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

1. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill

   My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister; it turns out it is going to be his final act as Prime Minister. He is only doing it by the skin of his teeth, because he is presenting a proposal to the House that none of us got to see even this weekend, and those who had been drawn into the consultation process and had been privately consulted say that this bears no relation at all to what they have been shown, even very recently. The Government are clearly doing this on the hoof, and it is very worrying. It is no exaggeration to say that some of those people who may be appointed to lead investigations and inquiries might be influenced or pressured by those whose purpose is the destruction of the British state and British sovereignty itself.

   Hansard source
2. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill

   I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land. Irish republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin’s Russia—they will all see the opportunity in this law, as we know they have seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> There is an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the Bill and the information that must be disclosed will be widened over time. I can hear sighs and complaints from Government Members, but they do not seem to understand that new laws—especially when they are to be taken in balance with existing laws—are tested in the courts, and their interpretation widens. That is a fact, and it is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. If Government Members think they are above listening to those people, I am very sorry about that. There are questions, too, about the role of investigations and inquiries set up by the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed by the Minister’s earlier answer to a question about the need to reveal information about intelligence agency sources in that context. These are the reasons that my party proposes an amendment, informed in part by the Government’s own proposed amendment back in January, to give control of secret material back to service leaders, who <span id="816" class="column-number" data-column-number="816"></span>are rightly then accountable to elected Ministers, in not only the intelligence services but the armed forces, the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill

   I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sources, their methods and their technological capabilities. There are also serious flaws in the proposals to create a new duty to prevent death or serious injury and the new crime of misleading the public. Senior police officers are concerned that the new duty will have a chilling effect on operations. Police officers may be deterred from taking vital split-second decisions to give chase or to restrain, for fear of being sued or charged, placing their careers and livelihoods in jeopardy. Those employed in other parts of the public sector, such as the welfare system or the health service, might also be affected. These measures also risk snarling up the police and others in time-consuming and costly litigation. There is also a serious risk that the new crime of misleading the public could stifle legitimate political disagreement and debate, criminalise honest mistakes, or punish people for making statements that we only later learn are wrong when the facts change. That is why a lock on such prosecutions, with a requirement for the Attorney General to approve them, is absolutely essential, and we invite hon. Members to support our amendment to ensure that this evening.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   UK-Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement

   I call the shadow Secretary of State.

   Hansard source
5. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   UK-Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement

   Really? <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em>

   Hansard source
6. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   UK-Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement

   I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

   Hansard source
7. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   UK-Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement

   I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill

   In the circumstances following the late change to today’s business, Mr Speaker has selected amendments tabled after what would have been the usual deadline. New Clause 8 Information contained in public records “(1) This section applies to information contained in a record that is transferred to a relevant authority under— (a) the Public Records Act 1958, (b) the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937, (c) the Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1923, or (d) any other enactment or arrangement under which records are transferred to a relevant authority for their care and preservation. (2) For the purposes of this Chapter, the information is not to be treated as information that is held by— (a) the relevant authority, or (b) persons who work for the authority. (3) Each of the following is a ‘relevant authority’— (a) the Public Record Office; (b) the Keeper of Public Records; (c) an authority responsible for records deposited at a place of deposit appointed under section 4 of the Public Records Act 1958; (d) the Keeper of the Records of Scotland; (e) the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland; (f) any other person with responsibility for the care and preservation of records under arrangements made with an authority within any of paragraphs (a) to (e). (4) In this section references to a record being ‘transferred’ to a relevant authority include references to it being transmitted to, or accepted or acquired by, the authority.”—<em>(Catherine Atkinson.)</em> <em>This new clause provides for an exemption from the duty of candour and assistance for bodies such as the National Archives so far as relating to their statutory responsibilities of holding public records.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

