Grey Belt: Shropshire
2. What information her Department holds on the percentage of Green Belt land that is classified as grey belt in Shropshire.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Grey Belt: Shropshire
Is the Minister aware that speculative developers want to build 800 new houses in Albrighton, in my constituency, inside the green belt and outside the local plan? Let me be clear: the constituents I met in a public meeting on Friday are not against housing—they are just against housing at the wrong scale and in the wrong location. This is not about nimbyism, but about protecting nature, open spaces and the green belt. On consultation, nearly 4,000 signed a local petition against these flawed proposals. Does the Minister accept that Shropshire’s green belt needs to be protected from this destruction?
- Hansard source
Economic Growth
Is it not the case that the bond markets are losing faith in the Government’s economic policies, and that the cost of borrowing, as we have heard from the shadow Minister, is at an 18-year high? That means, of course, that mortgage rates will increase, putting even more financial pain on many of our constituents. What does the Minister say to my constituents, who are likely to see three or four mortgage rate increases over the next 12 months?
- Hansard source
New Housing: Infrastructure
My constituents and people across this country are fed up with more and more housing being built without the proper infrastructure in place first. There is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 about forcing developers to put schools and GP surgeries in place at the same time as new developments. Will the Minister look again and commit to listening to existing residents about bringing changes in legislation, to ensure that there is infrastructure first?
- Hansard source
New Housing: Infrastructure
Well, the Government have had two years—that will not wash with my constituents, who have seen thousands of new homes built with no new infrastructure. Healthcare services are of particular concern: when there is new housing, that makes it much harder for everyone to see their GP. This Government are taking on more political control of the NHS, so can the Minister tell me what discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Social Care about ensuring that new healthcare facilities are in place when there is new housing?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
I have to confess to the Secretary of State that I am even more confused now than my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) was 40 minutes ago. Could the Secretary of State just be clear with my residents that the combined authority elections due next May are off, and the borough council elections are on, but the combined authority elections might be on if she gets her skates on and the borough council elections might be off? If the combined authority elections are off, when will they be on, and is the mayoral election in 2028 on or off? If it is off, what is going to happen to police governance?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
When the Secretary of State embarked on local government reorganisation for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, her Department accepted the principle that the Isle of Wight council should remain a stand-alone unitary authority. Now that she is reviewing local government reorganisation, will she reconfirm that the Isle of Wight council will remain a stand-alone unitary authority and that it is not, and will not be, at risk of merging with a part of the mainland?
- Hansard source
Dover and Portsmouth: Protests
May I pay tribute to the brave lifeboat volunteers from Bembridge, on the Isle of Wight, who responded to the migrant crossing yesterday? The Isle of Wight is more than just a little bit west of Kent. This is a really concerning development, a potential failure to contain the geography of small boat crossings. The Minister likes to talk about the reduction in numbers, but what assessment has she made of this potential new development in where people smugglers are willing to operate from? In this case, they travelled across 80 miles of open water. What is she doing to ensure that resources are targeted properly not only in France, but on the south coast, so that local communities like those on the Isle of Wight and in Hampshire can respond to this, which is something that they have not seen at scale before?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
It is apparent to absolutely everyone that this local government reform is now a shambolic, incompetent mess. I just want to put on record how much time, as well as money, has been spent by councillors and council officials right across Norfolk, where this has been a massive, monumental distraction, not for months, but for years. The independent Local Government Association says: “There is no excuse for the Government’s mishandling of this process.” Does the Secretary of State agree?
- Hansard source
Health Bill
Labour Members who had that commitment in their manifesto may want to reflect on how much more commitment we have to constituents because they are our constituents than we would if we shared constituents from day to day. We often go out of our way—I hope—to look after our constituents because of that sense of ownership and obligation. It is only because we are allocated those people and they are our responsibility that we go that extra mile. Why would doctors not be the same, and can colleagues not see the sense of what my right hon. Friend is saying?
- Hansard source
Health Bill
The hon. Lady is making a most powerful speech. We will all have experienced the frustration of parents with a child whose EHCP lacks the health element. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, furthermore, the abolition of Healthwatch might remove one of the few elements that externally and independently marks the homework of the NHS, and that we are moving to a situation in which the NHS itself, and Ministers, will collect the data and mark their own homework, and we will lose yet another of the few tools that a frustrated parent has to hold the system to account?
- Hansard source
Health Bill
My right hon. Friend is giving a typically punchy speech. Does he agree that every signal suggests that this measure has not been thought through? While the Government have conceded by saying, “Oh we’re going to have local government coming back onboard,” how could they have conceived of health and social care without local government being engaged? On every front, it looks as if they have not thought it through, abolishing everything from the safety inspectorate to Healthwatch England. We have a Government that are out of control, spending tens if not hundreds of millions on redundancies with no clear end destination in view, wasting a huge opportunity.
- Hansard source
Health Bill
The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech on behalf of rural and coastal areas. One word that he has not used yet is “age”. Age is the clearest proxy for health need that there is. It is not deprivation or anything else—it is age. The distribution of health funding in this country has, under successive Administrations, failed to recognise that and allocate funding accordingly. That is why cancer patients in his constituency and mine find themselves with chronically less spent on them than cancer patients in areas where there are many fewer of them.
