Westminster Hall

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

Thursday 16 April 2026

[Dawn Butler in the Chair]

Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

Science, Innovation and Technology Committee

Select Committee statement

13:30

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

We begin with the Select Committee statement. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into neuroscience and digital childhoods for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Dame Chi Onwurah to respond to them in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one each.

13:31

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship for the very first time, Ms Butler. As you know very well, digital technology is no longer simply a tool or a luxury plaything; it is a foundational part of our way of life here in Britain, like the electricity that powers our kettles or indeed the very air we breathe. Part of the environment in which our children grow, learn, play and communicate, it shapes how the next generation interacts with the world. However, like the air we breathe, digital technologies can be polluted.

I am, as I may have mentioned at times, an engineer and a tech evangelist. I champion the benefits that these technologies bring, but I also recognise the profound concerns that they raise for children’s physical and mental health, as well as for their cognitive development. That is why the Select Committee for Science, Innovation and Technology is undertaking an inquiry to examine neuroscience and digital childhoods, and I am glad to see members of the Committee present.

We want to move beyond the surface-level debate to ask the difficult scientific questions about what is happening inside young minds and the developing brain. The inquiry will build on previous evidence gathering. Last year, as part of our investigation into social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms, we went deep into the workings of the platform companies, particularly the business models that drive their social media operations. Meta’s market capitalisation is about equal to the entire UK public sector budget. With such financial power driving content into children’s lives, it is vital that we understand what drives those companies.

Social media companies rely on advertising-based business models, where clicks and likes matter most. As a result, they are designed to push content that drives engagement to the point of addiction, often without sufficient regard for whether that content is accurate or trustworthy. The digital advertising that incentivises recommendation algorithms is under-regulated and highly concentrated, with Facebook and Google the dominant players. They encourage the creation of material built to perform on social media above all else, and that includes misinformation and disinformation.

As part of that inquiry, we identified five key principles essential for public trust: public safety, free and safe expression, platform responsibility, user control and transparency. Although the Government accepted all our conclusions, they rejected all our recommendations, such as better regulation of how algorithms rank, recommend and amplify content, better regulation of digital advertising, the inclusion of artificial intelligence in the Online Safety Act 2023 and a right to reset. Had they been implemented, some of the harms we now face would have been at least partially addressed.

In March this year the Committee held a one-off session to investigate the proposals for social media age restrictions. We took evidence from clinicians, experts in social media on both sides of the debate, bereaved family members, representatives of those with direct experience of harms and those monitoring the early implementation of the age restrictions brought in in Australia. During both inquiries, Committee members were struck by the extent of the evidence base for a wide range of significant harms from the use of social media—evidence that is consistent, strong and temporally linked to its use. We heard distressing testimony about media health impacts on children, including suicide and suicide ideation, exposure to and normalisation of sexual and violent content, eating disorders and body dysmorphia, health and nutrition misinformation, and physical health, brain development and sleeping disorders.

Governments worldwide are currently debating social media and phone bans for children. In December last year Australia banned social media for under-16s. France looks likely to follow suit with votes for an under-15s ban clearing the French Senate in March. Spain, Portugal, Greece and Canada all have similar proposals under way, and the UK Government are consulting on various protective measures, yet there is a gap in our collective knowledge. Although there is lots of evidence on how much time young people spend on digital devices, we have far too little evidence on how the devices affect children’s development. We also lack clarity on the different impacts of different types of exposure, from social media apps to screen time more generally. Our objective is to map the existing evidence and, crucially, identify where the gaps lie. Our aim is to understand how digital devices influence brain development in children and adolescents. We will examine the resulting impact on physical health and mental wellbeing, behaviour and educational attainment. We will assess how the impacts vary based on individual characteristics, including age, sex, socioeconomic background and ethnicity.

In our inquiry we will distinguish between active and passive engagement. Is there a neurological difference between a child playing a game and a child passively scrolling through an algorithmically driven auto-playing video infinite feed? We will look across activities—gaming, social media, television and messaging—and across various devices, whether they are hand-held, wearable or fixed technologies.

A key focus of our inquiry is the short, medium and long-term effects on brain and eye development. We will explore neurological and hormonal processes, including the role of dopamine releases and potential links to behavioural conditions. We will also look at the indirect effects on sleep and vision and the impact on eye development. We want to hear from those at the heart of this—the children and adolescents themselves. Their views on their own digital lives are vital to our understanding.

We also want to hear from experts, particularly experts in every stage of brain development. The ultimate goal of the Committee is to ensure that policymakers and parents have a better understanding of the evidence on the impact of digital devices on childhood. Then we can decide as parents and policymakers where we want to erect barriers, mitigate harmful impacts or extend beneficial impacts in order to optimise the physical and mental wellbeing of our children. We must ensure that the digital childhood supports development rather than undermines it.

I look forward to hearing the evidence and the questions from Members today.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for her report from our Select Committee, which I particularly enjoy working on. I find it very useful to bring people such as the social media companies before the Committee. We had a very—shall I say—vibrant meeting with them recently. Does the hon. Member agree that they are not doing enough in this space, and that we need to get them to do an awful lot more and to take responsibility?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his work on the Committee. It is always incisive and rooted in a desire to get the evidence. I agree with him. I understand the big tech companies are in No. 10 Downing Street this morning talking—or I hope listening—to the Prime Minister about this very subject: the importance of children’s wellbeing in digital technology. That in itself is testament to the fact that they have not done enough. We should not have got to this place, where our children are living through the harms that I spoke about and that the Committee heard about in its evidence. The companies’ incentives, driven by advertising revenue and profit making, should be in second place to children’s wellbeing and the safety of the products and services that they put out to our young people—and indeed to all our citizens.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee’s launch of a new inquiry on digital childhoods. Like her, I sit on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and was disturbed when I asked the big tech companies how much money they make from children. They said that they do not make much because they cannot make advertising revenue from them, so I asked whether it was altruistic—to which there was tumbleweed and then the admission: “Actually, no, it creates a user base”. I am paraphrasing, but even the use of the word “user” with reference to our children is deeply concerning.

I welcome this inquiry. I believe plenty of evidence already demonstrates a direct link between being miserable and an increased use of online devices. I welcome the fact that we will hear from experts, and that we can be guided by their guidance. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given last year’s report and the evidence from this inquiry, in addition to the social media ban consultation that is going at the moment, the Government might not just listen and agree, but actually do something about it?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Member for her question and her contribution to the Committee, which is always driven by a desire to ensure that technology works for people in this country. Her questioning of the tech companies about their approach to children was very illustrative of a lack of concern about the outcomes on children. The financial rewards are certainly there in the long term. However, the companies should be doing the research that we are and understanding the impact of these vast money-making machines on young people and children. That we are having to do that, and that they cannot speak effectively to the safety of their products and services, is remarkable. I want to emphasise that they bring benefits as well, but it is not appropriate that this should be unregulated and that our children should be exposed to uncertain, unknown and uncontrolled harms.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Chair of the Committee, along with the Select Committee Members, for their hard work for the lives of young children in the past and in the neuroscience and digital childhoods inquiry. The Select Committee’s work is important and vital in modern society. I have a particular interest in online activities relating to those who could pervert the minds of children but also in relation to eating disorders, which the Chair mentioned—I thank her for that.

There is a role for the parents, but I think many parents are just not sure what this will do to their child. As the grandfather of six children, I understand some of the threats on their tablets, laptops, phones and so on. When the investigation is complete, the questions are asked and the inquiry is done, will the hon. Lady and her Committee share it with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland? It is very important that we are in tandem with her recommendations.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, as well as his valuable work and concerns in this area. I echo his concerns about mental wellbeing and eating disorders. The Committee heard evidence that a false account of a young girl aged 14 or 15 was inundated within a few hours with misinformation about unhealthy eating and, basically, the promotion of eating disorders. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about sharing the report’s findings with the Administration in Northern Ireland. We will certainly make sure that happens in terms of the regulatory environment.

I am not sure that I fully answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) about Government action. We are looking for speedy Government action in response to this inquiry, and we hope that both our conclusions and our recommendations will be accepted by the Government in this case.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I welcome this new inquiry looking at children and young people’s device use. There is a growing feeling that there is a causation between screen use and poor mental health outcomes, and we are now having to drill into brain science and neuroscience to provide evidence back to tech companies to justify why we need regulation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it has come too late, fundamentally, we need to find that evidence?

Does my hon. Friend also agree that we need to encourage all our young people and parents to respond to the Government’s consultation on a social media ban? We need to go further than a ban at age 16. The voices of young people and parents will contribute to evidence on this and make an informed and better policy.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her contribution to the Committee, which is always rooted in and driven by her profound understanding both of biological and chemical sciences and of the life of a woman scientist in the research community.

To the two points that my hon. Friend made, the industry has not learned from the examples of smoking and other harmful products and services. The sector is creating vast revenues and is responsible for the majority of the stock market capitalisation in the US. It has the resources to understand the impacts of its products and services. It also has the talents and fantastic research capabilities; we see that in its innovative new products and services. Yet the sector does not understand, or share its understanding of, the impact of its products and services on children’s developing brains.

Every generation’s childhood is unique and different—the first generation to be literate, or the first generation to have television—so it is not necessarily that change is bad. Understanding what change means is in the interests of the sector as well as the interests of parents.

To my hon. Friend’s final point, the Government clearly see the need for change, which is why we are having the consultation, and have been proactive in making that clear. It is important that as many people as possible, particularly young people, respond to that consultation. I would also encourage as many people as possible to respond to the Committee’s call for evidence, so that when change comes, which I hope will be quickly, we can ensure that we make the right decisions based on the right scientific evidence and the right understanding of what people in this country want to see happen in this important area.

Backbench Business

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

Housing Needs: Young People

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

13:50

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the housing needs of young people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Everyone has the right to a safe, secure and healthy home, yet for far too many young people across the United Kingdom, that feels increasingly out of reach. The effects go far beyond housing: it is about young people’s ability to leave home, to work and contribute, to start a family, and to build a stake in the country they call home.

I am sure every hon. Member here can see the shift happening in their constituencies. We see children staying at home for longer and struggling to save to move out. In 2024, the Office for National Statistics showed that a third of men aged 20 to 34 were living with their parents, along with just over a fifth of women of the same age. That is not a lifestyle choice; it is the result of a housing market that has moved beyond what young people can afford.

Nowhere is the pressure clearer than in the private rented sector. Private renters in the bottom 20% of earners spend an average of 63% of their income on rent, and private renters overall spend 34% of their income on housing. That means that the average renter pays rent that, by the Government’s own definition, is not affordable. Someone renting from the age of 18 will have paid almost £200,000 in rent before reaching the average age of a first-time buyer in Britain—34. A young couple will have paid more in rent than the cost of an average home in the UK plus an extra £110,000 on top.

That is not a fair system. It simply strips wealth from younger people and takes away our children’s future. Given the enormous sums of money that young people pay in rent before they have an opportunity to get on the property ladder, will the Minister meet the Liberal Democrats to discuss a rent-to-buy scheme?

We also see the strain in the rise of what we call concealed households. In 2020, there were nearly 2 million households that included an additional adult who wanted to rent or buy but could not afford to do so. More than half the people in those households were aged 16 to 24. I am sure we all understand that this stems from years of failure; it is not a problem that has happened overnight. We now have adults living in childhood bedrooms—not because they want to, but because there is nowhere affordable for them to go.

For many young people, home ownership feels less realistic and more like a distant aspiration. High prices, high deposit requirements and the pressure of everyday living costs have pushed ownership further and further out of reach. Nowhere is that clearer than in the average age of first-time buyers. In the 1970s, it was as low as 24; now, as of this year, it has been pushed up to 34. It is no wonder that young people feel like the system is not working. ONS data shows that in 2024, the median house-price-to-income ratio was 7.9 in England, 5.4 in Wales, 5.3 in Scotland and 4.6 in Northern Ireland.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

In December 2023, the Scottish SNP Government slashed their affordable housing budget by £200 million—a 26% reduction. We have record levels of children in temporary accommodation in Scotland—10,000—and under the SNP’s watch, rough sleeping has increased by 66%. Scottish Labour is promising 125,000 new homes to add to the UK Government’s ambitious targets. Does the hon. Member agree that that would surely tackle the housing needs of our young people?

[Susan Murray]

I absolutely agree, and I would add that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are also contributing to the push for additional affordable housing in Scotland.

The ONS also found that a median-priced home was affordable to the highest-income 40% of households in Scotland and Wales, while in England it was affordable only to the top 10%. That means that even in the most affordable nation, the average house price is now more than banks are willing to lend to someone on an average salary. Can the Minister tell us what discussions the Government have had with the Financial Conduct Authority about its ongoing mortgage rule review and whether it will publish an assessment of how any changes would affect the under-35s? Any changes must not make the situation worse.

Lack of access to affordable homes causes the decline of communities and the widening of wealth gaps. If people can rely on family wealth, or perhaps family sacrifice, to access the property market, they have an enormous headstart on their peers. With that in mind, can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of whether the Government’s first-time buyer support schemes, such as help to buy ISAs, are genuinely reaching young people on ordinary incomes, rather than those who already have family who can help them out?

