role. That wording is important. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, said, it provides a framework of accountability, not a free-for-all. By removing that structure, the Government’s amendments will leave a legal vacuum. The law will say that someone must be detained, but not by whom. That uncertainty will create a risk that services will simply revert to defaulting to the police. I stress again that that is not fair on the police, who are already under immense pressure. Yes, they are used to seeing people at their most vulnerable, but dealing with someone in a mental health crisis is a very particular challenge, and one that they might not be fully trained to manage. The College of Policing’s 2019 mental health snapshot found that almost 95% of police call-outs flagged as involving mental health did not actually require a police response, yet police officers continue to be sent out because the system lacks clarity and capacity elsewhere. Baroness May, speaking from real experience as a former Home Secretary, made that very point in the other place. She said that police officers were being sent to mental health incidents for which they had no training or clinical expertise, and were being asked to make judgments that they simply were not equipped to make. She went on to say that “the very essence of a police presence—somebody in the uniform coming to deal with them—could actually exacerbate their mental health situation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1525.] I would add that, for the individual experiencing a mental health crisis, being approached by the police may feel criminalising rather than supportive. It reinforces a justice-led response rather than a health-led one. That is not the direction in which we should be going. Although I welcome the Government’s intention to offer more flexibility in emergency and clinical settings, we have to be careful about how we achieve that. Removing the wording inserted into the Bill will not create clarity; it will create confusion. In a system already under pressure, confusion tends to mean delay, risk aversion and inappropriate responses. Removing the specification will not free professionals; it will expose them, and it will expose patients to the possibility of being handled by someone without the right qualifications, which may worsen their condition or create a longer-term distrust of mental health services. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurances, both about who will be expected to carry out these detentions and about how we can ensure that they have the proper training, resourcing and protection. Without a clear definition of “authorised person”, we cannot be confident that those involved will have the right expertise to support extremely vulnerable individuals at times of acute need. I want to touch briefly on the importance of early intervention and de-escalation. Situations involving mental health crises can often be tense, and support in the early moments can be critical. De-escalation is a vital skill; the presence of a calm, trained mental health nurse, for example, in those early moments can change the outcome of a person’s crisis. Having the right professional present—someone who can act without waiting for the police to attend—can be the difference between escalation and calm. The identity of the responder matters. This is not just about outcomes, but about the experience of the individual. Removing the criminal justice framing from the outset is essential to delivering dignity and the right kind of care.
It is extremely important that people are not put at risk, and that is exactly the point I have been making. People need to be properly trained, and we need to set out who those individuals can be, rather than leaving ambiguity in the wording. The Government amendment will undo exactly the protection that the hon. Lady rightly points out.
My hon. Friend helpfully expands on the points that I and other Opposition Members have been making. If we are not careful, the Government amendments will move us further away from the aim of a person-centred approach. I urge the Minister to reconsider the amendments. The wording inserted in the other place struck a thoughtful balance. The wording inserted in the other place struck a thoughtful balance. It allowed flexibility, but grounded it in clear criteria of training, safety and competence. Removing that definition will weaken the Bill. It will make it harder, not easier, to ensure that the right person is supporting someone at their moment of greatest need. We owe it to patients, professionals and the police themselves to get this right.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in support of amendments 44 and 45, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. These amendments seek to put patients at the centre of the Bill by promoting a safe therapeutic environment and recovery from any childhood trauma. Clause 8 provides for a new definition of “appropriate medical treatment”, which requires that treatment to have “a reasonable prospect of alleviating, or preventing the worsening of…a patient’s mental disorder.” Amendment 44 would introduce an additional criterion to the definition of “appropriate medical treatment” by establishing that an appropriate medical treatment should not only address the individual’s immediate health needs, but be designed with the intent to reduce psychological distress and actively support an individual’s recovery from the effects of childhood trauma. This recognises the long-term