Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

   I speak to my brief exchange earlier with the Minister. As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, said, the draft regulations are fairly benign and very welcome to help people who are struggling with their bills. Fundamentally, however, when changing the law, it behoves us to understand who is within the scope of that change and what adverse impacts there might be as a result. A cohort of people will be just about managing to pay their bills, yet there will be a cost to this measure, welcomed though it has largely been by the Committee in the speeches so far. What is unclear to me, however, is the cost. For this measure to substantively help people with their energy debt in a meaningful way, one assumes a significant cost as a result of being able to share the data in order to write off those bills. Therefore, for the Minister to make the claim that it is helping—as she did—one assumes that she will know what the cost is of the change to the law that she has brought to the Committee. Given that, it also behoves us to understand who will pick up the cost of the measure. I was therefore surprised that in the Minister’s remarks, she did not touch on that cohort just above the other one—some people who can pay the addition to their energy bills without any difficulty whatever. We all represent constituents—indeed, the Government frequently talk about the pressure of the cost of living on them—who are just struggling. Indeed, they are those who, to coin a phrase, need some breathing space. They are just about affording their bills, but they <span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>will not be covered by the protections in the draft regulations; quite the reverse—they will be the ones who bear the cost. One assumes that the Minister has not brought in a change in the law without being clear about what the cost of that change is or what the impact might be on some of those struggling to pay their bills. In her wind-up, will she clarify those two figures? What is the cost of the amount of debt that is going to be written off, and how many people are potentially within scope of being pushed into that cohort because their bills will go up? We did not have those figures, but I hope she now has the inspiration from the Box to answer those points.

   Hansard source
2. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

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

   Hansard source
3. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Local Government Reorganisation

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

   Hansard source
4. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Economic Growth

   Is it not bizarre that just a few hours after the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government came to the House to pause local government reorganisation <span id="726" class="column-number" data-column-number="726"></span>on the basis of legal risk, so that she can have more consultation, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “We will bring an end to consultation culture and, with guidance from the Attorney General on legal risk, give Ministers the confidence to make decisions”? Will they have a greater appetite for legal risk, or will they pause to have more consultations? The two Ministers are saying opposite things.

   Hansard source
5. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Health Bill

   I rise to speak to clause 1 on the abolition of NHS England and clause 6 on promoting innovation. What characterises the first of those is an announcement without any clear plan. That is what has driven the cost and confusion that a number of Members across the House have spoken about. Those in any doubt about that can just look at NHS England’s own 2025-26 annual accounts, which show that the costs are already more than £100 million higher than forecast and now sit at above half a billion pounds. I do not recall seeing that on election leaflets. Indeed, just six directors at NHS England are being paid over £800,000, and that points to the cost. Sometimes such big figures are hard for constituents to get their heads around. Just to localise it to my own constituency, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB alone paid out £14 million in redundancies last year. It merged with a number of other ICBs to form the Central East ICB, yet we know hear from the Government that it should align with metro mayors, which means going back to exactly what it was before: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB. That is just one of many confusions around the announcement. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about confusion over the timetable and what was described to the media as now an impossible timetable. We also saw reports in the media this weekend about the destination of staff in NHS England. Can they actually go into the Department, or will another body be set up because of the pay disparity between the two? All this is around 18 months on from the actual announcement. The confusion seems to extend to the Government themselves, because they seem unable to answer pretty straightforward written parliamentary questions. Given the time limit, I will give just a few examples. I asked how many people have been hired to NHS England since the announcement of its abolition, not least given the huge cost—over half a billion pounds—of voluntary redundancies. Despite the deadline passing, the Minister has not answered the question. We know from another written parliamentary question that more than 1,000 jobs have been advertised. It is relevant to know, in an organisation that is paying people to leave, how <span id="805" class="column-number" data-column-number="805"></span>many people it is hiring. I also asked how many people had accepted voluntary redundancy, another written parliamentary question that has passed the deadline without answer. The process is characterised by a lack of transparency.