   Hansard source
9. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill

   With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 9<em>.</em> New clause 1—<em>Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials</em>— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into— (a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident. (b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.<span id="797" class="column-number" data-column-number="797"></span> (2) The report must assess— (a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act. (b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents. (c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b). (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.” New clause 2—<em>Offence of wilfully destroying information or records relevant to an inquiry or investigation</em>— “(1) A public authority or public official commits an offence if— (a) they deliberately destroy relevant information or records relevant to an inquiry, investigation, or inquest; (b) they know that, or are reckless as to whether, the information is relevant to or required by an inquiry, investigation, or inquest. (2) A public official who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).” <em>This new clause introduces an offence for wilfully destroying relevant records after a major incident that may lead to an inquiry or inquest.</em> New clause 3—<em>Monitoring compliance with duties under the Act</em>— “(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish annually an independent report which monitors public authorities’ compliance with their duties under the Act. (2) The report must assess— (a) public authorities’ record-keeping, disclosures and responses to inquiries and investigations; (b) the effectiveness of enforcement and sanctions provisions in the Act in helping to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions in line with the duty of candour in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; and (c) the effectiveness of the provisions in the Act for supporting persons, including public officials, making protected disclosures and for reporting wrongdoings to an inquiry or investigation following a major incident. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report before both Houses of Parliament. (4) The first report must be laid within the period of 12 months of the passing of this Act. (5) Each subsequent report must be laid annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.” <em>This new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission and publish annually an independent report with the purpose of providing an oversight mechanism to monitor compliance with duties under the Act.</em><span id="798" class="column-number" data-column-number="798"></span> New clause 4—<em>Conduct of public authorities and access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries</em>— “(1) Legal aid must be made available, without a means test, to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where there are reasonable grounds for believing the matter under investigation relates to the conduct of public authorities tasked with carrying out public functions, or public officials working for bodies in a public capacity, in connection with the discharge of their public duties. (2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations to— (a) add civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in connection with proceedings relating to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries as under subsection (1); (b) amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) for the purposes of providing criteria for a determination for legal representation in respect of cases under subsection (1). (3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.” <em>This new clause would extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.</em> New clause 5—<em>Review of the merits of establishing a national oversight mechanism for ensuring candour and transparency of public authorities in respect of inquests and inquiries</em>— “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, carry out a review to determine the merits of establishing an independent oversight mechanism to help ensure candour, transparency and follow up with respect to the actions of a public authority arising from the conclusions and recommendations of inquests and inquiries.” New clause 6—<em>Monitoring the standards of ethical conduct of officials in response to the recommendations from inquests and inquiries</em>— “In discharging its duty under section 9(1) of this Act a public authority must monitor the standards of officials in response to the recommendations from inquests and inquiries to ensure they are acting with candour, transparency and frankness.” New clause 7—<em>Public interest</em>— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must define in regulations what constitutes the “public interest” for the purposes of section 1(1)(b). (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to define public interest for the purposes of this Act by regulations.</em> New clause 10—<em>Expected standards of conduct and duty of NHS boards to report medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings</em>— “(1) This section sets out a duty for boards of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within an NHS body. (2) A member of the board of directors of an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust in England must report any evidence or reports they have seen of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within the trust to— (a) the Care Quality Commission, (b) the Department of Health and Social Care, and (c) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.<span id="799" class="column-number" data-column-number="799"></span> (3) The board of directors of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England has a collective duty to— (a) refer the trust to the Care Quality Commission, and (b) alert the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, if staff employed by, or acting on behalf of, the trust raise concerns of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety. (4) In discharging its duties under subsection (1), an NHS trust board must, in particular— (a) adopt a code of conduct which sets standards expected of members who serve on the boards of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust, and (b) ensure that the code of conduct is published. (5) An NHS trust’s code of conduct must in particular— (a) require members of a board of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust to act in accordance with the duty of candour in reporting concerns relating to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within a trust, (b) require members of the trust’s board to promote ethical conduct, candour, transparency and frankness within all parts of the NHS trust or foundation trust for which they work, (c) contain information about the steps that a person who works for an NHS trust should take if they believe that a member of a trust’s board has failed to act in accordance with the code of conduct. (6) In this section— ‘systemic medical malpractice’ means an action or omission in the provision of health care that falls below the expected standard of care and indicates a widespread, patterned, or recurring failure within the systems, processes, or governance of the trust. ‘wrongdoing’ includes abuse of authority, perverting the course of justice, neglect of duty and the exploitation of vulnerable people.” <em>This new clause sets a duty for boards of NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety within a trust.</em> New clause 11—<em>Duty of candour and enforcement of standards of ethical conduct in DHSC</em>— “(1) In discharging its duties under section 9 of this Act, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), must, in particular— (a) set out the steps DHSC will take to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies and other relevant health-related organisations are consistent with the statutory duty of candour and the principles of openness, transparency and learning following patient safety incidents. (b) set out which oversight body is responsible for ensuring the standards set out in DHSC code of ethical conduct are adhered to and enforced. (c) set out provisions to allow a relevant oversight body to examine on its own initiative suspected serious or systemic breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct. (d) set out a mechanism for ensuring that any breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct are recorded and that proper data is kept and published that records the extent to which complaints have been made regarding its ethical conduct and their outcome.” <em>This new clause would set out additional requirements for the DHSC in respect of the statutory requirements it must fulfil under section 9 of this Act.</em> Amendment 13, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, after “public authorities” insert “, Members of both Houses of Parliament”<span id="800" class="column-number" data-column-number="800"></span> <em>This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.</em> Government amendments 151 and 152. Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert— “(ca) where the authority or official has relevant records, including digital messages and communication, retain and disclose those records;” <em>This amendment would add the disclosure of digital messages and communication to the assistance that a public authority or official must provide to an inquiry or investigation.</em> Amendment 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert— “(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.” <em>This amendment requires public authorities or officials who are assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.</em> Amendment 150, page 2, line 39, at end insert— “(4A) Where in exercise of its duties under subsections (1) to (4) a public authority or public official intends to provide information to the inquiry or investigation, and that information includes information about a person who has or may have been caused harm in the incident under inquiry or investigation it must, subject to subsection (4B) below, provide to that person, or if deceased, the person administering their estate, such part of that information as is relevant to the nature and cause of the harm they have or may have sustained. (4B) The obligation described in subsection (4A) above does not apply if the chair of the inquiry or investigation directs, either on application or their own motion, that the subsection should not apply, or where the chair directs that subsection (4A) shall apply subject to conditions specified in the direction, the subsection shall apply subject to those conditions.” <em>This amendment would require a public authority or public official to provide information to a person, or the relatives of that person, who was affected by an incident under investigation subject to the chair of an inquiry or investigation directing otherwise.