impact that early, adverse experience can have on mental and emotional wellbeing and ensures that treatment approaches are trauma-informed, compassionate and conducive to long-term improvement. People who present with serious mental health concerns need to know that they are receiving support and care in the right environment. They are at their most vulnerable, and having the confidence in their environment can make a world of difference. That is particularly pertinent for those who have suffered childhood trauma. It is important that we deal with the consequences of mental ill health, and adequately address the root causes. Among these, childhood trauma is one of the most serious and persistent factors contributing to long-term psychological conditions. By supporting this amendment, we would create a more resilient system that is equipped to respond to the reality and prevalence of childhood trauma in our society. I recently met with Alison, who heads up a fantastic organisation called WeMindTheGap. It is based in Wrexham, but it is now moving and expanding to cover parts of my constituency, Chester South and Eddisbury. It does a fantastic job supporting young people who have struggled in the conventional education system, are absent from school or have dropped out of the system. We discussed childhood trauma and the rise in the number of young people not currently in any kind of education. One of the points that Alison made that resonated with me is that absence from school is linked not just to deprivation, but many contributing factors, including difficult domestic situations, isolation and rural isolation. Many of these challenges are the most severe ones linked to childhood trauma, and although there are many wonderful organisations stepping in to support young people at an early stage, for some the impacts of childhood trauma continue to affect psychological wellbeing into adulthood. Sadly, childhood trauma is a societal issue that we face, and it is more common that we might imagine. Therefore, a step to embed trauma-informed care into the legal framework, specifically for childhood trauma, is a step in the right direction. Childhood trauma can lead to self-destructive behaviour in adults. There is, as my hon. Friend pointed out, evidence to show that it is a causal factor. We must recognise the long-term impact of adverse childhood experiences on mental health. This amendment, by adding a new criterion to the definition of “appropriate medical treatment” to require that treatment to aim to minimise distress and to support recovery from childhood trauma, would embed trauma-informed care into the legal framework. Amendment 45, by inserting the words “seeks to minimise the patient’s distress and promote their psychological wellbeing and recovery from any childhood trauma”, would reduce the risk of re-traumatisation. Responses to symptoms or behaviours must be supported; it is about helping people to move towards genuine recovery. Childhood trauma is unique, and it presents symptoms that are different from other mental health illnesses. Therefore, having a dedicated, compassionate and person-centred approach to care is incredibly important. Setting the right culture to support patients, recognising the trauma that they carry and ensuring that there is adequate support and provisions in the legislation and the legal framework, is the right approach. I am therefore pleased to support these amendments, which would strengthen clause 8.
6. What steps he is taking to support high street businesses.
Chester South and Eddisbury is home to some truly special high streets, lined with independent shops and pubs that play a vital role in the life of our communities. I have spoken to local business owners, especially in hospitality, who are already feeling the pressure. Following the spending review, the chief executive of UKHospitality said that “the overwhelming challenge holding back hospitality from meeting its potential is the current tax burden”. Does the Minister accept that unless action is taken to ease the burden on high street businesses, especially in hospitality, the Government risk undermining the very communities they claim to support?
The Leader of the House will be aware that Queen’s hospital in Romford, which serves the boroughs of Havering, Barking and Dagenham and of Redbridge, is in urgent need of an A&E upgrade. Indeed, I met the Minister for Secondary Care only this week to discuss it. May we have an urgent statement from the Government on this issue? The situation has led to many patients being left on trolleys for more than 24 hours. The hospital serves 800,000 people in that radius, and that is simply not acceptable. Please can some of the money from the statement yesterday be spent in Romford on a hospital that serves local people?
The Minister will know that I too want to abolish corridor care at the Queen’s hospital in Romford. I thank her deeply for meeting me on Monday, with the chief executive of the NHS trust for Barking, Havering and Redbridge, Matthew Trainer, who is appealing for a new A&E facility at the Queen’s hospital. The situation has led to patients being cared for on trolleys in corridors. I find that unacceptable, and it is costing my local trust, which services 800,000 people in the area, an extra £100,000 a month because of additional staffing needs. Will the Minister ensure that what was said at our meeting is carried forward, and that we get a better facility for boroughs in the east London and Essex area, which the Queen’s hospital serves?