- Hansard source
Draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister—I am pleased to be able to call her that—whom I congratulate on her appointment to the role. I warmly welcome her to her place and appreciate her remarks on the regulations. The Opposition stand alongside the Government—and, I am sure, with Members from across the House—in saying that building safety and remediation are critical tasks. We cannot be a world-leading economy or global power and still have citizens who live in—or, worse still, are trapped in—homes that have been rendered unsafe. People’s homes are the very places that they should feel safest. I therefore agree with the Minister on the need to make buildings safe, and I recognise that the building safety levy is intended to play a part in doing that. When assessing the regulations, we must consider the juncture at which we find ourselves. I was pleased to support plans for the Grenfell Tower Memorial earlier this year, and I welcomed the constructive tone adopted by Members from across the House and the value of the wider discussions about remediation and building safety during that debate. As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), highlighted in that debate, Government figures show that work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material cladding—the type used for Grenfell Tower—has been completed for 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings with such cladding, and remediation work at most of the remaining sites is progressing. That is good news, as is the fact that Committee members are here to discuss and debate how to complete that task. As I said, I recognise the role that the building safety levy is intended to play in that mission, which needs to be completed, despite the extensive progress made under the previous Conservative Government and under Labour Administrations since 2024. None the less, the Opposition have concerns about the levy and, more germanely, about the specifics of the regulations. Perhaps the most pertinent is the deep concern that I and many colleagues share about the potential impact of the levy on the building of more homes. As we have debated back and forth many times before, this country is currently in the midst of a significant housing shortage. The Government’s own impact assessment raised concerns about the viability of sites, as this additional cost is added to pre-existing development costs. The Minister is right to say that developers have known about the change for some time, but that will not mitigate the impact of the cost when it arrives. That is especially the case in areas where residential land value is lower, as the impact assessment highlights. The Government have previously stated that that is why: “Levy rates have been set such that rates are lower in areas where house prices are lower and viability is more stretched.” I do not believe that the levy in isolation will cause house building to grind to a halt, but I am deeply concerned that, when costs in many parts of the country are already too high, yet another cost to development takes us another step closer to a critical—perhaps even fatal—moment for house building. We must remember that the housing industry is already paying, among other things, a 4% surcharge on corporation tax, worth £2 billion; a voluntary self-remediation pledge, worth more than £4.1 billion; and reimbursements to Government funds, worth more than £700 million. Those totals, alongside other measures, are worth almost £7 billion—more than double the value of the funds expected to be raised by the levy. The Home Builders Federation examined the proposals and found that developers are staring at a potential average additional cost of £2,320 per unit when building new homes. In London, the increase amounts to more than £3,00. As the HBF stresses, that is on top of the myriad other average additional costs, including £10,220 per unit for the future homes standard, £2,000 per unit for the proposed changes to landfill tax rates, £5,700 per unit for biodiversity net gain, £7,700 per unit for building regulation costs, £2,055 per unit in taxes and £37,000 per unit for materials and labour. Inflation on relevant building materials has exceeded 40% since 2020, and labour costs rocketed after the employer national insurance hike was introduced. We in this place have a duty to ensure that everyone can live in a safe and decent home, and remediation is a critical aspect of that. If these costs continue to layer and swell, however, we will eventually bury the affordability of new homes beneath the unaffordability of the costs that come with building them. That is not just a fear for the future, but one that I worry has already joined us in the present in some parts of the country—not least here in London, where new housing starts over the past two years are at negligible levels, despite record levels of housing demand. The Minister, who is like me, a Greater London MP, knows that to be the case. I acknowledge that safety, affordability and viability are a difficult triumvirate to harmonise, but the Government are on track to miss their target by up to 400,000 homes across the lifetime of this Parliament, so it is clear that something must be done differently. Finally, I turn briefly to an issue that I believe cuts to the heart of future viable housebuilding in the UK: brownfield development, which the Minister touched on. I welcome the fact that the draft regulations recognise the importance of getting more homes built on previously developed land, especially as that has not always been recognised by Labour Members. The Opposition acknowledge that a 50% reduction in the levy for brownfield sites is a positive step on paper. However, the definition of brownfield land under the national planning policy framework means that 75% of it must be previously developed, while these draft regulations now clarify the treatment of fixed-surface type infrastructure and unlawful operations, and exclude from the definition wholly underground buildings and underground parts of buildings, That leaves me concerned that we will see fewer buildings falling under the scope of brownfield land, and therefore fewer buildings benefiting from the rate reduction. I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications on that point and on my concerns about the potential impact on house building. As I have said throughout these discussions, it is vital that all sides of the House work together towards a constructive, viable and affordable system of house building and remediation. That is essential for a safer future and safer homes, for the ownership and security of personal welfare, and for a fairer system in a modern society in which we never leave a single one of our constituents living in a home they know is not safe and secure.
