NHS Corridor Care
I now call another doctor—it is easier to see a doctor here than to get a GP appointment.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Point of Order
I thank the Minister for giving notice of his point of order, and for seeking to correct the record so quickly, which he has now done. Hopefully that draws a line under it.
- Hansard source
Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector
Unless I am misunderstanding him, the Minister has committed to making a policy announcement this month. There are only a few more sitting days, and he will know that Mr Speaker does not take lightly policy announcements being made outside the House; this House is where those announcements should be made for scrutiny by Back-Bench MPs. No doubt the Minister’s staff will be scribbling that down. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
The hon. Gentleman is making a very accurate critique. Is he aware that the Treasury Committee, led by the redoubtable hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), was looking at defence funding at lunch time today, and that in that hearing, barely an hour ago, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted under persistent questioning that the Government have done no work on how to get to 3.5% of GDP on defence?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
The hon. Member is right on the funding—I will mention that later—but one important thing that did happen after 2014 was under what was then called Operation Orbital. We began training Ukrainian soldiers on Salisbury plain, because they knew what was coming—and, I think, perhaps so did we. We will talk about the money in a minute, but the training of Ukrainian troops in Britain did start fairly shortly after 2014.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
My right hon. Friend mentioned reserves. During the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, we talked a lot about enhancing the reserves. Is he aware that while there is some funding for the so-called active reserve, in the DIP there is hardly any funding at all for the strategic reserve, which the Government made a very big thing of for five months while we were debating the Bill? There is hardly any money for it.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
The university’s records do not show how every individual student voted, but we know that many of the students who were present at that famous debate in 1933 subsequently signed up in 1939 and 1940.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important and timely debate, which coincides with the NATO summit. I will make what is perhaps a point of consensus: yet again, when we debate the defence of the realm—the first duty of Government—the Reform Bench is empty; yet again, the plastic patriots have gone AWOL when we discuss the defence of this country. Count Binface clearly has them worried in Clacton. As I am a historian by training, perhaps I can offer some historical context. Arguments about military readiness are not new. The Roman military theorist, Vegetius, some two millennia ago, coined the now-famous phrase, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—he who desires peace should prepare for war, in order to deter it. There have been times in British history where we have disregarded Vegetius’s sage advice. For instance, in 1919, following the first world war, when Britain had fought at great cost—both human and financial—a Liberal-led Government introduced the concept of a 10-year rule: a pan-Whitehall edict that no major war was likely for at least a decade. That continued on a rolling basis into the 1930s. On 9 February 1933, just 10 days after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, in the now famous Oxford Union debate, referred to several times already, the students resolved by more than two to one that: “This House would, under no circumstances, fight for King and country.” And yet, a few years later, we know that many of them did. The 10-year rule was only finally rescinded in the mid-1930s. Nevertheless, as General Lord Dannatt pointed out in his excellent recent book “Victory to Defeat”, our armed forces still did not recover sufficiently in time to deter Hitler from launching what eventually became world war two, in which some 60 million people perished worldwide.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, and article 5 is its absolute fulcrum. We must maintain our commitment to article 5 to keep all NATO nations safe. In 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill said that an iron curtain had descended, leading us into the cold war. In the mid-1980s, under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, defence spending was gusting about 5% of gross domestic product. When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, countries across the west took a peace dividend. Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous book “The End of History” in 1992, and many in the west believed that the threat of world war had finally receded. When the Conservatives left office in 1997, we were spending around 3% of GDP on defence, and that downward trend continued under Tony Blair’s Government—although, in fairness, he was only doing what many other western democracies were also doing. Today, we face a revanchist Russia led by Putin—
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
In a moment. We face a revanchist Russian led by Putin, who launched an invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, and then an even more brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As someone who visited Ukraine in February of this year, I remind the House that the Ukrainians would argue that they have therefore been at war with Russia not for four years, but for 12 years—longer than the first and second world wars combined. Against that rising threat, Labour produced its much-vaunted strategic defence review, and there was much good in it. However, it still contained echoes of the 10-year rule, declaring the Government’s intention, on page 43, “to deter, fight and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.” That is nine years away. The Chief of the General Staff has warned that we might have to fight Russia by 2027, the First Sea Lord said 2029, and even the outgoing Prime Minister said that this might happen by 2030. How are we supposed to deter Putin without a single attack submarine currently at sea, with no new AWACS aircraft in service in the Royal Air Force, still, and with Ajax almost a decade late and still not in operational service, despite Ministers previously promising us that it was fine? That really is corrosive complacency, is not it? The threat is now, and we need to rearm accordingly, including by spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2029 at the very latest, if not earlier. The three co-authors of the SDR were adamant that the cost of implementing it was spending 3% of GDP on defence, and a year after the SDR was published, we finally received Labour’s plan for how to pay for it: the so-called defence investment plan. But that was not