   Hansard source
6. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Health Bill

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

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

   Health Bill

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
8. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Health Bill

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
9. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Health Bill

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
10. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Economic Growth

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

    Hansard source
11. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
12. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Health Bill

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

    Hansard source
13. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Health Bill

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

    Hansard source
14. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Topical Questions

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

    Hansard source
15. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Local Government Reorganisation

    On 26 March, I said that people will ask whether these reforms are an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism, or gross incompetence and stupidity. I think today we recognise that it is both. The right hon. Lady has only just returned to the Dispatch Box, so it cannot really be her fault, so who has screwed up? Who is it that has wasted the time, effort and money of people in Essex and other parts of the country? She has the opportunity now to tell us where, how and why this went wrong, and I encourage her to do so.

    Hansard source
16. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Economic Growth

    As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, many of those Jaguar Land Rover employees live in my constituency, but they are across the whole midlands. In August, the Government committed to consulting on the zero emission vehicle mandate. Will she undertake to ensure that the consultation is as quick as possible, so that we can give our car manufacturing firms the best chance to compete globally?

    Hansard source
17. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Health Bill

    We all often have a common memory that is so incredibly important and special: holding our child for the very first time. Sadly, so many people up and down this country cannot have that memory because of their difficulty in having children. In 2004, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended a way forward on IVF, which was to give all a minimum three cycles of IVF treatment. That was set out 22 years ago, so we would hope that over time all ICBs would have moved towards delivering that. Sadly, it is something that people have moved away from, and that is not because the issue has got easier or better or is impacting fewer people. The reality is that the issue has got more difficult and is impacting more people, meaning that more people will not have that amazing joy of holding their own child. I ask the Minister to look at new clause 104, which has been tabled in my name, with the support of 16 other Members from all parts of the House. The issue of people not being able to have children is growing. Male fertility has been collapsing over the past few decades. As people are dealing with greater pressures to buy their own home, they are having children later in life, rather than earlier. We have a postcode lottery. Only two ICBs across the country offer the NICE recommendation of three cycles. In fact, as we have already heard, the offer in Manchester has been decreased. That is also the case in Cheshire and Merseyside. In Staffordshire, which I represent, people are not even entitled to one full cycle of IVF, meaning that unless someone is incredibly rich, they are condemned to probably never being able to have children. That is just not right, and I urge the Minister to be proactive in looking at how it can be addressed.<span id="799" class="column-number" data-column-number="799"></span> We face a demographic issue in this country. We have a falling birth rate, with fewer than 600,000 babies born in this country last year. That will only get worse. It is sad that the NHS is not prioritising this issue. I understand the pressures that ICBs operate under, and it may always be seen as an easy, no-cost option to deprive people of the ability to have a child, but for those people who desperately spend their whole life doing everything they can—remortgaging their homes, begging for money from family and friends—to have a cycle of IVF, it is destroying them. There is no humanity in this system. I urge the Minister to look at new clause 104 and give families the opportunity—the greatest blessing that they can have—to hold their own child. I urge her to take action, as opposed to ignoring something that is so important to so many.

    Hansard source
18. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for looking again at Lincolnshire. I made the point to her predecessor that the proposal for a Greater Lincolnshire authority was, in the eyes of many people, just a gerrymander. Will she look again at it and stop dividing West Lindsey and North Kesteven in half? I represent the Gainsborough South-West ward—the most deprived ward in the entire country. I am on the Pride in Place board. What was the point of dividing Gainsborough and leaving it out on a limb from the rest of the county? Will the right hon. Lady look at our viewpoint in a positive way?

    Hansard source
19. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

    If the centre does not take action, nasty extremes will take over. The fact is that we are in acute danger. These people can now launch from anywhere on the north French coast and are escorted to our shores. Frankly, we are being invaded, <span id="706" class="column-number" data-column-number="706"></span>and the public are completely fed up. There is only one solution, and that was put to the Minister by the shadow Home Secretary. There is no deterrent. They know they will not be deported. We have to get out of these outdated conventions, detain immediately and deport immediately. Will the Government take action?

    Hansard source
20. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

    They are still coming!

    Hansard source
21. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I am delighted by the reprieve—the New Forest was to be split, and part of it swallowed by Southampton. Will the Secretary of State accept my representation that we want the integrity of the New Forest to remain, and the last thing we want is for it all to be swallowed by Southampton?