- Hansard source
Draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026
I think the Minister misspoke. She said that the regulations had been designed to minimise housing supply. I am not sure that that is what she meant.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on her return to her position, and to welcome her to her place. What steps is she taking to proactively protect the green belt?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I agree with the Minister’s last point, but I am not too sure that I believe the preceding point. If the Government are serious about protecting the green belt and generating new housing, one of the best ways of doing both would surely be to ensure that planning permissions are actually built, but according to the Local Government Association, there are up to 1.4 million housing units that have been granted planning consent over the past decade and have not been completed. The Government may claim that they are serious about solving this problem, and point to their planning reform working paper, entitled “Speeding Up Build Out”, but that paper was published in May last year and requires primary legislation for it to have any effect at all. If the Government are serious about protecting the green belt and getting homes built, where is the legislation?
- Hansard source
Economic Growth
Does the Minister believe that putting up taxes is good or bad for economic growth?
- Hansard source
Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I start by declaring an interest in this debate as a former member of the appeals panel of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for the tone in which he opened the debate, and I recognise the more than 113,000 people who have signed this petition. Behind many of their signatures will be personal experience of infertility and loss, and a long-held wish to start a family. For intended parents, surrogacy is not simply a legal process; it is about getting a family they never thought they could have, and in many cases, it comes at the end of a long and difficult journey. Nobody doubts the love that such parents have for their children. Families formed through surrogacy deserve dignity, certainty and respect. However, our job in this House is to consider more than the wishes of the adults involved. We must speak for the child who cannot speak for themselves. We must also protect the woman who carries and gives birth to that child. The issue for us to consider is whether legal parenthood should pass automatically at birth, before the state has considered the child’s welfare, the surrogate mother’s consent and the circumstances in which the arrangement was made. As a starting-point, any reform to the legislation must do three things: first, and most importantly, it must protect the child; secondly, it must preserve the free and continuing consent of the woman who gives birth; and thirdly, it must address the safeguarding concerns arising from the increase in international commercial surrogacy. First, on protecting the child, the petition describes the upset and strain of months of court proceedings and visits from social services workers before the intended parents are legally recognised. I understand why that process might feel intrusive and unsettling. Intended parents have planned for the child and cared for them from birth, and already see themselves as a family. However, a parental order is not merely words on a piece of paper; it is the legal means by which parenthood is transferred from one person to another. That is a serious act, with lifelong consequences for the child. The process, as it currently stands, allows a court to consider the child’s welfare, establish that the surrogate mother has freely consented, examine any payments that have been made either through expenses or cash, and consider the circumstances in which the child will be raised. CAFCASS provides an independent assessment, so that the decision is not based only on what the adults expected or agreed before the child was born. It is argued by some people that those checks are unnecessary because the overwhelming majority of applications are approved. I simply do not accept that. The fact that a system usually finds that everything is in order does not mean that the checks serve no purpose at all. Their existence helps to ensure that proper standards are followed. If the process is too cumbersome, it should be made more intuitive; if families receive inconsistent advice, that advice should be made clearer; and if the courts or CAFCASS lack the resources to deal with applications promptly, the Government should address that. Delays should be reduced, but that does not warrant the underlying protections’ being diminished. I ask the Minister whether the Government remain committed to the parental order process, and what they will do to reduce unnecessary delays while retaining independent welfare assessments. My second point concerns the woman who gives birth. Under the present law, the woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the child’s legal mother. Legal parenthood is transferred only after she has given valid consent following the birth. It would be ill-judged to dismiss that as an outdated legal technicality, as it recognises the physical, medical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and childbirth. The law normally prevents consent from being given until six weeks after the child is born. That period of time is necessary: a decision made before childbirth cannot fully account for the experience of giving birth, the mother’s health afterwards or how she may feel when the child is born. If intended parents became legal parents automatically, that protection would be reversed. The woman who carried and delivered the child would instead have to take legal action if she wished to withdraw her consent or assert her own rights. That should concern us all, particularly where there is a financial or social imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended parents. A system that depends on someone’s having the knowledge, confidence and money to begin legal proceedings may offer very little protection in practice. Compassion for intended parents cannot require Parliament to treat the woman who gives birth as a temporary party to somebody else’s story, nor should this be presented as a contest between traditional and modern families. Recognising different kinds of family does not require us to reduce the rights of the woman who carries the child. If the Government are considering recognising intended parents from birth, I ask the Minister to set out what protection would remain for a surrogate mother who changed her mind after giving birth. The third issue is of growing concern: the increase in international commercial surrogacy. The majority of parental order applications now concern children born overseas. Applications relating to children born internationally reportedly rose from 215 in 2021 to 509 in 2025; in that same year, there were 150 applications relating to children born in the United Kingdom. That marks a significant change in surrogacy in this country. International arrangements may involve large differences in wealth and power, commercial contracts that would not be enforceable here, complicated payment arrangements made through intermediaries and serious doubts about whether consent was properly informed and freely given.
- Hansard source
Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood
The hon. Member always comes to these debates well prepared and well briefed. I think the point he is making, which we can all agree on, is that this is an incredibly complex area that we cannot rush to legislate on, nor should we seek to water down the clear protections that currently exist.