</em> Government amendment 153. Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, after “authority” insert “or any sub-contractor in any chain of provision to a service provider” <em>This amendment ensures that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider which was subcontracted will fall under the duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation.</em> Amendment 5, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert— “(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by— (a) a public authority, or (b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act, the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.” <em>This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.</em> Government amendments 26, 28 and 154 to 157.<span id="801" class="column-number" data-column-number="801"></span> Amendment 20, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert— “(2A) Where an obligation to give notification would have arisen under section 2(3), save for the exemptions in subsection (2), the head of the relevant intelligence service must provide a written notification to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament summarising the acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation.” <em>This amendment aims to provide accountability for intelligence services and their operations in relation to the duty of candour and its exemptions from them.</em> Amendment 199, page 6, line 3, at end insert— “(2A) Where, in compliance with the obligation under section 2(4), a person who works for an intelligence service, a military intelligence service, the National Crime Agency, Counter Terrorism Command, or one of the armed forces, would be required to provide security or intelligence information, the obligation applies in respect of that information only if the head of the service or agency consents to it being provided. (2B) The head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces may withhold consent under subsection (2A) only if it appears to the head that either of the following conditions is met. (2C) The first condition is that it is necessary for consent to be withheld in the interests of national security or otherwise for the purposes of the proper exercise of the functions of the service. (2D) The second condition is that the information would not be of assistance to the inquiry or investigation in meeting its objectives. (2E) Where the head of an intelligence service, the head of military intelligence service, the head of the National Crime Agency, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing UK, or the head of one of the armed forces withholds consent under subsection (2A), the head must notify the person leading the inquiry or investigation of that fact.” <em>This amendment ensures that the duty of candour and assistance may require a person who works for an intelligence service, military intelligence, the NCA, Counter Terrorism Command or the armed forces to provide security or intelligence information with the consent of the head of their service.</em> Government amendments 32 and 33, and 158 to 168. Amendment 2, in clause 9, page 8, line 3, after “work” insert “including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions” <em>This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.</em> Government amendment 37. Amendment 6, page 8, line 18, after “disclosures” insert “and to whom such disclosures should be made; (ba) how a person making a protected disclosure under paragraph (b) is protected; (bb) a list of prescribed people and bodies to whom a potential whistleblower may speak to in confidence about a relevant concern.” <em>This amendment would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information on whom a person can make a protected disclosure to and how that person would be protected.</em> Amendment 7, page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert— “(6) The Secretary of State must introduce a standard <span id="802" class="column-number" data-column-number="802"></span>template for ethical code of conduct for completion by public authorities which satisfies the requirements in this section and which may be added to by public authorities to include information specific to their organisation or function.” <em>This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce a standard template to ensure a consistent and high standard approach to completion of code of ethical conduct documentation across public authorities.</em> Government amendments 38 and 39. Amendment 14, in clause 11, page 9, line 22, after “public authority” insert “, Member of either House of Parliament” <em>This amendment expands the offence of misleading the public to apply to Members of either House of Parliament.</em> Amendment 15, page 9, line 23, after “authority” insert “, Member”. <em>This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.</em> Amendment 25, page 9, line 26, at end insert— “(1A) An act under subsection (1)(a) includes the provision of misleading information to a person acting for the purposes of journalism (as described in subsection (4)(b)) carried out via a press statement, media briefing, or other communication intended for dissemination by a recognised news publisher.” <em>This amendment would ensure that the offence of misleading the public would include a public authority or public official providing misleading information to a recognised news publisher.</em> Amendment 16, page 9, line 38, after “authority” insert “, Member of either House of Parliament” <em>This amendment is connected to Amendment 14.</em> Government amendment 40. Amendment 8, page 10, line 5, leave out paragraph (b). Amendment 17, page 10, line 8, at end insert “, or (c) in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament.” <em>This amendment is connected to Amendments 13 to 16 and 18. It provides that the offence of misleading the public does not apply to any act done in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament.</em> Government amendments 41 and 42. Amendment 19, page 10, line 23, at end insert— “(7A) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.” <em>This amendment requires the Attorney General to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.</em> Amendment 18, page 10, line 37, at end insert— “(8A) A certificate signed by the appropriate authority (as defined in section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) certifying that an act is done in furtherance of the privileges of either House of Parliament shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.” <em>This amendment is connected to Amendments 13 to 17.</em> Government amendments 43 to 51. Amendment 12, in clause 15, page 13, line 7, at end insert— “(2A) References in this Part to a person who ‘holds public office’ include references to an individual who was, but is no longer, such an office holder, in respect of conduct occurring while they held such office.”<span id="803" class="column-number" data-column-number="803"></span> <em>This amendment would ensure that public officials would still be liable for misconduct during their time in public office if they resign or retire.</em> Government amendments 52 to 69. Amendment 11, in clause 23, page 22, line 20, at end insert— “(6) For the purposes of this Act, any duty or liability imposed on a public official or a person holding public office applies in respect of any act or omission occurring while the person held that office or performed those functions, notwithstanding that the person has subsequently resigned, retired, or otherwise ceased to hold that office or perform those functions.” <em>This amendment would ensure that the duties and liabilities in this Bill apply to public officials during their time in public office even if they have since resigned, retired or ceased to hold a public office.</em> Government amendments 70 and 71. Amendment 9, in clause 25, page 22, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert— “This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.” <em>This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance.</em> Government amendments 72, 76 and 169 to 178. Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert “, independent panel or review established by a Minister” <em>This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown.</em> Amendment 146, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert “, independent panel, review established by a Minister, or independent panel or review established by a local authority.” <em>This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown and by local authorities.</em> Government amendments 78 to 80, 91, 93 to 97, and 179 to 198. Amendment 149, in schedule 2, page 47, line 22, at end insert— “(4A) Notwithstanding regulations made under sub-paragraph (4) a statutory water company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of the Water Industry Act 1991 as a water undertaker (company) must meet the obligations set out in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of this Act for public functions in connection with their duties to— (a) provide water supply within their area; (b) supply water that is wholesome for domestic or food production purposes; (c) provide, improve, and extend a system of public sewers and to treat sewage within their area; (d) comply with water quality regulations; (e) ensure long-term resilience of water supply and sewage networks against climate change, population growth, and consumer behaviour changes; (f) maintain their assets to prevent sewage from polluting watercourses; and (g) reduce sewage pollution.” <em>This amendment would place privatised water companies in England and Wales under the obligations of Chapter 2 of Part 2 on the face of the Bill for the functions for which they are responsible of a public nature.</em> Government amendments 98 to 142.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill

    Order. I know that this is a highly sensitive debate, but interventions must be short and to the point. Lots of colleagues want to get in on the debate.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill

    Order. Minister, either you take an intervention or do not. Please do not continue a conversation when Members are seated.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill

    Order. Before the Minister responds, I just point out that many colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, so I hope she is coming to her conclusion soon.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Maternity Services: North-west

    Blackpool Victoria hospital’s maternity services have been subject to two inspections by the Care Quality Commission in recent years—in 2022 and 2025—which resulted in findings of “Inadequate” and “Requires improvement”. The inspectors cited particular concerns about staffing and the care provided for mothers and babies. We all know how scary it is to go into maternity services, especially for those experiencing challenging pregnancies or health complications. Can the Minister give my constituents some reassurance about the improvements in that hospital’s maternity services that the Government are seeking?

    Hansard source
15. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Business of the House

    This is a farce. It is a charade. We are all puppets in a political pantomime being orchestrated by the new Member for Makerfield. I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman wanted a job in the reshuffle so much that he would put himself through this. Today the Table Office cleared, or had had sight of, the motion for tomorrow. The right hon. Member for Makerfield has been avoiding scrutiny from the press; he has avoided scrutiny from his own parliamentary party through an uncontested leadership election; and now he is trying to avoid scrutiny from any Member in this place. Does the Leader of the House at least recognise that that is not a good tone for an incoming Prime Minister to set, and that it does not bode well for his future if that is how he is going to conduct himself as Prime Minister of this country?

    Hansard source
16. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill

    The interventions and the shadow Secretary of State’s responses are indicative of what he said earlier: we should not be discussing something as technically complex as this, which could have wide-reaching ramifications, with 24 hours’ notice and without any opportunity to have a proper discussion and raise these points.

    Hansard source
17. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation

    It is a particular pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate. I have lived and worked in a coastal community throughout my life, so I can speak with some force about the challenges they face. Our sea ports are not just transit points for goods but engines of regeneration, holding the unique power to lift coastal areas out of deprivation and firmly reconnect them to national prosperity. Ports are the lifeblood of coastal economic health, explicitly serving to catalyse jobs and drive local wealth where it is most needed. Their activities support 90,000 jobs across the broader region, yet a significant driver of isolation and economic deprivation in coastal communities is the severe lack of adequate transport connectivity. Coastal communities are, by their geographical nature, at the end of the line. When we talk about hidden deprivation, we are talking about young people who cannot easily travel to access further education, local businesses that struggle to attract external investment and residents who face profound social isolation.