The consequences of this issue, as we have heard, go beyond housing. When young people cannot afford to live near work, talent leaves and our best and brightest look for opportunities overseas. When high rents dominate young people’s finances, local businesses suffer and third spaces die out. The economic impact of the financial stranglehold that housing has on our youth hurts us all. The Minister must recognise that housing and security are now affecting not only where young people live but whether they feel able to start a family.

I want to make something clear for those who misrepresent the struggles of young people trying to get on the property ladder: young people are not asking for handouts or special favours, and the reason that they cannot buy a home is not their lifestyle. They are asking for a fair chance—the chance to build a life of their own. It is a chance that previous generations have had. This Government have an enormous majority and, if used properly, the opportunity to give young people real hope. I urge the Government to listen to and work with young people to give them the future that they deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to partake in the debate.

13:58

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing forward this debate. I will focus on the housing needs of care leavers and those with care experience.

Every year around 12,000 young people leave foster care or residential homes and begin their transition into independent living. For most young people, that stage of life can be supported by family, friends and a social network—they have a safety net—but so often for care leavers that safety net does not exist. As a result, they face a sharply heightened risk of homelessness: in 2024-25 alone, 4,610 care leavers aged between 18 and 20 experienced homelessness. That represents a 54% increase over five years, with rates rising 2.5 times faster than among the general population.

Those numbers represent young people who are being pushed into crisis at the very point that they should be building their future. The Government have recognised that challenge, and they are introducing important changes through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. That includes additional support for care leavers at risk of homelessness, a raft of changes in the Department of Health and Social Care around prescriptions, and wholesale reform of children’s social care. The Bill is a hugely positive and welcome step, but I hope that we can go further.

There remain significant barriers that prevent care leavers from accessing accessible and suitable accommodation. The private sector, which many young people rely on, is particularly difficult for them to navigate. Research from Centrepoint has found that care leavers are significantly more likely to be rejected by landlords, who are unwilling to rent to that particular group. At the same time, 40% reported they could not afford deposits and up-front costs.

Practical solutions do already exist, but they are not mandatory and they are not used widely enough. Local authority rent deposit and guarantor schemes make a real difference, yet fewer than half of councils currently offer them. Expanding such schemes could be a straightforward and effective way to open doors for care leavers who would otherwise be locked out of the housing market.

In Doncaster, we have fantastic organisations such as Doncaster Housing for Young People, which provides real support, particularly for those without a safety net. In Doncaster, like in so many areas, there is a critical shortage of affordable, move-on housing. Many young people are ready to live independently but are unable to do so because of a lack of appropriate accommodation. There are not enough one-bedroom properties and, as a result, young people are often penalised by things like the bedroom tax, which they simply cannot afford on basic universal credit.

Young people, particularly care leavers, who are supported by Doncaster Housing for Young People are ready to move on, but they are stuck. They are stuck not because they are unprepared or have not been supported, but because the system does not provide housing that they can realistically access.

If we are serious about improving outcomes for care leavers, we need to go further. We must increase the amount of genuinely affordable housing and ensure that they have access to it. We must expand access to practical support, such as deposit and guarantor schemes, where it is not already available. Finally, we must ensure that the welfare system as a whole works with, not against, young people who are trying to build independent lives in terms of both housing and employment. Leaving care should be the start of a future, not the beginning of a housing crisis.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask that Members please speak for roughly six minutes so that we can fit everybody in.

14:01

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for her contribution, and for her passion for helping the young people in her constituency and across the entire UK.

I do not know what everybody else does, but after a busy week at Westminster my heart longs for home. It longs to get home to enjoy my precious grandchildren, my dear wife and my bed, which, no matter what, fits me better than most. Home is a wonderful thing, and I put on record my thanks to my wife Sandra for giving me a home for 39 years.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to find a home. For thousands of young people across Northern Ireland that foundation is crumbling. Members will not be aware of the 38,336 households across the Province currently in housing stress. That is not just a number; it is a record high that represents a 6% increase in just one year.

It is good to see the Minister in his place; he is, by his very nature, incredibly helpful. He always tries to be helpful in any debate and with any questions that I have. I am quite sure that the answers to our requests will be positive and constructive.

To give a Northern Ireland perspective, which the Minister will be glad to know he is not responsible for, in my own council area of Ards and North Down—a borough that is rightly celebrated for its beauty—there hides a growing struggle similar to that which the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire referred to and others will refer to as well. As of March 2024, there were some 3,300 applicants on our local social housing waiting list. Even more alarmingly, 81% of those applicants—more than 2,400—are officially in housing stress. They are living in conditions that are overcrowded, unsuitable and simply unsafe.

The crisis is stealing the childhoods of our youngest citizens. Across Northern Ireland, some 5,000 children are now living in temporary accommodation. That is a staggering 99% increase just five years, which gives everyone an idea of the problem in Northern Ireland. These children are not just waiting; they are spending an average of 38 weeks—nearly three quarters of a year—stuck in hostels or B&Bs. In Ards and North Down, we have the fifth highest social housing waiting list in the whole country.

For a young person starting out, the dream of independence is being replaced by the reality of hidden homelessness. For many it is simple—it is a brutal matter of affordability. In the last year alone, house prices in Ards and North Down in my Strangford constituency reached an average of £243,924—the highest average increase in all of Northern Ireland. We had the highest average increase across all the Province.

For a young person on a starting salary or a care leaver trying to find their footing, these prices are a wall, not a doorway. I have had two of my three sons, with their families, move in with me and Sandra at separate times, in a desperate attempt to save money for a home. We will always give them money to help them with a home, but the price of houses has become so much that the achievement of a mortgage is almost beyond all grasp. It is a near-impossible leap to get on to the first rung of the property ladder.

We know that 64% of care leavers in Northern Ireland present as homeless within just a few years of leaving the system—the hon. Member for Doncaster Central spoke about care leavers in particular. Without targeted support, we are setting our most vulnerable up to fail.

Statistics, by their very nature, can be cold, but the stories they tell us are urgent. When one young person in the UK becomes homeless every four minutes, we cannot afford to look away. We need more than just targets and goals. We need the 1,390 new social units projected for my borough alone to be built and allocated with urgency. I welcome the Government’s programme of house building. We need whatever houses are built. The Government’s original target of 1.5 million may not be achieved, but if 1 million were achieved over this term of government, that would be a fantastic success.

It is time we ensured that every young person in the UK has a place to truly call home. We have to help them or that will not happen. I know the Minister understands the situation only too well, but I ask him to help those most vulnerable to get on to the ladder and find an affordable place that they can call home. I would appreciate the Minister’s engagement with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland—he always does that, very helpfully. It is important that the policies that start here, driven by this Government, are the policies that we also adopt in Northern Ireland, to bring the same delivery.

14:07

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Butler. When I first stood for election to this place, I did so with a mission to fix Oxfordshire’s broken housing market. I saw the mess that we were in. I saw the lives broken by that market long before I arrived here.

Oxford faces a crisis of unique and crushing proportions. Homes now cost 12 times local earnings—a burden for the city, a burden for the county and a burden that no other part of this country is asked to bear.

For our young people, the situation is transformative in the worst of ways. Those aged 25 to 34 are now the backbone of a private rented sector that has doubled in size since the start of the century. These young people are renters by necessity, renters without equity and renters without a clear path to a home of their own.

In Oxford, nearly a third of households rent privately. As the city’s prices climb, the pressure climbs; as the pressure climbs, people leave. They leave and go to places such as Banbury. They come for the 20-minute commute, but they bring with them the weight of Oxford’s exhaustion. Thus Oxford’s housing problems become Banbury’s housing problems. Demand has surged. Supply has stalled. My inbox swells as the local housing waiting list ticks up and up, quadrupling in a single decade.

This is what I say to the local voices who question why Cherwell district council, which covers Banbury, must contribute to Oxford’s unmet housing need: “It is no longer Oxford’s need. It is our need in Banbury as well. It is our future. It is our children who are being priced out of their own parishes.”

Let us be clear: this is not merely a housing crisis. It is an economic crisis. Oxford does not just grow; it prospers. It does not just work; it innovates. Our high-tech industries generate £23.5 billion in gross value added annually. We are a net contributor to the Exchequer, a global destination for talent and a titan of enterprise. That is why the Chancellor is right to champion the Oxford-Cambridge corridor—it is a vision of growth, infrastructure and national renewal—but that vision will remain a mirage if the workers required to build it cannot afford to live within it.

By failing to build, we are stifling the growth we seek, the talent we nurture and the very future we promised to deliver. I therefore urge the Government to give young people in Banbury and across Oxfordshire the tools, the support and the resolve that we need to help me to keep my promise of helping to fix Oxfordshire’s broken housing market.

14:10

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing of this debate, Ms Butler. I have the honour to represent an inner London constituency, in which approximately a third of the population live in private rented accommodation. Among young people, that proportion is considerably higher because of the problems they have with access to social housing of any sort, which force them into the private rented sector or into sharing properties.

The stress they suffer is enormous, the overcrowding that happens in shared flats is horrendous and the way young people have to club together to try to pay rent, which for even a two or three-bedroom flat would be at least £2,000 a month in the private rented sector in my constituency, means they have no possibility of saving money for anything else. Their whole life revolves around work, trying to pay the rent and the other costs that go with it.

Their ability to access council or housing association accommodation is extremely limited, because there is an enormous waiting list with a terrible stress level and shortage of housing. Essentially, to be allocated council housing, a person must have quite profound special needs. I see the Minister nodding; he understands very well that this is an issue all across London. Communities are increasingly broken up because of the lack of access to anything that one could begin to call affordable housing.

There are a number of things that we could do about that. First, we could increase the levels of control over the private rented sector, something I have raised before with the Minister. I support the Renters’ Rights Act 2025—it is a big step forward, because it gives more security and power to the tenant vis-à-vis the landlord. However—and this is the big problem, particularly for London, the south-east and every other big city—the lack of rent control means that places become increasingly unaffordable, forcing young people out of these areas altogether. I hope, as a result of this debate, that the Government can give us some hope that they will be able to do something about young people’s housing, particularly in inner-urban areas.

There is also the issue of the administration of housing associations. I was a councillor before I became an MP, and I remember when housing associations were thought to be the panacea for all ills. In the 1970s, they were promoted as a wonderful thing: co-operatively and locally run, responsive to tenants needs, and the other things that we would always want.

These days, it is not even a little bit like that; we have enormous housing associations, owning thousands of properties across a very wide part of the country and the cities. There is very little response to tenants’ needs and, frankly, they are well out of touch. I spend a great deal of time representing the needs of tenants, particularly those of housing associations Peabody and Clarion Housing.

However, the housing associations have in many cases leased properties to special needs housing groups. That is often quite a good thing; for example, the Peter Bedford Trust, in my area, is a very good organisation that has done a great deal of work to help mainly, but not exclusively, young people with very profound and special needs. Sadly, a couple of weeks ago I learned that Clarion Housing Association is taking back a large number of its properties, leaving a large number of young, and middle-aged, people stressed and needing to find somewhere else to go. I hope the Minister can give us some indication of the Government’s thoughts on the democracy and accountability of the very large housing associations in particular, because there is a growing feeling of alienation from them.

Evictions are happening in the private rented sector because of the implementation of section 21 no-fault evictions. I am delighted that such no-fault evictions will end when the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 finally comes into effect; that is a huge step forward. My deep regret is that they did not end in July 2024, because as soon as the Act and its contents were announced the landlords took advantage by implementing large numbers of no-fault evictions ahead of the time when they will not be able to. It is too late to do much about that, but I urge that there be some thoughts about that.

The last thing I will say, in the 39 seconds remaining, is this: colleagues have talked about rising up the housing ladder and, while I understand the language and its use, the reality is that as a society we tolerate too much housing stress, homelessness and housing poverty. We need a principle of housing as a right, rather than the idea that housing is all about an investment for your own future. Surely housing should be for housing needs; that should be the primary consideration.

14:16

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate.

Housing is an issue that goes to the heart of opportunity for young people. A generation that came of age in the wake of the financial crisis and saw youth services slashed under austerity then had their lives put on pause by the pandemic; now, when they seek to be independent, they face a housing market that is too often still inaccessible.

Young people in the private rented sector spend a higher proportion of their income on rent than any other age group—if they are able to live independently at all, that is. In 2014, 36% of those aged 24 still lived in their family home; by 2024, that had risen to 49%. Thankfully, this Government are treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves. The £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing is the most ambitious in a generation, and planning reforms will unlock growth. Together with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which was passed by this Labour Government and comes into force next month, it represents not just policy change, but a long-term commitment to rebuilding a housing system that works.

Young people, particularly 25 to 34-year olds, are disproportionately more likely to rent, as is already clear from the debate, so they are highly vulnerable to high housing costs. Regulating rental increases will significantly benefit young people, providing greater housing stability and increasing financial predictability. I often talk about ensuring that, when we build homes, the infrastructure that communities need is in place, and I would like to talk about partnerships in delivery.