    Hansard source
22. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Economic Growth

    Last week, the Prime Minister boasted in the same breath that we had the fastest growth in the G7 and that the decade of slow growth was caused by Brexit. If we are ahead of the pack, it cannot be caused by Brexit, can it?

    Hansard source
23. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I thank the Secretary of State for her announcement, which, however she dresses it up, is in fact a decision about common sense and listening. I put it to her that, in Essex, most of the district councils, the county council and most MPs want to stay with two-tier local government. Is that an option? Will she acknowledge that and listen?

    Hansard source
24. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Topical Questions

    The Home Secretary will potentially soon be asking the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to use a Crown development order to approve planning in Linton-on-Ouse for an asylum centre. I ask the Secretary of State to reject that as undemocratic, and to ensure that the application goes through the locally elected North Yorkshire planning authority.

    Hansard source
25. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

    I am grateful that it is the Policing Minister who is making this statement. I have spoken to North Yorkshire police, and there is a proposal for RAF Linton-on-Ouse to be made into an asylum centre. The trouble is that calling it an “asylum centre on a military site” does not paint what it is. It is just a mass hotel, because people are free to come and go, and they will all be men. The Home Secretary said in a statement that she would not allow an asylum hotel anywhere near a primary school or a nursery, but within 300 metres of the entrance to the base is a primary school and a nursery. North Yorkshire police have made it clear that they would find <span id="712" class="column-number" data-column-number="712"></span>it exceptionally difficult to constantly police protests, and these protests are coming from far and wide. Given the change to the way that protests are happening, the fact that North Yorkshire police would find it very difficult to police them, and the fact that there is a primary school and a nursery close to what would be a mass hotel for 1,500 people, can the Minister confirm that it is still the policy of the Home Secretary that she will not open such hotels near schools and nurseries?

    Hansard source
26. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Shivani Raja

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    The topic of this debate is a matter of great sensitivity, but I oppose the proposal in the petition. Automatically recognising intended parents as legal parents from birth could remove important safeguards at precisely the moment when a child is most vulnerable. We should begin with the most important person in this debate: the child. A child cannot consent to a surrogacy arrangement, and they cannot understand the promises adults have made. They cannot know what might happen if circumstances change—and circumstances can change. We have seen cases where arrangements that began with everyone in agreement broke down <span id="221WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="221WH"></span>during the pregnancy. In 2023, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case where a parental order was set aside and the surrogate mother was ultimately awarded contact with the child four times a year. That child was conceived using the surrogate’s own egg. She had to fight for that contact against the wishes of the commissioning parents. When we are told that everything is agreed before birth, we have to ask what happens when it is not. The current law recognises that possibility. A parental order cannot be applied for until six weeks after birth, and the surrogate has to confirm that she is willingly giving up her parental rights. That six-week period is not a pointless delay; it is a breathing space and a safeguard. It recognises that giving birth to a child is not simply the completion of a contract, but a profound physical and emotional event, and that the law should allow time for circumstances and feelings to be properly considered. The current system also provides scrutiny through the family court and CAFCASS social workers. If we remove that oversight, we are not simply removing paperwork; we are removing an independent layer of protection around a child. We need to understand how much that matters, because surrogacy is growing rapidly. Parental order applications increased from just 117 in 2011 to 537 in 2025, and the majority of applications now involve international surrogacy. That should make us more cautious, not less. When a child is born through an international arrangement, there can be questions about consent, identity, immigration, the circumstances of the surrogate and whether proper safeguards were followed. As recently as 2025, the High Court dealt with a case where the intended parents had never met the surrogate carrying the child, and did not even have information about her identity. The case took more than 15 months and involved four court hearings. That shows us why proper scrutiny is necessary. Compassion must never mean abandoning scrutiny, because when adults disagree, a child has to live with the consequences. That is why I cannot support automatic legal parenthood from birth. The child must come first.