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak on a matter so close to the hearts of parents, carers, teachers and pupils in Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and across West Sussex: the urgent need for equitable and sustainable funding for special educational needs and disabilities. Since 2015, the number of EHCPs in West Sussex has risen dramatically, from 3,362 to 7,684 in 2024, an increase of 128%. That surge mirrors an England-wide trend, where the number of EHCPs has grown by over 70% since 2018. That equates to about 180,000 additional high-needs pupils. Local mainstream schools, like Bishop Tufnell and Edward Bryant, report being stretched to capacity. They rely on fundraising from charities merely to maintain basic SEN provision, while increasing staff shortages and rising national insurance costs exacerbate burnout. Nationally, high-needs spending has risen to roughly £11 billion, but with pupil numbers growing faster than funding, per pupil support has actually fallen by a third in real terms. The Government have recognised that pressure. A capital investment of £740 million aims to support the creation of 10,000 additional SEND places, including in specialist units in mainstream schools, and a further £1 billion is being allocated to support 44,500 mainstream school placements by 2028 under the high-needs national funding formula. However, even with that funding, experts warn of a ticking time bomb, as councils, including West Sussex, face soaring deficits that could reach £5 billion by 2026. Until 2018-19, the council was in a surplus, but since then, the exponential rise in need has put immense pressure on the system. I have asked the Leader of the House to facilitate a debate on a sustainable model for SEND funding that ensures that local authorities like West Sussex receive adequate per-head resources; that delivers timely funding adjustments as EHCP numbers grow; and that supports retention of specialist staff and inclusive practices in mainstream settings. I urge the House to commit to sustainable and future-proofed funding.
This spending review is not worth the paper it is written on, because the Chancellor has completely lost control. This is the “spend now, tax later” review, because the right hon. Lady knows that she will need to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes, and a cruel summer of speculation awaits. How can we possibly take this Chancellor seriously after the chaos of the last 12 months? We were assured at the election that Labour’s plans involved barely any additional spending or borrowing. Now the Chancellor parades her largesse, with hundreds of billions in additional spending over this Parliament. The initial profile for that spending was, of course, significantly front-loaded, but the Chancellor now expects us to believe that she will let spending rise by only 1.2% a year. There is no chance whatsoever of that happening, for the lesson of the last year has been that when the going gets tough, the right hon. Lady blinks. She presented herself as the iron Chancellor, but what we have seen is the tinfoil Chancellor: flimsy and ready to fold in the face of the slightest pressure. She said she would not fiddle her fiscal rules; then she did. She said that she would not make any unfunded commitments; with the humiliation of the winter fuel U-turn, she just has. She looked business leaders in the eye and said no more taxes, but we all know what happened next, and we all know what is coming in the autumn. Her own Back Benchers, her Cabinet colleagues, Labour’s trade union paymasters and even the Prime Minister himself have all seen that she is weak, weak, weak. They can smell the blood. They will be back for more, and they will get it. These spending plans are a fantasy, and is it not the truth that the Chancellor has to maintain this fiction because she has left herself no room for manoeuvre? She is constantly teetering on the edge of blowing her fiscal rules, which she has already changed to allow even more borrowing. The only way she can claim to be meeting her rules is by pretending that she can control spending over the coming years, but let us look at the record so far. Borrowing in the last financial year came out £11 billion above even the Office for Budget Responsibility’s March forecasts, and 70% higher than the plans she inherited from the Conservatives. For someone so keen on borrowing, the Chancellor seems strangely reticent even to use the word. Indeed, Ministers bizarrely tell us that it is Labour’s fiscal rules themselves that have “generated investment”. The reality is a little more straightforward: they have loosened the fiscal rules so they can borrow more. They borrow and borrow and borrow, allowing the national