Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
We now come to the Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate, and I call Bob Blackman, who will speak for up to 15 minutes. Many Back Benchers wish to speak, so I suspect that there will be a speaking limit.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
Order. There will be a four-minute speaking limit for Back-Bench Members. I want to put on the record my gratitude to the late Sir David Amess. He was a huge mentor of mine and he constantly fretted about my security. It never occurred to me that we should have been fretting about his. I want to thank my constituency team for being fantastic—especially Pavlina, who is about to go on maternity leave.<span id="1141" class="column-number" data-column-number="1141"></span>
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
I look forward to visiting.
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
A reminder for colleagues that we do not mention Members’ names directly; we mention them by their constituencies.
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
In keeping with the late David Amess’s approach, the summer Adjournment debate is indeed broad.
- Hansard source
Transport Decarbonisation
Opposition Members genuinely wish the whole Transport team well ahead of the weekend and next week—although if they are moved up, along or down, at least they will not have to answer the many written parliamentary questions that we have put to them over the last few months. One of the Government’s flagship policies remains, despite consistent urging from both manufacturers and the Opposition. We have asked the Government to change tack, but the ZEV mandate remains. Despite ploughing in billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash, last <span id="1050" class="column-number" data-column-number="1050"></span>year’s target was met only because manufacturers could rely on compliance credits bought from Tesla and BYD, instead of on consumer demand. Does the Secretary of State seriously believe that year-on-year percentage increases to 80% of zero emission vehicles by 2030 or 100% by 2035 are achievable, or that buying compliance credits from China is a sustainable model for the British car industry?
- Hansard source
Transport Decarbonisation
British vehicle manufacturers are expressing the view, with increasing urgency, that the ZEV mandate has simply become an ideological shibboleth of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Secretary of State finally listen to the industry, work across Government to sideline the Energy Secretary, listen to the millions of motorists who simply want the freedom to choose the right van or car for them, adopt the Conservatives’ “plan for drivers” policy, outlined last year by the Leader of the Opposition and me, and scrap the disastrous ZEV mandate before it kills off the British car sector and more than 100,000 good jobs across the UK?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
In London boroughs and cities across the country, council-wide 20 mph speed limits are causing havoc. In Wales, councils are desperately trying to unpick the last Welsh Labour Government’s blanket 20 mph speed limits. Why on earth are Labour Ministers trying to repeat that clear failure of policy, dreamed up by Labour, Green and Lib Dem councils in England and a failed Welsh Labour Government obsessed with a war on motorists, and impose it on rural communities in England?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Essex is a county of nearly 2 million people who are opposed to Labour’s plans by more than two to one, yet in a train-crash statement that has lasted more than an hour, the Secretary of State has not referred to Essex once. What on earth is going on in Essex? We are going to have shadow elections in May, but we may not know until autumn which councils are having the elections. When will we learn what is happening in Essex? Is there any chance at all, given the overwhelming public opposition, that he will drop the whole barmy proposal?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
What are you doing in Essex?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
He did not make a—
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
What chaos in Sussex! The West Sussex decision has been delayed, and splitting East Sussex is okay according to the Secretary of State. My constituency is the only one that covers both East and West Sussex in its current form. It is a dog’s breakfast. It is unclear on special educational needs and disabilities and adult social care. In the letter sent to me today there was no clarity on the Sussex mayoralty. There is uncertainty on elections. The one thing that is certain is that Labour and Lib Dem proposals are priorities. Why have the Secretary of State and this Department shifted so far from the initial proposals that we in Sussex considered in good faith? Surely that explains why so many people feel that this is such a huge mess.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Over recent years, the people of Stockton have seen investment in the local health service, with a new diagnostic centre, a new mental health hub and new state-of-the-art robotics. But North Tees hospital is reaching the end of its life. The outstanding staff who work there deserve a first-class place to work, but instead of a new hospital, all they have had from this Government is 600 job losses. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the urgent need for a new North Tees hospital?