before Labour’s Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister—the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place—both resigned on 11 June after months of frustration with the Treasury over the paucity of funding in the plan. As the outgoing Defence Secretary powerfully wrote in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, “you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.” That is damning. The former Armed Forces Minister said in his letter: “I have sat in the rooms, seen the assessments, and spoken to the commanders who will be asked to do more with less, and I cannot in good conscience stand at the dispatch box and defend a level of investment I know to be inadequate to the task.” Moreover, the outgoing Defence Secretary revealed that he had been offered an increase in defence spending to only 2.68% of GDP by 2030—billions short of what the SDR authors required. The new Defence Secretary has tried to argue that he has been given some additional funding—a bit more than £1 billion—but that takes defence spending to barely 2.69% of GDP by 2030, a difference that does not even touch the sides. Sadly, it is worse than that. The chiefs of staff have been urging the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to invest an additional £28 billion in defence over the next four years, partly to enable them to implement Labour’s SDR. They were offered barely £15 billion instead. On closer examination, even that sum unravels rapidly. As we have heard, £10.7 billion relies on so-called efficiency savings, which is Whitehall code for cuts in MOD spending over the next four years, the bulk of which have not even been identified. On the day of publication, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee described that as an old accountant’s trick. It still does not disguise the fact that the MOD would have to make massive in-year spending cuts, including from operations and training, to recycle that money to fund the defence investment plan. The Chief of the Defence Staff warned of the implications of doing that only the other day. The disastrous DIP also relies on a further £4.7 billion, which has not yet been cleared by the Treasury and will be subject to another public spending round. In other words, the two sums combined will be more than the £15 billion of extra money that was promised. There is practically no new money for defence at all. All we have been offered is Enron accounting and smoke and mirrors to try to pretend that there is a massive increase in defence spending—barely 0.01% of GDP over four years.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
No, I am summing up. Lord Robertson, the lead author of the SDR, told the Defence Committee only yesterday that “we are running out of years… the challenge is now bigger, more serious and earlier than we had anticipated, yet the defence investment plan does not come up to it.” General Barrons, his co-author, told the same Committee that “the Prime Minister is saying that Russia could attack NATO by 2030, and we essentially lost a year of mobilising for that.” Incredibly, even the DIP says on page 78: “The figures presented are indicative rather than precise cost estimates. They do not constitute binding commitments and are subject to the Government’s approval processes, affordability considerations and contracting procedures. Figures have been rounded and, therefore, may not sum.” You can say that again. In other words, the document isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The plan relies on extra money that does not exist. We will not deter the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping with such unfunded proposals. If Trotsky was right, and war is interested in us, we must rearm now to deter it. I reluctantly find that the Labour Government are failing the people of this country in the first duty of Government: the defence of the realm. If the incoming Prime Minister cannot plug the £5 billion black hole that he is about to inherit, he should make way for people who can.
- Hansard source
National Youth Strategy
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate. We all recognise that this issue is increasingly important to our constituents across the country. I spend a lot of time discussing it as both the local MP in Old Bexley and Sidcup and a shadow Minister. I have had the pleasure of having young people on work experience with me this week to keep me on my toes. It has been a busy week. In 2022, the previous Government allocated £560 million over three years to fund the national youth guarantee, ensuring that young people aged between 11 and 18 in England had access to regular clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home and opportunities to volunteer. As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them. We established the National Citizen Service; this Government cancelled it, but more than 750,000 young people participated in it and it had a 93% satisfaction rate—something this Government could only dream of. As the Government well know, youth charities, like all employers, are subject to national insurance contributions, and the increase in contributions requires them to find additional funds. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, these changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion a year. For smaller charities with limited reserves and core funding, that will seem like an insurmountable challenge. As has been mentioned, this has led to a reduction in provision. Youth work has huge economic benefits. Research has shown that every £1 of Government investment in youth work has a social return on investment of between £3.20 and £6.40. Moreover, it saves around £500 million annually by preventing antisocial behaviour, knife crime and associated criminal justice costs. As a Government, we established the youth investment fund, which delivered £300 million over approximately three years. This Government scrapped it, and announced a new national youth strategy, which analysis shows cuts the funding by around £50 million each year over the life of the strategy. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and I hosted a roundtable with those from the enrichment sector—it is great to see some of them in the audience today. The renewed national focus on enrichment is welcome and timely, but access to enrichment remains uneven, and Government funding cuts will only make that worse. We agree with those we heard from yesterday that the challenge is how we ensure that fantastic youth enrichment provision is accessible for as many young people as possible across the country. As others have said, enrichment is not an optional extra; it is a vital way in which young people learn fundamental life skills that often cannot be taught in traditional learning environments. I have seen some of the Duke of Edinburgh work in one of my local schools, with pupils putting up tents and camping. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award celebrates a milestone next week—70 years—and I am sure that many Members will be there to support that tradition.