debt to continue to rise higher every single year while Ministers pretend that it is not. There will be an eye-watering £200 billion of additional borrowing in this Parliament compared with the plans set out in the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more to be spent on debt interest alone. In fact, if the Chancellor had retained our fiscal rules—[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but if she had retained our fiscal rules, as she said she would before the election, the OBR has confirmed that she would be breaking them right now. Our country is now vulnerable to even the smallest changes in the bond markets. Should we face a sudden external shock, we have no fiscal firepower left with which to respond, all thanks to the right hon. Lady’s choices. So can I ask the Chancellor: will she be open about what she has done? Will she admit that she has made a conscious choice to borrow more and to accept higher debts? Does she accept that this means interest rates and mortgages will be higher than they would otherwise have been, as the OBR itself has said? Given that she continues to claim that she has brought stability to the public finances, can I ask her what on earth her definition of “stability” is? The Chancellor must be delighted that she does not have to face a new OBR forecast today, because if she did, she would have to set out how she would fund her humiliating U-turn on winter fuel payments, having already blown the savings on buying off her trade union paymasters last year. She said this week that there was still “work to do to ensure the sums always add up”. From the person in charge of the nation’s finances, that is hardly reassuring. You do not need to have worked at the Bank of England for a decade to know that that pitiful utterance is unlikely to soothe the markets. So can the Chancellor confirm categorically that there will be no additional borrowing to pay for this chaotic reversal? And if that is the case, can she explain how on earth it can be paid for without raising taxes? Can she explain why, last summer, apparently to avoid a run on the pound, this measure was so urgent that pensioners had to be left in the cold over the last winter? What exactly has changed? Because it certainly has not been made possible by an improvement in the economy or the public finances, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said this week are both in a worse state now than when Labour came into office. If we had an OBR forecast, we might also get some answers on how the Government intend to find £3.5 billion to abolish the two-child benefit cap, which we are led to believe is imminent—another addition to the ballooning welfare bill; another expensive surrender to the Labour left. And we would certainly get the OBR’s assessment of the economic outlook following the tariffs—changes that the right hon. Lady knew full well were coming. Meanwhile, her deluge of taxes and regulations has left business confidence at record lows, costing people their livelihoods. Only yesterday we saw the latest evidence of that. Figures for last month show that the number of people on payrolls fell by more than 100,000, after already falling by 55,000 in April. Unemployment is up by more than 10% since Labour came to office. The right hon. Lady may trumpet extra spending today, but is it not the simple truth that she has trashed the economy and left no contingency in the face of a highly volatile global outlook? Is it not the reality that the Chancellor knows she will have to come back in the autumn with more tax rises to fund these plans? Or can she assure us right now that this is not the case—yes or no? We know that the Deputy Prime Minister has helpfully provided her with an entire brochure of tax rises that she will no doubt be perusing over the summer—the Corbynist catalogue. Can the Chancellor confirm that, as promised, the income tax thresholds will not be frozen at the Budget, a move she herself said would hurt working people? What about the uncertainties in the departmental spending plan that the Chancellor has set out today? Can she assure us that these plans will not be topped up and that no backroom deals have been cut with disgruntled Cabinet Ministers? Can she assure us that the capital allocations announced today will actually be spent on capital and will not be diverted in-year, as she has done in the past, to day-to-day budgets to play more games with her fiscal rules? The Chancellor has had to impose a settlement on the Home Secretary because this spending review will not deliver for our hard-working police officers across the country. Instead, the Home Office budget gets squandered on asylum costs because this Government simply do not have a plan on illegal migration. As