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
I start by joining the many other hon. Members who have paid tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a remarkable, inspiring and passionate woman, and I was honoured to welcome her to Stockton on numerous occasions. My thoughts go out to her friends and family. One issue that is raised with me week after week is the growing scourge of off-road bikes and e-bikes. Whether it is in Bishopsgarth or Elm Tree, Ingleby Barwick or Thornaby, residents across Stockton West are fed up with feral, balaclava-clad thugs using these bikes to intimidate communities, tear through parks and footpaths, and make neighbourhoods feel unsafe. Families cannot enjoy parks, older residents feel intimidated and children cannot play safely. This is not simply anti-social behaviour —it is dangerous criminality. I put forward amendments to legislation that would have made it easier for officers to seize vehicles, ensured that non-roadworthy bikes seized from persistent offenders were not returned and explored greater accountability around the sale of off-road bikes in the first place. Those amendments were not accepted, but the problem has not gone away; if anything, it is getting worse. I urge Ministers to look again at the issue and bring forward a comprehensive package of measures that equips police with the powers they need, tackles the supply of these machines and sends a clear message that those who use off-road bikes and e-bikes to terrorise our communities will face real consequences. Another issue that I hear about almost every day is over-development. Across Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Middleton St George and Hartburn, residents increasingly feel that their communities are being asked to shoulder an unfair level of development without the infrastructure to support it. People understand that homes are needed and that young people want somewhere to live, but what they cannot understand is why developments continue to be approved without the roads, school places, GP capacity, drainage and local services keeping pace. Time and again, I hear from residents who feel their voices are ignored. Development should happen with communities, not to them. The Government’s increasing housing targets risk placing more pressure on these communities. Planning <span id="1159" class="column-number" data-column-number="1159"></span>should improve places, not simply gobble up the greenbelt to maximise housing numbers. I hope Ministers will continue to look at ways to strengthen the role of infra- structure in planning decisions and ensure that local communities have a meaningful voice before developments are approved. Finally, I pay tribute to Richard Pengelly from Strangers Bar who retires today after 37 years. Richard has not just poured pints—he has poured patience, good humour and the occasional reality check for MPs of every party. The place will not be the same without him. I wish him a long and well-earned retirement, and I look forward to reading his memoirs. Stockton West is an amazing place, with amazing people. I am proud to call it home and I am proud to represent them.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport will be visiting Immingham this afternoon. Does he agree that his journey would be much more convenient if there were a direct train service from King’s Cross to my constituency, and will he join my campaign to ensure that happens?
- Hansard source
British Steel
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your earlier comment. It is surprising that the Secretary of State is not here to make a statement before he visits Scunthorpe, which I understand he is doing today. Like the Father of House, I have no objections to—and have supported the Government on—saving the steelworks by nationalisation, but it can only be a short to medium-term solution. The challenges—most notably, energy costs—remain. If, as the steel Minister has previously said to me, the Government are looking to attract private investment into the industry, will he acknowledge that energy costs must be dealt with before that investment will follow?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Earlier this week, the green flag awards were announced, and two parks in my constituency were successful: Baysgarth and Bridge View in Barton-upon-Humber. I congratulate the community groups that helped with that, but as well as support from community groups, parks need support from our local authorities, and it is important that sufficient resources are made available. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement when we return on local government finance for providing such facilities?
- Hansard source
Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty
As the Minister knows from our Westminster Hall debate last week, I was part of an APPG delegation to Gibraltar a couple of months ago, where we had a wide-ranging set of meetings. I congratulate all those involved in achieving the treaty. One reservation that was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition there—who did, of course, eventually support the treaty—was about possible future changes. He wanted an absolute guarantee that the people of Gibraltar would have the final say on any future constitutional changes. Could the Minister confirm that is the case?