In Derby, we have seen at first hand the role that organisations such as the YMCA play in supporting young people into safe, stable housing. The Foundry Point development, opening in the next couple of weeks, is one such example. Once fully developed, it will support young people aged 18 to 30 with 60 affordable, self-contained flats on land that forms part of the Rolls-Royce estate. It is about not just providing a roof, but enabling independence, employment and long-term stability, and it is possible because of the partnership between the YMCA, Homes England, Rolls-Royce, community groups and individuals donating and fundraising to help keep rents affordable. The Minister would be very welcome to come and visit.

With ambitions to deliver 10,000 affordable homes, YMCA and similar organisations will be vital partners in meeting the Government’s housing goals, particularly when it comes to creating genuinely affordable homes for younger people. As such, the Government continuing to engage with charitable providers, so that 100%-affordable housing projects get support, will help to ensure that the needs of young people are sufficiently recognised.

It is clear that this Government are serious about tackling the housing crisis, and about who it is hitting hardest. Government plans are essential, because they are quite literally building the foundations of a housing system that will work for the next generation. We must all play our part to ensure that they succeed. With Derby College Group becoming one of the new construction technical excellence colleges, we are ensuring the skills we need to build those foundations.

14:20

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on her opening remarks.

Other speakers have referred to the issues and difficulties that young people today are experiencing. They are not facing a storm but enduring a prolonged storm, and I fear that unless there are further changes to Government policy, they will have to continue to endure that storm.

I declare an interest as a former chief executive of a registered provider of housing—a housing association, or at least a community land trust—and I now sit as a volunteer on the board of Cornwall Community Land Trust. That organisation, along with many others, is also facing a perfect storm. In part, that is the result of the so-called “benefits of Brexit”, in that we have taken back control of the colour of our passports but lost control of construction inflation in this country—in part, thanks to Brexit. As a result, a large number of homes are shovel-ready, but work is unable to start on site as a result of the simple fact of Brexit.

One of the biggest pressures being faced by young people in our area is a planning system that was changed on 12 December last year through changes to the national planning policy framework. That resulted in the introduction of new standard housing methods, which the Minister is clearly well aware of. I agree with the values that the Labour Government are trying to advance: to try to address the desperate housing needs across this country. I am of course professionally and politically very committed to achieving that aim. However, the changes have actually proven to be counterproductive.

In Cornwall, we now have to deliver 4,421 homes every year instead of the previous target of 2,600, and we must show that we have a five-year land supply. However, it is simply impossible to do that overnight, as local authorities around the country are well aware. Consequently, we are no longer able to defend the exception sites that we had wanted to deliver around the edges of all of our communities in Cornwall. Indeed, there have been appeals on permissions previously granted for affordable homes that are now being converted to allow for smaller numbers, and for unaffordable homes. There, the changes have been proven to be counter- productive.

The Minister knows full well that in Cornwall we are not nimbys. Our housing stock has grown faster than that of almost anywhere else in the country; we have almost tripled our housing stock in the last 60 years. Yet, the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. We need to look much more widely at the way in which the planning system works.

As far as rural exception sites are concerned, the rural exception should not be an exception; it should be the rural norm. Our whole approach to delivering homes on the edges of our communities means that applicants must demonstrate that they will meet need rather than greed. The whole planning system is tipped entirely in a direction that is opposite to the one that I think we in this Chamber today would like policy to go.

Young people have to compete in a market in which—the Minister knows this because I have raised it several times—the tax system is tipped heavily in favour of second residences. A person with a second home can flip their property from council tax to business rates, apply for small business rate relief and then pay nothing at all. That has to be subsidised by the rest of us through the tax system. In the last 10 years in Cornwall alone, in excess of half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of wealthy second-home owners. We should put that money into first homes for young people. The situation is inequitable and I am surprised that a Labour Government are not prepared to challenge and change that simple fact in order to properly address the issue.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

We have.

[Andrew George]

The Minister objects. I am sorry but the small business rate relief is still available. The tax loopholes available are still there. Perhaps the Minister can put me right on that, if he wishes.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is right that we need rent controls as well as the Renters’ Rights Act. As well as the stick for private landlords, we should offer them a carrot: tax incentives should be available to landlords who provide decent homes and lower rents. There is a lot that we can do. Young people need to see that we set housing targets based on need rather than greed, that we are able to turn exception sites into the rural norm, and that we enable the intermediate market with, yes, rent to buy but also rent to discount sale. We have established that model in Cornwall and it could be used much more widely to help young people.

14:26

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this important debate. Young people face challenges with housing in every part of the country, and in rural communities such as Derbyshire Dales there are compounding pressures of exorbitant prices, high rents and a lack of access to jobs and public services. I have heard from many constituents, whether parents or young people, who fear being priced out of the communities that they grew up in.

As in all areas of the country, house prices in Derbyshire Dales have risen significantly in recent years, far outstripping local wages and leaving many young people unable to buy—and increasingly unable to rent in the few available properties. The challenge of affordability is exacerbated by the supply challenge we face, especially in the national park. There is a clear and ongoing need for affordable housing, especially homes for social rent, but it has to be in the communities that need it, not just where big developers will make the most money.

Some villages in the national park are crying out for housing, most clearly where ageing populations see declining numbers enrol at local primary schools. Without affordable housing and additional investment in transport links and connectivity, there are few pull factors for young families or professionals. In many areas we also see the impact of high numbers of second homes and holiday lets: they make up a quarter of all residential properties in some villages in my constituency, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. It is therefore a struggle for the number of new builds to outstrip the number lost to second homes and holiday lets.

In the parts of the constituency that sit outside the national park—and I am sure this applies right across the country—we regularly see developers try to wriggle out of their obligations to build affordable and social housing. We end up with yet more four-bed and five-bed properties because that is presumably where the big bucks lie, but that does little to help our young people get on to the housing ladder. We need a mix of housing but it has to include starter homes, affordable homes and social housing. It is clear that young families are being squeezed out. Time will tell whether more action on second homes will be required, beyond the doubling of council tax and the increase in stamp duty. We need action on empty properties. We need to increase the housing supply, of affordable housing, in the communities that need it most and we need to invest in the services and connectivity that are needed.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman raises once again the issue of second homes. He is well aware that the Liberal Democrats have proposed a change in the use class system to introduce a new use class for non-permanent occupancy. The introduction of such a thing would allow local communities to limit the number of second homes. It could be used as a tool to control expansion of the number of second homes and holiday lets.

[John Whitby]

I would be more than happy with local authorities having the capacity to limit holiday lets and so on—that is not a bad idea at all.

It should not be too much to ask that a young person can live in the community that they grew up in.

14:30

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Butler. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) was the driving force behind securing this debate, the application for which I supported, and I congratulate her on doing so. I should declare an interest as a social landlord. I thank all other Members who have taken part in this important debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who restated the excellent case for planning controls on second homes.

I support that proposal because at its heart, housing is the single biggest issue affecting young people’s lives. Whether owning or renting, housing dominates their futures. A decent and affordable home is fundamental and the starting point for all other freedoms. That is why it was a Liberal Government who invented council housing and rolled it out. Liberals such as William Beveridge identified poor housing as the chief cause of squalor—one of the giants that any progressive Government would want to overcome.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to the £3.9 billion per year for social and affordable housing, but we urge them to go further and faster; I will return to how my party would do that. We also campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and therefore supported the Renters’ Rights Act. Ending no-fault evictions was long overdue; the Conservatives failed to deliver on that.

While pragmatic improvements to the planning system are always welcome, the Government’s planning changes, which are focused on printing permissions for private sector housebuilders at the expense of locally elected councillors and communities having their say, will not bring the lower house prices that young people desperately need. That never has, and it never will. We need an approach that will not only deliver lower rents but help a new generation get the chance to buy a home of their own. That was an aspiration that felt achievable for my generation, but for too many younger people, seems like a fantasy. It is an injustice that we need to address.

Average deposits have more than doubled as a share of income in almost every region of the country compared with 30 years ago, and that is even higher in London. Saving for a deposit in the first place has never been harder, because rents are higher than ever both in real terms and as a percentage of income, as we have heard from other hon. Members. Nearly half of 24-year-olds are now living at home with their parents, up from just over a third a decade ago. As one of my constituents put it, he has paid more in rent over the last 20 years than the value of a house, yet he does not own one breeze block and has little hope of his three children getting a home of their own.

For the most vulnerable young people, the consequences go further than deferred aspiration. Last year, an estimated 124,000 young people approached their local authority because they were homeless or at risk of homelessness—a 6% rise on the previous year. One young person is facing homelessness every four minutes. That pushes people out of education and work, and into a cycle that is hard to escape. Crisis found that 58% of employers are less likely to hire someone experiencing homelessness, and the welfare system is not helping. Under-35s are only eligible for the shared accommodation rate—a lower housing benefit entitlement to cover shared accommodation, at a time when the number of houses in multiple occupation has fallen by 10% since 2019. The shared accommodation rate is a false economy. Our manifesto committed to abolishing it in its application to homeless people. They should not be penalised for being homeless.

Many leaseholders who have bought are facing potential negative equity as the cost of remediation or unfair and mounting service charges and ground rents accumulate. It is time to abolish residential leasehold and cap unfair and unreasonable service and management charges. I hope that the forthcoming Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will do so. The previous Conservative Government had its chance. Their answer was right to buy, which stripped over 1.5 million council houses from the stock since 1980. We would give councils the power to end right to buy in their areas.

The Conservatives’ other approach was Help to Buy, through which they spent £25 billion on an equity loan scheme. What did we get in return? The Institute for Fiscal Studies published research this week showing that Help to Buy made a very limited difference to affordability for first-time buyers, and the mortgage guarantee scheme only really made a difference to the maximum house price for the highest incomes. It also likely drove prices higher by fuelling a sellers’ market with extra cash. Imagine if that money had been invested in social housing instead. The Liberal Democrats do not just imagine that; our manifesto set out a commitment to 150,000 social homes per year, with an extra £6 billion per year in funding to roll them out, or £30 billion over the Parliament.

This is what we need to bring about: housing that young people can genuinely afford. In addition to social and council rental homes, we would develop a new generation of rent to own. Instead of removing the rights of local communities and councillors, we would take a different approach to secure affordable homes to buy. Our approach would prioritise essential infrastructure first, such as GPs, so that it came before new homes—no doctors, no development.

We need a different approach, and I encourage the Government to make further use of the powers that the Conservatives, to give them credit, put on the statute book, which the current Government have extended to town and parish councils, to acquire land at existing use value, and to ensure that it is raising sufficient funding from levies on development to increase the delivery of homes that young people can afford. After all, it is for our environment and communities that we want new homes to be built, and the voices of people and nature should therefore not be excluded from the process.

Young people need an affordable route out of private renting. That means a serious, funded social house building programme, including tenures specifically designed for young people, and capping rent rises in the way that we proposed during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, so that young people can actually save—for example, for a deposit on a new home of their own.

Finally, there is another quick win sitting right in front of the Government. Lib Dem councils such as Somerset want to build more, but their borrowing is maxed out. If the Government will not increase the £3.9 billion a year for council and social housing to the £6 billion a year that we would like to see, will they look at writing off part of the decades-old housing revenue account debt? If they did so, my Liberal Democrat Somerset councillor colleagues could build at least another 630 new council houses. I would welcome further discussion with the Minister on that matter in any meeting that is granted.

Young people are not asking for much; they simply want the same chances that previous generations took for granted. They deserve a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 a year—and low-cost rent to own, which is an affordable route to home ownership, and that is what the Liberal Democrats in government would deliver.

14:37

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

This is the first time I have served with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to do so, and to take part in this debate about the housing needs of young people. I thank the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for raising this important topic.

The housing needs of young people are multifaceted, with experiences ranging from those in temporary accommodation to those in the private rented sector, those who own their home and those who, for whatever reason, unfortunately find themselves sleeping rough. However, what is clear is that the Government are overseeing a growing problem, and forecasts for the rest of this Parliament predict further misery for young people, whether they are seeking their first home or merely a stable home.

One of the core issues behind the housing problem facing young people is a lack of supply, and the axing of measures that were designed to bolster demand. The dream of home ownership should be a reality for every hard-working person in this country, on which I think there is collective agreement in this room, but that is not the case. The Government have not yet done enough to make that dream a reality.

For example, recent ONS figures show that the Government’s record in house building is not just a sorry sight; in fact, it is significantly worsening. The statistics show that house building in England is on track to fall to its lowest level in more than a decade. During this Government’s first 15 months in office, just 175,290 homes were completed in England—a far cry from the lofty target of 300,000 needed to meet their manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament in 2029.