the Defence Secretary has admitted, the Government have “lost control” of our borders. Small boat crossings are up by 42% on the same point last year. On energy, at a time when businesses up and down the country are struggling with high energy costs, the Chancellor has chosen today to fund the Energy Secretary’s vanity projects such as GB Energy. And although we welcome the announcements on expanding nuclear capacity, the scale of ambition is a downgrade on the commitments made previously by the Conservatives. Labour barely mentioned farming in its manifesto, and now we know why. It is not enough to have hit the farmers of our country with a family farm tax; today, what we see in black and white is a choice to make further cuts to the vital grants on which many farmers rely. This is a huge betrayal of our farming communities, and something that many Labour MPs in rural areas will have to go back to their constituencies later this week to explain. On defence, we will always welcome any additional investment in our armed forces and capabilities, though I note nothing was said about when 3% will be achieved. All we heard was that intelligence services spending was to be included in defence spending to flatter the numbers. We left Labour a fully funded plan that they dithered over for a year, but now what we get is the Chancellor’s own black hole on defence spending and the lack of a timeline on when we will achieve 3%. Instead, we get a £30 billion bill for the Chagos surrender—money that should have gone to our brave armed forces rather than, as is being reported, funding lower taxation in Mauritius. The first tax cuts for which this Chancellor has been responsible are in Mauritius. We would have made different choices. We would not have killed growth with huge tax rises and new regulations. We would not have talked down our economy and the great businesses up and down our country. We would be focusing on efficiency and productivity in the public sector, not handing out pay rises with no strings attached. We would be getting a grip on welfare. Labour cancelled our plans for fundamental reform to health and disability benefits that would have seen 450,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits—that is a disgrace. Instead of proper reforms to PIP, the Government’s own plans are a rushed cost-cutting exercise—so rushed they even had to change them after they were announced. Their own Back Benches are in full revolt. Yet again, the Government talk tough, but there is no substance. The right hon. Lady has no grip. She has no clue. The markets and the public see a Chancellor completely out of her depth. Having blown her headroom and more from her Budget in the autumn, she was forced into an emergency Budget in March to scrabble around to try to repair the damage. Today she comes before us again with yet another fantastical tale that she knows will have completely fallen apart come the autumn. We are not left with stronger foundations, as she would have us believe, but rather another dose of that hallmark for which her actions have made her so renowned: uncertainty and failure. So there the right hon. Lady sits, powerless to resist her disillusioned MPs and her panicking Prime Minister, like a cork on the tide, the drumbeat for U-turns pounding in her ears. Yet her tone today suggests that all is well; the sunlit uplands await. What a hopeless conceit—a masterclass in delusion. Inflation is up, unemployment is up, growth is marked down, business and households are hurting, investors are fleeing in their droves, the bond market vigilantes circle—and here we have the Chancellor who refuses to listen, not only tinfoil, but tin-eared, too. Let me be clear: it is working people and businesses who will pay the price come the autumn, with yet more taxes to pay for her weakness and her failures. We cannot afford this spending review, and for many, the growing conclusion is that we cannot afford this Chancellor.
I am sure that we wish the Government well in what they are trying to do. I gather that the International Air Transport Association highlighted only last week that, at the moment, sustainable aviation fuels cost approximately five times as much as conventional jet fuel. Will she explain how the measures in the Bill will bridge that gap to make it economical?
The billions of pounds that have been announced by the Chancellor are very big rises, and the Public Accounts Committee looks forward to scrutinising that expenditure—I am sure it will be welcomed by those who receive it—to ensure we are getting value for money, but can the Chancellor explain to the House how it will be funded, because debt and tax are at record levels? Can British workers look forward to a summer of expecting more tax increases?