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
Earlier this week, I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate about the isolation of coastal communities. I had prepared a five-minute speech, but we were only allowed two and a half minutes—so here’s the other two and a half minutes. The More in Common research group recently produced a report, commissioned by Associated British Ports, about understanding British coastal communities. The report is a wake-up call for Westminster. It surveys those living on our coasts, and the message is clear: <span id="1154" class="column-number" data-column-number="1154"></span>79% of coastal residents feel that the Government in Westminster do not understand their area. I have to say that I disagree with that to some extent, because many people, such as myself, live, work and were brought up in coastal communities. It is easy to knock Westminster for not understanding coastal communities or industrial areas when, in fact, many of us work hard to argue the case for the communities in which we live. Young people in coastal communities can see the potential for their areas, but they need a reason to stay. Currently, 58% of young people in coastal communities are considering leaving because they feel they have no choice or because of a lack of decent jobs. In my area, we have Immingham, the biggest port in the country, right on the doorstep. If we unlock investment in port infrastructure, we can reverse the brain drain. Turning from our economic future to the immediate health of our communities, I must raise deep concerns regarding NHS England’s proposed boundary changes for the integrated care board in our region. Neighbouring MPs and I have written to the relevant Minister and the ICB to argue the case. Services across North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire and the wider Humber are deeply interconnected, and we need a single health ecosystem. If NHS England proceeds to break up our current footprint, it will directly undermine the viability of Scunthorpe and Grimsby general hospitals. Furthermore, 300,000 people from the Humber and North Yorkshire ICB footprint are threatened by the financial stability of the entire system. The proposals will dilute support and services in our area. My speech would not be complete if I did not raise my long-running campaign to restore direct train services from Grimsby and Cleethorpes through to King’s Cross.
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
I have already raised the issue once, in Transport questions this morning, and I will do so at every possible opportunity. Grimsby and Cleethorpes comprise one of the largest urban areas in the entire country that does not have a direct link to our capital city. The Government claim that the creation of Great British Railways will boost economic growth and provide direct services. It is now up to Ministers to decide. They could, merely by signing an order, restore the service. In my final 30 seconds, I must report that I had a close encounter with a cyclist this morning. Many pedestrians around London will be aware that some cyclists can be a danger; hon. Members can go outside this building and see hundreds of cyclists breaking the law. If we do not enforce the law at a low level, we turn a blind eye to law breaking at a higher level.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
I can see the sense in what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with this reorganisation, and the target of 500,000 people per unitary authority makes a lot of sense—it brings a lot of people together. But why, after Wyre Forest district council voted for the single unitary, did the Secretary of State deliver a two-unitary solution for Worcestershire? North Worcestershire, where Wyre Forest is, will consist of 293,000 people. We are now splitting up adult social care, children’s services, highways, education and refuse disposal. It does not make financial sense. Will the Secretary of State reconsider what is being proposed for Worcestershire, and go with a single unitary authority?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
All my residents in Spelthorne and I are desperate to get Spelthorne’s five stations into the travelcard zone. The Secretary of State has looked at this in the past, but will she look again, with South Western Railway, at the financial modelling being used to say that it is not possible? I think a load more people would use that trainline if it were in the travelcard zone.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
What would the Secretary of State say to my constituents in Broxbourne, who never asked for this reorganisation and are concerned that it is just a waste of time and money that will leave them with higher council tax bills and less say over local planning decisions?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Churches are important historical buildings and are often at the heart of our local communities. Labour stopped the last Conservative Government’s VAT scheme, <span id="1085" class="column-number" data-column-number="1085"></span>which helped to maintain places of worship across the UK, but the new, more restricted places of worship renewal fund applies only to England. Thanks to Coldingham & St Abbs parish church, it has come to light that the Scottish Government are not passing on extra funds to churches and places of worship in Scotland. Will the Leader of the House encourage his ministerial colleagues to contact the Scottish Government to ensure that this money is passed on to places of worship in Scotland?