That crash is not showing signs of improvement either, with the three months to September 2025 seeing the number of dwellings drop to 30,880—the weakest quarter since the pandemic. Based on the pace recorded in the first three quarters of 2025, England is set for the lowest number of annual completions for over a decade, totalling just a measly 130,000. Those figures come alongside a release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government last November, which showed that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was 208,600 in the Government’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24 during the Conservative Government’s final year in office. Some 190,600 new homes were built, which was a fall of 8,000, or 4%, from 2023-24, once again suggesting that the Government are on course to fall well short of their 1.5 million homes pledge. If they fail to increase the rate of house building, there will be fewer than 1 million new homes completed by 2029, which is well short of their target.

What does that mean for young people trying to get on the housing ladder? It means it is becoming only more difficult to buy a home, not easier, and that young people are being failed by the Government. It is not just in housing supply that Whitehall currently presents more hinderances than help for young people. Demand for homes is far from insignificant in this country, not least among young people, but the Government are doing almost nothing to help that demand yield results. By November 2024, having been in office for just four months, they had taken an axe to the previous Government’s measures to get people on the housing ladder by cutting right to buy, first-time buyer stamp duty relief and the affordable homes to purchase programme. That has done nothing to help an already unaffordable housing market. It has in fact moved one of life’s primary assets—the ability to purchase one’s own home—further out of the reach of young people.

Young people already face huge challenges in buying a home. For example, the average age of a first-time buyer in England has climbed to 34, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire. New research shows the growing difficulty of getting on to the housing ladder, with the average deposit worth around a 10th more than a person’s yearly salary. Research also shows that the average age is rapidly being pushed up by the collapse of the portion of first-time buyers aged under 25. They now make up just 6%, despite having made up one quarter of those buying their first home in the 1990s. To compound the misery, more than half of first-time buyers now need two incomes to make a purchase.

Of course, it is important to consider not just those who are fortunate enough to consider buying their first home, but those who are renting, in social housing or in no house at all. On renting, a recent and very informative report by Centrepoint found that one third of young people in the private rental sector reported discrimination by landlords or agents, with the biggest issue being employment status. As unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds hits 16% as a direct result of the Government’s economic policies—a higher rate than during the pandemic—on the current trajectory, this issue will only worsen for young people, not improve. On top of that, young people face the prospect of a reduced supply of rental housing and, correspondingly, higher rents, which we are beginning to see on the back of the Government’s rental reforms.

For young people in social housing, the picture is no brighter. In the same report, Centrepoint highlighted that there are approximately 130,000 young households on housing registers. That means that if social housing were allocated at its current rate, with no new social housing applications from young households filed, it would still take more than six years to clear existing housing registers. To say the least, that is not a positive state of affairs. I hope the Minister will set out a clear path to addressing it in a couple of minutes’ time.

There is also a need to tackle the frightening rates of youth homelessness and young people staying in temporary accommodation. I am sure we all agree that no one should enter adulthood without the stability of a permanent and safe home, but under this Government, rough sleeping has hit its highest level since records began. More young people were staying in temporary accommodation, and for longer periods, in 2024-25, and 123,934 young people faced or were at risk of homelessness between April 2024 and March 2025—a 6% increase in just a year.

I doubt that the Government have done that on purpose, but young people deserve better. They deserve safe and affordable homes with demand-side support to make the dream of home ownership a reality. That is why the Conservative party has pledged that a future Conservative Government will abolish stamp duty on primary residences. It is a bad tax, and one that needs to be abolished on primary residences to get the housing market moving and to give young people a better chance of getting on to the property ladder. I call on the Minister to get behind that plan, to reverse his Department’s recent failures, to get Britain building, and to get young people to obtain a real stake in their community, their society and their own lives through affordable and targeted housing.

14:44

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this important debate. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated for their thoughtful contributions.

It has been a very wide-ranging debate, as I assumed it would be from the title. It has covered a range of issues including—from memory—empty homes, short-term lets, building materials costs, rural exemption sites, care leavers, housing allocations, social housing and housing association regulation. I will not be able to cover all of those points, but I will try my best to cover as many as possible. I am more than happy to follow up with individual Members on specific points, as well as to meet the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and wider team, which I enjoy doing on occasion as their spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, will know.

As the House is acutely aware, England remains in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. Over a number of decades, the combination of a sharp reduction in the nation’s social housing stock and rapid house price inflation, partly driven by increased demand for housing as an investment product, have squeezed both social renting and home ownership. For many years, an expanding private rented sector absorbed some of the resulting pressure, but post-2015 changes in tax treatment have seen the rate of rental sector growth slow. The result is a crisis of housing availability, affordability and quality that is blighting the lives of people of all ages. However, the youngest are among the hardest hit.

House prices have more than doubled since 1997 compared with incomes, locking an entire generation out of home ownership. We have traded a number of statistics, but the one that stands out to me is that first-time buyer numbers fell to a 10-year low in 2023, and that those under 30 are now less than half as likely to own a home as they were in 1990. That gap has created a stark divide between those who can draw on family support and those who cannot, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire mentioned in her opening remarks. That has concentrated housing wealth in ever fewer hands, entrenched social division and disadvantage and seen too many young people delaying life choices, including growing a family. It has also led to them paying more for less security. At the same time, increasing numbers of young people are spending longer in the private rented sector and facing high costs, insecurity and inconsistent standards because alternatives are out of reach.

England’s housing crisis has many causes. We have debated them over many months in this House as the Government have taken forward a number of our reforms. Chief among them is a failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. For years, housing supply lagged well behind the needs of our population as well as comparative European countries. That is why we have placed so much emphasis over the past 21 months on making the necessary reforms to ensure that we have high and sustainable rates of house building over the coming years. We will get those high and sustainable rates of house building.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for detailing the consequences of the decisions that the previous Government took, not least to abolish housing targets. We are seeing them feed through, but there are green shoots. Housing starts are up 24% on the comparable quarter last year in the latest statistical release.

With a view to ensuring that housing need is met in full, our reforms include the biggest overhaul of the planning system in decades, as well as the largest boost in social and affordable housing investment in a generation through our 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. Of that, 60% will be allocated towards social rented homes, reflecting the Government’s prioritisation of that form of tenure.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman often calls for 150,000 homes a year. I would love to see his grant-rate calculations to back up the claim that he can get that for £6 billion a year. That is a wild underestimation. Perhaps he will share those calculations with me on some future occasion when we meet to discuss this issue.

Alongside increasing supply, we are taking action to support young people who aspire to home ownership. We have acted to widen access to mortgages. Following the Prime Minister’s call to action last year, the Financial Conduct Authority clarified its rules on affordability testing. As a result, most lenders now allow borrowers to borrow about 10% more than they could have at the start of last year. On top of that, the Bank of England has eased its loan-to-income rules, enabling tens of thousands of additional first-time buyers to get on the ladder.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also delivered on our manifesto commitment to launch a permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, supporting the availability of high loan-to-value mortgages for buyers with deposits as small as 5%. That is an important backstop, particularly when there is volatility in the mortgage market, as we are currently seeing in response to the conflict in the middle east, which I will address more fully in a moment.

We have also taken steps—this is why I slightly took issue with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—to rebalance the market in favour of first-time buyers, including through higher stamp duty rates on additional dwellings, council tax premiums on second homes, reforms to the taxation of property income and, as he knows, the abolition of the furnished holiday lets tax regime, which has removed tax incentives that previously existed for owners of short-term lets over long-term landlords. I know that he has—

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way, because we are continuing a very long exchange that we have had over many months. I know he has other proposals on taxation that he would like to see happen, but I am just making the point that it is slightly unfair to say that the Government have taken no action in this regard and have not gripped that issue. We have made serious reforms to rebalance that.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister give way none the less?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Go on, then.

[Andrew George]

I am not saying that the Government have done nothing, but the changes to furnished holiday lets and double council tax, for example, were actually introduced by the previous Government. The Minister has simply implemented them, which is welcome. I was simply talking about the massive, gaping tax loophole involving industrial levels of flipping second homes to take advantage of the opportunity to apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. That is simply favouring thousands of very wealthy people on their second properties. Surely a Labour Government have to close that one.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and he knows that I am well aware of the issue. We continue to keep under review measures relating to taxation, as well as looking at, as he knows, the additional powers that we might give local authorities to help them deal with particularly acute concentrations of both short-term lets and second homes. As I say, we have had this debate over many months on both the pros and cons of licensing regimes and planning control powers in that regard. It is an issue that we keep under close review.

We also have a number of Government-backed offers to directly help first-time buyers. That obviously includes shared ownership, which we continue to support while improving the model to strengthen long-term affordability, transparency and fairness for buyers. The lifetime ISA continues to be available to help aspiring buyers save towards a deposit, and the Treasury will shortly consult on a new first-time buyer product to replace the lifetime ISA and remove the need for a withdrawal charge.

As a result of all those measures, we have begun to see early improvements. First-time buyer mortgage numbers increased to over 329,000 in 2024, a 16% increase on the previous year.

As I have said, we are clear-eyed about the pressures arising in the mortgage market from instability in the middle east. Our assessment is that mortgage availability remains strong. Conditions are not comparable to late 2022, and first-time buyers should still be able to get on the housing ladder, particularly with support from brokers to find competitive options. However, uncertainty about interest rates may slow the improvement that we have been seeing in first-time buyer numbers, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

I should briefly turn to the home buying and selling process, because helping young people into home ownership is not only about raising a deposit or securing a mortgage. Transactions currently take nearly five months to complete on average, and around one in three falls through, leaving first-time buyers out of pocket and too often back at square one. That is why we are committed to reforming the process to make it quicker, cheaper and more transparent. As hon. Members are aware, we consulted on a package of reforms to do that, including ensuring that key information is available up front before an offer is made, improving the quality and accountability of property professionals, and introducing binding contracts to reduce the wasted costs and heartache that come when a transaction collapses.

I want to touch briefly on other areas of focus, because supply is not the only thing we have focused on. As hon. Members have said, we are on the verge of transforming the private rented sector through the implementation of our Renters’ Rights Act. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned when that Act “finally comes into effect”, and he does not have long to wait. From 1 May, the first phase of our reforms will give renters greater stability and security, stronger protections against unreasonable rent increases and an end to exploitative practices such as rental bidding wars and excessive demands for rent in advance.

We are also progressing the reforms necessary to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end, so that the dream of home ownership is made real for millions of young leasehold homeowners across the country. Again, I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that I would love to know what he means by “abolition”. Is it now the position of the Liberal Democrats that they would end approximately 5 million leases overnight and do what established commonhold associations across the country fear? The Liberal Democrats have to explain what they mean, rather than just throwing out terminology that does not correspond to a really difficult and challenging transition, which we are overseeing, away from the broken leasehold system and towards that commonhold future. We are progressing those reforms, switching on the powers that are already on the statute book and, as the hon. Member knows, progressing our draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.

Our overall aim is expanded housing choice and availability, and improved security and affordability across tenures.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Before the Minister sits down, could he say anything about his Department’s approach to the large housing associations? I increasingly hear stories in my area—as the Minister probably does in his—that they are selling off properties when there is a change of tenancy to give themselves a capital asset, and they are then spending it somewhere else. It ends up with a process of social cleansing in the central parts of all our big cities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am aware of the point that the right hon. Member raises. To respond to his wider point about oversight, like all affordable providers of social housing, housing associations are held to the standards overseen by the regulator following the very welcome introduction of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government. The regulator has the powers necessary to ensure that individual providers, such as the ones he mentions, are held to those regulatory standards. If he wants to follow up with some of the specific constituency cases he has mentioned, I am more than happy to respond.

This debate underlines a point that the Government accept without qualification and that I have heard from lots of hon. Members outside this Chamber: that the housing market has to work better for young people. That means: increasing supply, especially of social and affordable housing; supporting first-time buyers; fixing a home buying process that is too slow and uncertain; transforming the private rented sector so that it provides security and decency; and bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end by making commonhold the default tenure and improving the leasehold model so that existing leaseholders can more cheaply and easily enfranchise and convert to commonhold—which I hope they will do in very large numbers.

[Andrew George]

I believe the Minister has until 10 past 3 if he wishes. He has not addressed the issue I raised regarding the counterproductive impact of the changes to the national planning policy framework, particularly for edge-of-community rural exception sites. A wholesale change of planning is happening. Those sites were originally going to be affordable-led, and now developers can put in planning applications to ensure that those sites are entirely unaffordable because of the Government’s policy on five-year land supply.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In all candour, I am not entirely sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, he will know from the recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework that we propose to strengthen national policy in respect of rural exception sites. I know, given his keen interest in the subject, that he will have responded to the consultation. We are currently analysing the feedback with a view to determining final policy in due course.

There are no quick fixes to any of this, and we are committed to the long-term decisions needed to ensure that young people can access secure, decent and affordable homes, and with them, the opportunity to build stable lives and strong communities. I thank hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon.

14:58

[Susan Murray]

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate today. They all realise how important it is for young people to have a stable home, whether they come from a looked-after background, are looking for an affordable property or are in the fortunate position of trying to find a property to buy.

I thank the Minister for coming along today and for his comments. It is the privilege of Government to take action that matches the rhetoric. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) that the Scottish Government have failed in that. I look forward to this Government making affordable accommodation available for young people.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the housing needs of young people.