High Speed 2 owns vast swathes of the Staffordshire countryside. In fact, it owns a third of all the properties in the village of Hopton, which is having an enormous impact on residents and causing an enormous blight. Could the Chancellor set out for the House, and for so many residents right across Staffordshire, when we will know whether farmers are going to have their land back and whether villages will be able to return to normal life, with people moving into the empty houses?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. The NHS is a vital service. I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and many other health professionals who look after my constituents. Bridgwater community hospital, Burnham-on-Sea War Memorial hospital and GP practices across the constituency provide the health services that people need. Hon. Members will know that during the five years of coalition Government and nine years of Conservative Government, spending on the NHS rose in real terms every year. However, increased spending alone will not fix the problems in our region. NHS productivity fell during the pandemic and, despite recovering, is still lower than it was in 2019. We need improvements in both productivity and service quality. My constituents have raised the difficulty of getting GP appointments when they need them. Last year, the Government announced a large pay rise for junior doctors with no strings attached. What is the result of that? Less than a year later, junior doctors are back asking for more and threatening to go on strike unless they get another above-inflation pay increase. I want to see our NHS staff paid more—they do vital work in our community—but those increases must come with improved productivity and service for our constituents. How does the Minister propose to provide more GP appointments? My constituents also find it difficult, if not impossible, to find an NHS dentist. What steps will the Minister take to improve dental care in the south-west? The Government have announced that they will abolish NHS England. I sincerely hope that will reduce bureaucracy and lead to improved services and shorter waiting lists, but if it results in the same people being shuffled around and given different job titles, few savings will be made. I wish the Minister well as she endeavours to improve healthcare across our region.
It is National Diabetes Week, and as someone living with type 1, as we both are, Mr Speaker, I am more than aware of the serious complications of diabetic ketoacidosis—DKA—which can prove fatal if not caught early enough. A quarter of children are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when in DKA, and that could be avoided with early diagnosis. Will the Prime Minister commit to rolling out a national universal screening programme, as seen in Italy, for type 1?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for securing this debate. I am here to focus specifically on fertility treatment in Devon, which is one of the costs we have because of the atrocious funding situation to which the hon. Member referred. The Devon integrated care board is not currently funding fertility care for local patients in line with Department of Health and Social Care expectations, and is not following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in their entirety. Its policy is not based entirely on the clinical factors recommended by NICE, but is based instead on previous clinical commissioning group policy, economic factors and additional non-clinical factors, which are all understandable, but that is not good enough for local patients. NICE states: “Commissioners…should commission sufficient capacity within specialist fertility services to provide 3 full cycles…for women aged under 40 years who meet the criteria for IVF…A full cycle should include 1 episode of ovarian stimulation and the transfer of any resultant fresh and frozen embryo(s)”, and that any previous cycle counts towards that total. NICE guidelines also state that women under 40 who meet the criteria for IVF treatment “should be offered 3 full cycles of IVF” with a cycle defined as including one episode, as I have said. A full cycle ends either when every available but viable embryo has been transferred, or when one results in a pregnancy. Devon ICB incompletely funds only a portion of one cycle. It has made up a different definition of a cycle, and, in the commissioning policy, defines a cycle as “one…fresh and one…frozen implantation of embryos. A frozen embryo transfer episode will only be available if there are embryos generated from the fresh cycle suitable for freezing.” That does not include any remaining embryos from the first cycle of stimulation, nor the remaining two cycles recommended by NICE. Devon should be funding three full cycles, and it is not. That means that we are living in a legitimate postcode lottery: people with a PL, TQ or EX postcode are being completely sold short. I believe we need to treat this, and we need to see what the Government can do to mitigate the problem and to encourage ICBs such as Devon to ensure that just living within their health authority should not mean that people cannot access the treatment that others in other parts of the country can access, particularly those under 40 years old.
As a frequent leafleteer in Sussex Weald, I am particularly invested in this piece of legislation. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Anneliese Midgley, Lee Barron, Charlie Dewhirst, Colum Eastwood, Emma Foody, Louise Haigh, Sally Jameson, Joe Morris, Sarah Owen, Laurence Turner, Chris Webb and Michael Wheeler present the Bill. Anneliese Midgley accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 259).
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Order. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 350 and the Noes were 176, so the Ayes have it. [The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
I notice that that was an exclusive invitation just to the Minister.
It would rather depend on whether the date ended up marrying him, wouldn’t it?
I call Chris McDonald for the final Back-Bench contribution.
I call the shadow Minister.