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
It is a great pleasure to close the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate on behalf of the Opposition, in which we have heard a great many excellent contributions from across the Chamber. Of course, this is a time to remember Sir David himself, who always made sure that the people of Southend were put firmly on the map <span id="1173" class="column-number" data-column-number="1173"></span>during this debate. I will always remember his warmth, conviction and generosity when I was first elected to this House in 2017. He was a tireless advocate for the people he represented and for the causes he championed. I join right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe, who was a woman of great conviction and always said what she thought. You might not have completely agreed with her, but you always knew where she stood. The way in which her life was cut short last week in such horrific circumstances is truly heartbreaking, and my thoughts are with her family, her friends and everyone who knew and loved her. I also pay tribute to the members of the staff who are leaving the House of Commons this summer, including Godfrey from the Tea Room; Richard, after 37 years in the Strangers Bar; Francelise and Denis, after 25 years and almost 27 years respectively at the Members’ Restaurant; and many others who have served this House diligently for many years. A number of Members have highlighted some of the great attractions in their respective constituencies today, such as the putting greens in Fife that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned, the air show in Sunderland that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) mentioned, or the entertainment zone at Braehead that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) mentioned. Lastly, I am looking forward to visiting the green belt mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). The summer is a wonderful time to visit the Scottish Borders. Members do not need to take my word for it; only a few weeks ago Jeremy Clarkson described the Scottish Borders as Britain’s “most beautiful” region. If Members are looking for a last-minute staycation this summer, they know where to come. One of the highlights of my year remains my annual summer surgery tour, which starts on Saturday, on which I will hold more than 80 advice surgeries in every town and village across my Scottish Borders constituency. This is in addition to my regular monthly surgeries, and gives me an opportunity to visit every town, village and community, particularly those in the more remote and isolated parts of my constituency. I will once again be holding this tour alongside my Scottish Conservative colleague Rachael Hamilton MSP, who was overwhelmingly re-elected to represent the Scottish Borders back in May. There are still appointments available, so I encourage any of my constituents who would like to meet in the coming days or weeks to get in touch. It has been a busy year. I have continued to campaign for better public transport links for the Borders, in particular to extend the Borders railway from Tweedbank to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle, and to restore direct LNER services that have been cut from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London, which are so vital for keeping the Borders and north Northumberland connected. My constituency is, of course, a borderlands community. We regularly cross the border to shop, visit friends and family, get to work or enjoy the beautiful Northumberland coastline. However, access to NHS services for cross-border communities remains a significant challenge. My view is simple: my constituents should be able to access healthcare as close to home as possible, even if that hospital or facility happens to be in England. It is only common <span id="1174" class="column-number" data-column-number="1174"></span>sense that taxpayers, who fund our NHS, should be able to use the services that best meet their needs. I will continue to campaign alongside local residents to ensure that access to NHS care is quick and easily available to everybody who needs it. We have heard some excellent contributions from Members across the Chamber, and I want to mention some of them. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) mentioned the red telephone box in Balfron, which has been used as a food exchange. That is a great example of the redeployment of the red phone box network, and I know of several examples in my constituency. I congratulate the residents in Balfron on securing that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) highlighted some of the big questions regarding the Peter Murrell scandal and the problems circulating around the SNP just now. He rightly asked those questions, because many people in Scotland are asking them and calling for a full inquiry into who knew what and when—particularly former First Minister Ms Sturgeon. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) both raised very difficult and tragic cases. My thoughts are with the family of Lucy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington South for raising that challenging and difficult case. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge raised an important point about fraudulent paternity testing. I hope that the relevant Minister will take that forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) raised the important issue of off-road bikes in Stockton. I know that it is an issue for many communities. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) raised a similar issue in respect of e-bikes. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the ongoing, increasing costs associated with the restoration and renewal project. I know that many Members share those concerns. It is imperative that the new Government make time for a debate on it so that the relatively newly elected Members from the 2024 election have an opportunity to have their say. Ultimately, we are dealing with huge amounts of taxpayers money, and we need to have an open and frank discussion about it. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who is not in her place, raised the importance of sport, with which I wholly agree. She also highlighted the risk of taking part in parliamentary sports activities, given that sharp elbows seem to have given her a broken rib—a lesson for us all, perhaps. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) gave a very moving tribute to one of his late council colleagues. I am grateful to him for highlighting that serious condition and what people suffering from brain tumours have to deal with. I have not been able to mention everybody, but I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken time to raise the issues affecting their constituencies. However, we should have had this debate next week, once the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) had assumed the office of Prime Minister, so that he could come to the House to explain what he plans to do with the country. As things stand, we have <span id="1175" class="column-number" data-column-number="1175"></span>little idea what he intends to do. The right hon. Member did not publish a manifesto during the Labour leadership election. He has not yet been tested. For many years, he has made countless promises without having to deliver them, but soon he will have to do so. The right hon. Member for Makerfield said that WASPI women should receive compensation, but we hear now that he has changed his mind. What are his plans for taxation? Which taxes does he plan to increase? He has said that he will “take his responsibilities fully” to fund the defence investment plan after the Prime Minister and Chancellor left a £4.7 billion black hole. How does he intend to pay for it? What is his plan to tackle the out-of-control welfare spending? All of our constituents deserve answers to those questions. The new Prime Minister should have come to this House early next week to answer those basic questions. Instead, he has bottled it. Yesterday, the Opposition planned to move a motion to delay the parliamentary recess until Monday so that the incoming Government could face proper scrutiny and to allow the nation to hear from the new Prime Minister about his plans. Instead, the Leader of the House—presumably acting as proxy for the incoming Prime Minister—came to the House and blocked the motion. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House believes that his actions were worth it—or perhaps he will be rewarded with a plum job in the reshuffle. I, for one, hope that he will continue in his current job because I think that he has been an exceptional Leader of the House. As I close, may I thank my amazing constituency team, who have worked hard for me since my election to this place in 2017, and some who have suffered even longer, since 2007, when I first became a Member of the Scottish Parliament? I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and his office and the other Deputy Speakers. I also thank everyone who supports the Speaker’s Office throughout the parliamentary year. The Doorkeepers, Clerks, caterers, security staff, cleaners and Members’ parliamentary and constituency staff all work tirelessly to keep this place running every single day, and I am sure that Members across the House will join me in expressing our sincere gratitude for everything they do. I wish colleagues from across the Chamber a restful and enjoyable summer recess. I know that for many of us, it will be time spent working in our constituencies. I look forward to seeing everybody in September.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. These two new clauses, the latter of which is in my name, deal with the publication of an annual report detailing NHS and social care provision for dementia care and how the Government are performing against targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services. I would like to thank three important charities working in this area: the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK. All three back the two new clauses. The data requested is imperative to ensuring that the Government can measure and monitor progress against relevant national targets, standards and guidance, including the new modern service framework on dementia, the forthcoming Care Quality Commission statutory guidance and outcome measures that may be set in future NHS operational planning guidance. That is crucial to improving transparency and accountability, allowing systems to see the full picture of dementia provision in England and highlighting challenge areas or inequalities. The Bill makes provision for the establishment of information systems to collect, analyse and publish health and care data that is in the interest of the health service in England. The clause fits into that and would require the collection of data on the provision of dementia services in health and social care.<span id="711" class="column-number" data-column-number="711"></span> I do not propose to speak too long, but I do want to make a couple of remarks on the current situation, which sets these new clauses in context. Dementia data is not currently comprehensively or consistently collected, analysed and published. That means that we cannot fully understand the provision of NHS care or social care for dementia, which is the biggest cause of death in the UK; how national targets, guidance or frameworks are being met; and where inequalities and challenges lie. As well as being the leading cause of death, dementia is a disease that around 1 million people live with. That number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. That will, of course, impact many more friends, families and carers who support those living with dementia. More than a third of people living with dementia in England do not have a formal diagnosis. Those who do receive a diagnosis live with the condition for an average of three and a half years before that diagnosis. Post-diagnostic care and support is often fragmented, leaving people affected by dementia without a clear point of contact, co-ordinated care, or access to specialist support for those with complex needs. Recent findings show that only 14% of people with dementia have an advanced care plan in place. That is not good enough for a disease that affects so many people and is the leading cause of death in England. Dementia puts immense pressure on our healthcare system: one in six hospital beds is occupied by someone living with the condition. Lord Darzi’s investigation into NHS performance highlighted how “there is an important challenge to improve both the quality and quantity of care for people with dementia.” The new clauses would go some way to addressing that, and I urge the Government to support them.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. <em>Clause, by leave, </em><em>withdrawn</em><em>.</em> New Clause 97 Publication of annual dementia care report “(1) The Secretary of State must publish annually and lay before Parliament a report on— (a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia, and (b) provision of social care in relation to dementia. (2) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national plans, guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services. (3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including— (a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas, (b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care, (c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers, (d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services, (e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care, (f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and (g) dementia research activity in the NHS. (4) The Secretary of State must publish the first such report under subsection (1) within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”—<em>(Joe Robertson.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the delivery of dementia care by the NHS and social care sectors against relevant national targets, standards and outcome measures.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em> <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Maritime Sector