- Hansard source
National Youth Strategy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for one of his famous interventions. I am pleased that his son enjoys camping; I am not sure I am as sold on a camping holiday in this weather. He is right that it teaches young people key life skills that they can take forward for the rest of their lives. We all know the crisis we have, with more than 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. A good enrichment offer is a key way of reversing the alarming increase we have seen in recent years. The Government’s national youth strategy has some noble aims, including halving the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and giving half a million more young people access to a trusted adult outside of the home by 2035—I believe passionately in the power of role models, and I would love to go on about it longer, but I am looking at the time, so I will not. The warm words in the strategy are all well and good, but the funding must match them. Governments of all colours make big announcements, but the funding does not always match them. That is my concern: that the money being put forward is not enough to deliver the objectives. Government can often be siloed, so I hope that the Minister will also commit to making a concerted effort to ensure that policies and programmes across Government are put into practice in a more holistic and strategic way in this area. There ought to be an understanding of the need for funding pots and programmes for enrichment to complement one another, to work in tandem, and not to duplicate efforts or to compete with other Departments’ aims. Will the Minister therefore urge colleagues in the Department for Education to reverse the 22% cut to school PE funding and reverse the cut to the opening schools facilities fund, which would help many youth clubs to have somewhere to provide their services?
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
The attempted murder of Stephen Ogilvie in Belfast last month shocked people throughout the country. The man accused of this horrific attack is thought to have crossed into Northern Ireland illegally from the south. People from all communities are asking what more can be done to prevent people from coming into the UK illegally across that land border. Following the terrible events in Belfast last month, will the Government commit to significantly enhanced operations on the border, similar to those already run by the Republic?
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this important urgent question. Anyone who has travelled or spoken to those who have tried to use the new European entry-exit system understands why the scale of the challenges over summer is so great, and despite all the problems, it has now been reported that a separate new online system to preauthorise entry to the EU will be delayed until next year. That is a pitiful response, indicative of the problems facing so many UK travellers, and there is nowhere near the urgency needed to address the problems facing the EES as we enter the summer holidays. As the president of Airports Council International Europe recently expressed, politicians should “stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.” That delusional attitude among EU colleagues is not acceptable. With the EU telling representatives of the travel industry that a full suspension of the system is not needed and not possible, the Government must stand behind the interests of British travellers. For instance, there appears to be a ridiculous situation in which a facility built in Dover cannot be activated until the technology for the kiosks, which is the responsibility of the French authorities, is working. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, is right: it is time to “apply maximum pressure” before chaos arrives at the border at Dover. Will the Minister detail what conversations the Government have had, and what pressure they will apply? Have they asked for a temporary suspension, relaxation or phased use of EES checks at periods of exceptional congestion? Given the increased traffic, what have the Government done to strengthen plans in case queues spill out of Dover or Folkestone? It is in all our interests to ensure that people can get through border checks quickly, and it is time to ensure that that happens.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
I beg to move, That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John, for what I hope will be an interesting and constructive debate about the future of Gibraltar. I am delighted to be joined by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar—the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin)—on which I serve as the vice-chairman. As the result of a discussion between me and the Gibraltar Government representative, who is in the Gallery, we thought it would be useful to have a fact-finding trip to Gibraltar, so that when the treaty on the future of the Rock was up for discussion, we could have one from an informed position. Two or three people who were hoping to go on the trip were unable to, but I was delighted that Baroness Butler-Sloss, the Cross-Bench peer, accompanied me, and we were also joined for one or two of the meetings by Lord James Wharton, from the upper House. Following discussions with the Gibraltar office here in London, we put together a programme that was pretty comprehensive and gave us a good overview of the views of the local population, the business community and, of course, the politicians in Gibraltar. We had a meeting with His Excellency the Governor, which was just a courtesy call, but it is always a pleasure to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear how they approach the issues. I should point out that we went at our own expense, so we were independent of the Government of Gibraltar. After we had seen the Governor, we were delighted to go to the airport and be joined by the Chief Minister, who delighted in giving us a tour of the airport. He has clearly devoted a great deal of time and effort to the arrangements that are necessary to ensure that all sides are content and, importantly, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is maintained. We all know the long history of Spanish claims on the Rock, but that is definitely not in any way part of the treaty; sovereignty is absolute.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