    Hansard source
18. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation

    I was not aware of the situation of the two towns the hon. Gentleman mentions, but he highlights a key point. I have been campaigning for the last 15 years to reintroduce the direct train service from <span id="284WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="284WH"></span>Grimsby and Cleethorpes to London King’s Cross. What Hull Trains has done for the north bank of the Humber—many Members will be familiar with it—has been a real boost to the local economy. I now look to Great British Railways to do the same for the south bank, but it has to be said that I have my doubts. If we are really serious about tackling hidden deprivation in our coastal communities, we cannot leave them cut off from the capital. A direct rail link would be a real boost to the economy of the south bank of the Humber. If we are to truly break physical barriers of isolation, we must also strengthen east-west rail freight connectivity. Immingham is the largest port in the country, measured by tonnage, and it needs better access to other industrial centres, which would relieve the M62 of an enormous amount of heavy goods vehicle traffic. When we invest in fundamental infrastructure, private investment and supply chain growth will naturally follow. I urge the Minister to recognise that upgrading transport infrastructure is absolutely key to reducing isolation and deprivation in our local communities. More in Common recently published a report, commissioned by Associated British Ports, that provides a fascinating array of statistics and opinions gleaned from extensive research. It shows very clearly that the state of high streets and the cost of living are the key issues in our coastal communities. I urge the Minister to focus on that when she responds to the debate.

    Hansard source
19. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

    I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Lords amendments. As hon. Members will know, part of my constituency takes in the Scunthorpe steelworks, and hundreds of my constituents work there. My aim throughout the rather tortuous and long saga about the future of the steelworks has been to ensure that their jobs are retained. As the shadow Secretary of State outlined, the Bill could have been further improved, but I am delighted that we have at least reached a conclusion. There will be a sigh of relief among my many constituents who rely on the steelworks for their employment. I look forward to engaging with the Minister as we move forward on the future of the steelworks—because, as I think he is well aware, if energy costs in particular <span id="899" class="column-number" data-column-number="899"></span>stay as they are, there are future disasters ahead. We must do something on energy costs if we are to maintain any sort of a steel industry and heavy industry in the UK. I thank the Minister for getting us to this point and look forward to working with him in the future.

    Hansard source
20. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is a huge privilege to wind up the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this very important debate. I welcome the Minister to her place; this will be the first time we have had an exchange in this place. As hon. Members will know, I do not represent a coastal community. The River Lea and the white water rafting centre that proudly hosted events for the 2012 Olympics are the closest my constituency comes to having a coastline. However, many of my constituents grew up visiting our coasts, and have warm memories and strong cultural attachments to the beaches, clifftops and seaside towns of our great island nation. I fondly remember trips to places such as Clacton, Bournemouth, Great Yarmouth and Southend. From my visits to many of our seaside towns, and from hearing hon. Members’ testimonies, it is apparent that those places face unique challenges. Unfortunately, many of them have experienced decline in recent decades. The challenges that they face are not always adequately acknowledged or addressed by central Government. Understandably, many feel as if they are overlooked time and again. Many Members have made eloquent cases about that, providing us with valuable insights from the people they speak to and from their own experiences, but I will touch on some of those challenges again. They include poor or sometimes non-existent transport links, unemployment and changes to a once-reliable and profitable <span id="294WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="294WH"></span>seasonal trade, a lack of housing supply, and large disparities in income, which mean that many people cannot afford to live in the places where they grew up. That is made even worse by the conversion of former hotels, B&amp;Bs and residential properties into houses in multiple occupation, with councils and Government Departments using them to house people from elsewhere, leading to transient and unstable communities. Another challenge is an education system that receives far less money per pupil than some inner-city areas of London, for example. Unfortunately, decisions made by this Labour Government have worsened and compounded many of those issues. Businesses such as hotels, ice cream parlours and fisheries have been hit hard by the increase the employer national insurance and by burdensome regulations. Business rates have increased—in some cases massively and seemingly arbitrarily. Many people I meet in the hospitality industry, which is vital to coastal communities, tell me that they are really struggling; they simply have no more to give, and they ask why they should even bother. The Minister’s Department is now pushing through local government reorganisation, which in some areas will lump coastal communities together with inland towns and villages that have completely different priorities and challenges, and risks marginalising coastal communities even further. I urge the Government to pay particular attention to that when making decisions on local government reorganisation. Ultimately, our coastal communities and the whole United Kingdom deserve better. We need a Government who cut rather than increase taxes, reward rather than punish aspiration and success, prioritise quality housing for local people rather than HMOs for illegal asylum seekers, and put the interests of ordinary British people first, not least those in our coastal communities.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    NHS Trusts: Digital Infrastructure

    I spent a day last week with the palliative care team at William Harvey hospital in Ashford, which serves a large chunk of my constituency, and I was amazed by how much time they <span id="748" class="column-number" data-column-number="748"></span>spent gathering and sharing information. They were clicking through on really old systems, all on pdf, which takes up a huge amount of time that they could instead be spending on clinical care, especially given how technology is evolving. When are we going to get past the situation in which every single time a doctor sees a patient, it is like the whole interaction with the NHS is happening for the very first time?

    Hansard source
22. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Business of the House

    Tomorrow, the Conservatives were going to ask for Parliament to sit for one more working day, so that the new Prime Minister could come here and set out his agenda for the country, which we could then scrutinise on behalf of all the people we represent. Instead, there will be a general debate which, no matter the topic, can have no actionable outcome. We will have no chance for a month and a half to scrutinise the Prime Minister’s plans. I ask the Leader of the House genuinely: how does he think that looks to the people who send us here?