14:59

Sitting suspended.

NHS Federated Data Platform

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

15:10

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the NHS Federated Data Platform.

We are at a key time for the NHS as it changes from analogue to digital, and data is key to achieving better health results for all our constituents, as well as to the future of the NHS. AI analysis of scans can spot patterns of disease before the human eye, and modern communications can be much more effective than sending letters, which often arrive late. We are, however, at a junction where we can correct a series of mistakes made in the direction of travel in this process. I ask the Government to mind the gap between expectation and reality. We can and need to change.

In November 2023, a contract for services approaching £500 million was signed for the federated data platform. The Government’s contracts tracker describes a data platform owned and controlled by the NHS

“to unlock the power of NHS data to understand patterns, solve problems, plan services for local populations and ultimately transform the health and care of the people they serve.”

Sadly, the FDP developed by Palantir is far from that description.

The NHS is an inherently distributed organisation, with trusts in charge of their own IT. Although NHS England has been working on a unified data dictionary and standards, imposing a single central IT solution has yet to work. Indeed, a single central system can become a single point of failure. Such a critical element of national infrastructure must be under full control, fully owned and trusted.

Although I understand the appeal of a slick salesman who persuades that they can solve all the problems in the NHS, build that one system to bind them all, and use AI like magic to provide all the answers, sadly, it is not reality. Is Palantir’s FDP a product that the NHS can own and trust, or have we bought the emperor’s new clothes that, after huge investment, leave us with nothing? I will outline why this solution is wrong in three significant points: the contract is wrong, the solution is wrong and the supplier is wrong and simply not delivering on its promises.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate at this critical point. Does he agree that the opaque procurement of the Palantir contract, one of Mandelson’s dodgy deals, is deeply concerning? Does he agree that the full details of Mandelson and the Prime Minister’s visit to the Palantir headquarters in 2025 must be made public?

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree with the hon. Lady entirely. The secret meeting in 2019 between Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings and Peter Thiel—the founder and chair of Palantir—that started this whole thing, for which there are no minutes, must be clarified as well.

I ask the Minister to consider using the contract renewal point to stop the chaotic expansion of the Palantir platform monopoly, to work to a staged exit with a retender for British companies to build a replacement for Palantir, and to deliver a better, long-term solution providing British sovereign capabilities in line with principles outlined by the Science and Research Minister and the Prime Minister.

The current contract delivers a subscription service that leaves no deliverables after the subscription—no software, no improvements and no intellectual property after spending more than £330 million. All the specially written software and intellectual property rights belong to the supplier, says the contract. All the rights to any know-how are explicitly retained by the supplier and not passed across on termination of the contract. The contract delivers no software—not one line—just a subscribed service; a permanent lock-in; a single point of failure.

Why are we building a leased service wrapped in glossy marketing promises, rather than a product that the NHS can own and trust? We are paying the supplier to hire Accenture, PwC, NHS experts and consultants to create a solution that we do not own—the supplier does. It uses external AI platforms from OpenAI and Anthropic and brings questionable value itself. Prior to it buying an opportunity to provide its system to help manage the data from the covid vaccine programme, the supplier had no expertise in health.

The three-year contract asks for 13 core capabilities to be delivered. According to the National Audit Office and the supplier, after nearly three years, it has partially delivered on three or four of those capabilities. Hon. Members may have received letters from the supplier, which has also taken to sponsoring newsletters that we see every day.

When in front of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the only benefit offered by the supplier and by NHS England was an improvement in managing staff rotas to deliver a higher operation throughput, which these days can be done by a relatively simple app. That is beneficial, but it perhaps relates more to the Government’s improvements in staffing and pay than to any magic from Palantir. It claims to have achieved waiting list reductions by removing people who do not respond to messages, but there is no external scrutiny or validation of results. This is a dreadful contract, and it is not in the national interest.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I know that, in a moment, he will come on to the point that this contract is coming to an end. I am sure that it is being reviewed by the Government—the Minister will respond on that issue—but we are encouraging them to bring the contract to a close, for the reasons that my hon. Friend is properly explaining. He will perhaps also agree that we should go through a transition period to ensure that the conditions he has described are addressed, so that the Government can benefit from the software that has been developed.

[Martin Wrigley]

I think my hon. Friend has been reading my speech in advance. I absolutely agree with him.

I see that the outgoing NHS England chief data and analytics officer, Ming Tang, has publicly joined Palantir’s fightback, saying that the system is delivering—but having introduced Palantir and lobbied to deploy it, she would say that, wouldn’t she? Given Palantir’s habit of lobbying civil servants and the revolving door from Government, I wait to see where she will end up.

I ask the Minister to review the contract, particularly in the light of the Government’s policies on investing in UK tech, value for money, technical lock-in, key performance indicators and strategic supplier status, which suppliers should have. I ask the Minister to reject extending the existing contract, which locks in the NHS forever and delivers nothing tangible.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. Just yesterday, I highlighted the Scottish Government’s decision to buy Chinese buses, which come with a serious security risk. It would be wrong of me not to do the same when the UK Government take the same risks. We have some of the finest minds in the world here in the UK, but too frequently, we lose them to foreign firms that are out of our control. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be developing Britain’s skills base here, and that whether it be buses or AI, we should be putting British jobs and British security first?

[Martin Wrigley]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, as do the Prime Minister and the Science and Research Minister.

Turning to the solution, the solution is wrong. There have been many attempts to unify the NHS by using a single IT system; each one has failed. In reality, we must think of the NHS as thousands of independent organisations. NHS England has been guiding organisations towards a combined data dictionary for more than 10 years, combining definitions of what data means, how it is recorded and the way it is used. After three years, about half of the 200-odd NHS trusts across 42 integrated care boards are quoted as live on the FDP, and only a quarter of them report benefits from using it.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

My hon. Friend’s expertise in this area is impressive. I recently spent a shift with the South Western ambulance service and saw how critical it was for that service to be able to access both GP and hospital data—we had a lady who had had a heart attack, and we did not know who she was. Does my hon. Friend agree that the priority should be for the different elements of the NHS to talk to each other, rather than be scraped by a third party such as Palantir?

[Martin Wrigley]

I do agree. Palantir will not enable GPs, paramedics or anybody else to see hospital data. They will have to go through Palantir to see that data, and they will not be able to access patient records from the hospital to the GP or vice versa.

Like any data warehouse, Palantir requires connecting software that reaches into each of the NHS’s internal systems and gathers data. That data gathering is being done NHS trust by NHS trust, as there are differences inside each one. That is embedding the use of Palantir-owned code inside every NHS trust by creating custom connecting software to connect and translate data.

In Devon, the local ICB has celebrated as a major success the adoption of the same electronic patient record across Devon’s four main hospitals. It has just gone live in Torbay trust, which serves most of my Newton Abbot constituency. In an organisation as diverse as the NHS, with such distributed responsibility, we can either impose one massive system to rule them all or build interoperability. Interoperability would allow GPs to see hospital records and vice versa. Palantir is not doing that.

Interoperability is how massive systems, such as the internet or mobile phone networks, work. They do not rely on one single system or supplier. In that way, a modular system, a bit like Lego, can be constructed that, overall, is immune to changes elsewhere in the wider environment, providing only the specific data required to deliver improvements in services. That form of system builds long-term capability and delivers without requiring a locked-in, expensive subscription. It can also be built by a UK tech consortium in parallel with phasing out Palantir, which would build UK sovereign solutions, tech skills and competencies.

Meanwhile, NHS England’s October 2025 medium-term planning framework mandates all NHS providers of acute, community and mental health services to sign up to the FDP, and it demands that any existing local data analysis systems are removed. That results in further lock-in.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

One of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has not discussed in his excellent speech is governance. The commissioner of the contract is the NHS, and it is also the main oversight body. He has put forward a black-and-white solution—end or maintain the contract—but is there not a case for a more robust governance structure? That could involve giving more powers to the National Data Guardian or setting up a bespoke oversight body for this contract.

[Martin Wrigley]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the contract, he will see that it is subscription only: deliveries under supplier software—none; deliveries under third-party software—none. Any programming written under the contract is owned by Palantir. The contract has to be adapted for any next phase so that Palantir can be moved out.

Palantir is not only the wrong technical solution; NHS users report that it is awful to use. An open letter to NHS England said:

“we already have similar tools in use that presently exceed the capability and application of what the FDP is currently trying to develop or roll out”.

An NHS worker said:

“We’re being forced to use a convoluted system that makes even the simplest tasks feel like pulling teeth. It’s demoralising, and honestly, it’s a waste of everyone’s time and public money”.

An NHS data analyst said:

“Not only could similar functionality have been delivered at a fraction of the cost, but the existing tools are already better integrated, more intuitive, and more conducive to collaboration”.

In early 2025, Greater Manchester ICB reported that the FDP

“does not currently have any system-level products that offer the same or better functionality, compared to the custom-built system already in use for NHS GM”.

An NHS developer concerned about Palantir wrote to me to say:

“There are any number of reassuringly boring companies that could deliver this contract, many of them based in the UK, and then we could just get on with the exciting work of using technology to improve care for our patients”—

quite right too.

We must halt this path of chaos before the costs build any higher. I ask the Minister to use the change from NHS England to allow a change of direction towards a distributed, interoperable UK sovereign solution. Will the Minister cancel the expansion of the FDP to community and mental health service providers?

Palantir is the wrong supplier. Its name comes from a magical seeing stone in “The Lord of the Rings”. It is how the evil lord Sauron corrupted the good wizard Saruman—I think we should have known at the beginning. Funded initially by the CIA as a defence contractor, Palantir’s vision is to become the default operating system for data-driven decisions in high-stakes institutions.

Palantir’s chair, Peter Thiel, wrote:

“I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

He has warned about the coming of the Antichrist in the form of an oppressive world government. Palantir’s stated aim is to have domination over most Government Departments across the US and allies, including healthcare Departments. Louis Mosley of Palantir UK recommended that the UK Government develop a “common operating system”, combining healthcare and central Government data. That is just mad.

Palantir is a company that builds lock-in into its architecture as a clear business tactic. Palantir’s Foundry system was installed for £1 to manage covid vaccination programmes, after high-pressure lobbying and persuasion. It bought the advantage for future contracts by providing the system for free. The company had no healthcare experience prior to the pandemic, and demonstrates a lack of data security by design. However, the main issue is trust. The future of the NHS depends on intelligent use of data with patients’ trust. Gaining the public’s trust for research that involves AI will be hard enough anyway, without a company like Palantir controlling it all.

Palantir and its NHS England advocates claim big benefits for the NHS. The BMJ this week published analysis of the initial Palantir trial at Chelsea and Westminster hospital that shows the benefits to be exaggerated and untrue. The National Audit Office has yet to assess the value of the deliveries to date and cannot confirm the numbers in Palantir’s claims. Even if we accept that Palantir has delivered some benefits, they are hardly worth £330 million or the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s estimated whole-life cost of over £1 billion.

In addition, Palantir’s history with the Government is not good. After secret meetings and intensive lobbying in 2020, Palantir won a £27 million border control contract—without competitive tender, just like the Ministry of Defence contracts. The border system was subsequently terminated as it had no users and no value.

We need to replace Palantir, the chaotic, all-seeing, single-point-of-failure, data-hungry AI solution. We need a well-architectured, security-by-design, resilient and nationally significant bedrock FDP in the NHS for years to come that must be powered by UK technology. That will build UK skills and business, pay dividends for years to come and build trust from the UK public. The British Medical Association says that

“an FDP has the potential to transform how care is delivered, but only if it is done right—via a UK-owned FDP that has the full confidence and support of the profession and patients.”

I ask the Minister to take action now to stop the expansion of the Palantir solution, to review the dreadful subscription contract with Palantir, and to rebuild the FDP project to deliver a sound, sovereign system to make our NHS thrive in the world of data-driven health.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Wrigley has asked me if he can sum up at the end of the debate—his chances were in his hands. Because the debate is so popular, I will now impose a two-and-half-minute time limit on contributions. I call Dawn Butler.

15:27

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

It is wonderful to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

The reality is that the Government have inherited a mess. We must not take responsibility for that mess. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate; he mentioned the £1 that Palantir paid to get its foot in the door. Some might say that was a smart business move; others might say that was a con or a trap. The first responsibility of a Government is to ensure that they protect their citizens. In order to do that, we must have AI and data sovereignty. We must ask ourselves: does Palantir allow us to have that AI and data sovereignty? I think the answer to that is no.

We have too much reliance on US systems. I was in hospital just the other week and the system is designed for the US, so that QR codes can be scanned at every action, because in America patients have to pay for everything, from blood tests to anything else. We do not have to deal with that, because luckily we have the NHS.

To say that we cannot do better in the UK just is not true. Unison and the BMA have severe concerns about Palantir, and they have said that they would like the Government to have a system that is based on ethics and values. That should be our starting point—a system of ethics and values. There are better alternatives and it is untrue to say that there are not. The BMA and Unison briefing talks about local platforms that already exceed FDP capability. For example, OpenSAFELY, developed at the University of Oxford, is an open source, privacy-preserving platform that has supported more than 200 NHS research projects.