I can see the Minister nodding; no doubt he will confirm that later. On our trip to the airport, the concerns about Spanish officials operating on the Rock were, to some extent, assuaged. I was delighted that we were able to receive reassurance from not just the Chief Minister but his senior officials who accompanied us on the tour of the airport. I know there have been certain concerns about Spanish officials, police and the like operating within British territory, but the arrangements that have been made mean that, to a great extent, our fears can be assuaged. Next we visited the commander at the British base. He assured us that there is co-operation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial to both sides. There is no interference in the operations of the base, and the military is content with the arrangements. The American navy had been in the port only a day or two before our visit. It was encouraging, particularly in view of the current world situation and some of the noises coming from the American Administration, that work and co-operation are continuing at a purely operational level. There was one visit on which we heard some discontent. We walked along Main Street and called in to see a number of retailers, purely at random, and they raised some concerns. As we know, the retail sector is struggling in many countries, and Gibraltar is no exception. Interestingly enough, one of the shops we went into dealt in ceramics, and the owner imported most of his products from the UK. He pointed out that because of various impositions on the ceramics sector, the costs were rising in the UK so much that it was becoming unprofitable to operate. With the proposed taxation arrangements in Gibraltar affecting retailers, he was going to cease operations in the not-too-distant future after being in business for about 25 years. It was very sad to hear that. But on the whole, although many of the retailers were not particularly happy, they recognised the overall benefits to Gibraltar of the operations. I have mentioned the concerns about security and so on. One of our meetings was with the chief commissioner of the police, who recognised that there are a number of issues that need what he described as “further consideration”. Having said that, when we left the meeting we felt that, on the whole, his concerns could be worked through. I am sure the Minister is well aware of them, but I would be more than happy to discuss them with him if that would be beneficial. We then had a lunchtime meeting with the Chief Minister, the Attorney General and the Health, Care and Business Minister. It is important to stress that we had full co-operation from the Chief Minister and his Ministers during our visit, bearing in mind that we had no official standing and were merely there as representatives of the all-party group. I want to put on the record our sincere thanks to the Gibraltar representative for assisting us in making the arrangements for the visit. In the course of the lunch with the Chief Minister, once we had dealt with the routine matters we were there to discuss, we had a very useful political discussion. It is always interesting to hear an outside politician’s views of what is happening over here in the UK. I am not entirely sure what they would make of it today, but a couple of months ago we had a fascinating discussion, mainly about whether there were concerns about the treaty across the political spectrum here in the UK. We were able to give reassurance, based on the meetings we had and knowing the views of colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group, that there would be all-party support from Westminster. According to the report we put together, we discussed the evolving UK-EU relationship, and on the whole the direction of travel was greatly supported. We also discussed a number of the issues that were causing concern, including—if I can remember the ins and outs of it—people taking advantage of the arrangements that were being put in place. It is probably not something we need to cover today, but it is worth recording that there were some concerns about people trying to take advantage of the health services provided in Gibraltar. We also had a constructive meeting with the vice-chancellor of the university, whom we had met on previous occasions. It was interesting to receive an update on how things were progressing there. We had an interesting meeting with Keith Azopardi, the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, because we wanted to ensure that we received views on the treaty from across the political spectrum. He pointed out that the opposition had imposed a number of red lines in their discussions, but as Members will know, the draft treaty was eventually approved unanimously by the Gibraltarian Parliament. The leader of the opposition quite understandably pointed out his party’s concerns. As opposition parties do, it obviously wanted to carve out a position whereby if something went wrong, he would be able to say, “I told you so.” I can see Government Members smiling at that, because they have been in opposition—my party is in opposition now, and the shadow minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), may point out one or two of our concerns in that respect. Mr Azopardi expressed genuine concerns but—he will probably not thank me for saying this—in all honesty I think he was struggling to find reasons why he would have been tempted to vote against the treaty. It is important to recognise that political parties across Gibraltar have supported the treaty and feel on balance that it would be beneficial for it to be ratified.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Following our meeting with the leader of the opposition, we met with Eva Wallace, who is a store manager at Morrisons. Those who know Gibraltar well will know that Morrisons is not just a key part of the retail scene there but a big business operation. Ms Wallace outlined what she described as the significant complexities that arose following Brexit, and the different but equally substantial complexities—such as labelling requirements—that will follow the treaty’s implementation. She pointed out that there would certainly be a reduction in the range of stock the store could offer. Having said that, it currently carries 20,000 different products, so I suspect most customers will not notice if that goes down to 17,000 or 18,000. Morrisons does business with Morocco, from where it gets tomatoes, and there had been problems with labelling. The store has a loyal customer base in Gibraltar, but felt that the ease of crossing the border would increase the footfall coming from Spain, for which bus trips were being arranged. The business is well established there and knows how to continue and hopefully increase footfall. The university vice-chancellor referred to the new immigration rules, and we noted in our report that the university would closely assess their impact on its attractiveness to prospective students from around the world. Research funding had been difficult to secure since Brexit, and the vice-Chancellor hoped that that might ease with the conclusion of the treaty. I will draw my comments to a close and allow other Members to take part. On balance, we came away with the overwhelming view that the treaty negotiations had been a success and that the final version of the treaty should be approved. It has cross-party support in Gibraltar and it would be regrettable if that were not reflected here at Westminster. I am interested to hear contributions from other Members. Having in a sense imposed problems on Gibraltar as a result of our leaving the EU, it is important that we have reached a satisfactory conclusion. We should congratulate our negotiating team, and the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their colleagues in Gibraltar. I know from several visits over recent years that they have worked tirelessly to achieve the treaty, which is, on balance, welcome. I hope that, as it passes through the various stages in Westminster, we are able to finalise it in the very near future.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
