Conservative and Unionist Party

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

7 Sep 2026ParliamentDr Neil Shastri-Hurst
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDr Neil Shastri-Hurst
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDr Neil Shastri-Hurst
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDr Luke Evans
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDr Caroline Johnson
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDr Caroline Johnson
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDr Andrew Murrison
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDavid Simmonds
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDavid Simmonds
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDavid Simmonds
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDavid Reed
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDavid Mundell
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDame Harriett Baldwin
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDame Caroline Dinenage
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentDame Caroline Dinenage
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentChris Philp
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentCaroline Nokes
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentBradley Thomas
Urban Housing: Densification
<Question HRSContentId="{E70723F2-110B-41AB-AB4F-EC3F2E612C11}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{54A6A0B3-C2F0-4A05-AA15-2FED120FDDAA}">What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department has effective strategies for prioritising housing densification in urban areas. </QuestionText></Question>
Hansard source
7 Sep 2026ParliamentBradley Thomas
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentBradley Thomas
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentBradley Thomas
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
7 Sep 2026ParliamentBlake Stephenson
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.
Hansard source
7 Sep 2026ParliamentBlake Stephenson
Hate Crime Law: Misogyny
I want to be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) made an interesting point about the funding that organisations receive through their police and crime commissioner. Can the Minister confirm that, once police and crime commissioners disappear from our framework, the same funding—or more, perhaps —will be available to those organisations? If so, how will they receive that money?
Hansard source
7 Sep 2026ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{2B88FEA6-AD88-47E0-9D04-128F59E481E7}">T6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{C153D791-C456-4611-931C-237D403F0532}"></QuestionText>I have received over 70 complaints from tenants in my constituency who are resident in Places for People properties about its failure to maintain its obligation to fix the property and carry out basic maintenance. Are the Government aware of whether this is a more widespread problem, and is there anything they can do to encourage Places for People to fulfil its obligations?</Question>
Hansard source
7 Sep 2026ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty
Local Government Reorganisation
When I led a debate in Westminster Hall last week on the impact of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, I could not possibly have anticipated that it would have been powerful enough to stop it dead in its tracks. I welcome the pause to tranche 3, but I want to get a bit of clarity for the councillors in my constituency. The plan is going to be reviewed. If it comes back, will we potentially see local elections in May 2028 for a new shadow unitary? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State meet me and Huntingdonshire district council to discuss some of the topics that are still outstanding and the reason why Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was delayed in the first instance?
Hansard source
7 Sep 2026ParliamentAlison Griffiths
Local Government Reorganisation
We are 26 months in, and the Secretary of State has already admitted that the real cost that the Government have not assessed are the costs of the lost programmes, projects and services that have not been delivered in West Sussex and Arun because the bandwidth, headspace and resources have been devoted to LGR. Can she tell me, first, what has been the financial cost—nationally, in West Sussex and in Arun—of this so far failed experiment with LGR? Secondly, how many months can the district councillors elected in 2027 expect to serve?
Hansard source
7 Sep 2026ParliamentAlan Mak
Dover and Portsmouth: Protests
No small boats arrived on Hayling island or in any other part of my constituency yesterday. Nevertheless, residents are concerned, and agree with me that anyone who enters the UK illegally should be deported within a week and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Minister also agree, and will she and the Home Secretary meet me, and other Members on both sides of the House, to explain the police and Home Office responses, and why Labour has lost control of our borders?
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir John Hayes
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
As a former schoolmaster, my right hon. Friend will be familiar with the work of Piaget, who makes exactly that point: early development—prior attainment, as it is often called—is a determinant of subsequent progress both at school and beyond it. In rural communities such as mine, it is vital that the delivery of the services my right hon. Friend describes is done in a peripatetic way, ideally through what were once called district nurses—familiar figures in the community who could engage with local people and build trust. I wonder if we ought to add to his Bill, in the form of an amendment, a call to bring back district nurses.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir John Hayes
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about Sure Start, and in particular about the capacity to deliver what she describes as face-to-face services. It is critical that those services are delivered in precisely that way—in person—because of the trust that that creates. As a new parent in 2000, having never had a child before, I remember that my wife and I were dependent on exactly those kinds of very trusting personal relationships. I fear that more and more of those kinds of services are being delivered now online, and people are being driven online to attain them. We must reverse that trend; it was exaggerated, of course, during covid, but it has never really recovered since.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir John Hayes