    Hansard source
27. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Topical Questions

    The Government want Buckinghamshire council to develop 91,000 homes, but 2,890 of those are basically to be adjacent to Northamptonshire, and it will be my residents in Brackley who are affected by that. They are going to have none of the help in developer contributions or a proper say in the matter, so will the Minister meet me to discuss this concerning issue for my constituents?

    Hansard source
28. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Train Stations: Walking Distance Definition

    <Question HRSContentId="{0F2C4326-1174-4C8F-9E04-1684F4D2FD5A}">17. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{FCBCC18C-6F79-4EB5-924B-788CFA5408C5}">How her Department defines a walking distance to a train station. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
29. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Train Stations: Walking Distance Definition

    This policy has created a huge amount of consternation in my constituency, and it puts a huge amount of green-belt land at risk, especially in historical, beautiful villages such as Hampton-in-Arden, because there is one way in and one way out. There is a small GP surgery, and a school with just one form entry. My constituents fear that they will be overwhelmed and their green belt will be overrun. Would it not be better for the Minister to focus on growing housing in places like Birmingham, which needs more housing, and on ensuring a brownfield-first, infrastructure-first approach?

    Hansard source
30. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

    Democratic Participation: Young People

    My local schools do an excellent job of engaging young people in democracy, and pupils at Brompton Community primary school deserve particular praise for taking action. They gathered evidence, took local views, and came to speak to me and the council about implementing a 20 mph speed limit outside their school—something now being actively worked on. Will the Minister join me in praising their effort, and agree that they are an inspiring example of what young people can do when they get involved in the democratic process?

    Hansard source
31. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Richard Fuller

    Economic Growth

    I thank the Minister for her statement and for early sight of it. On a day when the country was listening for a message of change, it was the same old, same old: a continuity Chancellor, with continuity policies and a continuity team of Ministers in the Treasury. Does the Minister recognise the harsh irony that—given the Government could find plenty of money to hire 14,000 more civil servants in SW1—the Chancellor chose to go to the west midlands, just a few miles away from Jaguar Land Rover, but had nothing at all to say about it? The Minister talked about Government borrowing falling to its lowest levels, but I wonder: can she also talk about the cost of Government borrowing? Can the Minister confirm that the cost of Government borrowing for 30 years is now at its highest rate for 28 years? The Minister talks about there being nothing progressive about spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest—well, amen to that—but why then did this Government choose to increase borrowing by £500 billion over the course of this Parliament? The Minister talked about the northern scale-up fund, which is an interesting initiative, but can she advise us who will be making the investment decisions and assure the House that they will not be subject to political direction? The Minister talks about a National Wealth Fund with new strategic partnerships and a permanent transfer of power and resources from Whitehall to the regions. Did she listen to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government say that local government reform is on hold? Can she confirm to the House what proportion of the country will qualify under that measure to be part of Labour’s largesse? My fear is that many parts of the country will not. The Minister did talk, smartly, about removing the thicket of consultation and looking at judicial review and the consultation culture. The Opposition will be supportive of measures that she comes forward with in that regard. But then, after a brief moment of common sense, the Minster talked about reducing the discount rate from 3.5% to 3%. Can she confirm that the cost at which the Government are borrowing is going up and up—5.9% for 30 years—yet she has chosen this moment to reduce the rate at which the Government expect to get money back from 3.5% to 3%? Can she explain how those numbers add up? Then, of course, there is the final cherry on the parfait: the Government will “identify and back” unicorns in this country. How will the Government identify those unicorns, and can the Minister explain how that is different from the discredited policy of Governments picking winners? The Minister then returned to common sense with the announcement that Mr Milburn will set out his recommendations to the Government. Will she please advise the House—many Members will be concerned about this—on what date Mr Milburn will make his recommendations? Today, the Government—the Minister and the Chancellor—had an opportunity to at least have mentioned the high cost of energy that is crippling British manufacturing. They could have ruled out tax increases, providing more certainty for businesses that they can invest. The Government could have said that they would <span id="720" class="column-number" data-column-number="720"></span>take up the offer from the Conservative Leader of the Opposition to work together on meaningful reform and reductions in welfare, so that we make work pay. But we did not hear any of that. Instead, we are heading to a Budget where a Labour Government have again run out of money and where a Labour Government will once again increase taxes to cover their fiscal incompetence—same old continuity Labour.