    Hansard source
23. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Support for Pig Farmers

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. We do not hear about pig farming as much as we hear about other farming sectors, but it is essential to our food system and rural economy. While this debate concerns the UK sector, I want to focus on the pressures facing producers in Scotland. As we have heard, the Scottish pig sector is under enormous strain from low market prices, rising costs, processing constraints and competition from imports. Many farmers are now selling pigs well below the cost of production. NFU Scotland estimates that Scottish members of the United Pig Co-operative lost around £2.7 million in the first four months of this year alone. Some producers were losing up to £37 per pig, while a typical 500-sow unit could face annual losses approaching half a million pounds. Those figures are unsustainable for family farming businesses. The consequences extend beyond individual farms. Scotland’s pig sector contributes around £300 million to the economy and supports around 2,200 jobs, as well as haulage firms, feed merchants, vets, processors and other rural businesses. Once that critical mass is lost, it will be exceptionally difficult to rebuild. In my constituency, farmers such as Adam Marshall in Berwickshire have spent decades investing in high-quality Scottish pork and adding value through local enterprises, including Reiver Country Farm Foods and Oink. That entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged, but even innovative, well-run family businesses cannot absorb sustained losses indefinitely. If businesses such as Adam’s are struggling despite doing everything right, that should alarm us all.<span id="344WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="344WH"></span> I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition of the crisis through their £2 million emergency package for independent producers, but the industry is clear that it does not go far enough; the losses being sustained are far greater than the support on offer. Further assistance will be needed to protect Scotland’s pig sector, rural jobs and domestic food production. The UK Government must act too. Ministers should urgently convene an industry roundtable and resume regular engagement with the National Pig Association. It is concerning that no bilateral meeting has taken place since November 2024. The Government should review whether the fair dealing obligations are providing the protection that producers were promised, and farmers must not be left carrying an unfair share of commercial risk. We should also strengthen country-of-origin labelling, particularly in food service, so that consumers can support Scottish and British pork produced to high welfare and environmental standards. Finally, biosecurity must remain a priority. African swine fever poses a serious threat, and robust border controls and disease preparedness are essential for protecting food security and the rural economy. Our pig farmers are resilient and innovative. They are asking not for special treatment, but for fair markets, sensible regulation, meaningful engagement and support proportionate to the crisis. I hope the Minister will listen and act.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this key debate. The vital question on “Desert Island Discs” is not what luxury a person desires or which tune they would save from the waves; it is how they would cope on their own. Although we all enjoy a bit of peace and quiet now and then, we are in the end social animals, which is why isolation and loneliness, grinding day in and day out, is such torture. The Scottish household survey says that roughly one in four people suffer loneliness, with 16 to 24-year-olds and over-75s disproportionately affected. Coastal areas such as my Dumfries and Galloway constituency have many remote and rural communities, which is, in itself, a problem. A person who has £10 in their pocket in a city can do something with it; they can go somewhere or see a friend. But £10 up an isolated farm track is of little use at all. The reasons for isolation are myriad. People living longer is of course a good thing, but the harsh reality is that one half of a couple is likely to outlive the other. Although the 2022 Scottish census was utterly botched by the SNP, it indicated that single-person households were the most common, accounting for about 37.1% of all homes. Places such as pubs, which were once the wellsprings of communities, are closing in droves. Rural deprivation, especially in coastal areas, where communities are fragile because of a lack of employment and critical infrastructure, is all too real. Coastal areas are beautiful, none more so than Dumfries and Galloway, with its rocky cliffs, secluded bays, unspoilt empty beaches and rolling gentle hills, but we cannot eat the scenery or have a chat with the big sky overhead. Loneliness needs to be seen for what it is: a public health issue. Rural people, by nature, have to be resilient and self-reliant, and the fact is that no Government can do everything. I must mention the charity A Listening Ear, which in my community, movingly, has a programme called “No One Dies Alone”. That outreach is compassionate and vital, and it is critical that communities work together to tackle loneliness.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Business of the House

    Metal prices being what they are, if we were to take the amount of brass neck on show here today and melt it down, we could fund defence properly. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the ship of state will sail on regardless throughout the summer, but my constituents want to know whose hand is on the tiller and what course will be set. Is that so unreasonable? If Manchesterism is so fantastic, why can the right hon. Member for Makerfield not come here and tell us all about it?

    Hansard source
26. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    UK-Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement

    As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, it is a delight to see the fruits of Brexit being brought home. Will the Minister confirm that the deal is not contingent on us taking Swiss courts as being superior to our own? We are not aligning with their rules on angular chocolate, for instance, and I know that the Swiss do not have a large fishing fleet, so there is no impact on our fishing waters. I am struggling to understand why we are bold with this deal, but so supine when it comes to the EU.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation

    I congratulate the hon. Member, my neighbour, on securing this debate, which is important not only for us on the Isle of Wight, but for so many MPs, hence the wonderful turnout in the Chamber today. In particular, I thank him for highlighting our issues with ferries. I am sure he would agree that it is not just the price we all pay to get back and forth, but the whole impact on our local economy. That is a message we really need to get across, and use the opportunity of a new Prime Minister to do so.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    This is a total humiliation and embarrassment for the Government. Yesterday they published an emergency change to Government business in order to ram the Hillsborough law through this House, with no notice and an absolute minimum of scrutiny. Now they have backtracked again on their own business and cancelled the Opposition day that they themselves had scheduled. Why is that? Let me read the motion that caused so much consternation in the Whips Office and in No. 10: “That this House calls on the Government to bring forward a motion to change the date it adjourns to Monday 20 July to enable the new Prime Minister to make a statement about his plans for Government.” In other words, the Government changed the business and refused to delay the activity of this House by even one day to permit the Prime Minister, as he will be, to make a statement and to answer questions about his intentions and plans. The Government have a majority of more than 150, but they could not trust their MPs to vote the right way on that motion and they could not bear the idea of a new Prime Minister facing any scrutiny before September. Let me remind us all that that Prime Minister has been chosen by a coronation, not a contest, with no known platform, almost no known policies and no idea of his priorities or his Cabinet team. The Government pushed <span id="768" class="column-number" data-column-number="768"></span>us to take an Opposition day tomorrow, but they cannot bear the scrutiny, and now they are cancelling it. To do so by hiding—thoroughly distastefully, I am afraid—under the very distressing news of what is happening in Iran, when a Minister could have made a statement today or tomorrow on that issue, is completely disreputable. The Government are not even cancelling the Opposition day for legislation. They could have kept the day for the Representation of the People Bill, but they are cancelling it for a general debate, with no votes. This is the worst possible exit for a Prime Minister—it is a desperate attempt to create a legacy, as though that could alter two solid years of failure—and the worst possible start for a new Prime Minister. People across this country will see what has happened, and they will conclude that this is a man who is frit, running scared of public scrutiny before he can even take office.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    I raised it in the <em>Daily </em><em>Mail</em>!

    Hansard source
30. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Support for Pig Farmers

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank Members for coming to the debate. To say that the UK’s pig industry is worried is a gross understatement. The sector has always experienced ups and downs, but the current trough and range of difficulties faced by our pig farmers is sustained and significant, and there seem to be few routes to stabilising the sector. The current downturn is considered to have begun back in the autumn of 2025, and has been driven by a combination of factors, including an oversupply of pigs, stagnant demand and falling prices in Europe, which have put downward pressure on UK pig prices. The situation has been exacerbated by constraints in the processing sector and by rising costs. Next came the substantial backlog of pigs at the start of 2026; at its peak, as many as 100,000 pigs were left on-farm. Although the worst of the backlog cleared, the standard pig price fell markedly and has remained low: it has fallen from about 208p per kilo in August 2025 to 178p per kilo now—a 15% fall. In the context of profit margins across agriculture that are sometimes only 1%, it is understandable why the fall in price over such a sustained period is causing issues for the sector. However, it must be acknowledged that the standard pig price is very much an average price metric. Many producers are receiving significantly less than that—sometimes in the region of just 130p to 140p per kilo, which is significantly below the farm’s break-even point. Indeed, a farmer I recently met in my constituency is losing about £50 per pig, and across Scotland, the industry has lost £5.7 million since January. Unless farmers are paid a price that at least covers the cost of production, there can be no future in the sector. It is as simple as that. Lower welfare standards and the attractiveness to UK retailers of the flood of cheap pigmeat from the European continent is a key factor dictating the low UK price. Here lies a significant problem: the undercutting of UK pig farmers by retailers, food manufacturers and providers, be that in the food service sector or in local authority procurement, is making the viability of the UK pig sector even tougher. While I absolutely understand and appreciate the fine margins in hospitality, not least due to rising costs and seemingly ever-increasing taxation, and the tight budgets of our local authorities, more needs to be done to ensure that local British produce, be that pork, beef, lamb or other farm outputs, can be prioritised and offered to British consumers. Fairness in the contracts for independent pig farmers is also a well-voiced concern. I recognise that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025, which are designed to improve fairness and transparency across the UK pig supply chain, will come into effect for the sector next month. The regulations were introduced in recognition of the imbalance in bargaining power between individual pig producers and the relatively small number of large processors and purchasers. The changes will <span id="339WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="339WH"></span>include principles such as mandated written contracts, a clear pricing mechanism, mutually agreeable term lengths and fair notice periods. Those regulations will not immediately resolve every challenge facing the sector. The industry still has concerns, and has requested that the Government undertake an assessment of whether the fair dealing regulations are truly robust enough to address the pricing and margin concerns of producers when dealing with processors. Is that something the Minister would consider? Biosecurity concerns are never far away from the pig sector. Indeed, the outbreak of African swine fever in Spain and elsewhere on the European continent and the impact that that had on the export market, including to China, is partly responsible for the oversupply and depressed prices we are currently seeing. There is real and growing concern about the emergence of diseases such as African swine fever and about foot and mouth entering the UK and infecting our livestock—no one needs reminding of the devastation that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak had. Every possible effort must be put into ensuring that these diseases do not arrive on our shores. In winding up, I ask the Minister to comment on what proactive and robust steps the Government are taking to ensure that diseases like African swine fever do not spread to the UK, because more robust checks are needed. His answers to my recent written parliamentary questions and a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in the main Chamber last week show that these robust provisions are not in place. It feels like we have been lucky not to see cases of African swine fever, foot and mouth or any other significant livestock disease enter the UK. The UK’s biosecurity system cannot rely on luck, because the consequences of any of these diseases entering the UK and our livestock is hard to overstate. Before I conclude, I want to reflect briefly on the situation in Scotland. Although I appreciate that agriculture is devolved, a robust agricultural sector and supply chain and strong food production and biosecurity controls are relevant UK-wide. Indeed, the UK pig industry, of which Scotland plays a significant part, is worth £2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales and, considering food service and export values, £14 billion in total. As I said, Scotland does contribute to that. The Scottish pig industry is facing even more acute pressures than those in England. With just one single processor in Brechin and distances too large to transport the pigs for processing south of the border, Scottish pig farmers are seeing an even lower standard pig price than their English counterparts. According to data that I have seen, the price being paid has barely got above 140p a kilo since April. At present, Scottish pig farmers have no formal contracts, so there is no guarantee that their finished pigs will even be taken. Having spoken to pig farmers in my Gordon and Buchan constituency—most recently just yesterday—there is genuine fear for the future of the sector. Just since January, Scotland has lost 15% of its pig herds and the average price per kilo has fallen by more than 20%. The pig sector in Scotland is down £5.7 million since January this year, with continued losses almost <span id="340WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="340WH"></span>guaranteed if prices remain suppressed. Almost half of those losses—more than £2.5 million—are in my constituency. In closing, I want to ask the Minister just a single question, in the hope that it will be the most beneficial way to help the sector to address the challenges it is facing. My understanding is that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last met the National Pig Association or the pig industry in November 2024. Will the Minister commit to meeting the NPA and, when he does, making sure that there is a substantial package brought forward that can help support the sector? The best way to support the sector, which is complex and facing a wide range of issues, is to meet those who know most about it. That is the best way that we can support our pig farmers going forward.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Support for Pig Farmers