At the outset I expressed the hope that this would be an interesting and informative debate, and I think all Members would agree that that has been the case. The essence of the debate, as we have just heard from the Minister, has been about sovereignty, which was one of the most important issues that we debated on our recent visit. One thing that the Chief Minister was keen to point out at the airport was the positioning of the flags. As people progress through the various stages at the airport, flags remind people that they are on Gibraltarian/British territory, with the Union flag and the Gibraltar flag prominently displayed. Most importantly, though, the Chief Minister said the treaty is about the people of Gibraltar and the benefits that they will accrue from it. Clearly, they want the certainty that it provides, but there are also day-to-day benefits. One that I noted when we met the Health Minister was that the treaty will allow ambulances to move more freely between Spain and the Rock. That is clearly a practical advantage to the citizens of Gibraltar, whose loyalty to the British Crown is certainly appreciated by those of us who have been to Gibraltar for national day. That is something that we want to maintain. I thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and in particular the Minister for his comprehensive response, and I thank everyone—those on the British side, as well as the Chief Minister and his colleagues in Gibraltar—who took part in the treaty negotiations. We have had an interesting and informative debate this morning and I look forward to further discussions. As the Minister outlined, the process will continue. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar.
- Hansard source
The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026
The Minister is always very generous with his time. He has just explained the boundaries of the development corporation. Cambridge is going through local government reorganisation. How will that affect the order and the boundaries that he has just described?
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
Haulage, agricultural and fisheries firms in my constituency are heavily reliant on Dover, and delays, particularly to seafood, are disastrous—the value of the cargo disappears practically overnight. I am a member of the Business and Trade Committee, and when we visited Dover I was delighted to see £40 million-worth of infrastructure on our side of the short strait. The reality is that the difficulties lie on the far side of the short strait. Is it not time that, rather than warm words about an EU reset, we had the French ambassador in for an interview sans café?
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
The boss of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency told MPs in person that 93% of CROs surveyed were happy with moving to an unpaid volunteer model. That was false: the survey data shows that in many areas across the UK, nearly half would reduce their hours or quit. I am amazed that the Minister has any confidence in the boss of the MCA. Will he now confirm that the decision will not take effect in September and that he will consult properly himself, and will he say if he does have confidence in the boss of the MCA?
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
The Hunstanton coastguard rescue officers I have met responded to 150 emergency shouts last year, and the small payment helped them to perform this role for locals and visitors alike. However, with 50% of officers in East Anglia saying they would quit or reduce their availability, is the Minister really prepared to take responsibility for the risk to public safety, or will he now simply stop these changes from coming into effect in September while we work on a long-term solution?
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
Every holiday period, Kent and my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent is brought to a standstill, and that has become much worse with the introduction of the EU entry-exit system, despite the fact that our ports and Eurotunnel have invested in the technology. I understand that it is not working because the French have not managed to get it to work. I disagree with the Minister that everything is fine when Operation Brock is on—Operation Brock is terrible for my area. However, I agree with his point that this has nothing to do with Brexit. I hate to break that to the Liberal Democrats and others who have being trying to make that argument, but the problems have nothing to do with Brexit. The situation could be horrific this summer: imagine people, including children and elderly people, and potentially pets, waiting in their cars in this heat for around 12 hours. It is a disaster. I implore the Minister to involve the Prime Minister—and, most likely, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), as this could happen under his watch—in the negotiations with the EU to suspend these checks in advance, not to wait and see, so that we can stop these queues happening?
- Hansard source
NHS Corridor Care
Community care, which my hon. Friend has just touched on, is still important, particularly in preventing the need for corridor care. Insch War Memorial hospital, in my constituency, has been earmarked for closure, which is completely wrong. The trustees have done an amazing job in raising money to keep this vital community asset open. Does my hon. Friend agree that such community hospitals are vital not just for rural communities, but in helping the larger hospitals to manage their own patient care?
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
It should not have come as a surprise that the system is a complete disaster. In the previous Parliament, the European Scrutiny Committee, which I served on, was looking at this very issue and at many of the steps that could have been taken. However, on taking office, this Government abolished the Committee, so scrutiny was not carried through to preparations for implementation. One of our suggestions for the transitional period before the three-year rule took effect was to provide off-site units where people could have their fingerprints taken under supervision. That would have cut queues at those juxtaposed ports. Why did that not happen? Why was that suggestion not taken up? Will the Minister put it to the French Government that that could be a solution?