    Hansard source
32. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome this debate. As we know, the petition asks for parental orders to be permitted at birth. I believe that Members should approach the proposal with extreme caution. The number of people who have signed the petition—over 113,000, including 226 of my own constituents—is clearly testament to the strength of feeling on the issues. However, the petitioners frame the parental order process as an obstacle to parental rights, but that is fundamentally misleading. The legal process provides important protections for surrogate women and the children they carry. Currently, intended parents can apply for parental orders only after six weeks from the birth, and they must usually do so within six months. That cooling-off period provides a vital safeguard for the surrogate mother, and we should not dispense with it lightly. I believe we need to take a step back and remember why this House has historically approached surrogacy with so much caution. It is now undeniable that we have moved well beyond the purposes originally used to justify IVF and assisted reproductive technologies. IVF was initially intended to help a childless couple have a child, not to create a contractual market out of pregnancy. <span id="217WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="217WH"></span>That sense of mission creep is also evident when we look at the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The Warnock committee, whose report led to the Act, did not regard surrogacy as simply another form of fertility treatment. Now, over 40 years later, surrogacy has become just another service routinely offered at clinics across the country. Technology allows us to separate genetic parenthood, gestational motherhood and social parenthood. However, it does not mean those relationships are interchangeable. Technology may give us choices, but it does not absolve us from making ethical judgments about those choices. It is worth noting that the UK is an outlier in allowing any form of surrogacy at all. Surrogacy is much more strictly limited, or even completely prohibited, in countries including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. We know that some of those countries are particularly liberal in other areas, so the fact that they are strong on this gives us reason to question why they take that position. That reflects the serious ethical questions that arise when a child is intentionally separated from the woman who carried them in the womb. Commercial surrogacy is illegal across the EU, where it is classed as a form of child trafficking. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has recommended the global abolition of surrogacy. Last year she described surrogacy as characterised by the exploitation of women and children, including girls. In any future reforms of surrogacy legislation, the welfare and safety of women and children should remain our paramount concern. I acknowledge that the desire of many people who turn to surrogacy is for a child, and that that is a profound need within them. I think that is something on which we are all able to agree. Some women face infertility or repeated pregnancy loss, and some face medical conditions that make it impossible or even unsafe for them to carry a pregnancy themselves. For some people, surrogacy may seem to be the only path to having a child with a genetic connection to them. I do not question the deep desire for that, nor do I underestimate the pain that can come from wanting a child and being unable to have one. That said, compassion for those experiences cannot require us to overlook the women and children affected by surrogacy. By its very nature, surrogacy involves a woman’s body becoming a means to an end. She is carrying a child for the benefit of another family. My concern is that our efforts to help people to become parents risk constructing a system in which women’s reproductive capacity becomes merely a resource for others to use. One of my main concerns with the petition is that it implies that surrogacy is closer to natural conception than to adoption; I believe that is again misguided. With adoption we do not pretend that the birth mother is irrelevant simply because she will not raise the child herself. That woman has already nurtured the child in her womb for nine months and the law rightly recognises that her role matters: the original birth record remains in existence and the adopted child can access it later in life, as an adult, if they wish. Similarly, a surrogate may not intend to raise the child she carries, but that does not mean that her role should be legally obliterated at birth. We should also consider the needs of the child. A baby bonds with their mother in utero regardless of whether the surrogate uses her own egg in the pregnancy. <span id="218WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="218WH"></span>The child’s birth mother is an important person in the child’s story and the law should therefore recognise the birth mother’s indispensable contribution in bringing new life into the world. I also have concerns about financial incentives. In this country a surrogate mother cannot simply be paid a fee for producing a baby. She may receive reasonable expenses, including for things such as maternity clothing, travel and loss of earnings, but typical reimbursements now reach as much as £25,000. I think we would all agree that that is quite a substantial sum, which should give us pause for thought. There is an important distinction between reimbursement and income. It is one thing if a woman is compensated for genuine expenses, but if pregnancy becomes a source of substantial financial benefit, we need to ask whether we are still talking about altruism or whether we are creating a market in all but name. Pregnancy is not risk-free; it can involve serious medical complications. However, uncertainty about whether a payment is reimbursement of an expense or a fee clouds the situation. We cannot discuss this issue without considering the wider international picture. Most parental orders for UK parents now involve commercial surrogacy abroad; we have heard a lot about that already. It should concern us all that international surrogacy takes place in jurisdictions where the economic circumstances of surrogate mothers are very different from those in Britain. If wealthy countries normalise the commissioning of pregnancies, there will inevitably be markets that meet that demand. In most cases, the women with the least economic power become the people expected to take the greatest physical risks. I will finish by reiterating that I have enormous sympathy for people who want children and cannot have them naturally. Their longing is real, but true compassion must extend to everyone involved, including to the women whose bodies bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth and to the children they bear. Do the Government remain committed to the parental order process and the safeguards that it provides? Those safeguards are not outdated as the petition suggests; indeed, they are needed now more than ever, especially as international surrogacy arrangements are becoming the norm for intended parents in the UK. The parental order process exists to ensure that a child’s welfare comes first and that a surrogate mother’s consent is freely given. Any reform should strengthen those protections for women and children, not diminish them.