I thank the Minister for pausing the MCA’s brutal decision about coastguard rescue officers, and for convening meetings on cross-Solent ferry transport to the Isle of Wight, which will start next month. It is of some concern, however, that I have received a letter—not from him—telling me certain things that I was not allowed to discuss, including evidence of ticketing and reliability going back more than 10 years. I am sure he understands that the world did not start in 2016, and I will not be told by anyone how to best represent my constituents, or what I can or cannot say.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. This seems a moment for the words of Philip Larkin: “What will survive of us is love.” It is a day of sadness and departings. I know that the whole House will want to join me in saluting the England football team. I simply say this to them: you went out to a foreign field, you fought like true lions, and you did us proud. Thank you. Let us also pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe for her bravery, spirit and independence of mind. There is a book of condolence in the Members’ Library, which I know many Members will wish to sign. Ann’s politics were not especially my politics, Mr Speaker, but let me tell you a story that illustrates my personal experience of her a little. We were at a dinner of the Holborn and St Pancras Conservatives—a vibrant local organisation—in the time of the late Frank Dobson, where Ann was the guest speaker. At the end of the evening, a bottle signed by her was thrust into my hands and I was asked to invite her to auction it. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that she had just had a bit of a dust-up with the noble Lord Howard on the subject of which she had said that he had “something of the night” about him. Quick as a flash, holding this bottle of whisky, she said, “Ladies and gentlemen, what will you give me for something of the nightcap?” I thought that pretty game, under the circumstances. This week has featured a certain amount of rancour, as the late Roy Jenkins might have put it. The Government found themselves changing the business twice and cancelling an Opposition day debate they themselves had scheduled and reaffirmed only the previous day on the entirely bogus excuse that they wanted an urgent debate on Iran. That debate was so urgent and important that it <span id="1075" class="column-number" data-column-number="1075"></span>was opened by the most junior Minister in Government, finished two hours early and featured precisely three—count them: three—speeches from Labour Back Benchers. I think we can all agree that it will be a tragedy if we lose the Leader of the House from business questions, but if he is not promoted after the embarrassing heroics he has performed this week on behalf of the new Prime Minister, it will be a huge injustice. But we are not going to cast nasturtiums, in the words of a friend of mine, on any of this nonsense—not even on Baroness Lloyd and the hopeless Building Digital UK, who have entirely failed to address the issue of fibre broadband in neglected parts of my constituency and simply repeated the same language of incompetence and failure to me for more than a year now. I hope that the Leader of the House will pick that up. No, we will cast no nasturtiums. There will be no rancour from this side of the House. I come to praise the outgoing Prime Minister, not to bury him. He is a transparently decent and honourable man who is dedicated to public service. He rescued the Labour party, and he worked with great diligence to lead this country. No one who has not been close to leadership of that kind can have any idea of how hard it is. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude. As for the incoming Prime Minister, my advice is simply this: be careful what you wish for. He has had a coronation and an election hustings with just one candidate—a single name on the ballot paper—but on Monday afternoon, he will start to learn the true difficulty of the decisions that face him. There will be hard trade-offs that cannot be abolished by tinkering with the fiscal rules or still more tax and spend. Vibes will not be a solution to these problems. Eyelashes will not suffice. He will have to stand up and say, or perhaps decide, what it is he believes in. We can only hope that he will bring energy, frugality, a long-term focus, and a talented team adequate to the tasks ahead. We wish him very well. I wish you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House and all the staff and Members of the House a summer break full of rest and happiness.
- Hansard source
Maritime Sector
I am very aware that this may be the last time I face these Ministers across the Dispatch Box, so I just want to say that from my perspective, they are a good bunch. I have really enjoyed it, and I wish each and every one of them the best of luck on Monday or Tuesday. Turning to the question at hand, I welcome the Minister’s statement that he is going to stop the ill-judged decision on CROs, but that does not let the MCA off the hook. At a meeting of MPs recently, the chief executive of the MCA claimed that 93% of coastguard rescue officers supported plans to make them unpaid volunteers. We know from a leaked internal survey that the MCA misrepresented the views of CROs both to Ministers and to Parliament. Up to half of them said that they would quit or reduce their hours if the Government forced through the plans to remove their pay. Given that the Minister has reversed the decision and that he has signally failed to express his support for the chief executive, can he now confirm whether or not he still has confidence in the chief executive of the MCA?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Passengers on the Fen line from King’s Lynn are suffering repeated cancellations and an unacceptably poor level of service. Now that the Government control both the <span id="1061" class="column-number" data-column-number="1061"></span>track and the trains, will the Transport Secretary intervene and demand a robust action plan to sort out this poor performance?