The reality is that 30 people decided on the contract. Unison represents 1.3 million public service workers, and the BMA represents all doctors. They all have concerns. The Government need to cut loose the relationship with Palantir and have a transparent review that includes workers, trade unions and the public.

15:30

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.

In a briefing for investors, Palantir chief executive officer Alex Karp said:

“we are super proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about…Palantir is here to disrupt…and when it’s necessary, to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.”

If it looks evil, if it smells evil and if it behaves evil, then it is evil. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate. Given my lack of speaking time, I am going to have to cut my speech short.

We must examine Palantir’s record elsewhere in the world in our assessment of its suitability as a supplier to the NHS. Palantir has long-standing contracts with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the tools to track and target migrants that it has provided to ICE have facilitated racial profiling, family separation and violations of due process. In January 2024, Palantir entered into a strategic partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defence to support war-related missions, meaning that its advanced data systems are used to perpetuate a genocide against the Palestinian people. Reports from Novara Media and the Financial Times state that NHS staff have been warned that they could be fired for criticising the NHS contract with Palantir, that NHS organisations are under pressure to sign up voluntarily to the Palantir data system, and that technicians have been told to stop working on alternate systems.

The Swiss Government have previously rejected engagement with Palantir, raising national security concerns; in the US, hospital systems in New York have moved away from Palantir arrangements, citing data governance and control issues; and here at home, uptake of the FDP remains uneven, with many NHS professionals reluctant—in some cases refusing—to engage with it. Perhaps most concerning of all are the reports that patient data opt-outs do not apply to the federated data platform due to a legal direction issued under section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, yet that direction has not been published or named or been subject to scrutiny. This debate is not about technology; it is about who we trust to sit at the heart of our NHS, and on that question, the Government must think again.

15:33

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, because my constituents in South Derbyshire, like millions of NHS patients across the country, deserve honest answers about who holds their most private data, and why.

The federated data platform is, in principle, exactly the kind of innovation that can help to transform our NHS: it could connect fragmented data across trusts, reduce discharge delays and cut cancer diagnosis times. Those are goals that every Member of this House can support. The question before us today is not whether we want a modern, data-driven NHS—we do—but whether Palantir is the right company to deliver that.

The £330 million contract was awarded to Palantir to deliver the FDP, but its co-founder, Peter Thiel, has been openly hostile to the very idea of the NHS. Should a company of that character be trusted as a custodian of the intimate health records of tens of millions of British citizens? I do not dismiss the technology itself—the platform is genuinely impressive—but we cannot separate a company from its leadership. The Health Secretary himself has acknowledged that the “political views and…outlook” of Palantir’s founders and bosses are

“well off to the right”

of even the official Opposition—or the party that likes to think of itself as the official Opposition. When the co-founder of a company holds our NHS in open contempt, and when its chief executive is a prominent ally of an Administration that this House has repeatedly criticised, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether that company should occupy such a sensitive position at the heart of our public health infrastructure. This is not about ideology; it is scrutiny, which is precisely what this House is here to provide.

We also know that when the contract was first published, 417 of its 586 pages were completely blanked out, and it took a legal challenge from the Good Law Project to force the release of a substantially redacted version. That is not the transparency that the public have the right to expect. If we want NHS staff and patients to embrace a digital future, that future cannot be built on a foundation that they do not trust.

15:34

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Gentleman for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for giving us the opportunity to think about and discuss this important issue.

Central to my contribution is the issue of trust, which the hon. Gentleman also referred to. We stand at a crossroads in the history of our national health service. For too long our frontline staff—the very heartbeat of our communities—have been battling a 21st-century crisis with 20th-century tools. They are held back by fragmented systems that do not speak to one another, waiting lists that remain stubbornly high, and expectations and red tape that are obstacles to actually practising medicine and helping our people.

I want to look at the issue of trust. The federated data platform represents a significant opportunity for change. By connecting trusts and boards, we are not just moving numbers on a screen; we are making sure that surgery happens sooner rather than later. The DUP supports the maximisation of technology, but we will never support the compromise of trust. Protecting health and protecting rights must go hand in hand.

I have three issues and three requests to raise with the Minister. On local control and accountability, there must not be a Big Brother database in Whitehall. Each hospital trust must remain the master of its own house, acting as the sole controller of its data. Can the Minister provide assurance that private partners are mere processors, locked out from selling our data or using it to train their own models?

Secondly, on compromising security, with the rise in cyber-threats, good enough is no longer enough. The Government must ensure that privacy-enhancing technology promised to us is not just a secondary feature, but a robust, audited shield that keeps personal identities anonymous.

Thirdly, on patient empowerment, my vision for the NHS is one where every citizen can access and input into their own medical record online. Data should empower the patient, not just the system. We have heard concerns about the choice of suppliers and the ethics of data sharing. We must be certain that we have solutions to those concerns and not just hope that it will work.

To conclude, the DUP—and I as its health spokesperson—wants Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom to lead the world in e-health. We will only do so if we can look every patient in the eye and say, “Your data is safe, your privacy is absolute, and your care is our only priority.” I look to the Minister and the Government to understand that fully and to agree to those three principles.

15:37

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing the debate.

From links to serious human rights abuses to an ongoing lack of clarity around the security of sensitive patient data, a large number of my constituents have raised concerns about the ethical implications of using Palantir technology in our NHS. The hon. Member mentioned that a newspaper report in The Times on 9 April told us that the data chief of the NHS remains committed to the use of Palantir’s technology across the health service despite the company’s ties with ICE and the US military. I have written to the chief executive of Stockport NHS foundation trust as well as the Greater Manchester ICB on that issue.

Amnesty International and Medact, an organisation that brings together health workers in the UK, have been vocal in urging hospitals not to use Palantir software and have highlighted the link to some very concerning instances of human rights abuses.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Navendu Mishra]

I am limited for time and the hon. Member has already contributed, so I ask him to accept my apologies.

Patients must feel confident that their data is handled transparently, securely and in a way that reflects British values. That is why we should be investing in and developing our own sovereign technological capabilities here in Britain. I want to see Britain at the forefront of science and technology, and that starts with backing our own institutions. The UK has a proud heritage of education, with some of the finest universities and institutions in the world. We should be investing in them instead of relying heavily on foreign companies.

France has set a good example here. The French Government are moving all their desktops from Windows to Linux as part of a nationwide strategy to reduce reliance on US tech giants. We should take similar action in the UK. Retendering the federated data platform could benefit the country, addressing ethical and security concerns while also delivering long-term economic and technological benefits. I know the Minister is an NHS worker—a transplant surgeon—and on behalf of the people of Stockport, I thank him for the work that he does for the NHS. I know he will take seriously the point that it is not just the cost of the £330 million to the British taxpayer that cross-party Members here are concerned about; they are also concerned about their private, personal health data and the ethical behaviour of Palantir. I hope he will take the concerns raised today urgently back to the Government.

15:39

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. A nation, like a person, is judged by the company it keeps, and in this case, the companies to which it keeps handing taxpayers’ money. I tend to count my worth by the list of my enemies, and if I make one of Palantir today, I can count it as a good day’s work.

To be clear, the Government’s engagement with Palantir is shameful. Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir, is a dangerous extremist who has called the Nazi Carl Schmitt a major influence on his thinking. He has allowed Palantir to provide sensitive data to Donald Trump’s far-right thugs in ICE to add power to their cruel elbow as they come crashing down on communities. Peter Thiel hates our values and hates the very principle of our NHS. He once told the Oxford student union that our love for the NHS is a form of Stockholm syndrome. Palantir and Peter Thiel must have their hands ripped off of our NHS before it is too late. We cannot stand idly by and let the NHS be rescued from years of Conservative neglect just to have critical functions and funding handed to a far-right US tech billionaire. The interweaving of Palantir’s opaque software with the framework of the NHS would make us dangerously dependent on and vulnerable to the whims of his strange organisation.

This Labour Government have had two years to signal their intention to end their partnership with Palantir, but they have failed to do so. I have some questions for the Minister. First, are the Government investigating ongoing reports of unethical lobbying efforts within the NHS and shady public relations by Palantir? For instance, we have seen allegations that the joint chair of north-west London’s four major hospital trusts was privately urging colleagues to add more patient data to the platform at the same time as advising Palantir through Global Counsel.

Secondly, have the Government taken any steps to make sure that the security and integrity of NHS data systems are iron-clad in the event of any rogue actions not just by Palantir, but by any third-party contractor? At that point, simple litigation for breach of contract would be moot; the damage will have been done. The Government should not need to do this—they should just wind down the contract. At the very least, they should tell my constituents who have written to me on this topic whether their concerns, which have been raised in this debate, are falling on deaf ears.

15:42

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this excellent debate today. I agree with every word that has been spoken about this US spy tech company, which is now deep into our NHS data and our constituents’ patient data. We have got to take the example of the Swiss Government, who withdrew Palantir’s access to their data because of the risks of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data, the potential loss of national sovereignty and the dependence on foreign specialists.

As has been mentioned, we know that Palantir has been used in the US to power up the ICE teams in targeting their actions. I fear what a future Government could do with this data. While I am sure that this Government would not even consider such measures, a future Reform UK Government might use it to target vulnerable people. We know that there are already significant health inequalities in our health system. We can just imagine minoritised groups not sharing vital health information with clinicians for fear of what may happen in the future. That would widen health inequalities and put those individual patients at risk. As a former clinician in the NHS, I know that trust is key. If a clinician does not have the confidence and trust of their patients, that will result in worse health outcomes. In the interests of our constituents’ health, I urge the Government to end this contract.

I note that the former Secretary of State for Health who signed the contract, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), has not turned up to this debate to defend his record. That says everything about the lack of accountability on the signing of these contracts. Palantir has eight major footprints across Departments and public services, to the tune of more than £800 million. Palantir is not the only company. Other clients of Global Counsel, such as with the pharma deals, have signed deals and are unaccountable to this House. It comes back to this question: how do we hold the Government to account for the contracts they sign? Often it feels like we are negotiating on legislation, but not on the big decisions, such as the signing of major financial contracts in the NHS.

15:44

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Let me be clear: as a practising optometrist, there is nothing more wonderful than touching a button and a patient’s data going to the right people, and I am sure that the Minister will agree. The patient can then be treated appropriately and on time. However, the Darzi and Sudlow reviews, which were published last year, confirmed that our health data system is broken and fragmented, which costs patients dearly.

The public overwhelmingly supports better data sharing and so do I. In my opinion, the question is not whether we need data sharing, but who is responsible for this modern-day oil? As has already been said, Palantir was named after the seeing stones from the book “The Lord of the Rings”, the palantíri. Those stones possessed enormous power. However, I want to be fair about them. The stones themselves were not good or evil; they were powerful instruments of vision. In the right hands, they brought clarity and wisdom. The problem, as Tolkien understood it, is never the stone itself; it is who is holding it. Let us have a look at who is holding these stones.

As has already been mentioned, Alex Karp said this year that Palantir wants

“to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.”

The co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, has written that he no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible. He has said that the NHS is making people sick and that the British public’s love for the jewel in our crown—the national health service—is a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Those are the stated beliefs of the men at the top of a company that we have handed £330 million to, and a £1.5 billion strategic partnership with the British state. And Palantir’s ambitions do not stop there. Its chief operating officer has spoken of a future where Palantir software is inside every missile and every drone. In Gaza, Amnesty International has named Palantir as a contributor to the war crimes and genocide being committed there.

In fact, when a protester confronted Palantir’s CEO about the killing of Palestinians—100,000 and counting—in Gaza, he replied that the dead were “mostly terrorists, that’s true.” Over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza and the CEO of the company that holds our NHS data calls them “mostly terrorists.”

It is not just the NHS that is affected. Palantir is the second largest AI supplier to the UK public sector by contract value. It has contracts with the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, local authorities and local police services, including those in Leicester South.

The Palantir contract review comes in early 2027, so the window is still open. I want to share a scan with a specialist and get an answer before my patient leaves the room; every clinician in this country wants that and every patient deserves it. But the seeing stone is only as safe as the hands that hold it. Choose those hands carefully.

15:47

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I first raised concerns about the Palantir contract in August 2023, in a letter I wrote to the Health Secretary in the previous Government. I am here today to raise my huge concerns again, because I believe that this contract is an affront to the values of our country and the NHS.

Palantir’s co-founder and chairman Peter Thiel, a historic Donald Trump backer and donor, has said that the NHS makes people sick and has called for its privatisation. Palantir deals in chaos, oppression and war, all in the pursuit of power and profit—the antithesis of the values that our NHS was built on. I also note with keen interest that New York City Health and Hospitals has pulled out of a contract with Palantir due to ethical concerns, which I will now outline.

In its own country, Palantir’s software enables the raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, that forcibly separate children from their parents and carry out prolonged detention and deportation. What is even more startling is a leaked document that showed the platform’s ability to generate dossiers on individuals and to mine data from the American Department of Health and Human Services. That is exactly the type of data that Palantir now has access to here.