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this urgent question, and Mr Speaker on granting it. There is deep concern across the whole country about the Government’s decision, which particularly affects our coastal communities. That was demonstrated clearly by all Members in the Westminster Hall debate last week, during which the Minister said that he would reflect on what he had heard. He has repeated that today, but from the answers he has given so far, I suggest that he reflects a little harder and with more urgency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for his tireless work in highlighting these issues. The problem is not speculative; the data revealed by The Times from the MCA survey is clear: this change will decimate the coastguard. The survey showed that across all regions, between 25% and 58% of those who responded said a volunteer model would lead them to quit or reduce their hours, including 56% in the south-east and southern England regions, which cover the busiest stretches of coastline in the UK. A decrease in the number of coastguard officers of this scale would put people’s lives at risk. It is that simple. Despite knowing that this decision was coming for months, there appears to have been a complete failure by the Department to appreciate and anticipate its impact. Why is that? Why was the impression given that even though it was a tough decision, the coastguard would be able to carry on as normal and there was sufficient support for the changes? Can the Minister explain who within the Department and the MCA knew about the revelations in The Times this week? Why was the MCA allowed to share information with Members in what can only be described as a questionable manner? The data is the data; it is not part of some sort of package. The first responsibility of Government is to protect the public, but in this matter I fear that they have failed. As we look ahead and approach the height of summer, protecting our waterways is critical, so will the Minister answer a simple question: what will he do urgently and immediately to solve the problem?
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
On 2 January, Grace and Sarah Keeling and Mark Ratcliffe tragically lost their lives in the sea at Withernsea. Through that day and late into the night, coastguard rescue officers fought in the most terrible conditions to save lives. They did so out of duty, not for remuneration. When thousands and thousands of people go to the coast this summer and onwards, how can the Minister ensure that they can continue to rely on courageous coastguard rescue officers in future, as they have been able to in the past? I appreciate what he has said today, but will he show even greater urgency in recognising the need to make this change? September is just weeks away and the people we rely on to do this heroic work deserve quick answers.
- Hansard source
Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots
It is a great pleasure to serve on this Committee and, as always, to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank her for the explanation that she offered of the Government’s intentions with the draft order. It is important to make it clear from the outset that secondary legislation is always a balancing act. In this case, the balance is between modernising participation and trade union democracy, and ensuring that the safeguards protecting the integrity, security and fairness of statutory ballots keep pace with the methods used to conduct them. Those aims are not mutually exclusive, and it is our job to ensure that we get them right. To that end—this will be no surprise—I have a set of questions for the Minister, and I hope that she will be able to provide some answers. First, parts 1 and 2 of the draft order will, for the first time, permit electronic, hybrid and workplace voting for statutory trade union ballots, as the Minister said. Paragraph 5.14 of the Minister’s explanatory memorandum explains the Government’s reasoning against the pilot for electronic balloting, but I could not see any equivalent justification for workplace balloting, which, as the impact assessment contained in the memorandum confirms, has not been costed. Will the Minister explain why workplace voting, an entirely new voting method, will be introduced by the draft order without a pilot or costed evidence? Secondly, the Government confirm on page 2 that the trade union itself will be the responsible person determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots. Will the Minister explain why the trade union has been designated the responsible person for its own ballots, rather than, for example, an independent scrutineer? How does she seek, under the proposed set-up, to avoid a conflict between the union’s interest in the ballot outcome and its judgment on the practicality and security of the method used? Thirdly, paragraph 9.9 of the explanatory memorandum refers to a requirement for scrutineers’ electronic systems to be independently audited and certified. Will the Minister clarify which body is responsible for enforcing that standard and what happens if a system is found to be compromised or fails that certification process? Paragraph 9.2 gives an estimated annual savings range from “£2.0 million to £8.2 million, depending on the level of take-up”, which is confirmed in paragraph 9.3 as unknown. Why such a massive range from £2 million to £8 million, and why is there not a clearer estimate of the likely take-up of the new methods? As I said, the Government have said in their documentation that it is unknown. Paragraph 10.3 confirms that “A statutory review clause is included in the instrument.” When will that review take place, and what criteria will be used to judge whether the new voting methods have operated safely and fairly? Finally, law firm Morgan Lewis has warned that this statutory instrument “may reduce the scope for successful challenges based solely on procedural irregularities.” What is the Minister’s reaction to that statement? Do the Government accept that the measures will narrow employers’ practical routes to challenge a ballot’s validity? Overall, the draft order forms part of the wider Employment Rights Act 2025, which, as we in the official Opposition have consistently said, has damaged jobs and opportunity across our country. My party’s long-standing and long-held policy is therefore to oppose any parts of the legislation that we believe hand unions sweeping powers. As I have highlighted, real questions remain about the process used to bring this statutory instrument forward. For those clear reasons, we will vote against the measures.