- Hansard source
Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood
It is almost as if the hon. Gentleman can read my mind, because I was going to say that there is a clear inconsistency in prohibiting the practice here, while allowing such arrangements to be made abroad. Of course, intended parents may also encounter immigration and nationality problems that they are aware of before entering the arrangement, if those arrangements take place overseas. In some cases, a British court may have difficulty locating the surrogate mother when deciding whether valid consent has been provided. In that case, a parental order process and a CAFCASS assessment would be the only independent scrutiny carried out in this country. The Government’s overseas surrogacy guidance was last updated by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2022. Given the rise in international cases, it needs to be updated. It should deal clearly with safeguarding, consent, payments, independent legal advice, immigration and nationality. With that in mind, will the Minister commit to reviewing the international surrogacy arrangements and to publishing updated guidance? Some will say that the law is outdated. I understand the frustrations behind that argument. There is a case for a quicker process, clearer guidance and greater consistency, but making a process easier for one party does not necessarily make the law better. Reforming the law must also protect those with less power and ensure that the child’s interests are the main consideration. Of course, families formed through surrogacy deserve our support. However, the child whose future is being decided also deserves independent protection. The woman who gives birth should not lose her rights before she knows how the experience of childbirth has affected her. We can shorten needless delays and give families greater certainty without discarding the principles on which the current system rests. Legal parenthood should be transferred only after the child’s welfare has been properly considered, the surrogate mother’s consent has been confirmed and the arrangement has received the necessary independent scrutiny. In surrogacy as in every other part of family law, the wishes of the adults are important but the welfare of children must always come first.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
When the right hon. Lady came to the House last year to announce her consultation, I called it a mess. Fast forward 18 months: there is now chaos in the outcome and decisions. Make no mistake, the reason we are here now is the threat of the courts. My concern comes because in Leicestershire, we had three applications go forward and the Government chose their own fourth application. Will the Secretary of State ensure that her review involves not just the process but the boundaries as well, because the biggest contention in Leicestershire is the massive land grab coming from the city, and nine out of 10 people in her own consultation said that this was not acceptable?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
The Labour leader of City of Lincoln council has put forward suggestions that votes should be weighted on the basis of deprivation, leading to proposed wards with an electorate of 2,100 electors per councillor and others with 4,700 electors per councillor. Does the Secretary of State agree that all our votes should be created equal?
- Hansard source
Health Bill
I will try to keep my remarks brief. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for all the hard work he has done over the past year in holding the Government to account on health and social care, the whole Conservative health team for their support, and every member of the Committee that, as the Minister said, scrutinised the Bill in detail in such a hot and sticky room before the summer. I also thank my parliamentary team for their support. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on her reappointment and thank her for the time that she has taken to engage with the Opposition on the Bill. I must also 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. This is not a small Bill. It runs to more than 200 pages, and there are almost as many pages of amendments, with around 180 different MPs signing or supporting different amendments. I do not agree with every one, but I welcome thoughts and ideas from right across the House—well, from most of the way across the House; we did not see much from Reform. The Bill has scale, but does it have direction and clarity of purpose? Leadership sets direction—a destination—and from that follows a path, as smooth as possible, from A to B, with appropriate milestones. However, the Bill, like so many of this Labour Government’s, came as an announcement without enough thought. Let us go back. The Government started with the Darzi report. I will not restate the arguments about why it was done or the weakness of the claims that it is independent, but suffice to say it is their report, published by a Labour peer and former Labour Minister for a Labour Government. It says a few things about reorganisation. Lord Darzi wrote that “a top-down reorganisation of NHS England and Integrated Care Boards is neither necessary nor desirable”, yet the Government decided to abolish NHS England, restructure the ICBs and halve the ICBs’ budgets all at once, without properly planning for what would come next. That is clause 1—abolishing NHS England. One of the main arguments provided related to the unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication of staff. As a Conservative, I accept that there is a strong case for efficiency: the Government must use taxpayers’ money wisely. In a letter that the permanent secretary sent to the Public Accounts Committee, officials estimated savings of £1 billion a year by abolishing NHS England and redundancy cost payments of approximately £1 billion to £1.3 billion, but we have not seen the calculations behind that. It was announced in March 2025 that the restructure would be completed in two years, yet we are now 18 months in and Ministers do not seem to be on track. From March 2025 to July 2026—a year, and three quarters of the time they have given themselves—total headcount across NHS England and the Minister’s Department decreased by 12.9%, which is nowhere near what the Government need to deliver their promised savings. We have therefore tabled amendment 102, which would require the Government to publish a full workforce transition plan, and new clause 153, which would require the Government to publish precisely how many people they make redundant. I would like to raise a contradiction: the Government talk a lot about devolution and local decision making, but the Bill does the opposite. It will remove councils of governors from foundation trusts, give Ministers the power to hire and fire health leaders, and put an end to local Healthwatch. It will give the Secretary of State the power to set and adjust annual funding allocations for ICBs, and direct them to ringfence funding for service integration. It takes away local decision making. The Bill is also inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said the other day. In response to a question about the Bill, he said: “I do not like the idea of a postcode lottery in the national health service.