Palantir should be nowhere near our NHS data and patient data, and that view reflects the hundreds of emails that I have had from extremely concerned constituents, which is an experience that I am sure is shared by Members across this House. People are genuinely frightened, and a loss of trust in the NHS is potentially catastrophic to health outcomes in the UK, as the Minister will know more than most.

Palantir’s reprehensible contribution to human rights abuses has been even more devastating in its complicity with the Israeli Government’s ongoing war crimes. A UN report in June 2025 found Palantir’s technology to have accelerated the Israeli Government’s campaign. It is shameful that Palantir is anywhere near anything that we have in this country.

Our NHS was built on a simple, powerful idea: healthcare is a human right, not a commodity. It was built on the trust of patients who must share personal details to receive the care they are promised. As a company arming slaughter in the middle east, mining American citizens’ health data to conduct violent deportations and advocating the demise of the NHS, that trust cannot be Palantir’s to hold. We call on the Government to exercise the break clause in this contract in 2027, award no further contracts to Palantir and create a publicly accountable and ethically grounded approach to the handling of data.

15:04

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing it and on his excellent speech.

Palantir received a massive contract from the UK Government, apparently starting in about 2019. Some may recall that during that general election campaign, I accused the Government of undertaking secret negotiations with US health providers to take over our NHS. What was the response of our media? That I was peddling Russian propaganda. They refused to engage in a serious debate about the way in which US companies were trying to undermine not just the NHS but our public services as a whole. Palantir already has a £330 million contract with the NHS and is trying to get its hands on much more. It is hopefully under threat in many other countries where it is trying to operate, such as Germany, where human rights organisations are pressurising it because of its behaviour and attitudes.

This company is getting its clutches into our NHS, and it appears to be pressurising every local hospital and NHS trust to join the Palantir system. My local hospital, Whittington hospital, so far is not part of that system and says it does not wish to be part of it, as have many others, but we need a clear steer from the Government. I do not blame the Government for the contract—they did not sign it; they inherited it. But they have the opportunity now to say that they will end it when the opportunity arises, which is less than 18 months away, and that they will use the interim period to develop a publicly owned, accountable system in our NHS.

We should be very proud of our NHS. It is universal, and Palantir is in danger of getting its hands on the personal health records of every single person who has lived or died since 1948, which it can use for research purposes. Since it is a conglomerate that covers all kinds of other services and was involved in the war in Gaza and the attacks on the Palestinian people, surely it is time, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, for us as a Parliament to challenge the Government on this and say: get this contract out of our NHS, and bring it back into public hands.

15:04

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech, demonstrating tremendous technical expertise.

This £330 million deal signed in 2023 with controversial American spy tech firm Palantir to use its tech on the federated data platform may turn out to be another gigantic waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. This is not just about money; it is also a moral and ethical misstep, given this firm’s links to work with the Israeli military and with the disgraced US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency—so-called ICE. Members and the general public will be aware that health data provided for one purpose has been used to track, detain and deport so-called illegal immigrants in America.

There are now persistent reports that issues of trust in the NHS among the wider public over this firm’s clear breach of data protection may lead the Government to use a break clause in the contract in 2027 to prevent renewal of this seven-year deal. I know that the BMA is not on the Secretary of State’s Christmas card list, or possibly the Minister’s, but he would do well to note the briefing it issued only yesterday, in which it calls for the use of the break clause and the retendering of this contract. If the Government are serious about tech sovereignty and investing in UK tech and AI, that is what they must do.

The roll-out of Scotland’s MyCare.scot app begins this month, with the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care describing it as the “most comprehensive” NHS app in the UK, created in-house and free from dodgy tech giants. I see the Minister laughing, but I want to reinforce that point, because it was made today by the First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney, at the launch of our manifesto.

To be fair, Palantir says that it will not use health data outwith the NHS as it would constitute a breach of contract and would, of course, be illegal, but England faces the rise of a political party that could change the law to suit its political purposes and ride roughshod over our basic privacy and human rights protections. If Members do not believe me, they should look at the US of A.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will clarify in his response whether the situation is under review, and I urge the Government to reconsider their position, to implement the break clause next year and to invest in our own solutions, just as Scotland is doing.

15:55

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the determined and forensic work on this topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). The key reason I am attending and speaking today is because we love our national health service. For all its challenges and flaws, it is a key part of British society and identity, and we all want it to succeed. There is no question that improved stewardship and use of data are important, but they have to be done with public consent and trust. Palantir’s involvement in some of the critical change processes in the NHS places that at risk.

My first concern is the process and governance around appointing Palantir to its UK contracts. The process by which that was done has not been clear and, as others have said, it is essential that this Government seize the opportunity to do the right thing and come clean on exactly how that contract was awarded to a company mired in controversy and with no previous healthcare specialist expertise.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the key issue, as raised by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), is accountability to this House for these contracts? Big contracts can be signed replete with assurances about protecting the public and protecting patients’ data only to morph into an entirely different kind of contract, relationship and company in the future.

[Olly Glover]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that accountability to this House is always a critical consideration.

The second concern is Palantir’s track record and motivations. I shall not repeat too much of what others have said, but its close ties with the US Government and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as its background in security and surveillance more widely, are a key concern, as well as its role supporting the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza war.

My biggest concern and that of the dozens of my constituents who have written in are the geopolitical sovereignty and data protection implications. Dozens of constituents have contacted me about Palantir’s work, business practices and leadership, which raise ethical and civil liberty concerns that are not compatible with UK values around privacy, democratic accountability and the responsible use of public data. Indeed, a YouGov poll in partnership with Foxglove, a tech justice campaign group, before the contract was awarded found that almost half of adults would opt out of sharing health data with the NHS if Palantir was granted the FDP contract, and under half of NHS trusts have started using the technology due to patient and doctor opposition.

There is a strong case for sovereignty over the UK’s data given that many allies in Europe also do not feel comfortable using American companies like Palantir. There are many suitable UK companies or those from trusted and reliable allies. For example, Kahootz based in my constituency provides a lot of software to Government agencies. The House has been clear in this debate about the concerns, and we all await the Minister’s response as to what will happen next.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:58

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his tenacity and expertise in this subject. He has done a huge amount of research, and made an absolutely excellent speech.

At a moment of rising global instability, it is extraordinary that we are prepared to trust the health of our citizens and the functioning of our NHS to a US corporation that does not share our values or interests. Outsourcing the storage, handling and analysis of NHS data to a foreign company, rather than securing the national and economic benefits of this work being done by a British or UK-led organisation, is yet another example of our unnecessary reliance on others to keep our vital infrastructure running. Doctors and the public have made it clear that they do not trust this company. Fewer than half of NHS trusts have begun using this technology, in large part because of the concern from patients and clinicians. If, as the Health Secretary says, the federated data platform is

“absolutely critical to the future of the NHS”,

placing it in the hands of a company that staff and patients do not trust risks undermining that future from the outset.

This is the central issue: we hold doctors and nurses to the highest ethical standards, and rightly so. We expect them to protect confidentiality, to act with integrity and to put patients first. So why are we asking them to use a system they do not trust and stake their professional reputations on it?

Palantir is not a neutral contractor. It is a company that is deeply embedded within the political ecosystem of Donald Trump, a convicted felon whose Administration has repeatedly undermined the international rule of law. It is a company that has worked hand in glove with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose behaviour is morally and legally outrageous and whose agents have operated like masked vigilantes in the deportation of individuals. We are all aware of the tragedies that that rogue Trump organisation has left in its wake. Why are we allowing a Trump-aligned company to sit at the heart of Britain’s most precious public service? Why are we comfortable placing NHS data in the hands of a company whose values are so clearly at odds with those of the British public?

This is not a technical decision—this is a political choice. The NHS is not only one of our most important public services but one of the largest areas of public spending. Therefore, it is deeply concerning that Palantir’s contract for the federated data platform is so heavily redacted that it makes scrutiny almost impossible.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Health inequality in the NHS for people of ethnic minorities is a challenge that we need to address. The New Orleans police department and the Los Angeles police department both terminated Palantir-powered predictive policing due to the system’s reinforcing racial bias and creating feedback loops to overpoliced communities that were affected. Does the hon. Member agree not only that the company and its leaders are unethical but that the systems it supplies are unethical and racist?

[Dr Chambers]

That is an important point. Amnesty International, whose representatives I believe are present, and others including voices within the NHS have been raising serious concerns about the potential misuse or inappropriate sharing of sensitive data. The Government must come clean about how the contract was awarded in the first place and what steps they will be taking to bring it to an end.

We should be building NHS data processing capacity here in the United Kingdom, strengthening our resilience, backing our own expertise and building sovereignty in a more dangerous world. Instead, we are exporting control of one of our most valuable national assets. I ask the Government today to use the break clause, stand with NHS staff, protect patient trust and keep Donald Trump and his allies out of our NHS.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call the Government spokesperson—[Interruption.] I call the Opposition spokesperson.

16:02

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I was expecting a promotion there, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He has brought forward an issue that sits right at the centre of how we shape the future of our national health service: how we use data, who we trust with it and how we ensure that technology supports care rather than complicates it.

The debate has been a thoughtful one, and in many respects it has been revealing. It has shown both the promise of the NHS federated data platform and the unease that still surrounds it. That tension really matters. I am grateful for the significant contributions we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members, with 13 coming from the Back Benches by my count. Let me start by setting out where I think there is common ground across the House.

The NHS is under enormous pressure as demand is rising, complexity is increasing and waiting lists remain too high. Too often, clinicians are working without the full picture in front of them. Anyone who has spent time in the health service knows that this is not a system that lacks dedication. It is, however, a system that too often lacks coherence. Data is part of that problem as it is scattered, fragmented and difficult to use in a joined-up way. Records do not always reliably follow the patient, and information is duplicated, delayed or simply not available when it is needed most. The consequence of that is not just theoretical; it is time lost, inefficiencies and, at times, patients not getting the care they should when they should.

The case for doing things better is a strong one; in fact, it is unavoidable. The FDP is one attempt to respond to that challenge. It seeks to bring together information in a way that allows the NHS to work more effectively, helping clinicians and supporting managers with the ultimate aim of improving care for patients. There are some early signs that this is beginning to deliver; waiting lists have been cleaned up, and some hospitals have reported better flow through theatres and wards. Those are practical improvements. As is so often the case in government, the easier question is whether something can work; the much harder question is whether it will be accepted. There are clearly concerns here.

We have heard about reluctance in part of the workforce. I am not suggesting there is uniform opposition, but there is certainly hesitation and, in some cases, disengagement. We should be careful, however, not to exaggerate that. Big reforms in the NHS have always faced resistance, often at the start. This is not necessarily something new, and on its own it is not necessarily decisive. At the same time, however, it is not irrelevant; if the people expected to use this system do not have confidence in it, its impact will always be limited. Will the Minister say what is the assessment of staff engagement with the FDP and how the Government are ensuring that this is something done with the NHS, rather than done to it? In the end, that will make the real difference.

The same issue arises with public trust. People are right to care about their medical data—it is sensitive, personal and deeply private. Once confidence is lost in this area, it is very difficult to rebuild it. There are important safeguards in place: the data remains under NHS control, the access is tightly regulated, and the provider does not own or use the data for its own purposes. The legal framework underpinning those safeguards is strong. Those are not minor points—they really matter.

However, we also have to recognise something else. People are not just asking whether the system is safe today, but what it enables tomorrow. Could the data be combined in ways that reveal more than people expect? Could systems evolve in ways not originally intended? Could future Governments choose to use the capability in different ways? Those are not unreasonable questions; they are the natural questions people ask when large new systems are created. Again, I ask the Minister what more will be done to reassure the public about the limits of how NHS data can be used and whether he can set out clearly where parliamentary oversight comes in if the use of data is expanded in the future. Trust is not built by reassurance alone; it is built by clarity and restraint.

A significant part of this debate has understandably focused on Palantir, and it is right that it has. Palantir is now a major supplier within the NHS data infrastructure as well as elsewhere across Government, and that raises legitimate questions about not just capability but dependence. For some the concern is political, while for others it is about principle. For many, though, it is something much more practical: what happens if we become too reliant on a single provider for something as critical as health data infrastructure? I think that is a fair question.

However, we should also separate those questions from the broader argument about the company’s international work. In a global economy, companies will inevitably work with different Governments, and that alone is not a sufficient reason to exclude them from public contracts in the UK. The question of procurement design, competition and resilience, however, is a different matter.

[Andrew George]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not. I want the Minister to have sufficient time to respond to the multiple contributions there have been today.

I ask the Minister the following questions. How are the Government ensuring that the NHS is not locked into a single supplier over the long term? What is the plan for maintaining genuine competition in this space? How easy would it be in practical terms to move to an alternative system if that was ever required?

There is then the issue of resilience. Some have argued that the FDP creates a single point of failure, while others have argued that the current fragmented system is itself a weakness and that greater coherence improves security and oversight. Both arguments deserve to be taken seriously. But practical questions remain: how resilient is this system to cyber-attacks or technical failure? What safeguards are in place? What happens if something goes wrong at scale?