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I have come to know and become a friend of my hon. Friend over recent times. She will understand that although it is easy for us to imagine the vulnerability of unborn and born children, the vulnerability of new parents is often underestimated. They can feel, as she describes, nervous and uncertain, as they can be frightened of making mistakes. When people have their second child, it is a lot easier, as I am sure many Members would acknowledge, but in those first days, weeks and months, it is difficult. What this Bill creates is a cushion for those vulnerable parents that I have described.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. This is the first private Member’s Bill that I have moved in 30 years, and I have been somewhat discombobulated by the extraordinary amount of effort that has gone into getting just six clauses before the House today, so I am deeply indebted to the Government Whips Office, which has been extraordinarily helpful. I do not know what is happening to this Parliament—it is vastly more helpful than I was ever expected to be when I was a Government Whip! Anyway, I am equally indebted to the Ministers and their private offices and, indeed, to the parliamentary draftsmen. Of course, included in those Ministers was the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who has pursued this particular agenda in opposition and in government, frankly, since God was a boy. Equally, I give my thanks to the Public Bill Office, which has been exceptionally helpful, and to our former Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom, and her 1001 Critical Days Foundation. Finally, I give thanks for the heavy lifting done by my parliamentary assistant and by our former colleague, Will Quince, and his team. Of course, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Standing Orders are clear: we do not refer to people in the Gallery—I take it you have got the hint. This Bill responds to the widely held view that services for infants, prospective parents and parents of young children are somewhat vulnerable when they rely largely on non-statutory guidance and programme funding. The purpose of the Bill is to shine the legislative spotlight on those services and to ensure that they are systematically understood and are known about and scrutinised by Parliament. It is a truism that if we want a better future, we need to start with the provision of services to babies today. It is vital that those services are available in that critical period of 1,001 days from pregnancy through to two years old. If children are confident that they are safe and if they are responded to properly by adults, they will build relationships, they will be healthy, they will have language development and their future learning will be assured. That is vital. It is vital that we make that impact in those early weeks, months and years when 1 million neural networks are being formed every second and the baby’s brain grows to 80% of the weight of an adult’s brain by two years old. If those services are not available, and if problems arise and are not addressed, there will be problems with speech, problems with relationships and problems with development later, so it is vital that they are there.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I will address exactly that point shortly. If a child is not developing properly and is not sleeping, feeding or communicating, parents need to know that they have somewhere to turn. If that difficulty is spotted by, let us say, a district nurse, a midwife, a health professional or one of the excellent workers in our family hubs, help is on the way. If that help does not arrive or does not arrive in a timely manner, problems will present later, when they will be much more difficult and more expensive to address. I have received an enormous amount of advice from clinicians at the top of their game and from frontline workers with enormous experience, laying out all the vital services that ought to be provided for by a Bill such as this and, indeed, offering me substantial help in putting the Bill together. It would be perfectly proper for hon. Members to share that sort of advice with the Minister today, and that is the proper place for it. This Bill is quite deliberately written at a higher level. It does not specify what the services should be; it empowers Ministers to regulate and make provision for those services. That is the overwhelming purpose of the Bill. Of course, there is a vast amount of evidence out there that suggests that all these services are vital, be it perinatal mental health services for parents, relationship training for parents and their child or the peripatetic services that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to, as is the systematic provision of those services. All that is vital, and if it sounds familiar it ought to be, because that is what is being delivered to a large extent by our excellent Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme. The Bill does not provide something new in the way of services; it will make those services accountable, more easily scrutinised by Parliament, and therefore less prone to being deprioritised. We might recall what happened to much of the Sure Start programme, and let that be a salutary lesson, particularly for Opposition Members.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
The Government removed the requirement to ringfence the funding for Sure Start, and because local authorities were not required to spend that money in that way, they made their choices accordingly. I accept that it was the wrong priority, and I hope the whole House is the better for knowing that.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I remember with respect to my own children the importance of a visit by the midwife, even after birth, and that is essentially the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was making about the importance of district nurses. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Clause 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to define these services, and the functions that the Secretary of State will carry out. Their primary duty is to work out what those services actually contain.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
Yes, essentially today we are putting these services on a statutory footing. Of course subsequent Governments can change statutes, but this Bill makes it an explicit decision of this House and Parliament, rather than a fiat by Government decision. Clause 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State to assess the need for these services, and that includes a duty to take into account the opinions of parents, prospective parents and carers, as far as reasonably possible. The first duty is to define what services and functions we are talking about, and the second is to make an assessment of need. The period in which to make that assessment must be no longer than three years before another period of assessment begins. Clause 3 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to then make provision for the services that she has assessed are needed. To address one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, that takes account of the fact that there may be different levels of need in different areas. Clause 4 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the provision of those services and the outcomes that arise from