    Hansard source
33. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    The hon. Member and I have a great shared interest in fostering and adoption and have spoken about those issues a lot in the past. To clarify, is he saying that there should still be a six-week gap between the birth and the parental order being signed, or that there should not, but that if there was a problem, the courts could still get involved afterwards? That strikes me as clouding the water even more. I appreciate where he is coming from, but I was not 100% clear on what he was saying.

    Hansard source
34. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
35. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    There have been a couple of mentions of the time it takes to get an order, but parents in the UK adoption system have equally long—often much longer—waits to take on parental rights over a child. We are in danger of creating two separate systems, so that putting in an order for a child through a surrogate is a quick option to become a parent, but we are making it harder for people who have gone through the care system to foster or adopt, or who have gone through a long adoption process. I wonder whether we are inadvertently suggesting that there should be a two-tier system. I wonder what the hon. Lady’s thoughts are on that, because I know that she, like me, is a big advocate of fostering and adoption.

    Hansard source
36. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

    I thank the Minister for making a very thoughtful summing-up speech, as ever. Has she had any conversations with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about providing clarity on whether the expenses that surrogate mothers receive should count towards their benefits? Under legacy benefits, they did, but under the new version of universal credit, they do not count as unearned income. That thorny issue needs to be looked at, particularly given that £25,000 can be paid to women who may be on benefits, but it does not count as income. Has the Minister had that conversation, and can she look into that?

    Hansard source
37. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Planning: Green Spaces

    The Secretary of State has doubled housing targets for Maldon district, causing it to fall behind on its five-year supply; that is putting green spaces at risk in villages such as Tollesbury. These villages are building more homes but, importantly, this is affecting their ability to plan their strategic infrastructure and community growth. Will the Secretary of State meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) to discuss the targets and the impact that they are having on the community and on green spaces?

    Hansard source
38. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Since the Secretary of State first announced these plans, when she last held this role, the Labour Government have played fast and loose with our local democracy, cancelling elections and creating chaos and uncertainty in our councils as they struggle to deliver key frontline services. As she goes to work on this review, will she publish, alongside the legal advice that she has received, the financial costs that councils in Essex have faced as a result of this massive U-turn? Has she assessed the adverse impact on local services caused by the time and resources spent on these changes?

    Hansard source
39. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Topical Questions

    Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council’s debt—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Listen. The debt now sits at £620.1 million, up from £585 million last year, and £36,000 a day is paid in interest. The previous Government issued a best value notice to ensure that the debt was reduced, but this Government scrapped it. Why are the Government so unwilling to take the Liberal Democrat council to task for ripping off my constituents?

    Hansard source
40. 7 Sep 2026·Parliament·Patrick Spencer

    Topical Questions

    Campsea Ashe is a tiny village with 100 residents, no school, no high street and no major employer, but it has a train station and a planning application that would double the size of the village. If the Secretary of State will not reconsider this blanket policy, will she at least intervene on this specific application?

    Hansard source