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 61-62.] But if decisions are taken locally, they will be different in different areas, which will lead to a postcode lottery. Will Ministers shed some light on what they actually believe? Do this Government want decisions made locally and accept that those will be different, or do they want decisions made centrally? Lord Darzi said something else in his report: “Constant reorganisations are costly and distracting. They stop the NHS structures from focusing on their primary responsibility to raise the quality and efficiency of care in providers.” Indeed. In fact, that is not too dissimilar from what the Minister for Secondary Care herself previously concluded, when in opposition. She said: “The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 809.] How is the NHS performing? Let us take a look. The total number waiting for appointment has gone down a bit, as the Government have said, but in trauma and orthopaedics, ophthalmology, cardiothoracic surgery, elderly medicine and gynaecology, it has gone up, and in some cases is higher than it was before the election. For those waiting for an admission who need a procedure or an operation, it is not only going up month on month and year on year; it is higher than it was at the time of the general election. What about accident and emergency? The number of people waiting for more than 12 hours after a decision to admit was 29% higher in July 2026 than in July 2024, and that is despite the fact that there were fewer such admissions in July 2026 than in July 2024. How have the Government performed in other health areas? Childhood vaccination rates are in decline. The workforce plan has not been published, despite the Minister saying it was “imminent” months ago. Fracture liaison clinics have not been delivered, despite allegedly being one of this Government’s planned “first acts”. I could go on, but we do not have much time, and I think I have demonstrated the point: NHS reorganisation is distracting from delivery. One of the things I want to talk about that the Government are not delivering is the response to the Hughes report. I thank Dr Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, for her hard work on the report. When the trauma and suffering that some people, particularly women, have experienced from mesh repairs, and the harm that children have suffered because of exposure to valproate in the womb, became apparent, we were all horrified. The previous Government changed the way that valproate was prescribed and commissioned regional surgical centres of excellence to provide care for women who suffer from the effects of a mesh repair. The Conservative Government also commissioned the Hughes report, published in February 2024, that investigated compensation schemes for those affected, but the general election was called just three months later, so delivering compensation and on the report became the Labour Government’s job. Sadly, Ministers have dithered and delayed for more than two years now. We have had written question after written question, several debates and a lot of warm words, but still no response to the report. It is simply not good enough. Those suffering should not have to wait any longer, and that is why we have tabled new clause 145, which would provide a legal backstop, ensuring that the Government publish their response to the Hughes report within 30 days of the Bill becoming law at the latest. That is still not soon enough for those affected, but it is the only way of putting in an effective backstop so the Government can stop fobbing off victims and start delivering justice. Let me turn to other amendments. The Government announced out of the blue that ICB running costs will be halved. Why 50%? I have no idea, but ICBs scrambled to respond. We know from those inside the health service that it has been a major distraction, with a massive opportunity cost for patient care. When the Bill came, Ministers chose to change the composition of ICBs, too, removing the voice of hospitals and primary care from boards as well as the voice of local authorities, severing that link with social care. Integrated care partnerships will also be abolished. There will instead be a focus on mayoral representation, even for mayors where there is little role, if any, in delivering social care. In Lincolnshire, for example, instead of a local authority and an ICB on the same geographical footprint working together over the same area to cover health and social care, we now have the Government conspiring to give us an ICB covering three counties, with no voice for the local authorities, which are unsure after today’s announcement whether they will be split up. We discussed at some length in Committee the importance of health and social care working together, so I welcome the Government’s U-turn on day one of this term to reinstate local authority representation, but I urge the Minister to consider, as the Opposition parties have proposed, reinstating primary care and secondary care representatives, too. Given the time, I will speak briefly to the three amendments on workforce. First, new clause 154 would require the Secretary of State to increase the number of medical school training places to 15,000 by 2031-32. Why? Put simply, because they promised they would and they have not. Secondly, new clause 152 is on merit-based applications. Doctors used to be allocated their first jobs through a system based on performance—that was the case when I was a junior doctor. Now it is done by computer algorithm prioritising choice. This is unfair, demoralising and destroys the incentive to study hard. We believe in meritocracy, and I urge the Government to accept the new clause. Thirdly, I urge the Government to support new clause 144, which would address the plight of a small but significant group of people: a group of medical students subject to a great injustice. These are British citizens studying at a British university, predominantly Queen Mary University in London, who were told four and a half years into their degree that they would not be able to have places on the foundation programme but would be at the back of the queue. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 has meant that non-prioritised doctors got only 1.8% of the jobs—the last 1.8% left. That was the point of the Bill, but the Government should put this particular group of British citizens into the priority group. We will no doubt talk about our other amendments in the Lords. New clause 155 on self-care would give people more autonomy over their own care. New clause 101 is on the national commissioning of low-volume, high-complexity services, and would ensure that the Government cannot just move them into ICBs without a proper consultation and plan. Amendment 95 on the patient choice duty would ensure that patients have choice over the care they receive in neighbourhood services as well as hospital services. Amendment 88 is on the single patient record. The single has the potential to be truly transformative, bringing the NHS in line with other modern healthcare systems. It can prevent people from having to repeat themselves. But there are lots of questions for the Government that have not been answered. This is another example of making an announcement without thinking it through. How will existing health records be linked? How will patients, carers and clinicians have access? Who will control the data? How will it be kept safe? Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to publish a full plan before making changes. There are some parts of the Bill that the Opposition can support, but in the Government’s hurry to make announcements, they often do not seem to think things through properly. That is the story of local government reform that we heard in the House earlier today; it is the story of the much-delayed workforce plan; and it risks becoming the story of this NHS reorganisation. In health, there are life and death situations, so we cannot afford for the Government to get it wrong. The Opposition have made a series of sensible amendments and will be grateful for the Minister’s support.