- Hansard source
Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots
The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
It is a rather glorious day, so if people would like to remove their jackets, they should please feel free to do so.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
Order. I will call the Front Benchers from 3.30; I will not impose a fixed time limit, but about six or seven people want to speak.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
As three Members wish to speak, the time limit for speeches is three to four minutes, because we are going to the Front Benchers at 3.30 pm.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
I call the Minister, mindful that I would like to give some time to the hon. Member for Poole to wind up the debate.
- Hansard source
National Youth Strategy
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. This debate is popular, so I set a time limit of three minutes and remind Members to keep interventions short.
- Hansard source
National Youth Strategy
I call the Minister, hopeful that Harpreet Uppal will have a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I refer Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my participation in a parliamentary delegation to Ukraine in February with the UK friends of the armed forces.[Official Report, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 12WC.] (Correction) I want to build on some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). As I sat here listening to this thoughtful and valuable debate, the issue that really struck me above anything else was that, in many ways, we are preaching to the converted in this Chamber. Those of us who are here recognise the seriousness of the moment—we understand that defence is not an optional extra and that it cannot wait for a more convenient fiscal moment—but our responsibility goes much further than this Chamber, of course. Our responsibility is to the British public, and that means telling them the truth. As we have heard repeatedly during the course of today, the truth is that the world has changed and the threats are very real. For far too long, we have risked treating defence as something done by someone else—something done by sailors under the waves, soldiers on distant deployments and pilots in the skies. However, modern deterrence asks us to do much more individually. It also requires government to be honest, and the public to understand what is really at stake. As we have heard, the Government have clearly set out that Russia could be in a position to attack a NATO ally by as early as the end of this decade. The Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that we are not as ready as we need to be, and the noble Lord Robertson, a distinguished former Secretary-General of NATO, has gone even further; he has been really blunt in his assessment that we are simply not ready. Those are the judgments of people who have spent their entire lives defending our country. We must not treat the British public like children. They do not need comforting slogans; they need searing honesty from people in public office. We cannot set out a case in which we say to them that Russia is probing our waters and hostile states are targeting our energy networks, satellites and cyber-systems, and then suggest that the answer to those dangers is promises that begin in the next decade. Quite simply, we cannot describe a 2030 threat and offer a 2035 solution. I believe that is the weakness at the heart of the Government’s approach to date. Readiness is not simply about owning equipment. It is about having the people trained to use it, having the stockpiles behind it, and having reservists who are able to mobilise. It is about factories that can surge, ports that can receive and energy systems that can endure. A nation is not ready simply because a Minister declares that it is ready. A nation is ready when the whole system is ready to row in behind it, and the reality is that national security requires choices, discipline and—we have to be blunt—sacrifices. For the past 30 years or so, we enjoyed a peace dividend, and too often we behaved as though that would never end, but we forgot the simple truth that freedom is never free; there is always a cost to be paid. It is a different cost depending on the generation, and each has to deal with it in different ways. Our duty is to ensure that this generation pays in preparedness so that the next generation does not pay in blood. The British people will understand that if we level with them, which is why the arguments for spending 3% of GDP on defence in this Parliament are not an extravagant ambition, but the bare minimum response to what is a deteriorating world. Britain is not a weak nation. We possess one of the most extraordinary armed forces in the world; we have outstanding intelligence services, world-class scientists and engineers, and above all, a people who have never failed this country when they have been told the truth. Therefore, if we want to defend the peace that we so cherish, we cannot have a resilience that starts after the crisis has begun. It is perhaps worth ending by remembering that the cost of preparedness will always be far less than the cost of war itself.
- Hansard source
Draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Minister for outlining the draft regulations to the Committee. Among other things, they establish the offences and penalties regime for breaches of “placing on the market” obligations under the EU batteries regulation. That regulation has applied in Northern Ireland since February 2024, under the terms of the Windsor framework. The two-year gap between the regulation taking effect and the arrival of the enforcement regime was flagged by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It leads to a question: why have the current Government not brought this instrument forward sooner? In addition, can the Minister clarify how the EU regulation has been enforced in the interim, in the absence of a functioning offences and penalties regime? Furthermore, what assessment have the Government made of businesses that have continued operating under the previous rules throughout this period? Can the Minister confirm whether the Government’s impact assessment accounted for those businesses specifically, or only for those transitioning from this point forward? I also note the concerns expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) regarding the effect of the rules on the UK internal market and on the competitiveness of Northern Ireland-based businesses. I am sure that the Committee would like to hear the Minister respond directly to some of those concerns. Specifically, can she confirm that supply chains will not be disrupted, that Northern Ireland-based businesses will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to their English counterparts, and that the draft instrument will not impose additional costs on them?