The last matter I wish to address is that of governance. With the abolition of NHS England, there is now a question about where the responsibilities for the FDP properly sit. That matters because accountability cannot be diffuse. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister: who is responsible for the programme now, where does that accountability lie, and how will Parliament be able to scrutinise its performance going forward?

Better use of data has a real role to play in NHS reform, and the FDP may well prove to be part of that answer. Success will depend on more than just delivery; it will depend on confidence within the system: confidence from clinicians that the system helps rather than hinders them, confidence from patients that their data is properly protected and confidence from the public that our decisions are transparent, proportionate and properly accountable. If those conditions are met, this reform can succeed. If they are not, even the best designed system will struggle. We, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, will support what improves care and welcome what works, but will continue to ask questions that ensure reform is done properly in a way that sustains public trust. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his and other hon. Members’ contributions to it. Of course, we should also welcome the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to his place in his first debate on the Front Bench.

We have heard a lot about concerns and insights and interpretations about the NHS’s technological architecture. Some would have us think that the FDP is synonymous with just one company. It is not. The FDP is fundamentally an NHS construct. It consists of multiple contracts awarded to a number of consortia, including Palantir, Accenture, PwC, Carnall Farrar and the North of England Care System Support. Each of those have different responsibilities to make sure that there is training, health expertise and security in the FDP.

Ultimately, the FDP is a federation of local trusts and ICBs within NHS England, each with their own version of the FDP and their own abilities to decide which information they put there on the basis of their own service needs and governance arrangements. Although there should be scrutiny of Palantir and of any contract, we should also provide clarity about what the FDP is delivering for the NHS. It is my duty to make sure that the FDP is improving patient and clinical experience and improving patient outcomes.

Making the best use of data generated by the NHS and social care is essential to transforming services, improving outcomes for patients and making sure that we use resources in the best manner possible. Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into the NHS found that, despite huge volumes of data, fundamentally:

“The last decade was a missed opportunity to prepare the NHS”

to use the latest technologies.

The FDP is part of an infrastructure—it is not the infrastructure or the only infrastructure—resolve that gap. It is improving efficiency and generating savings across the health service worth up to £2.4 billion, according to independent estimates. Those independent estimates are being further bolstered by a commissioned study by Imperial College that will look at the economic impact of the FDP. It is an important tool for us being able to make the NHS fit for the future on clinical efficiency, transparency of data and outcomes for patients up and down the country.

Before I go into more detail about what the FDP does, it is important that I say what it does not do. For instance, it is not synonymous with the single patient record, the NHS app or—necessarily—with linking primary care data with secondary care data.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

I am going to carry on for a bit longer.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) tempts me with his speech, and he knows that I cannot resist his temptation. He spoke about Scotland and he will know that I am an NHS surgeon in Scotland. I hope he thinks that I can speak with some authority about the NHS in Scotland, so let me tell him a few things about the digital architecture in the NHS there.

The NHS app has been running successfully in England for over eight years. Three out of four people in the NHS in England have that app. To clarify, the app is not Palantir; it has been devised organically on the ground by NHS England—by clinicians and by technologists. It now serves millions of patients to book test results, screenings and appointments—including GP appointments —to end the 8 am rush.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East spoke about the MyCare app in Scotland. That remains a far-fetched dream rather than a reality. The limit of the ambition of that app seems to be, as I understand it, a dermatology service in one part of Scotland called Lanarkshire, for those who are not familiar with Scotland. It is a million miles away from what has been developed down here in England.

[Seamus Logan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

I will not; I am going to carry on—and I will tell the hon. Gentleman something further. The NHS in England was quite happy to use the expertise of technologists up and down the country, including in Scotland—including, in my own constituency of Glasgow South West, a company called Cohesion Medical. His Government in Scotland, who have been in government for over 20 years, refused that offer. That is why my patients and constituents in Scotland are unable to access simple digital services. It is why my patients and my constituents under NHS Scotland are 30 times more likely to wait over two years for treatment. It is why my patients and my constituents in Scotland are unable to access optimal stroke therapy and lung cancer screening.

The NHS federated data platform in England connects health information held in different systems, helping to manage activity to improve productivity and outcomes. By connecting critical data streams, it can accelerate diagnosis pathways, streamline discharge processes and ensure faster, more co-ordinated care that reduces waiting times for all patients.

I will briefly describe a couple of examples. North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust uses an FDP product called OPTICA to map the patient’s journey from being admitted to going home. It used to be done with spreadsheets, which were not always updated. Because of that, discharges were delayed, medicines were not sorted on time—in some cases time-critical medicines, causing real patient harm—and patients were therefore impacted. OPTICA lets the trust see all that information in one place in real time. It has reduced the number of long stays by a third, and despite a 7% increase in admissions over that time, we are improving services overall.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. May I just say that the hon. Member had very generous time allocated to him during this debate? If the Minister does not want to take an intervention, he does not need to.

[Dr Ahmed]

At the Mersey and West Lancashire teaching hospitals NHS trust, they are using the FDP to better manage the lists for planned surgery. That allows surgeons like me to operate on more people each day, and it is cutting waiting lists. This has been achieved through better use of data. It is a timely reminder that in England we are improving productivity in the national health service, getting more operations done per list and getting closer to pre-covid levels of activity. The same cannot be said for Scotland under the SNP Government.

[Seamus Logan]

Rather than giving so much of his speech to cheap political points about Scotland, can the Minister answer the question that was put to him several times by several Members: are the Government considering a review of the break clause next year?

[Dr Ahmed]

If the hon. Gentleman had read the details of any contract that the Government have negotiated, whether it is this one or the previous one, he would know that the break clause is there for a reason. Of course we evaluate value for money at those times. He used the word “cheap”, but let me tell him something: it is not cheap to have to wait over two years for NHS treatment in Scotland, which is 30 times more likely to happen than in England. That is why on 7 May the NHS in Scotland can get an upgrade with Anas Sarwar as First Minister and Jackie Baillie as Health Secretary.

The FDP is helping people get the care they need more quickly and more efficiently. As a programme, it is a success. The FDP has exceeded every single target since its go-live date in March 2024, and 137 NHS trusts are actively utilising the platform and have reported benefits. The programme is significantly exceeding its benefits forecast, with external independent experts validating these results.

NHS England publishes data on how the FDP has benefited patients and the NHS. The data collected up to the end of March will be published in May. I can share the figures with Members now. Since the go-live date in March 2024, more than 100,000 additional patients have been supported to undergo procedures in theatres, partly due to increasing theatre utilisation. Nearly 94,000 people have been supported on their cancer journey, with 7% seeing a reduction in the time taken to diagnose their cancer. There has also been a 14% decrease in delays to discharging patients staying in hospital for more than seven days, freeing up hospital beds for those who need them most.

The last Government awarded the Palantir contract on the basis of a successful bid that was deemed to be significantly better, and by a significant order of magnitude, than those of its competitors. It was judged the most economically advantageous and likely to deliver the best-quality outcome for patients. The contract was awarded with an overall value of up to £330 million over a maximum of the seven-year term. So far, £210 million has been invested, as we scale up. The benefits of the FDP are exceeding those we forecast, as I have already outlined, but—

[Luke Taylor]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dr Ahmed]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I think I will answer his point shortly; in the interests of time, we have to be careful about interventions.

We live in a fast-paced technological world, and that means that we always look to the next possible provider to provide value for money, so it is right that there are break clauses in the contract to allow evaluations to take place. I can reassure all hon. Members that, as a clinician and a Minister, my north star is always patient safety and quality, and of course value for money. If, at the point of the break clause, we evaluate and find that there are other providers that can do the job better, then of course that needs to be looked at and reflected upon. More generally, as the Minister for Health Innovation, Patient Safety and Life Sciences, I would not be doing my job properly if I did not try to champion British business at every opportunity or to champion British small and medium-sized enterprises to become British plcs. I hope hon. Members will take that as read.

The contract has extension provisions and will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes. We will decide later this year whether to extend it. NHS England will be transparent about the process and the evidence used, as we have been throughout our regular performance reviews for this contract and the FDP.

On digital sovereignty, our priority is to give patients the care they need. As Members will no doubt understand, for some essential IT services, it is simply not possible to develop in-house solutions, as we seek the best from the market. I reflect on my own practice in Glasgow, in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East seems to think has found a panacea of publicly delivered technology. I can tell him that when I walk into that hospital, I login through Microsoft Windows. Then I open a programme built by a North American tech company to order test results. Then I open another programme built by a North American tech company to look at the results of those tests. Finally, if I want to check X-rays, I open a fourth programme built by a North American technology company to evaluate CT scans, MRI scans and X-rays.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

In the interests of time, I will continue. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

In the future, our goal is to see a vibrant UK market in digital and technology, which would give the NHS more choices and help to improve standards. Of course, I would be unashamedly pro-British about my ambitions for that mix, because that is the way that we not only serve our NHS but also support economic growth. At the moment, what matters is who controls the data and how that is governed. I appreciate the sensitivities around that, I really do. Rightly for the FDP, this is a matter for the NHS and UK regulators.

I have also been asked about vendor lock-in and whether it is possible to remove companies like Palantir from the NHS. The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible. Of course, it would take time and planning to safely transition from one supplier to another, as it always does in the NHS, when patient safety is the primary concern. At the moment, there are unfortunately only a small number of companies that can do what we genuinely need them to do at the scale that we need them to do it, but the contract has multiple measures built in to allow greater freedom of choice. That includes making sure that the NHS owns the intellectual property for all products and that it is possible to migrate them to other providers.

Data security is also at the heart of our health innovation programme. Protecting personal data is at the heart of the FDP and the health innovation strategy. Most importantly, we have separated church and state, in terms of service provision and data security. A separate company, IQVIA, provides the highest standard of privacy-enhancing technology for that data in the FDP, which means that we can remove personal identifiers from the data where they are not required, ensuring that privacy is maintained throughout. NHS England and NHS organisations retain full control as data controllers, including over decisions about how data is used, who can access it and which products are deployed. Palantir does not own the data, the products or the intellectual property, nor can it use the NHS data for its own purposes.

The FDP is a secure data environment. Security is built into its design and operation, and it has been through national, technical and cyber-assurance, with external oversight. It should also be understood that the FDP is only for health and care purposes; it cannot be legally used for non-health purposes such as immigration enforcement, as has been promulgated.

As Members will expect, my position on the owners and executives of Palantir is very much the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—we are no fan of their politics. However, the FDP, and the principles that underpin it, are critical to the future of the NHS. Palantir operates strictly within a UK-regulated contract where the NHS controls all data, access is tightly governed and information can be used only for agreed purposes that benefit patients. I would expect any member of staff who did not in all conscience feel that they could work with Palantir to raise that with their employer.

[Rachael Maskell]

I raised the issue of patient trust. We know that over 50% of the public do not have confidence in this system, so they might not share vital health information with their clinicians. As a result, will the Minister include that point in the consultation? He has only 10 months until this first period ends, so can he say more about the public perspective on the Government consultation?

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend will know that no NHS system or pathway can ever work without the confidence of the public, and that needs to be reflected in any evaluations that take place. I have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns loud and clear, as well as those of Members across the House. It is right that we look to maintain the highest standards for our NHS. It is also true that the FDP has a role to play in delivering for the NHS and helping people get the care they need more quickly and efficiently. Those are real outcomes that will improve people’s lives, all through the better use of data.

Members on both sides of the House often rightly challenge me to go further, faster on rare diseases, rare tumours and rare cancers. None of that is possible in modern medicine without data, and the analysis of data. Just as I have a responsibility to ensure that we get value for money out of all contracts in the national health service, and that we evaluate them regularly, Members also have a responsibility to be careful not to aggregate different components of the NHS and present them as a monolithic technological solution.

The FDP is, and will continue to be, an important component of delivering patient care in the NHS in England. Of course, who contracts with the FDP will be open to question as we go forward and think about future contractual arrangements. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the FDP is somehow the only technological solution or database in the NHS; there are many others that do good work—whether that is the single patient record, the health data research service, the NHS app or clinical systems for NHS primary care providers. We must be careful not to conflate one technology with the next, and in doing so, alarm citizens and patients about what is happening with their data.

I can assure Members across the House that in my ministerial service—just as in my 20 years of clinical service—my north star is transparency, patient safety, quality and providing the best care to all patients up and down the country.

16:29

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank the Minister for his comments. However, I do not think he has been accurately informed about the status of the contract. I have the unredacted contract with me, which says nothing about software delivery. The whole thing is based on subscription, and the intellectual property of all specially written software, which is defined to include the data collection software, belongs to Palantir. None of this belongs to NHS. That is in this contract—I can show it to the Minister, if he likes. I thank him for his agreement to work towards a better future for our constituents, and we all agree that what we need is a trustable route forward in working with data that will make the NHS a real force in the 21st century.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the NHS Federated Data Platform.

16:30

Sitting adjourned.