- Hansard source
Economic Growth
The Government insisted on applying the social time preference rate to the disastrous Chagos deal to make an appalling deal look slightly better. Will the Minister confirm that the changes she has announced today as part of her Green Book revision will increase the cost of that deal by £288 million, which is 10 times the amount that she proposes to cut from the Army training budget this year?
- Hansard source
Urban Housing: Densification
Planning permissions for new homes, of which there are already around 1.5 million, are one thing, but getting those units built is another. With Savills reporting that two thirds of London boroughs have seen net zero new housing starts under the Mayor of London, what proposals do the Government have to ensure that units with permission actually get built, rather than concreting over our green belt?
- Hansard source
Regional Devolution: Funding
With the Government having earlier today briefed the media that much of their devolution programme is being paused, with only Surrey looking like it is going to get its way—I am sure it is the subject of relentless lobbying by Labour Back Benchers—can the Minister tell us how many of the new mayors promised by this Government after their election will be in place by the next general election?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box, and I thank her for early sight of her statement. I am not sure that this was the triumphant return to the subject of devolution that she had in mind, because our councillors and the communities that they represent are looking aghast at yet another shambolic U-turn from this Government. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances to this House from that Dispatch Box that have not been honoured, and it speaks volumes for the Government’s sense of priority that, this far into this Administration, only Surrey has proceeded with its reorganisation—despite all those assurances. The Secretary of State has already told the House that she is not satisfied that the process that was followed by her predecessor was lawful. Can she tell the House from the Dispatch Box why she is not satisfied that it was lawful, and will she place all the non-privileged documentation and correspondence relating to this debacle in the public domain and in the Library? Given that the Government have agreed to pay the legal costs of councils that have challenged them on this matter, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has she made of the legal costs that will be borne by taxpayers as a consequence of this U-turn? Given that the Government have been banking on millions of pounds in savings—we have challenged them on those savings repeatedly across the Dispatch Boxes—to mitigate costs, which include the massive rise in national insurance that has driven many councils to the verge of bankruptcy, what assessment have Treasury colleagues made, and what advice have they given to the Secretary of State about how they will need to mitigate this further delay in any of those savings being achieved, should they ever materialise? The Secretary of State has told the House from the Dispatch Box that elections will go ahead. We have all heard that promise made at the Dispatch Box before; indeed, in some cases it has been reversed literally the following day. Given the promises made and that all our political parties have selected candidates who have been campaigning for mayoral elections and new unitary authorities that the Government promised were coming into being, with elections to take place next May, will she give a categorical assurance that those new authorities will be in place, or promise the House clearly that they will not be? Will she tell us what is the timetable—if there is one at all—for bringing those new mayoral combined authorities into existence, particularly given the store by which the Government have set those as their path for devolution? Finally, I appreciate that the Secretary of State has returned to the role after others have been stewarding it, but will she apologise to all those councillors, all those local government officials, all those political candidates and activists and all those businesses who have engaged in good faith with the Government’s process? All of them have been shamefully let down by this betrayal of local democracy.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Building 1.5 million new homes and doing LGR at the same time was clearly bonkers. From freedom of information requests that I have submitted, I know that local councils in my area have already spent more than £1 million trying to do LGR. That much-needed money could have been spent on special educational needs and disabilities and other critical things in my county. Before any more money is wasted, will the Secretary of State be very explicit about what is happening in Devon? Will elections be happening next May? Can she give an indication of when a decision will be reached?
- Hansard source
Economic Growth
The Minister will know from her previous ministerial role that the cost of fuel is the single most important business cost for rural businesses. I am not asking her to write the Budget today, but will she convey to the Chancellor the importance of continuing the fuel duty freeze for rural businesses beyond the end of December?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
In Worcestershire, what has happened has thrown everything into disarray. Now that we are asking people to stand as district councillors next May, will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will be for a four-year term?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement, but I have to confess to being a bit more confused now than I was when I walked into the room. When it comes to Hampshire, is this a pause or a cancellation? When will we know whether this titanic waste of council taxpayers’ money will re-emerge? The Government’s top-down reorganisation plans have cost councils across Hampshire so much time and money, at a point when finances are already stretched to breaking point. Has she calculated the cost? Will local authorities be reimbursed for the time and money already spent? When will we know what is in the plan?
- Hansard source
Dover and Portsmouth: Protests
Yesterday afternoon, MPs across the Solent region were scrambling for reliable information with complete radio silence from the Home Office. As a result, we were not in a position to calm fear and tension. We still know very little about this extraordinary mega-dinghy turning up on our shores. This is not just west a little bit from Dover; this is halfway down the south coast. Will criminal gangs launch more small boats in the direction of Hampshire? Will the Minister share that intelligence with coastal MPs? Where was the intelligence on this incident? Can she also answer claims that the police were not properly resourced? More than 140 officers were dragged away from our communities and from communities as far away as London to police and deal with this incident. Can she please assure us that such incidents will be dealt with better in the future and that she will be doing everything to ensure that it does not happen again?