them. Clause 5 is largely an interpretation of terms used within the Bill, be it “infant”, “prospective parent” or “prospective carer”. Clause 6 determines the short title of the Bill and provisions for its coming into force. Effectively, this Bill lays a series of duties to make regulations on the Secretary of State: first, to specify services and functions; secondly, to assess the needs for them; thirdly, to provide for those services; and, fourthly, to report accordingly to Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank hon. Members for their contributions. I am presented with the difficulty of forming a Standing Committee that balances those who supported the Bill on Second Reading with those who opposed it. If any of those Members who were unfortunate in not catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, nevertheless want to serve on the Standing Committee, I will attempt to accommodate as many of them as I can. During the debate, a number of Members referred to the need for breastfeeding and its importance. It reminded me that for many years, my wife was a breastfeeding counsellor for the National Childbirth Trust. Part of the training for that involved being a breastfeeding agent for the Egnell breastfeeding pump, which clients could hire for £1 a week. It was a bit like an iron lung that sat in our basement. It went “ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa” and extruded the milk. It was always a mystery to me why my SodaStream delivered a cloudy product, and it was not until later that I discovered that I had been serving milkshakes, because my wife had been using the machine and storing her product in the ice maker. The Education Act 1944, or the Butler Act, which made such a profound difference to the lives of children in our country, was preceded by the coalition Government’s White Paper, in which they set out their vision in 1943 for “a happier childhood and a better start in life”. Let us hope that we have begun a process today with this legislation that will have as profound an impact. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), and I thank him for his continued work and his commitment to this Bill. As colleagues may know, this Bill carries a particular significance for me, as I recently celebrated the first birthday of my son. In fact, today we celebrate him being 395 days old, so I am pleased that Members on the Opposition Benches are taking action to highlight the undeniable importance of those critical first 1,001 days in a child’s life. I hope that Members from all parts of the House will join me in supporting this Bill. In Leicester East, we are fortunate to benefit from an excellent quality of service throughout the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland NHS trust. I put on record my thanks to the wonderful nurses, doctors and midwives who supported me through my pregnancy and birth and have supported my son on several occasions since. To be clear, this Bill is not about critiquing the quality of healthcare we receive through our NHS, or placing further demands on the hard-working healthcare professionals who serve on the frontline every day. It is focused on establishing an enduring legal foundation for the best start in life and the healthy babies programme. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are a time of rapid and vital development. During this period, babies strengthen their physical, neurological and emotional capacity, with the brain reaching about 80% of its adult size by the age of two and forming more than a million new neural connections every single second. To support that profound chapter of change in a newborn’s life, babies must be safe and secure. That not only improves the first 1,001 days of their life, but has a lasting impact into adolescence and adulthood. Statistics show that children whose mothers were stressed during pregnancy are twice as likely to experience mental health difficulties during those teenage years. By investing in the measures promoted by this Bill, we change our approach from crisis management to prevention. We will target early support for families to ensure that they are prepared to manage those early days of parenthood, saving billions of pounds of annual spending on public services later down the line. In an ever-changing world, with swift advances in healthcare and technology, we must continue to check in with the parents and carers who are taking on responsibility for these new lives. We must also continue to be available to prospective parents and carers—those who anticipate the arrival of new life with great excitement, but also with great trepidation. Listening is a fundamental part of what we do here, and we have to make sure it stays at the forefront of all decision making in this House. I have been privileged on a number of occasions to spend time with the incredible Sally and her team at Leicester Mammas. They do some amazing work within my constituency supporting mothers through the early stages of parenthood.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentShivani Raja
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I thank my right hon. Friend for that wisdom, and I could not agree more. As a first-time parent and a young mum, I can confirm that I have felt the pressures faced by many mums across the country. Again, that is why I am grateful to Leicester Mammas for providing guidance in my post-partum journey, including breastfeeding support. They give encouragement to my family and many other families across Leicester, and they have truly grown to be an integral part of our community. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reported in 2024 that up to 85,000 mothers across England had experienced post-natal depression. That is staggering, and it is all happening well within the first 1,001 days of a baby’s life. The last national maternity review, in 2024, described the harsh and devastating reality that three in 10 women reported symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress just six months after giving birth. We have to do more, and that begins with being better listeners. The Bill would enable the Government to continue to monitor the situation for parents and carers, prospective parents and carers, and newborns, but ultimately we have to make sure that our listening is followed up by action. The second component of the Bill would improve the level of accountability in that area. The third element of the Bill focuses on information and support, specifically in ensuring that we introduce a stronger legal foundation beneath the resources and services that families rely on during pregnancy and the first 1,001 days. There sadly remain inequalities throughout our system. The reality in many of my constituency’s communities is that pregnancy and childbirth are far from straightforward. Evidence shows that women living in the most deprived areas die during childbirth at nearly twice the rate of those living in the least deprived areas. Having a firm legal basis for the care that is provided to new mothers across demographic groups will ensure that some of the anxiety is taken out of pregnancy. For many mothers and prospective mothers in Leicester East, that would be life-changing. As a mother with a son who is growing up at an unbelievable pace, I know the reality of both the challenges and joys of the first 1,001 days. However, no country in the world has fully recognised in law the huge opportunity that strengthening the support to families in this early period carries. It would be transformative, and I support the Bill because I know from personal experience as a new mum that, as many mums in this House will also know, parents and carers need more support, and I believe the Government can offer that. We have the evidence to back up the need for the Bill, and we are now presented with the perfect opportunity to lead the world in our approach to championing young families and their children. I urge Members across the House to join me in supporting the Bill.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentRebecca Smith