- Hansard source
British Steel
The Minister failed to respond to any of the questions asked by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), so I will try again: some companies have expressed an interest in the business, so what discussions is the Minister, or his colleagues, having with potential buyers?
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
Twice in one day!
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister back from her son’s graduation —I hope it went well.<span id="653" class="column-number" data-column-number="653"></span> I rise to state my support for new clause 47, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a clear roll-out plan for fracture liaison services across England and report annually to Parliament on progress towards universal coverage by 2030. It is not about creating a new target, because the target already exists: both this Government and the previous Government committed to achieving 100% fracture liaison service coverage by 2030. The question before us, as proposed by the shadow Minister, is simple: how will that promise be delivered, and how will Parliament know whether meaningful progress is being made? Fracture liaison services are one of the most evidence-based interventions in osteoporosis care. They systematically identify people aged over 50 who suffer a fragility fracture; assess their bone health; initiate treatment where appropriate; and monitor patients to reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. Given that around half of patients who sustain a hip fracture have previously broken another bone, those services represent a vital opportunity to intervene before a life-changing injury occurs. The human cost is considerable. Osteoporosis affects millions of people, particularly older women, and fragility fractures can result in a loss of independence, reduced mobility, social isolation and significant pressure on health and social care services. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that around 180,000 fractures each year in England and Wales are attributable to osteoporosis. There is also a compelling economic case: the Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that investing around £30 million in fracture liaison services could prevent approximately 74,000 fractures over five years, including 31,000 hip fractures, saving the NHS around £665 million and freeing up some 750,000 bed days. Few preventive interventions offer that combination of better patient outcomes and substantial savings for the NHS. The Government frequently point to their commitment to universal coverage by 2030, but as the shadow Minister pointed out, progress has been achingly slow. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I questioned him on that issue directly. While he confirmed that the Department remains committed to meeting that 2030 target, which was first established by the previous Conservative Government, no plan—or indication of when a plan would come—was given. A commitment alone is not a delivery plan. There are also growing concerns that the Government have overstated the progress that has already been made. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has confirmed that more than 97% of the fracture liaison services counted by the current Government were already in place before the change of Government. So, rather than that representing any significant expansion in national coverage, this Government have gone slow. I think it is therefore very reasonable—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket—for Parliament to be entitled to ask what additional progress has actually been made since the commitment was reaffirmed. New clause 47 would also require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of access in every integrated care board area. It would also require annual milestones, because, at present, there is no publicly available timetable <span id="654" class="column-number" data-column-number="654"></span>showing where the services will be established, or which areas will be prioritised or progressed between now and 2030. Crucially, the new clause would require the Government to set out how integrated care boards will actually be supported. Ministers rightly point out that fracture liaison services are commissioned locally by integrated care boards, but if the responsibility for delivery rests locally while responsibility for national targets rests with central Government, there clearly needs to be a well-thought-through national framework explaining how those boards will be supported through funding, guidance, workforce planning and accountability. This is, therefore, a straightforward request for transparency, accountability and, most importantly, delivery. If Ministers are committed to achieving this by 2030, they should have absolutely no objection to publishing a plan that shows how they intend to get there. For those reasons, I support the new clause.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I had written a 25-page speech for this debate, but to the disappointment of my researcher—and probably the delight of this Committee—I do not intend to read out all 25 pages. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> There are cries of “Shame!” from my own side, but I accept that there are a number of amendments and new clauses to get through. My stated objection to the puberty blocker trial is also well known and on the record, so I do not wish to detain the Committee for too long.<span id="684" class="column-number" data-column-number="684"></span> I want to pick out five areas where I think there are problems. They are why I support new clause 66, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. My first point can be summarised as: “Don’t repeat a mistake to find out whether it was a mistake.” Thousands of children have already received puberty blockers through the former Tavistock pathway, and my view is that, before exposing a whole new cohort, the Government should complete the long-promised data linkage study to establish what happened to those children. That is probably the core argument. Secondly, if the Government rightly say that the drugs present an unacceptable safety risk, how can it be ethical to give them to children in a trial? It must still be an unacceptable safety risk, whether it is for the general population of those who wish for it or for the people in the trial. The Government banned routine prescribing because of the safety concerns, yet propose administering the same medicines in a research setting. That is a complete contradiction of the ban. Thirdly, clinical equipoise does not exist in the evidence if the evidence already points to significant risk and uncertain benefit. The Cass review concluded that the evidence base for puberty blockers is weak and that concerns remain over bone health, fertility and neurodevelopment. A trial should not proceed unless there is genuine uncertainty that justifies exposing children to those risks. Fourthly, children should not bear the burden of answering questions that the NHS should have answered itself. The failure to collect the robust, long-term evidence from previous patients, including through the data linkage trial, should not be remedied by recruiting another generation of vulnerable children. Ethical research requires exhausting the existing evidence first. Finally, even the medicines regulator—the MHRA—had sufficient concerns to halt the trial. The MHRA intervened to pause the pathways trial over safety and wellbeing concerns, reinforcing the idea that the scientific and ethical questions remain unresolved. A pause should lead to a complete reassessment, not simply restarting as soon as possible.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
It did. If memory serves, that question was raised—although I cannot say more because it was in private. I do have concerns that the professor who was in charge and raised those concerns at the MHRA was recused. I cannot discuss the details of that, but it could show that there was a bias in the selection of the people who were pushing the trial forward. I am not saying that there was bias, but I think that, on an issue of such importance, the perception of bias is almost as bad. We need to be very careful about that. Either way, I think the trial is wrong for the five reasons I have outlined. The key reason is the moral and ethical issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East raised it in both the Health and Social Care Committee and the Chamber: it is clearly morally wrong to experiment on children just for the sake of experimenting. The fact that there is no evidence does not mean that we should put children through a trial to see whether the evidence exists.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Unlike that of the hon. Member for Guildford, my constituency covers both Surrey and East Hampshire, so I welcome the focus that new clause 72 places on our local area. Constituents regularly raise with me their concerns about seeing an NHS dentist. As I have announced a number of times in this Committee—although I have not checked today, so may not be true any more—there is not a single dentist in my constituency taking on adult or child NHS patients at the moment. For many people, the challenge is not simply one of convenience; it is about being able to access timely care when they need it. Good oral health is an essential part of overall health, and we cannot allow dentistry to become an afterthought in our healthcare system. The ability see a dentist for routine check-ups, preventive care and urgent treatment helps to reduce pressure elsewhere in the NHS by dealing with problems before they become more serious. The new clause rightly highlights the need both for urgent appointments and for improved access to routine NHS dental care. Prevention is at the heart of a sustainable healthcare system, and regular access to dental services plays an important role in achieving that. I welcome the accountability that the new clause seeks to introduce. In places where there are persistent challenges in accessing services—so-called dental deserts—local communities deserve transparency about what action is being taken and why improvements have not yet been delivered. As I have mentioned before, the spanking new dental surgery in Haslemere hospital has sat entirely unused since it was built, and, as far as I am aware, there are no plans to use it. That seems like a shocking waste of money and, more importantly, a shocking waste of a dental surgery that could be treating patients in Haslemere and the wider area. The hon. Member for North Shropshire always wants to place the blame with the Conservatives, and does not seem to feel the need to challenge the Government, but I gently remind her that there was a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care for five years, and apparently they did absolutely nothing to raise this issue. Although this issue is particularly important for Surrey and East Hampshire, it reflects a wider challenge facing communities across the country. Residents should not have to struggle to find an NHS dentist, and ensuring that provision is adequate must remain a priority. I hope the Government take that on board.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
My hon. Friend has just sat down. I was not sure whether she had finished her speech or was willing to take an intervention.