- Hansard source
Dover and Portsmouth: Protests
I thank my constituency neighbour, the Minister for Policing and Crime, for advance sight of her statement. I am sure that we all agree that the right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, but the right to protest should never be violently exercised or cause serious disruption to other people. I am sure all of us would equally condemn any form of protest where those guidelines are abused, and support the police in ensuring that protest, where it occurs, is lawful and peaceful. However, these events should be a wake-up call for the Government. It is not just the protesters in Dover and Portsmouth who feel so angry about large-scale illegal immigration. Millions and millions of people up and down this country feel angry as well. Since the general election, over 80,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, all illegally and all unnecessarily, because France is a safe country—nobody is fleeing persecution in France. Almost 20,000 have crossed this year alone, and 625 crossed yesterday, with more coming in the early hours. Every day when the sea is calm, hundreds of illegal immigrants cross the channel. The numbers this year would have been higher, were it not for rough seas in the past few months. The Government should not be complacent at all. This problem is not solved and I do not think the plan is working, if indeed there even is a plan. I was on the beaches of northern France just a few weeks ago, waist deep in water as one such dinghy embarked with about 100 illegal immigrants on it, while 10 members of the French gendarmerie nationale, who we pay for—who the Home Secretary pays for—with £660 million of our money, almost all of it unconditional, stood by and did nothing. They could easily have stopped the boat embarking in knee-deep water. After that happened, I asked one of the gendarmes why they did nothing, and he said they were under orders not to intervene. Almost all the French officers are prohibited from preventing embarkations in the water and they do not prevent the migrants getting to the water’s edge either. As long as that continues, the crossings will continue as well. The Minister mentioned return numbers, but what she did not mention is that the return of 6,000 small-boat migrants in the past two and a bit years amounts to only 8% of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. That is to say, 92% of illegal immigrants crossing get to stay. There is no deterrent whatsoever in that. The people who cross illegally are costing billions and billions of pounds to accommodate in hotels and apartments, and then costing even more once they get asylum and start claiming welfare. The people are angry—not just because of the numbers and the expense, but because of the crime being committed. A few weeks ago, I met Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, who was brutally murdered by a Sudanese illegal small-boat migrant called Deng Majek. Rhiannon was stabbed 23 times, including in the neck. Numerous rapes have been committed by small-boat illegal immigrants, including the rape of a girl in Nuneaton aged just 12. The Government are using sleight of hand. They are moving illegal immigrants from hotels into apartments, then granting them asylum on an industrial scale. Just this afternoon, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—hardly a bastion of right-wing extremism, I am sure the Minister will agree—said that Home Office asylum decision making meets its own standards in only half of cases. The UNHCR, no less, said that many illegal immigrants being given asylum do not deserve to be granted that status under the Government’s own rules. A whistleblower in The Times today said that only 1% of asylum claims are really genuine. I cannot give all the many examples, in the interests of time, but they cited one example in which apparently hundreds of Pakistani men claimed to be gay, based on a letter from an individual claiming to be the sexual partner of all of them. That is quite clearly fabricated with the assistance of immigration lawyers. When the system is being abused on that scale, it is no wonder that people get angry. This Government repealed most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which prohibited illegal immigrants from ever getting citizenship. If the Minister wants to create a deterrent, I strongly suggest that she reinstitutes that measure. This Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme, which would have seen illegal immigrants getting deported, before it even started. If the Government are serious about fixing this issue and ending public anger, they need to get serious about the measures, leave the European convention on human rights and deport illegal immigrants as soon as they arrive—then people will not be so angry.
- Hansard source
Health Bill
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a four-minute time limit, but I will not reduce it further than that.
- Hansard source
Urban Housing: Densification
3. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department has effective strategies for prioritising housing densification in urban areas.
- Hansard source
Urban Housing: Densification
I just heard the Secretary of State say that there should be a brownfield-first approach, but what is going on in Bromsgrove, and in many other constituencies, is contradictory: an 85% increase in the housing target in a constituency that is 90% green belt. I challenge the Secretary of State to think again and prioritise urban densification, which is fundamental to the redevelopment of towns, cities and urban centres that are in desperate need of renewal. Why does she not just admit that she has got this wrong and change tack?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
This process has been a complete shambles from start to finish and has failed to have Worcestershire’s best interests at its heart. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House whether this is actually being paused or whether, in reality, the can is being kicked down the road, under the veil of the process being delayed, rather than the Government admitting embarrassment? If it has been paused, and she is going to revisit the decision, will the evidence base be revisited, and will there be a new consultation with stakeholders, including residents? If so, will the Secretary of State meet me, as the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove, before she takes a decision? I think she said earlier that the Government had allocated £63 million to support councils across the country in this process. How much of that £63 million has been spent so far?
- Hansard source
Economic Growth
On a day when Jaguar Land Rover has announced 4,000 job losses, how many more jobs have to be lost before the Government change course?