    13 August is obviously a very important date, because it is when the fair dealing regulations come in. There have been warnings from the sector that that sort of thing will happen and about why it is so important. I ask the Minister for a proper review of these obligations to assess how they are working for the sector, so that we do not have situations like the one that my right hon. Friend has just mentioned.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Support for Pig Farmers

    Given that there is a Division in the House, I will keep this very short. I thank everyone for participating in the debate. I hope the Minister’s meetings will be constructive. I ask him to go in with an open <span id="355WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="355WH"></span>mind and listen to what the NPA is saying. It is not sounding a false alarm; it is genuinely very worried about the future of its sector. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em><span id="356WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="356WH"></span> <em>Resolved,</em> That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Business of the House

    The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) was elected less than a month ago. He will be Prime Minister on Monday, by which time we will be on an almost 50-day recess. He will be appointing a Cabinet in that time, some of whom will not have to come to this House to answer questions until the middle of October, after the conference recess. We do not know what his plan is. He was elected leader of the Labour party without a contest, and our constituents have the right to know. The point of our motion was to give them the opportunity to know his plans for the country. Why is that too much to ask?

    Hansard source
34. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    NHS Workforce: Sickness Absence

    <Question HRSContentId="{12728386-8BFA-433B-BC19-3359135D0738}">4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{879677D0-0C7D-4138-A256-67F9850A2842}">What steps he is taking to reduce sickness absence in the NHS workforce.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
35. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    NHS Workforce: Sickness Absence

    As the Health Secretary is a numbers man, perhaps he will be interested in these figures. Research from Policy Exchange shows that sickness absence in the NHS costs £6 billion and removes 8 million clinician days from the frontline. What will the Secretary of State do to get staff back to work, to get patients treated, and to get this ridiculous level of staff absence down?

    Hansard source
36. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Business of the House

    Shocking!

    Hansard source
37. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Business of the House

    I apologise.

    Hansard source
38. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    General Practice Partnership Model

    <Question HRSContentId="{64A9276A-7691-4B51-BC9F-C5FF95EC775B}">6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{8CC3E613-62F1-46D0-B54A-182913682E45}">What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the partnership model in general practice.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
39. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    General Practice Partnership Model

    I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but GP partnerships across rural areas such as mine in Mid Buckinghamshire face considerable uncertainty as the Government review the model for practice funding. Can the Minister be really clear about when the next steps review of the Carr-Hill formula will be published, and that rural areas such as Buckinghamshire that are facing incredible housing pressure from other Departments under this Government will not be disadvantaged?

    Hansard source
40. 14 Jul 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    UK-Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement

    I welcome this deal, and I agreed entirely with the Minister when he said that when it comes to trade, the primary role of Government is to pave the way for UK businesses by taking down the barriers that prevent them from exporting their goods and services around the world—if only there were not so many domestic barriers being put up that were thwarting British business. The Minister is quoted in the press as saying that the negotiations around this deal descended into “shouting…across the table”. Will he tell the House where most of the compromise fell when that shouting stopped—was it on our side of the negotiations, or the Swiss side? Will he also say more could have been in this deal after that shouting?

    Hansard source