- Hansard source
NHS Corridor Care
I should begin by declaring my interests as a member of the British Medical Association, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and an NHS paediatric consultant. I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for initiating the debate. I know that, as a practising doctor like me, and, in particular, as someone who works in an emergency department, she understands the importance of this subject. Let me also pay tribute to the staff who work throughout our health service, some of them in quite difficult circumstances. I am glad to respond to this debate on what is a very important but very difficult issue. Every day in May, nearly 3,000 patients spent time in so-called clinically inappropriate spaces. These may be corridors, but as we have heard, they may also be cupboards or waiting areas. That is not good enough. Corridors are no place to provide clinical and nursing care. There is no privacy and dignity for people getting changed or being examined, and others may overhear what is said about their medical conditions. It is not safe. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) pointed out the infection control risks. Availability of oxygen has also been mentioned. If someone has a cardiac arrest and collapses, where is the space for them to be looked after? I wonder if the Minister can tell us whether the Government intend to support new clause 84 of the Health Bill when we discuss it in Committee, probably next week. The new clause requires the number of patients who have died when 12-hour waits in A&E departments were a contributory factor to be recorded. We have heard upsetting stories this afternoon, and I have heard some myself in my constituency, including that of a gentleman who sat for more than 60 hours in a plastic chair while receiving intravenous antibiotics for sepsis. These are all examples of a much broader and more serious problem. Every day, patients, often frail and elderly, are kept for hours on trolleys in corridors or on chairs in waiting rooms. As we heard from the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), we have an ageing population, so this problem is applying more pressure. A&E attendances increased by 2.5% last year. The latest figures show that in May this year alone, 50,212 patients waited in A&E for more than 12 hours after a decision to admit them to hospital. That represents a 17.1% increase since last May. Last year, the Government produced their urgent and emergency care plan, in which they set their targets, including the target for an absolute minimum of 78% of patients to be admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours. That target is well below the NHS constitutional standard, but, furthermore, the latest NHS data shows that the Government have missed it, with 25.7% of patients seen within four hours in May 2026, down from 76.9% in the previous month. Things are actually going in the wrong direction. We need to consider why patients are being cared for in corridors. Essentially, it is a reflection of the lack of appropriate spaces, often spaces in an in-patient ward. We therefore need a structured plan. The hon. Members for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) spoke about where we should start. We should start with prevention, care at home and virtual wards. We need to think about delivery in rural areas. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) talked about care and treatment in the community, and others have talked about improved social care. I hope the Minister will tell us whether, when we debate the Health Bill in Committee, she will accept new clauses 105 and 106, which relate to how people can care for themselves, to education and to the safety and classification of prescription-only medicines, so that the more simple conditions can be managed closer to home by pharmacists.
- Hansard source
NHS Corridor Care
I absolutely agree. The NHS is devolved in Scotland, but that sounds like a very unwise decision that it should certainly reconsider. I am sure my hon. Friend will be a doughty campaigner in ensuring that it does so. That brings me to the next part of my speech, which is about the extra space in emergency departments and the importance of caring well for people in A&E. I ask the Minister for an update on the work that Dr Acheson and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine have been doing on on-time medication, as we need to make sure that patients do not suffer detriment in A&E because they are not given medication on time. An hon. Gentleman on the Labour Benches talked about the extra space on wards and the number of beds. The number of beds has reduced over time, partly because we do clinical care differently—for example, people now stay in hospital for a much shorter period after having a baby, and that is true of other operations too. However, my understanding is that the total number of beds has dropped further since Labour came into office. Can the Minister explain why that is? It is fair to say that we did not get everything right when we were in office, but we did increase the number of emergency department doctors by 100% between 2010 and 2024, and we met our manifesto commitment to hire 50,000 new nurses. We developed a long-term workforce plan, but this Government did not want our plan; they wanted their own. They said that they would deliver it by the autumn, and then by the spring. It has now been “imminent” for quite some time, but how soon is imminent? As many Members have said, we need to tackle corridor care, but we also need to tackle the back door: social care. Two years ago, this Government promised cross-party talks. As has been mentioned already, they took nine months to have the first meeting and have only recently had the second meeting. That is not tackling the problem with the urgency that it needs. The Casey report is not due till 2028, and this is being kicked into the long grass. We can only hope that the new Prime Minister will make a difference. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) said, the Government need a plan. I hope the Minister will explain in detail how they intend to deliver on their plan, because delivery is key. We often hear of targets and aims, which are easy to set but hard to reach. What have we seen so far? Long A&E waits are up, and we have seen overall waiting lists increase by 112,000 on the previous months. The number of people waiting for operations and procedures is up on last year and last month. The Government have ditched their promise to deliver a doubling of medical school places, and delayed the workplace plan. The promise to roll out fracture liaison services is running behind schedule, and there is still no response to the Hughes report. I could go on, but the basic issue is that the Government seem keen to set targets—worthy and important goals—without knowing how to deliver them, leading inevitably to disappointment. Can the Minister say how she will meet the target of abolishing corridor care? What will be the effect of reducing the capital budget, as announced in the defence investment plan? What does she think will be the effect of removing the social care voice from ICBs? Importantly, as we look forward to winter, what planning is being done now to make sure that patients are kept safe in the autumn and winter?