- Hansard source
Hate Crime Law: Misogyny
Thank you very much for chairing the debate, Sir Edward. I thank all hon. Members for their very good contributions and the petitioners for securing this important debate with so many signatures. The practice of misogyny—a hatred of or prejudicial attitude towards women—is one of the most disgusting behaviours in our society. As a member of a party that wants to treat people on the basis of their actions and decisions, I consider crimes committed against someone because of their sex to be clearly reprehensible; the people involved deserve to face the full weight of the law. Female hon. Members across the House will be acutely aware of the abuse and terrible attitudes directed towards women. Almost too many statistics could be used to illustrate how so many people experience abuse and crimes directed at them merely because they are women. Without pre-empting the Minister’s response, I am aware that the Government may point to the changes implemented through the amendment of the Crime and Policing Act that made changes to the Crime and Disorder Act. I noted that the Government’s response to the petition made it clear that they believe that that change responds to many of the concerns addressed, alongside other measures they are taking in their violence against women and girls strategy. In addition, I understand that the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation will feed into considerations of whether further steps are to be taken. Although there are interesting and worthwhile conversations to be had about the legislative elements of this challenge, it is important to discuss an even more fundamental element: what is the best approach to stop these crimes from occurring in the first place? Such an approach must be rooted in achieving the most effective results for women and girls, in using the laws that we have more effectively, and in increasing enforcement. The targets set out by Government on violence against women and girls are clearly essential. In the spirit of the Prime Minister’s call to work cross-party and to illustrate the importance of tackling crimes motivated by misogyny, I refer back to the first oral question asked by the former shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), after the 2024 election. He asked about the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and what needed to be done to increase arrest rates. In response there was some political points-scoring by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper)—I am sure the Minister will refrain from that—but the overall question still stands: what can be done to increase enforcement? One element, inextricably tied to enforcement, that I believe to be paramount is ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of officers. The Minister will know that there has been a fall in officer numbers of just under 2,000 over the period of this Government. Will the Minister provide assurances that that decrease has not adversely impacted the ability of the police to respond to the crimes discussed in this debate, which are clearly motivated by a hatred of women? We must consider the decisions associated with Government policy, especially those made in relation to the early release scheme. Although I will not relitigate debates already held in this House, I hope that the Minister can acknowledge how damaging that decision will be for women who have been victims of crimes such as domestic violence and rape. That view has been reiterated by numerous organisations that work to stop such crimes. In a statement, Women’s Aid said, about funding to aid victims: “it cannot eradicate the impacts, including the increased danger that they will face, and the responsibility for managing this rests with statutory services.” To pre-empt any statement that we have had early release schemes before, I point to comments made by the CEO of Rape Crisis England and Wales, who stated: “We are in unchartered territory with the new early release scheme, and so remain extremely concerned about its impact on survivors and specialist sexual violence services like Rape Crisis Centres.” We know that that issue is tied to this debate because such crimes so often fall upon women. The release of those individuals only puts women further at risk. Will the Minister explain what conversations the Government have had with police forces about taking steps to mitigate the impact of the early release scheme, and to support the victims of crimes whose perpetrators will be back on the streets? The contributions to this debate have rightly recognised the underlying importance of the internet as a tool for misogyny, and the necessity of ensuring that the next generation of young men do not grow up with distorted views. Our party’s efforts to push for social media bans for younger people are precisely about ensuring that when someone grows up, it is their family, their education and our society more broadly that can shape their future, not some of the repugnant content online, which seeks to monetise young people and to present them with ideas that, if embraced, make misogynistic traits more likely. On that issue, early this year the shadow Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), asked the Government whether the police were using to the fullest extent their powers under sections 42 to 49 of part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which set out the existing offence of encouraging or assisting crime, including the criteria for an offence and how they can be utilised to stop those who encourage the raping of women and girls. Although my hon. Friend’s question was focused on the Tate brothers, who the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) referred to in her very good speech today and who are clearly engulfed in a range of other legal matters, I think the question still applies, considering that there has been reporting about websites and forums that encourage sexual assault. Does the Minister see the police using these existing laws to stop crimes that are clearly prompted by a complete disregard for the autonomy of women, because if we are going to tackle these crimes, we must utilise the tools that we already have available to us? Also, although I appreciate that it is not solely the purview of the Minister, I want to ask about the evidence gap and what we can do to reduce it. Some of the more troubling data about young people and misogyny in the last year was released by the Youth Justice Board. However, the specific section on misogynistic attitudes in its report stated that there were evidence gaps in the UK on matters that included: proving a causal pathway from misogynistic attitudes in childhood to sexual violence and abuse, as well as non-sexual violence; on misogynistic attitudes among children under 18 in England and Wales, as most evidence is from young adults and studies conducted in the USA; and evidence on how algorithmic exposure to misogynistic and sexual content translates into offline abuse. Today, Members have rightly talked about the online sphere, which is specifically addressed by the petition. However, that suggests that there is a knowledge gap. How can we deal with the online sphere if we lack some pretty essential evidence about it? What can we do better to understand the links between misogynistic attitudes and criminal behaviour? We must all work to support female survivors of crime, whether that means giving them the answers they deserve through inquiries such as that into grooming gangs or working harder to enforce the law, in order to stop people becoming victims to begin with.