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I join many others today in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing this debate and on his choice of topic. There does seem to be an enormous amount of agreement in the Chamber today, and I know that he has secured cross-party support for the Bill, which is excellent. Like everyone else present, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. While I, like many others, do not have my own children, I am an aunt to four, a godmother to four and a friend to many people who have children. I have been looking after my friends’ kids since I was about 18, so I am pretty adept at changing nappies; I know how to get them to smile and how to do all those things. We have heard mention of the value of the wider family and friendship group, and I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill from that perspective. As a result, I know that there is a reason why we say, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”—it is because those earliest years really do matter profoundly. During the first 1,001-day period, secure attachment is built through a baby’s everyday interactions with their parents, their carer or, indeed, their aunties and uncles. A smile, a cuddle, a comforting voice—those simple moments lay the foundations for emotional wellbeing. I certainly hope that the 24 hours in which I was the only person to provide my 18-month-old nephew with all those things added to his wellbeing, rather than detracting from it—we will see in a few years’ time. I think he generally knows who I am and is happy to see me, so that is fine. By the age of two, a child’s brain reaches around 80% of its adult size. As Lord Cameron has said, “mums and dads literally build babies’ brains.” By supporting parents from the very beginning, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce the need for costly state intervention later down the line. That is why I support the Bill’s intention to put services during pregnancy and early childhood on a stronger statutory footing. The reporting requirements in the Bill will mean that decisions on funding cannot be made in the dark, ensuring that services such as Best Start family hubs and the healthy babies programme remain a Government priority. Family hubs provide a vital one-stop shop for parents, bringing together practical support under one roof, from breastfeeding advice to work to help to reduce parental conflict. Plymouth was one of the original 75 local authorities selected to participate in the Conservative Government’s family hubs programme back in 2022. The council has now successfully established a network of 11 hubs. However, interestingly, there have been recent reports about funding changes, and trying to find out information on what is happening, who is responsible and what is going on has been really difficult. Therefore, anything that ensures that that reporting back is done—particularly on funding and sustainability when external agencies are providing those services—will be particularly important. As an advocate for family hubs, when I have constituents come to me and say that people working in those hubs are being made redundant, I want to know what is going on and whether delivery is continuing. It is important to remind ourselves that the value of family hubs is that they are open to everyone. However, I believe that more could be done to encourage parents to use them. So far, only 16% of parents with a child under five have used a family hub, despite 66% having heard of them, according to a poll from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It is clear that we need to do more on that.
Hansard source
4 Sep 2026ParliamentRebecca Smith
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
I thank my hon. Friend for that good point, which I am particularly passionate about. I have spoken a lot this week about funding for rural services, particularly under local government reorganisation, and that will be really important in the future structure of unitary councils. How can we ensure that villages and smaller towns get access to family hubs and things like them—and whatever else comes about following the Bill—and that people are not reliant on infrequent public services or on having a car to get to them? I am glad he mentioned that, because it gives me even more reason to continue on my journey against local government reorganisation in my constituency. My hon. Friend also highlights how we want every community to have a family hub. I am considered to be the MP for the slightly well-off bit of Plymouth, so I am incredibly grateful that the city set one up in my constituency, but there are whole communities in my constituency, such as Plymstock where I was a councillor for many years, that do not have a wellbeing hub or a family hub. If we are to do this, we must ensure that we do it properly. I want to take the opportunity to remind the House that family hubs are a Conservative innovation, grounded in the principle that strong families make for a strong society. I am delighted that the Labour Government have committed to build on our success and roll out family hubs to all local authorities, not just those initial 75. I must also say that they are not merely Sure Start rebranded.
Hansard source

Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Local Government Reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation

Health Bill

Economic Growth

Urban Housing: Densification

Regional Devolution: Funding

Local Government Reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation

Economic Growth

Local Government Reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation

Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

Health Bill

Urban Housing: Densification

Urban Housing: Densification

Local Government Reorganisation

Economic Growth

Hate Crime Law: Misogyny

Hate Crime Law: Misogyny

Topical Questions

Local Government Reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation

Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill