House of Commons
Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves)? I am proud to have been a member of a Government with the first female Chancellor in 700 years. She did hard yards on the task of rebuilding Britain’s fiscal credibility, public services and levels of growth after 14 years of Conservative Governments’ failure. I now build on her work.
Yesterday, I set out the Government’s determination to see the next chapter of Britain’s growth story written in more places. That means more devolution and the combined force of the Government to get things done, back businesses and get more investment, innovation and jobs across the UK.
Elaine Stewart
Last week, the UK Government announced a financial boost of £11.8 million to support the regional economy across Ayrshire. The money will fund projects across Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, supporting employability and business start-ups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the SNP is obsessed with centralising in Holyrood and taking away local powers, the route to regional economic growth lies in empowering local communities and local councils?
John Healey
My hon. Friend does a great job of standing up for the people of Ayrshire. The £11.8 million will fund jobs, training and business start-ups right across Ayrshire. In England, this is a Government who are backing local areas to generate growth in more areas, and I would love to see the Scottish nationalist Government do the same.
Tristan Osborne
Thank you, Mr Speaker—and happy Star Trek Day.
Last week, the Opposition chose to Klingon to the Truss legacy, and what a damaging legacy that was. How can we engage in warp speed, so that our economy continues to grow the fastest in the G7?
John Healey
Mr Spock, I think some would say, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend is right. Despite global conflicts, trade tensions and rising threats in the world, which are pushing up inflation, bearing down on growth and pushing up borrowing costs, the UK economy is demonstrating huge resilience. He is right that in the first six months of this year, the UK economy grew the fastest in the G7. I set out yesterday some early steps to back stronger growth in more places: backing innovation with more investment in fast-growth firms across the north; changing the Government’s Green Book discount rate so that projects across the country with long-term potential will get a fairer hearing; and taking an axe to the thicket of administration that too often slows down decisions, holds back growth and prevents the private investment that we need.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
This week, Arthur Laffer, economic adviser to three former US Presidents, said Britain is being taxed to death under this Labour Government, so will the Chancellor rule out tax rises in the Budget?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman could have asked that question to any Chancellor at any time in the past few decades, and no Chancellor ahead of a Budget would have commented on speculation or ruled out measures. I will set out the decisions I take before the House on 28 October, and I look forward to him being there on that day.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The former Chancellor invested a significant amount of political capital into driving forward the white elephant project of building a third runway at Heathrow on the basis that it would deliver economic growth, but the Government’s appraisal report states that the net present value of expansion is between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion. Will this Chancellor put an end to this absurd proposal?
John Healey
After years of delay, indecision and often vexatious challenge, we have given the go-ahead to this project quite simply because the economic case stacks up and will help to bring growth.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Chancellor’s clampdown on speculation and leaks ahead of the Budget; it is certainly an important step he has taken. On the issue of certainty, the National Wealth Fund is a critical investor in crowding in private investment around the UK. I noted that he has changed the remit. How will he balance his desire to see change with ensuring that it is strong and stable and that there is certainty for businesses seeking to invest with the support of the National Wealth Fund?
John Healey
I thank my hon. Friend for that, for the work she does in chairing the Treasury Committee and for her previous work on the Public Accounts Committee. She is right about the damage of speculation ahead of Budget. It led last year, for instance, to a large number of people cashing in pension pots, but the speculation was entirely unfounded.
On my hon. Friend’s question about the National Wealth Fund, we have capitalised it by over £200 billion, and the challenge is to ensure that we get good value-for-money decisions, but decisions made quicker, so that we can get investment into local areas to see private investment bring the growth that we need.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position. I have known him for a long time—I wish him well. He has a huge task ahead of him. Earlier in the summer, the Prime Minister said that walking the streets of Makerfield lodged in his mind that so many working people want to see the personal allowance raised. In Reform, we want to do that as well; in fact, we want to raise it to £15,000 a year and to make work pay. Is it still the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s ambition to raise the personal allowance?
John Healey
At the Budget last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) continued the freeze in the personal allowance, which was first brought in by the Conservatives, in order to help fund the improvements in health and schools that this country needs that the people voted for at the election just two years ago. We will keep all of this under review, as we always do. Reform is making promises that it simply cannot keep. The right hon. Gentleman is right that I have known him a long time; I say to him and to the country that he is also a man whose own party leader described as
“a man that believed in nothing”.
Mr Speaker
The Chancellor does not need to worry; he has no responsibility for Reform.
I call the shadow Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor to his new role. I paid close attention yesterday to the long speech he made to reset the narrative and drive growth Britain. In paying tribute to his predecessor, will he recognise that she left the highest tax burden on record? Instead of postponing the words he could utter to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), could he make a short speech today from the Dispatch Box to say that he does not plan to increase the tax burden further?
John Healey
I could have spoken a lot longer yesterday. I am grateful to the hon. Member for watching or reading it. In the two years of this Labour Government, we have started to see this country beginning to turn a corner. That is a corner after 14 years in which the previous Tory Governments had a record of low growth and high debt, and a mini-Budget that crashed the British economy and collapsed confidence in Britain’s fiscal strength. This country has huge strengths in its people, its businesses and its communities, who want to seize the future. This is a country in which interest rates have been cut six times since the election; in which borrowing, which is still too high, is down to a six-year low; in which growth—still fragile and under pressure—was fastest in the first half of this year in the G7; and in which productivity and investment are finally, after long Conservative years, beginning to tick up. That is the basis on which we now build.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I welcome the Chancellor to his place. After two anti-growth Budgets, I genuinely wish him well and urge him to deliver a growth Budget this autumn, so that we can avoid more punishing tax rises or painful spending cuts.
Last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged that Brexit had ushered in a “decade of low growth” but did not outline what he thinks is needed to tackle it. On Monday, the Chancellor made what was briefed as a major economic speech on growth, the product of deep thinking, and yet there was barely a mention of the impact of Brexit. Recent studies suggest that deeper alignment with Europe could boost GDP by at least 2.5% to 3.6%, so should the Chancellor’s plan for growth not include the growth and defence partnership with the EU that we have called for?
John Healey
The hon. Lady is talking to the person who led the work to establish a defence and security partnership with the European Union and bilateral agreements with other countries, on which we now build both our economic strength and our national security strength.
On the question of the Budget, I ask the hon. Lady to look at what we have done in the seven weeks of this Government. We know that we cannot relieve the cost of living and the cost of business pressures, but we will take steps where we can to do that. I will take that principle into the Budget, and we will back business and do what we can to see growth in more places across the country, because for too long this country has relied on too few of our major cities to drive national growth.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
My hon. Friends are right to ask these critical questions, and I agree with them that private investment is critical to delivering good growth in every postcode. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that centralisation of power has led to too much of the country losing out on investment, leading to lower productivity and lower living standards for our constituents. The Chancellor set out yesterday his vision to shift power and resources so that they sit with local leaders, to enable long-term local investment and industrial strategies that will crowd in private investment.
Dr Gardner
Stoke and north Staffordshire is an industrial heartland known around the world for its prowess in ceramics. With the right support, its full economic potential can be unleashed. As an officer on the Labour Reindustrialisation Research Group, I am working with Stoke council on a reindustrialisation plan to ensure that Stoke and north Staffordshire make the fullest possible contribution to growth across the UK. Will the Minister commit the Treasury to working with us on a reindustrialisation plan to maximise our region’s expertise in advanced materials, defence and digital technology, so that we can all go forth and prosper?
Dan Tomlinson
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that going forth and prospering is a very good objective, and I look forward to working with her and the local businesses in her constituency that she has raised with me, including Mantec and Goodwin. There are some fantastic ceramics and advanced manufacturing businesses that we need to identify, and across the Treasury and No. 10 North, we will work with local leaders and parliamentarians to ensure that we can identify the right clusters in the right places to back and support.
Dan Carden
Last month, Liverpool city region’s visitor economy reached £6.8 billion, and our productivity growth is currently running at four times the national average. The region has an incredibly exciting plan to redevelop Central station in the city centre and link it to Lime Street. It would be one of the most important growth stories and opportunities for the whole of the north of England, and it would drive billions in investment from the private sector. When the Minister visits us for the party conference, will he take a bit of time to meet Mayor Rotheram and the leader of the council, Liam Robinson, to see their exciting plans?
Dan Tomlinson
I am delighted to inform my hon. Friend that my conference calendar already includes a meeting with local leaders in Liverpool to talk about what we can do to back growth and investment in his city and region. I have been in conversations already with the mayor of the city region about the things that he wants to work on and focus on to boost economic growth, and that includes the Liverpool Central development.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Private investment in the steel industry in Northern Ireland is being curtailed by the Windsor framework, because it is forcing businesses in Upper Bann to pay 50% EU tariffs on category 4 and category 7 steel. How many jobs must be lost across Northern Ireland’s manufacturing sector before the Chancellor takes action on this crazy steel tariff situation?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government understand the challenges of the implementation of steel tariffs, but we have to ensure that we keep a foundational steel sector in the UK. That is critical for our national supply and our national security. The Government looked very carefully at ensuring that the tariffs were applied in the right way to protect downstream suppliers, and we will continue to engage with industry and with Members of Parliament on these important decisions.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Good growth in every postcode is a very catchy slogan, but it will mean nothing if it is not backed up with investment. Time and again, significant funding is announced for cities and urban areas, usually in the north, while the south-west is left with pennies in comparison. Yesterday, the Chancellor once again announced investment in the north with no mention of investment in the south-west. That might be due to political expediency—I could not possibly say—but what are the Government going to do specifically to encourage growth in the south-west?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member raises an important point. We need to ensure that we see higher economic growth in every part of the country, and that includes the north, the east, the west and the south-west of England. We have many fantastic Members on both sides of the House who are working and advocating for their communities. We will ensure that we drive and deepen devolution in areas that do not yet have a mayor. The Prime Minister has discussed the need to ensure that those who do not want to have a mayor—he highlighted Cornwall—can have specific further devolution powers. One of the examples we are looking at not too far from the hon. Member’s constituency, I believe, is place-based business cases, so that we can unlock investment in particular parts of the country; one of the places that we are looking at in detail is Plymouth.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
We love our pubs, so to support them the Prime Minister announced in his first week after taking office a 20% cut in business rates for them, as well as for social clubs and live music venues, from April 2027. That is building on the 15% reduction earlier this year. I and other Ministers have regular discussions with representatives from the pubs and hospitality sector to understand the impact of business rates support.
Claire Hazelgrove
My first job was as a pot washer and waitress in a pub at the age of 14. Today, pubs help me to bring fellow residents together for my pub politics events across the constituency. I know how much our pubs mean to us locally, and I warmly welcome further support for them. Will the Minister set out how that support will help to give pubs and the wider sector the certainty they need so that they and the great jobs they provide are here for generations to come?
James Murray
I know my hon. Friend is a great champion of pubs in her constituency. In fact, she has brought together people for her pub politics events, including at the Willy Wicket, the Beaufort Arms, the Baileys Court Inn—which I have been to—and the White Lion, where people come to talk about issues that matter to them. The support we are providing for pubs will be worth nearly £250 million next year. That will benefit around 32,000 venues, which helps to ensure that they and the jobs they provide will be there for the future.
Peter Swallow
I recently stopped by the wonderful Koh-I-Noor Indian restaurant in Priestwood to meet its owner, Kamran, and to speak about the realities of running a family-owned restaurant. He told me how rising costs were making it challenging for him to invest and grow his business. I genuinely welcome the Chancellor’s action on cutting business rates for pubs and music venues ahead of the Budget, but will the Minister look at what more he can do to support the hospitality and retail businesses at the heart of our local communities?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the contribution that businesses such as Koh-I-Noor provide to local communities and economies. As he set out, the Government are helping pubs right now, because of the important community assets that they are and the real pressures that they face. I assure him that we will continue to look at what more we can do to support high street businesses more widely to help them to invest and grow.
Gill German
Like our new Prime Minister, many of us on the north Wales coast love the pubs and music venues of the north-west. The boost to them from business rates relief is really welcome, but we love our pubs and venues too. Pubs such as the Bay Hop and the Mayquay face the same challenges as our north-west neighbours, and we want to attract more live music to north Wales too. Decisions on business rates in Wales are of course the responsibility of the Welsh Government, but does the Minister agree that the need for support does not stop at the border, and that a 20% cut to business rates in Wales would be a welcome boost for us too?
James Murray
I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the vital role that pubs and clubs play in local communities on either side of the border. As she rightly points out, business rates decisions in Wales are a decision for the Welsh Government. In England, we have taken action to support community venues and high streets, including the targeted business rates support for pubs. I urge the Welsh Government to consider doing the same.
Will Stone
Pubs across Swindon, such as Arkell’s, contacted me regularly about the reduction in business rates, so I thank the Minister for that. However, can he outline whether there will be any further business rates reductions for the wider hospitality sector?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is a great champion for pubs and other hospitality venues in his constituency, including Arkell’s brewery, which I know supplies pubs across Swindon and Wiltshire. As he rightly points out, we have provided support for pubs and community venues, which the Prime Minister announced soon after taking office. We will consider all options for what we can do to further support them in the Budget.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
That is some brass neck, Mr Speaker. I am astounded that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and expect credit and gratitude for giving a little bit of support to a sector that his own policies have undermined and destroyed—two pubs a day closing down, and 100,000 jobs lost in hospitality and tourism. Will he instead adopt the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief and actually support these sectors, rather than giving hypocritical warm words?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman has some cheek, given the number of pubs that closed when his party was in government. The Labour party is making sure that the business rates system is set right for the future. Not only have we announced a 20% cut in business rates for pubs as a result of the new Prime Minister taking office, but I was pleased to announce a review of the way in which pubs and hotels are valued for the future, following concerns raised by the sector. That review will report in time for decisions taken on the basis of it to be in place for the next revaluation.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Pubs, cafés and restaurants are among the largest employers of young people across the country, but the sector has seen 100,000 job losses as a result of the Government’s jobs tax. Business rates relief might have some impact, but the hospitality sector is telling us that what it needs is a cut in VAT to really help people get back into hospitality venues. Have the Government looked at what a cut in VAT would be able to do for both growth and new jobs?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the important role that pubs and hospitality play in providing jobs, including jobs for young people. However, I gently say to him that one of the issues with the Lib Dems is that they welcome extra investment in our NHS and public services, but they never want to pay for it. When it comes to hard decisions on the economy, all they offer is soft politics.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The 20% rate cut for music venues and pubs is of course very welcome, but what my high street in Bath really needs is an overhaul of the business rates system, which the Labour Government promised. Rather than accuse us of not having ideas, will the Minister do the bold thing, which is to get rid of business rates and replace them with a commercial landowner levy?
James Murray
As the Prime Minister made clear when he took office, we are giving pubs and community venues real breathing space through the 20% cut to their business rates, but our reform of business rates and our support for the high street does not end there. We are considering every possible opportunity to support retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street, so that high streets in all our communities across the country can thrive.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I recently visited the Station House in Cheadle Hulme, one of the Almond family’s five pubs in Stockport, and spoke to the owner, Doug, about how hard it was for him to run his business. Like many pub owners across the country, the Almonds welcome the 20% cut in business rates, but they are contending with a system that penalises hospitality. The Minister dodged the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), so may I ask him to commit himself now? Will the Government overhaul the business rates system so that community pubs such as the Station House can help our high streets to thrive?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about the Station House in his constituency; I am sure we all have pubs in our own neighbourhoods that we feel are at the heart of the local communities that we represent.
The 20% business rates cut that we announced was a down payment on further reform. We will continue to look into what we can do to support pubs, hospitality and other high street uses, because we know how much they matter to everyone in this Chamber and all the people whom we represent.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
As the Member of Parliament for the constituency with more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, I have been campaigning to reform the broken business rates system for longer than I have been an MP. My understanding is that the Government’s review will look at the fair maintainable trade criterion, which sees pubs singled out to be valued on the basis of what they could earn rather than what they actually earn; but, as pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), the review falls far short of the Labour party manifesto, which pledged to overhaul the entire business rates system. May I ask Ministers whether that pledge still stands? If so, will they overhaul the business rates system before the next general election?
James Murray
I wonder whether any other Members might say that they have the most pubs in their constituency, or whether the hon. Lady has done her research. [Interruption.] I hear her saying that hers are the best pubs, a claim that even more Members may challenge in the Chamber.
Although the hon. Lady and I have some differences, I think that we share a desire to see a fairer business rates system. I know that the 20% cut for pubs and community venues was widely welcomed, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that we want to go on looking at what we can do to support our hospitality venues, pubs and other high street uses. This is not a question of taking one policy announcement from July and thinking that that is the end of the story, because we know how important high streets are to communities across the country, and we want to see them thrive.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
This is a Government who are determined to help good councils and businesses to breathe new life into our high streets and town centres. In April we introduced a permanent reduced tax rate worth almost £1 billion for high street businesses, and in July, in the new Prime Minister’s first week, he and I announced a further 20% cut for pubs, social clubs and music venues. This is a Government who will do what they can to help bring a bit of breathing space from the cost of living and the costs of business.
Mr Rand
In Altrincham and Sale West, we know how much our pubs and bars contribute to the local high streets of which we are so proud. That contribution goes beyond their economic impact; they create the sense of community that is so important to local people. The Government’s 20% cut in business rates was indeed welcome to them, but I know from events that I have held locally with the Altrincham business improvement district that they still face challenges and need more support. Will the Chancellor update the House on what more he will do to support all hospitality businesses in constituencies such as mine?
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks up very strongly for his local area. He is right about the importance of pubs, social clubs and live venues, and about the importance of the 20% cut that we announced in July. These are the things that make the places where we live the places that we also love. Later this year the Government will produce our high street strategy, and I encourage my hon. Friend to contribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in that regard. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said a few moments ago: he should see the move that we made in July as a down payment on further reform.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Conservatives will save our high streets, and may I explain to the Chancellor why that is important? Donna, who ran the Beverly Card Company, saw this Labour Government increase her business rates from £135 a month to £840 a month. That is why in February, after 30 years of her running it and having won national awards, the business closed. She will have to make payments for the next four years for those business rates. Will the Chancellor stop trimming, support the Conservative plan and abolish business rates altogether for the 250,000 high street businesses? He needs to stop talking and sounding sympathetic, and actually do something that makes a difference to our high streets.
John Healey
What an extraordinary claim! It is hard to take seriously the idea that somehow the Conservatives will save our high streets. We are, of course, concerned about the impact of business taxation. As a Government, we have put in £4.3 billion to help cushion the changes, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s area. We are in the process of taking further steps to review and reform the business rates system, and I will be able to set out more details at the Budget.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Chancellor is going around lauding an apparent cut to business rates, but it was his Government who reduced business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure from 75% to 40%. If he goes out there and speaks to the owner of any average pub, they will tell him that their business rates have almost doubled. Why will he not answer the question as to why he cannot and will not follow the Conservative plan to cut Labour’s spiralling welfare bill to fund the abolishment of business rates for hundreds of thousands of high street businesses across our country?
John Healey
The Prime Minister and I have been clear that we must cut the costs of welfare. On levels of taxation, we had a period of Conservative Government, with low growth and high debt. They crashed the economy with the mini-Budget, and we had levels of taxation that were putting pressure on business, adding to the cost of living. What people have seen under this Government is a willingness to recognise those pressures and to do what we can—not to remove them, but to provide relief where we can. It is about giving people and families a bit of breathing space from the cost of living, and giving businesses a bit of breathing space from the costs of business. That is why the move that the Prime Minister and I made in July for pubs, social clubs and live venues was so welcomed.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Government will support good growth in every postcode, including in Cornwall and Gloucester. We have already established No. 10 North to work in partnership with local leaders, businesses and communities, and at the Budget next month we will publish plans for further fiscal devolution, including greater retention of business rates revenue for local councils and strategic authorities.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the Minister for her answer. I fully support the Government’s exciting agenda of devolution, which takes power out of Whitehall and puts it into the hands of residents and communities like mine. However, my constituency of Gloucester does not have a metro mayor, and we are not part of a combined authority. I am determined to ensure that Gloucester is not left behind and is included in these important plans going forward. Can the Minister confirm how we can work together to ensure that Gloucester feels the benefits and investment from the Government’s devolution agenda?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency. The Cabinet statement on devolution set out the Government’s ambitions to accelerate devolution across the country by establishing a strategic authority for every area in England that wants one by the end of 2028. All strategic authorities, including those without a mayor, will benefit from greater powers over skills, transport and housing.
Perran Moon
As the furthest southerly Labour MP in the UK, I note several recent announcements of funding going to the north of England and mayoral strategic authorities. I have been very encouraged by the Prime Minister’s comments on Cornish devolution, and there is no requirement for Cornwall to join a mayoral strategic authority, but can the Minister elaborate on how changes to regional funding arrangements will support the Cornish economy?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his area. As he said, the Prime Minister has been engaging with Cornwall—including, importantly, with its six MPs, including my hon. Friend—on a devolution agreement. This will support the Cornish economy through stronger statutory powers on transport and housing, and the ability to introduce an overnight visitor levy, which can be invested in projects that drive growth in the region. As he will know, the Government are already investing in Cornwall’s high potential sectors with the £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Chief Secretary to her new position, but what words of comfort could she give the residents of Salisbury in Wiltshire, a unitary authority? We are not part of a combined authority and we do not have a metro mayor. Since this Government came in, we have seen the lowest settlement or one of the lowest three settlements on police funding and local government funding, and we have seen the withdrawal of funding for our road network in the south of Wiltshire. There is a concern that, with the focus elsewhere in big urban metropolitan areas, rural England will be forgotten. Is that not likely to be the case?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, in whose footsteps I am again following by taking on another job that he did in government. As a former Environment Secretary, living in a rural area of Buckinghamshire myself and representing a semi-rural seat, I reassure him that this Government of course care about driving growth in rural areas. There is great potential there, which is why we are supporting our farmers through a £2.7 billion a year sustainable farming budget, and we are also improving connectivity in rural areas.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Notwithstanding the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), my constituency neighbour, does the Minister not need to reflect on the fact that Cornwall, being the poorest region in the country and therefore entitled to EU objective 1 aid, is now receiving no regional funding whatsoever? That is simply not sustainable for a region that really does need additional support to get growth happening.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I disagree with his assessment. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), there are opportunities for areas that do not opt to have a mayor, but set up as foundation strategic authorities to gain the benefit of retaining more business rates and of greater powers over skills, transport and housing.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
As part of the £600 million package the Government announced in May, there will be no rise in fuel duty this year. This means that the temporary 5p cut will be extended till the end of the year, providing certainty to motorists. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty save motorists 11p per litre, or £120 per year for the average car, compared with the plans inherited from the previous Government.
Christine Jardine
I appreciate what the Minister has said about the fuel duty freeze, but the Liberal Democrats have called for an emergency cut of 10p per litre, which would make a difference of 12 per litre at the pump for ordinary families. For my hard-pressed constituents in Edinburgh West this winter, that could make a big difference not only to their travel costs, but to the cost of food and other services. Will the Government consider that emergency cut in the forthcoming Budget?
James Murray
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of providing breathing space for families, which is a priority for us as a Government, and she mentioned her plans. I have set out what we have done since the general election to reduce fuel prices by 11p per litre compared with what they would have been otherwise. As I set out in my earlier remarks, the 5p cut has been extended to the end of the year, and as she would expect, any future decisions will be taken at the Budget by the Chancellor.
Greg Smith
I cannot believe the Minister just said he wanted to give families breathing space when the RAC Foundation has found that, since fuel prices increased due to international issues earlier this year, the Treasury has raked in £1 billion extra from the VAT on fuel. How can it possibly be fair on motorists or give them any breathing space whatsoever to carry on with another fuel duty hike in January?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that international events have an impact on prices here at home. We did not want to get involved in that conflict, unlike the Conservative party. None the less, we are impacted by it, and the right thing for us to do as a Government is to make sure we are providing breathing space for families as we weather international events.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the cut on fuel duty, although motorists are being not only squeezed at the pumps but ripped off by unfair monthly insurance charges. Does the Minister agree that insurance companies should not be charging unfair and unjustified additional costs for monthly insurance, when that is what most people can afford? Will he meet me to discuss the Which? research, which has found that people paying monthly for insurance are paying hundreds of pounds in additional costs?
James Murray
Although my hon. Friend is right that fuel duty is one cost that families face, they also face a number of other costs, including through insurance. He is a formidable campaigner on a range of issues, so I would be happy to meet him to discuss this issue, or to ask my colleague, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), to do so, if she is better placed to respond.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s fuel duty freeze for working families, alongside the road tax holiday for hauliers and the diesel fuel duty cut. Fuel costs for businesses in my constituency, such as Northfield quarry near Dunipace, have nearly tripled due to the Iran war and the previous Government’s tightening of eligibility for red diesel. In the Budget, will the Chancellor consider extending fuel duty reductions for industries such as quarrying, which is essential for house construction and provides good local jobs for working families?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his request of the Chancellor at the Budget. As the Chancellor set out earlier, he will take those decisions at the Budget in the normal way, but my hon. Friend has made a powerful case for his constituents and used this opportunity to ensure that all of us on the Treasury Front-Bench team have heard what he has to say.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Fuel duty is catnip for a Chancellor desperate for revenue, but it is no sin tax, because for millions of Britons, vehicles are lifelines not luxuries. The imminent rise in fuel duty comes as tankers are ablaze in the strait of Hormuz. Must family budgets also go up in flames?
James Murray
I think the hon. Gentleman’s point is that the price of fuel is linked to international events, which, as I said earlier, I very much agree with. That is why it is important that we de-escalate the situation in the strait of Hormuz, which is the best way to bring down the cost of fuel. Meanwhile, the Government are determined to give families across the country breathing space—extending the 5p cut until the end of the year, a £2 cap on bus fares, and removing VAT from electricity bills—as we weather the impact of international events.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Public sector productivity is improving, with the NHS delivering 3.5% productivity growth in 2025-26, beating its 2% target. The Government will continue to drive public sector efficiency so that taxpayers’ money delivers the best possible public services. In addition, we are investing in AI adoption across the public sector to help realise the overall target of £14 billion of efficiencies by 2028-29, as agreed at the last spending review.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
May I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to her new role? If she has any questions, may I recommend an excellent book by a former Chancellor, which has a number of tips? [Laughter.] The public sector is 20% of our national output, so it offers a major opportunity for the Government to improve our national productivity. Was it wise to give the ASLEF train drivers on the Avanti West Coast route an above-inflation pay rise without any apparent productivity quid pro quo? With the public finances so tight, should the rule not be that above-inflation increases must have productivity gains sitting alongside them?
Emma Reynolds
We in the Treasury Front-Bench team are wondering when the third book in the trilogy will come along and what it might be called. We have a guess for the title of the next book. I thank him for his advice in his books and in his recent Financial Times article. On train drivers and their pay, I am proud to be part of a Government who have avoided strikes that impact on public spending.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Public sector productivity is improving, with the latest Office for National Statistics figures showing output continuing to grow faster than inputs, and Departments being challenged to improve efficiency and modernise outdated processes. Can the Minister confirm that the Government expect that will have a positive impact for residents in Feltham and Heston and people across the country, ensuring that Government services are faster, better and easier to access?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Driving public sector productivity is extremely important in two ways: first, because we get better value for money for taxpayers for the tax that people are putting in, including taxpayers in our own constituencies; and secondly, as she says, we are driving efficiencies, faster service delivery and using AI in the NHS to really drive improvements in care, as well as delivering more bang for buck.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Many commentators have commented about public sector productivity underperformance. EY tells us that the public sector has underperformed to the point where it has cut GDP growth by 3% since 2019. The Institute for Government highlights an average of nearly 1% underperformance every year for that same period. Morgan Stanley reminds us that in the last year private sector productivity was up 1.8%, but public sector underperformance dragged it back into negative territory. Despite that, public sector pay was up over 6% last year, against private sector pay up just 2.8%. Why are the Government rewarding poor performance and does the Chancellor think that is sustainable?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are focused on driving public sector productivity to reach the efficiency targets I talked about. We are holding each Department to account on that. As I said earlier, we are seeing great progress in the NHS, which is making a huge contribution to our productivity gains as a Government.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
Since day one in the job, the Prime Minister and I have been in lockstep in our determination to meet Britain’s fiscal rules. This is the bedrock on which we build good growth and help give a bit of breathing space to families and businesses. We acted in the first week to cap bus fares, cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live venues, and cut VAT on electricity bills. We have also announced further sanctions on Russia. We have changed procurement rules to back British jobs. We launched a new plan for growth from places right across the UK and £100 million to back British sovereign AI firms. This is a Labour Government who are determined to deliver good growth in every postcode and sound fiscal discipline.
Steff Aquarone
If the Treasury wants a quick trick to increase tax receipts from new employment, may I suggest that the Chancellor takes steps to boost rural bus connectivity? North Norfolk has independent operators such as Central Connect which, in spite of challenges facing the sector, has managed to double its bus frequency in Stalham and Hoveton. It wants to go further. Can he tell us how he will work with the Department for Transport to ensure barriers are lifted and support is provided to bring more buses to my constituents?
John Healey
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise that capping bus fares must be a benefit to his constituency in Norfolk and a benefit to passengers. Beyond that, let me take his contribution as an early Budget representation.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She raises a concern about the interaction between matured child trust funds and adult social care assessments. The financial assessment framework to which she refers is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, but I am, of course, more than happy to facilitate a conversation with her and the relevant departmental Minister.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me pay tribute to my own predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and let me welcome the Chancellor to his role. He is already responsible for the highest borrowing costs for 28 years. One in six of our young people are unemployed and yesterday we had the news that one of Britain’s top taxpayers is leaving our country. Every time a billionaire leaves, our country becomes poorer. Chris Rokos is reported to have paid over £300 million in taxes last year. Could the Chancellor tell us how many average taxpayers it will take to replace him?
John Healey
I welcome the new shadow Chancellor to his place and thank him for his words. I welcome him back to the Treasury brief—perhaps Members on the Government Benches will have more to say about that later. I echo his comments about the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who has played an important role in this House, including his cross-party work during the pandemic as Chair of the Treasury Committee. We thank him for that as he steps down from the Front Bench.
The shadow Chancellor takes reports in the paper and tries to make serious points in this House. We will set out our plans at the Budget to give families and businesses a bit of breathing space, to back good growth in more places throughout this country, and to rebuild confidence in strong British fiscal discipline—something that was lost under the shadow Chancellor’s Government.
Andrew Griffith
The Chancellor does not know the answer. On the Treasury’s own statistics, it would take 38,000 average income tax payers to make up for the loss of Chris Rokos. That is a lot of breathing space paid for. It means higher taxes for everyone else, or lower public spending. We know what Labour will choose. The last Chancellor raised taxes on farmers, family businesses and jobs. Conservatives will reform welfare to cut taxes; Labour always puts them up. Which, if any, of his predecessor’s damaging decisions will the Chancellor reverse?
John Healey
The future of this country will be written in our growth rates, after 14 years in which we had low growth, high debt and a Budget that crashed confidence in the British economy. Under this Government, we have already seen a new way of generating growth in more places across the country. Members have seen the way that we will reform the centre of Whitehall, so that we cut through slow decision making, with public leadership and control made accountable to the people. I made announcements yesterday on the ways that we will go further to axe the thicket of administration, to back fast-growth firms, and to change the way that we generate investment across the country.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Dan Tomlinson)
My hon. Friend is an expert on those matters and is totally right to point to the importance of looking at the demand side of the economy. The Chancellor and Prime Minister have focused on just that, for example, with the cut to VAT on electricity bills and the reinstatement of the £2 cap on bus fares for 2027. My hon. Friend will also support the big focus on the supply side that the Chancellor talked about in his speech yesterday, improving the productive capacity of our economy, so that we can build more homes, labs, transport and power.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Employment levels have risen since the general election, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that too few young people are getting the chance to move into work and to participate in education. That is exactly what the Milburn report is looking at, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will feed into that. However, we are not waiting for that report; the Government are already acting. That is what the jobs guarantee is doing, and why businesses that employ young people on universal credit will receive £3,000. It is right that there is a moral as well as economic imperative to get young people into work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I really am struggling to get all Members in—it is now 29 minutes past 12, and we have not even got through the topicals list. I ask Members on both Front Benches to help me to help them.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
Fiscal decisions are taken at the Budget, but I join my hon. Friend in urging the Welsh Government to consider extending the support that we have given to English pubs to pubs in Wales.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
James Murray
As I said a moment ago, decisions on fiscal matters are taken at the Budget, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge the Scottish Government to follow the UK Government’s example by providing support to pubs in Scotland, too.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that the Truss mini-Budget means that families with a new mortgage are now paying £600 a year more and the Government are paying more for our borrowing—money that we could be spending on schools and hospitals. The shadow Chancellor is the same man who at the weekend said that there were “lots of good things” in the Truss mini-Budget. With Labour, Britain is starting to turn the corner; it is clear that with a new shadow Chancellor, the Tories are turning back to Liz Truss.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. I would be very happy to meet her.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Very briefly, I would like to congratulate my beautiful, long-suffering Kiwi wife on completing her citizenship ceremony today in North Somerset. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out how the Government’s investment can support the development of more local schemes for young people in North Somerset?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate his wife on what is a significant achievement; I am sure the whole House is supporting her. He is absolutely right that we want to see more young people having the income, opportunities and purpose that work provides, which is why it is welcome that employment is up. However, we do need to do more. We will keep providing national insurance relief for employees aged under 21 and apprentices under 25, and we are rolling out our youth hubs, including in North Somerset.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Emma Reynolds
We are improving funding for local government as a result of the spending review, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that further. It is also obviously a question for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
When CoalWorks in my constituency fundraised for a defib, the charity London Hearts reached out to it. Because it is a charitable organisation, there was no VAT on the purchase, meaning that CoalWorks could afford to buy two. However, when the Kings Arms in Coleorton recently fundraised, it had to pay VAT because it did not go via a charity partner. Will the Minister make an assessment of the potential impact of removing VAT on defibs for community-based purchases?
James Murray
I congratulate the organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency for successfully fundraising for two defibrillators. As she knows, decisions on fiscal matters are taken at the Budget. She makes a powerful case, but we have to evaluate whether VAT reliefs are passed on in full to consumers. That is one of the key considerations when taking decisions of this sort.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
James Murray
We are providing a 20% cut in business rates for pubs in England. I urge the Scottish Government to do the same for Scottish pubs.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
When the Bank of Scotland closed its Larkhall branch, it left the town with no high street bank. It is a problem not only for Larkhall but for nearby villages including Ashgill and Netherburn. I am grateful to Treasury Ministers for engaging with me on this issue over the last few months. What can the Government do to support towns like Larkhall and protect face-to-face banking services in rural communities?
Lucy Rigby
I want to be really clear about this: people who need in-person banking must be able to access essential services, including those in rural communities. That is exactly why I commissioned the independent review on access to banking services, which will gather data about current access to banking services. It is the Government’s intention for there to be a power in the Financial Services and Markets Bill to allow the Government to act on that review.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
In his previous role, the Chancellor demonstrated that he is a man of principle who is able to advocate for change, even when politically difficult. Where the evidence shows that Labour policies are harming businesses and jobs, will he also advocate a change of course?
Torsten Bell
The difficult choices that we have had to make are why NHS waiting lists are falling in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and why his own police chief constable said that
“increased officer numbers will enable us to further tackle issues such as antisocial behaviour, theft and drug-related crimes.”
The hon. Gentleman is a man who, unfortunately, on the day of the mini-Budget spoke up in this Chamber and said that it was a “vote of confidence” in the whole UK economy. The only regret he must have is not being more enthusiastic—otherwise he would be shadow Chancellor.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
UK Finance estimates that two thirds of all fraud cases are enabled online. Jonathan Fisher’s recent review into fraud recommended that an anti-fraud levy be placed on digital and communications platforms. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we ensure that economic crime enforcement agencies are properly funded to protect us all from predatory scammers on the internet?
Lucy Rigby
Fraud is the most common type of crime in this country, and its impact can be truly devastating for individuals and businesses. That is why this Government are committed to tackling it, including via the doubling of the economic crime levy. The Fisher review made a number of recommendations, including about the role of technology companies. We are considering those recommendations very thoroughly.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Northern Ireland Executive have been without a budget this year, and in the last six months the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been engaging with the Executive parties. What latitude or support has the Chancellor given the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to enable a budget to be agreed in Northern Ireland, and what steps will the Government take if the Northern Ireland Executive are unable to set a budget?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am working extremely closely with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who, as he will know, is in discussions with all the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. We need to make sure that a budget is set for Northern Ireland so that the Executive can continue to deliver vital local public services.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I was pleased to see that the Chancellor was in the west midlands yesterday meeting manufacturing apprentices alongside Mayor Richard Parker. What conversations has he had with the mayor about using new devolution powers to invest in local skills and employment, and what will he do to make sure that young people in Wolverhampton North East get more local opportunities to benefit from?
John Healey
Indeed, the West Midlands Mayor, Richard Parker, is using the powers that he has, including recently by stepping in and taking action to improve bus services across the west midlands. Yesterday he stepped in to provide support for the Jaguar Land Rover workers who may face redundancy and will certainly be well placed to get further jobs.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
May I welcome the Chancellor to his position and thank him for his kind remarks earlier? May I also wish him every success, because I am afraid that under this Government we need some? He will know that if we are to fix the economy, we have to fix the welfare bill. Will he give a commitment today that at the Budget next month, he will come to the House with a comprehensive plan for how he will arrest the burgeoning welfare bill? He and I know that failure to do so will lead to millions of hard-working people and hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the country facing unnecessary and unacceptable tax increases.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman sets out the challenge facing the country in the long term. That is exactly why we have commissioned Alan Milburn and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) to do the reviews they are currently doing. When they produce them in the autumn, we will look at them and act on the recommendations.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
What conversations has the Chancellor had with the Department of Health and Social Care on providing compensation to those harmed by valporate and vaginal mesh, as per the Hughes report, which was published over two years ago?
Emma Reynolds
I reassure my hon. Friend that I am working extremely closely with the Health Secretary and discussing overall levels of NHS spending—of course, the Department has the biggest budget across the Departments. The NHS is performing well, but I will take back the specifics that she mentioned.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Monifieth in my constituency is home to over 9,000 people and is the central connection point for a vast rural community across Angus. Despite an application in 2023, a banking hub was denied because the regulations are not fit for rural communities. Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss how those regulations impact rural communities and see if we can finally get Monifieth the banking hub that it needs?
Lucy Rigby
I will indeed meet the hon. Member. The issues she identifies are exactly why we had a commitment in our manifesto to work with industry to roll out 350 banking hubs over the course of the Parliament. We are well on track, with 282 banking hubs having already been announced, so we are running way ahead of schedule.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
In recent weeks, the fast fashion online retailer Shein has been valued at a fraction of its price when it listed in Hong Kong, in part due to the treatment of low-value imports in the US and Europe. With that in mind, I welcome the Government’s decision to end the £135 de minimis relief by October 2028, but what more can be done before then to level the playing field for British retailers?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of removing the low-value imports relief and levelling the playing field with high streets. As she will know, my predecessor announced in June that we are bringing forward the implementation of the measure to October 2028 to benefit high streets across the country as quickly as possible.
Falkland Islands: Sovereignty
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on comments from the Argentinian President and President Donald Trump regarding the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)
As my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have made clear, the UK remains steadfast in its support for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. There can be no doubt that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they want to be. Falkland Islanders have made their views very clear in a referendum in 2013, at the United Nations year after year and to anyone who makes the effort to engage directly with the community. The UK also supports the right of Falkland Islanders to develop their natural resources for their own economic benefit. That is an integral part of their right to self-determination.
This is not the first time that an Argentine Government have made economic threats against the islanders, yet those threats have not prevented the community’s remarkable economic development over the years. The measures announced by President Milei will not change the UK’s unwavering commitment to the islanders.
The UK wants to continue to maintain a modern and constructive relationship with Argentina across a range of shared interests. However, there can be no doubt about our commitment to the Falkland Islanders, their democratic rights and the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The Government will continue to work closely with the Falkland Islands Government to defend their rights now and into the future.
The US is our closest ally. It, too, is in no doubt about our unwavering support for the islanders.
Calum Miller
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
As surely as night follows day, another Argentine President facing economic trouble at home has tried to distract attention by threatening British sovereignty. This is a President who, I remind colleagues, was praised by the Leader of the Opposition. When asked whether Britain needed our own Milei, and whether she was such a politician, she replied, “Yes and yes”. Meanwhile, President Trump, so loudly cheered by Members of Reform and the Conservatives, has also declared that the US is considering changing its stance on British sovereignty over the Falklands. The decision of sovereignty over the Falklands does not belong to President Milei or to President Trump; it belongs to the people of the Falklands alone. They have spoken unequivocally and we should support them.
The renewed threat to the Falklands should sharpen Ministers’ minds as to the mounting security challenges facing our overseas territories. The world is more unstable now than at any point since the end of the cold war, yet our threadbare Navy and hollowed armed forces are perilously overstretched. Meeting the threats to our sovereign territories requires genuine investment. Can the Minister update the House on what steps will be taken to increase our defence spending rapidly, and on whether the Government are considering Liberal Democrat proposals for defence bonds, investing in our critical capabilities and restoring British deterrence?
President Milei has now threatened sanctions and criminal charges on energy companies operating offshore from the Falklands, including British firms. That would be a direct—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Cartlidge, I let it go the first time, but you have just had three goes there. Please, somebody else has to come in and speak, and I am sure your Front-Bench spokesperson will ask the relevant questions without you having to shout down the Member speaking.
Calum Miller
That would be a direct economic attack on operations from British sovereign territory. Is the Minister preparing retaliatory measures and sanctions in the event that British companies operating around the Falklands are targeted? The Government must be resolute in defending Britain’s interests and the people of the Falklands. Has the Minister called in both the Argentine and US ambassadors to make it clear that British sovereignty over the Falklands is non-negotiable? If she has not, will she?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman is completely right that we are in a volatile world, but one thing is absolutely unchanging: the United Kingdom’s position on the Falkland Islands, which is of long standing. The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory and will remain so for as long as the islanders wish. As I stated in my opening remarks, we want a constructive relationship with Argentina, but we are absolutely clear, and they are in no doubt, about our position on this question. On defence spending more broadly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor remain committed to fully funding the defence investment plan and to meeting our NATO commitment of 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Israeli Minister Ben Gvir has said, “It is time for the state of Israel to publicly recognise that the Falkland Islands are Argentine territory under occupation”, and that we, the British, are not merely occupying the territory but, in carrying out oil drilling there, are stealing money from the Argentine people. Does the Minister think he knows that the Argentine Government agree with him and, as a result, have filed criminal complaints against Navitas Petroleum, which is of course an Israeli company? Does she think he knows that the company was very happy to sign a deal with the UK to explore the Sea Lion oil project in the British Falkland Islands? Or does she think that Ben Gvir was just too busy thinking of new ways to inflict ever yet more cruelty on the Palestinian people?
Kirsty McNeill
We completely and utterly reject the characterisation that my right hon. Friend describes. The UK supports the rights of the Falkland Islanders to develop their natural resources for their own economic benefit, because that is an integral part of their self-determination. The decision by the Falkland Islands Government to pursue hydrocarbon production is a commercial decision for them to make alongside the commercial companies involved.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Let me say at the outset that we on the Conservative Benches are clear that the Falkland Islands are British, and they will remain British for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish them to be. British soldiers fought and died to defend our sovereignty and the freedom of the Falkland Islanders. That sacrifice will never be forgotten, and we will always stand by the people of the Falklands and their overwhelming desire to remain British. Before the summer recess, the Leader of the Opposition and I met Cheryl Roberts MLA and other representatives of the Falkland Islands Government. We were clear in reaffirming our unwavering support for the islanders and their right to self-determination.
Our continued connection with the Falklands is of vital importance, as a matter not just of history but of sovereignty, security and principle. The Government must therefore ensure that they are standing up unequivocally for the Falkland Islands and their choice to stay British. Therefore, what conversations have the Foreign Secretary and Ministers had with the United States Administration to ensure that our position and, above all, the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders are clearly understood? What direct representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the Argentinian Government following President Milei’s latest remarks? Is Argentina raising the future of the Falklands through diplomatic channels with His Majesty’s Government, or is it simply ramping up its language publicly? Argentina has threatened sanctions against companies involved in the lawful development of the Falkland Islands oil resources. What representations has the Foreign Secretary made in response, and what steps are the Government taking to protect those legitimate commercial interests and the Falkland Islanders’ rights to develop their own natural resources? There can be no negotiation over sovereignty unless and until the Falkland Islanders themselves wish it. The United Kingdom must stand with the Falkland Islands and the right of the islanders to self-determination.
Kirsty McNeill
I share the right hon. Lady’s conviction that the sacrifices of British armed forces personnel should never be forgotten in relation to this matter. I share, too, her desire to see the UK Government stand up unequivocally for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, which is exactly what we have been doing. We are in regular ministerial and senior official engagement with Argentina, which is why I can say with such conviction that it is in absolutely no doubt—and no Member of this House should be in any doubt—about the UK Government’s position. The future of the Falkland Islands is for the Falkland Islanders to determine, and nobody else.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s strong message today, standing alongside the Falkland Islanders in their desire to remain British. We have 14 overseas territories with over a quarter of a million people. May I ask that we take this opportunity to consider how we can better represent all those people for whom we as a Parliament, and as a Government, have a responsibility, for their health and education, and for the relationship between Britain and our overseas territories?
Kirsty McNeill
I can reassure my hon. Friend that work is ongoing across Government to ensure that everyone in the British overseas territories retains the full support of the UK Government. We are in regular dialogue with their representatives, and of course we continue to ensure that their rights to health and education and the other matters that he mentioned are uppermost in our minds at all times.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government accept that in order to deter any possibility of military action against the Falklands, it is important not to send the wrong signals? In 1982 there was the withdrawal of HMS Endurance specifically, but there were also huge anti-nuclear campaigns that sent the wrong message to aggressors around the world. Can the Government confirm that, this time, they will not send the wrong signals—over Diego Garcia, for example—or any suggestion that we do not have the naval and air assets to deter and, if necessary, to defend?
Kirsty McNeill
I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we are sending the most unequivocal message imaginable that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they choose to be. It is also important to reassure the House that our forces in the south Atlantic are maintained at the appropriate level to ensure the defence of the Falkland Islands against any potential threat. The right hon. Member mentioned Diego Garcia, and I want to underscore for the House that that is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US. It has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years, and that is precisely why we did a deal to ensure that we could maintain the long-term operational control and security of Diego Garcia.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
President Milei has coupled his renewed sovereignty claim with an increase in defence spending and plans to expand the naval base at Tierra del Fuego. In the light of these developments, can the Minister tell us if we have updated our threat assessments, and if the Falkland Islands’ air, land and maritime defences are adequate to ensure the islands’ and the islanders’ security?
Kirsty McNeill
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his service. We are confident that the situation that we have in place with defensive capability is adequate for the threats faced.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
When the Government deal with our allies and friends the Americans, they might remind them about the disputed islands that they are in charge of—Wake Island, Navassa Island, Bajo, Swains Island, Guantanamo Bay—all of which have been supported by the United Kingdom. Should we think about not supporting them? Of course not, but we might just mention them. When we retook the Falklands, the British Government had at their hands 52 frigates and destroyers and well over 100,000 soldiers and naval personnel. Does the Minister not think that the best message we could send would be to get our defences back up?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in ongoing conversation with our closest ally, as Members will appreciate, and the United States is crystal clear about our position. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that we need to invest in our defence capabilities, and of course that is one of the primary responsibilities of the UK Government. I would gently remind him of the situation that we inherited. It is this Government that have made commitments to invest strongly in our armed forces, and we are proud to have done so.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Like many, I have a close allegiance to the Falkland Islands and the islanders. As a 19-year-old young British soldier, I did my first operational tour of duty in the islands in 1990 and subsequently went back in 1992. Does the Minister agree that while the Falkland Islanders state that they wish to be a UK overseas territory, they will always remain that? To put this into perspective, in the latest referendum, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to support that position, on a 92% turnout. To put it into perspective again, only three islanders voted against.
Kirsty McNeill
I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking my hon. Friend for his service. It was an extraordinary sacrifice by him and his family, and we are deeply grateful for it. I could not agree more that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders could not be more clear and must be respected.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I do not know whether this is something I still need to declare, Mr Speaker, but I visited the Falkland Islands in 2003 as a guest of the Falkland Islands Government. They have never invited me back. It was apparent then that the principle of self-determination, on which we fought and for which British service people lost their lives, remained unchanged. I have seen nothing to change that view today. When the Minister speaks with the American ambassador, might she gently remind them that in 1982 the Americans were not exactly full-throated in their support of us at that point? It made no difference then and it should make no difference now.
Kirsty McNeill
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his direct engagement with the Falkland Islanders—I know that such engagement is always appreciated by everyone in our British overseas territories—and as a direct result he has been able to impress on the House exactly what the Falkland Islanders want, which is their right to self-determination. He mentions our relationship with the United States. Because it is our closest ally, our relationship with the United States is one of candour, and it could not be clearer about our position, which is that the Falkland Islands will remain British for precisely as long as the Falkland Islanders want them to.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
People in Portsmouth are incredibly angry about this. We waved those ships off in ’82, and so many families have a connection to someone who served. We know that 255 brave British personnel died defending the Falkland Islands, and 86 of them were from the Royal Navy. This issue is settled. Argentina was defeated and, above all, the Falkland Islanders have made their choice: they want to remain British. Does the Minister agree that the Argentinian Government and President Trump must stop this disgraceful, disrespectful interference and stop treating the Falkland Islands as a bargaining chip?
Kirsty McNeill
Can I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her work on the overseas territories, to which I know she is deeply committed? Can she please pass on, on behalf of the whole House, our thanks to her constituents for their bravery, courage and sacrifice? I could not agree with her more: this question is settled, because it is settled in the minds of the Falkland Islanders, who want to remain British, and they will do so with our support.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Sam Moody is my constituent. He is the chief executive of Rockhopper. During my time in this House, he has been absolutely scrupulous in following the laws of this country and respecting the Falkland Islanders. Will the Minister reassure him and the whole House that this Government will protect the interests of Rockhopper, whatever commercial arrangements it has in place, knowing that Rockhopper has always complied with legislation and respected whichever Government have been in power?
Kirsty McNeill
Yes, of course, the right hon. Gentleman should feel free to pass on to Mr Moody the view of this House and of the British Government that it is part of the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination that they may develop their own natural resources. We stand four-square behind them in doing so, and we stand four-square behind the companies that are involved in doing so, too.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for securing this important question. Brave British servicepeople died defending the Falkland Islanders’ right to freedom and self-determination more than 40 years ago. We must never forget. Will the Minister confirm that this Labour Government will do the right thing and never compromise when it comes to defending British sovereign territory in the Falklands?
Kirsty McNeill
I confirm to my hon. Friend that we will never, under any circumstances, compromise on the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. I join her in commemorating all those who risked and lost their lives in the defence of that very principle.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The UK’s success in liberating the Falklands in 1982 was achieved when we had considerably greater naval resources, but it also could not have been achieved without the support of the Reagan Administration. Does the Minister not agree that that shows why it is extremely important to maintain close relations with the United States and not do anything to put those in jeopardy?
Kirsty McNeill
The United States remains our closest ally, and we will continue to engage with it while being absolutely clear with it about our position. No one should be in any doubt, least of all the people of the Falkland Islands, about our steadfast and unwavering commitment to the Falkland Islanders’ self-determination. We will continue to impress that on the United States Government.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Minister is understandably burdened by the need to be diplomatic. Is the reality not that President Trump can review whatever position he likes, and the Argentinian Government can make whatever threats they like, but it does not make a jot of difference to this country, because the Falkland Islands will remain British?
Kirsty McNeill
I can confirm that the Falkland Islands will remain British because the right of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination is absolute.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Falkland Islands are not just British. They are part of Britain, and an attack on any part of Britain would be an article 5 situation. Yet Donald Trump, when pressed on it the other day, was far from clear on whether we can rely on US support. What are the Government doing to tighten our defence relationship with European and other allies who do understand and share our belief in collective defence?
Kirsty McNeill
All Members of the House will know that we are in ongoing dialogue with our European partners, and, crucially, we are committed to investing in our own defence. That is why this Government have made such strong commitments to continue defence investment.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Bournemouth has a close relationship to the Falklands. Twenty-two-year-old Lance Corporal Christopher Charles Thomas was killed on 30 June 1982; he was of Cardiff and Bournemouth. The people of Bournemouth formally adopted HMS Phoebe and granted it the freedom of the borough; HMS Phoebe patrolled the south Atlantic after the war. I have been contacted by constituents who are outraged by the comments they have heard—in particular, I am thinking of Richard, of East Southbourne and Tuckton, who wants the Government to conduct an urgent review into the defence of the Falklands. Will the Minister give my constituents that assurance?
Kirsty McNeill
I join my hon. Friend in remembering Lance Corporal Thomas. His constituents should be reassured, as indeed should everyone in the Falkland Islands, that we are absolutely committed to Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, we are committed to their defence and we are committed to them remaining British.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Falkland Islands were British long before Argentina even came into existence, but the key is building a diplomatic ability to ensure that that message goes home loud and clear. What efforts are the Minister and other Ministers in the Foreign Office making to build that diplomatic alliance, so that we do not get into a position in which military action is necessary?
Kirsty McNeill
This is a matter of all our diplomatic relationships being brought to bear. The key is that the message goes out from this House today, loud and clear—and is heard unequivocally by the people of the Falkland Islands—that we stand with them in remaining British for as long as it takes.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), it is important that we talk here and that we have diplomacy, but what practical actions are the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence taking to ensure that there is a review of physical defence and security, so that we send a clear message to the Argentinians that they can go no further—that the words are too much, but they should go no further?
Kirsty McNeill
We are confident that our defensive capabilities in the south Atlantic are equal to the task.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The problem is that the Argentinians can smell weakness because of our approach to the Iranians’ attacks on two British bases earlier this year. Will the Minister therefore be clear that, in the light of Iranian threats to our bases this time round, we will not just seek to intercept the missiles attacking them, but attack targets in Iran if they attack our bases? That sort of signal of intent is required in relation to our overseas territories.
Kirsty McNeill
This Government could not have been clearer about the work that we are doing to defend our bases, and we will keep it up.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Over recess, I had the privilege of visiting the islands with Members of this House and the other place. There, we met the Falkland Islands Government and our British service personnel, and also paid tribute to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Whatever the posturing of an Argentinian President or an Israeli Minister, the Falkland Islands remain proudly British. Will the Minister join me in thanking all those service personnel on the islands for their contribution to UK defence?
Kirsty McNeill
I thank my hon. Friend for his visit, which will have been deeply appreciated by Falkland Islanders. I join him in commemorating and thanking everyone involved in the defence of the islands and our service personnel, wherever they are in the world.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
There is an air of total unreality hanging over this debate. Successive Governments have run down our Royal Navy to its present enfeebled state, they have conspired to surrender other British sovereign territory and we have a Government who procrastinate about signing off a new oil field in the North sea—let alone about one in the south Atlantic. Argentina senses total weakness. When will the Government step up and set out how they will rebuild our Royal Navy and meet the 3% of GDP target for our armed forces, so we can stand tall and defend ourselves and our sovereign interests once more?
Kirsty McNeill
This Labour Government will not take any lectures about how we should defend our interests and stand up for Britain from a party that has been fawning over Vladimir Putin.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
This summer, along with other Members of this House and the other place, I got to escape the heatwave here and enjoy some blessed relief in the cold weather of the Falklands, where we enjoyed the incredibly warm welcome of the Falkland Islanders. Our troops and servicepeople down there are doing incredible work and are resolute in their defence of the Falkland Islands. It was clear to me how strongly the Falkland Islanders feel that they are British, and that matches the feeling of my constituents. Can the Minister assure me that she is having conversations with the MOD, our forces and the Falklands Islands Government, to ensure that we have the right level of defence and deterrence to face this new and escalating nonsense rhetoric from Argentina?
Kirsty McNeill
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are in ongoing conversation about exactly that. I thank him for his visit; I cannot stress enough to the House how deeply Falkland Islanders appreciate it when people come to visit and can then impress on this House our unified position that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Currently, the Royal Navy has an offshore patrol vessel permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands, but given the threat that is being faced and our need to demonstrate resolve—the sort of thing that, sadly, we did not demonstrate in the early 1980s, which led to miscalculation—will the Minister consider speaking to her MOD colleagues to see whether naval assets might at least pay a visit to the Falkland Islands, with a significant platform?
Kirsty McNeill
As I stated previously, we are confident that our defensive forces in the south Atlantic are equal to the task. In terms of conveying resolve, it is incredibly important that an absolutely united message is sent from this House to partners in all capitals and to the Falkland Islanders that we are resolute in their defence.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is absolutely right to say that what is behind this is the deep unpopularity of President Milei; it is not anything actually that the UK has done. It is to the credit of this House that we are entirely united, whichever party we are from, in saying that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who try to make political points to separate us actually do those who oppose us a favour, and that what they should do is say that the UK Government, His Majesty’s Opposition and all of us in this House are entirely united on this subject?
Kirsty McNeill
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that a huge disservice is done to the people of the Falkland Islands and to our service personnel any time that politicking takes place, instead of an absolutely united and unwavering conviction emanating from this House.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I pay tribute to all the Falkland Islands veterans in my own constituency and, indeed, around the country, and to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who is no longer in his place. Is it not the case that we should all be seeking to de-escalate the rhetoric, but at the same time send a very strong signal—a resolve—to President Milei, that if we are required to do so, this country will once again defend the Falkland Islands militarily and, in between that, certainly defend it economically?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman more in so far as the important thing in this debate is clarity, which is why I am saying with such conviction: our unwavering position as a UK Government in a volatile world is that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain British.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The House speaks with one voice when it comes to the Falklands being British. Like colleagues across the House, I represent many veterans in Newcastle-under-Lyme who served in the Falklands, and I thank them for their service. I am grateful to the Minister for her answers to date, but can I suggest that a Minister of the Crown gets on a plane and goes down to the Falklands to stand in solidarity with the people there as the Union flag is flown—and the sooner the better?
Kirsty McNeill
May I please pass on to my hon. Friend’s constituents our thanks for their service, too? Ministers have visited and do so regularly. We are in ongoing dialogue with representatives of the Falkland Islanders. Again, I think it is very important that the message goes out from this House that the Falkland Islands are British and will stay so.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government are reviewing the military infrastructure and surveillance capabilities on the islands in response to Argentina’s announced plans to bolster its military presence?
Kirsty McNeill
As the hon. Gentleman would expect, we do not go into operational detail about our defence capabilities, but I can reassure the House that the Government are confident that our defence capabilities are as he would hope and as we need them to be.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
In 1982, the people of Chatham and Chatham dockyard waved off the boats that went to safeguard our territory in the south Pacific. HMS Medway, a ship named after our river in Chatham, is there today, with its sailors working to protect and secure that territory. Will the Minister pay testament to the hard work of the Royal Navy to defend the territory? What further advice and security can she give to ensure that we have the right defence posture to counter any aggression?
Kirsty McNeill
I pay tribute to everyone serving on HMS Medway and, indeed, all our armed forces personnel, and offer them our unwavering commitment to their protection and the protection of all British territories overseas.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Like other Members, I had the privilege of going to the Falkland Islands last month. I thank the Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands and all his staff for their welcome and professionalism. While there are clearly domestic issues going on in Argentina, the cold hand of China is not far from sight, whether it be illegal fishing in the blue hole, secret missile bases in Neuquén, or nefarious activity in Antarctica. What discussions has the Minister had with European and US counterparts about dealing with the threat that China poses, given that it is in all our interests in the free western world that the Falkland Islands remain British in perpetuity?
Kirsty McNeill
As I have already stated to the House, we are in ongoing dialogue through all our diplomatic relations to stress to people in every capital—but, most of all, to the people of the Falkland Islands—that the Falkland Islands remain British and always will.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is concerning to hear the sabre-rattling from Argentina towards a self-governing population who overwhelmingly identify as British. It is not just the United States that is fanning the flames, however. Israel’s sanctioned Minister of National Security has called for Israel to recognise the Falklands as Argentinian, and its President has stated:
“Israel will act against Britain.”
Ignoring the irony of an Israeli Minister accusing another country of illegal occupation, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had on this matter with our supposed ally, which is trying to undermine British sovereignty?
Kirsty McNeill
We make clear to all our partners, all our allies and, indeed, people in every capital of the world that the Falklands Islands are British. We are resolute in that, and that position will not change.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister has spoken about sovereignty, and she is right, and she will be aware that under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994, any decision on exploration has to come to this country. It just so happens that the very Energy Secretary who banned new licences in the UK will now be that decision holder. Can she rule out that if the Falklands asks for exploration in its area on oil and gas, this Government will not block it?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is an integral part of a country’s self-determination that it can develop its own natural resources for its own economic benefit. That will be a decision for the Falkland Islanders. Indeed, Falkland Islands representatives have already made decisions about exactly that matter.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is clear to the British public that the special relationship between the UK and the US is more special for the UK than it is for the US under Trump. With the US extending threats, bullying and tariff threats, it is akin to an abusive relationship. Will the Minister unequivocally confirm that Britain will not tolerate intimidation and blackmail by the US, Israel or others, and that British sovereignty matters more than our relationship with hostile states that are committing blatant, horrific violations of international law?
Kirsty McNeill
The United States is and will remain our closest ally. We have been clear with it, we have been clear with this House, and we have been clear most of all with the people of the Falkland Islands that the Falkland Islands are British.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am glad to see the Government adopting a robust posture when it comes to the Falkland Islands, but this time last year at the UN General Assembly, when the President of Argentina staked a claim on the Falkland Islands, neither the former Minister for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), nor the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), had anything to say about the matter. I would like some assurances that the Prime Minister will tackle President Milei at the UN General Assembly later this month.
The Minister talks about the military capability in the Falklands, but I gently remind her that three of the offshore patrol vessels that we currently have rotating through the Falklands are due to be sold to the Uruguayan navy in the next 18 months, and four of the Typhoons that we have down there—the Tranche 1s—are due to be decommissioned next year. As a staging post to get to the Falkland Islands, the Ascension Island is a key location, but it is shared as a base with the US. Is she confident that the US would have no problems whatsoever with our using that base should we need to take military action against Argentina?
Kirsty McNeill
I reject the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. United Kingdom Ministers have been clear in every international forum in which we are present about our position on this matter, and I am pleased to underscore and repeat it today: the Falkland Islands are British.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her strong and resolute answers. Following the deeply concerning decision surrounding the Chagos Islands, the good people of the Falkland Islands need more than just warm words; they need iron-clad guarantees. The Minister has stood firm at the Dispatch Box today and declared unequivocally that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable. President Trump must stand by the United Kingdom. Will the Minister ensure that the international community is under absolutely no illusions that we beat the Argentinians when it mattered, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can and will do that again if necessary, and that those islands will remain British for as long as their people wish?
Kirsty McNeill
There can be no doubt in any capital in the world and, most importantly, in the Falkland Islands that the Falkland Islands are British. Their right to self-determination is absolute, and the UK Government stand as a guarantor of exactly that.
Israel and Palestine
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on Israel and Palestine. I do so as a proud British Jew, someone with the deepest gratitude to the state of Israel for giving a home to my grandmother after she lost her husband, my grandfather, and 60 other family members at the hands of the Nazis. I remember visiting her in the 1970s in Tel Aviv and seeing the life and sanctuary Israel had provided. Indeed, some of my most joyful childhood memories are of picking oranges as a kid on the kibbutz where my cousins lived.
My personal story and that of thousands of British Jews is one of the many reasons why I say to anyone here or around the world who questions Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people: you are wrong, and we will call you out whenever you engage in that attempt at the erasure of Israel.
I know what the trauma of Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October meant and still means to people across Israel and to Jews across the world. It was a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population. The events of 7 October make plain the grave threats that Israel faces, and it has every right to defend itself. We should not only condemn those threats but act against those who carry them out.
Iran continues to threaten Israel and Jews across the world. We have already designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and we will do more on Iran’s proxy groups. Today I can announce that we are sanctioning Lebanese Hezbollah’s financing arm, Al-Qard Al-Hassan. Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States. Tackling those threats is just one of the important shared national security interests we have with Israel, on which we will continue to co-operate.
I know, too, that so many members of the Jewish community now live in fear in the face of rising antisemitism, including here in the UK. Last week we commemorated the anniversary of the Heaton Park attack, when Jews were murdered at their place of worship simply for their religion—an outrage that was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. The everyday life of Jews in Britain is deeply affected by the climate that such hate creates. When I went to school in the 1980s, I did so without fear. Today we need to face the truth: that is not the case for thousands of Jewish children across the UK—children who have to go to a school with security guards outside it. No child should have to go to school facing that, and no teacher should face antisemitism either.
Whether it happens in our schools, universities or workplaces, online or on our streets, antisemitism is a scourge and an evil. We are rightly putting in place an additional investment of £250 million for community security, but we all have a responsibility to do more. As part of this, I will in October host representatives of the J7—the countries across the world with the largest Jewish populations. We will meet in the UK to discuss the different ways we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism, including tackling online hate.
I am proud of my Jewishness and unwavering in my support for the state of Israel, and there is absolutely no contradiction between that and my support for the state of Palestine—indeed, quite the opposite. The two-state solution is based on an explicit belief that the only route to security for both peoples is to live side by side in peaceful co-existence, with freedom, security and self-determination. Securing the two-state solution in its fullest form is the north star of this Government’s policy and, indeed, of successive British Governments over decades.
It is precisely this belief in the rights and freedoms of the Israeli and Palestinian people that leads many, including me, to a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. In Gaza, we have seen the most unimaginable trauma and suffering in the last three years—death, destruction and dehumanisation on an appalling scale; a stain on the conscience of the world and of this country too. And in the west bank, we have seen the clear attempt to, in the words of Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich,
“bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.
There is a deeply painful contrast between our professed commitment to a two-state solution and the reality on the ground in Gaza and the west bank. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for their tireless efforts on this issue, as well as to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer).
We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic step of recognising the state of Palestine, but the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour Government have not done enough in the face of what is happening, so today marks the beginning of a new approach—an approach that not only calls out injustice and suffering, but acts. In taking this stance, I make a very clear distinction that is crucial for us all in this debate: our argument is not with the people of Israel, with whom the UK has unshakeable bonds; our argument is with the conduct of its Government. I also want to say emphatically to people in Britain and across the world: holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple.
What we seek today is to salvage the only course for peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians: the two-state solution. Let me start with the situation in the west bank. At the time of the Oslo peace accords in 1993, around 270,000 settlers lived in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 770,000. More settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. Let us spell out what that has meant for Palestinian communities: houses bulldozed; roads and public infrastructure destroyed; families displaced from their homes, community by community, family by family, person by person. Sixty-five Palestinian communities have been completely expelled since 2023—a total of over 4,000 Palestinians have been evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions.
In August, we saw the crossing of a long-standing red line: the issuing of E1 tenders for over 1,200 homes. I visited a community in the area covered by E1 in 2014. The Bedouin communities I met in Khan al-Ahmar had lived on that land for generations. E1 proposals would evict them and place settlements directly between East Jerusalem and the west bank, cutting through the heart of Palestine. Let us be absolutely clear what this means: the creation of a set of facts on the ground to make the two-state solution unviable.
On top of official state policy, settler terrorism is rampant. The UN reports an average of six violent settler attacks against Palestinians per day this year—the highest on record. Let us take one example: in al-Mughayyir, 20 miles north of Jerusalem, settlers have encircled the village and mounted a campaign of intimidation, largely under the protection of the Israeli military. Families in the village are increasingly cut off from accessing their land, squeezed into ever smaller areas, and have olive trees uprooted and livestock stolen. In the same community, just last week, two teenagers were shot when settlers entered the village under police and military escort. Both died before reaching hospital. Five teenagers from their school have now been killed this year.
Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, has described what is happening as
“A violent and criminal effort…to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.”
The former Minister of Health and retired brigadier general from the Israel Defence Forces, Ephraim Sneh, has said:
“This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply.”
Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN as
“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
The British Government agree that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the west bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists. All too often, the Israeli Government have turned a blind eye to that—and, worse, members of that Government have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians. I recognise the gravity of saying this, but the truth is that it is the least the people who face such suffering deserve, and it should be the prelude to justice.
For a long time, the British Government have rightly said that settlements are illegal, but we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole, which in 2024 the International Court of Justice concluded was unlawful. Today, I announce that the official view of the British Government is that the occupation is unlawful, because of Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty and its expansionist agenda via illegal settlements.
Our position is not just an overdue statement of reality; the Government believe that the unlawfulness of the occupation should be reflected in the economic relationships we choose to have with the occupied territories. I do not believe that the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets, so I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
To do so, we will introduce a new comprehensive sanctions regime, working with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, with appropriate religious exemptions. As part of this regime, we will go further. We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion. To those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements, let me say this: you will face the full force of UK sanctions.
Settlements are illegal. They should not be promoted in our country. Earlier this year, shamefully, just a few miles from here, we saw an expo advertising illegal settlement land. We must and we will ensure that that never happens again, so we will ban the advertising in the UK of illegal settlements.
The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel. We will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel precisely because we support the two-state solution, including security and prosperity for Israel. For that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the BDS—boycott, divestment, sanctions—campaign.
The legislation I have announced today will be in place within six to nine months, and we will also take more immediate steps. Today, we are sanctioning a further set of extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities. I can also announce that we are extending the existing global human rights regime such that it will enable swifter action to deter settlement expansion, including—crucially—seeking to prevent the development of E1.
I also want to address the question of arms sales. We have already suspended over 30 arms licences used by the IDF in Gaza. That suspension remains fully in place. We will now also refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation—in effect, a double lock against arms sales. That means the ban on such exports will now remain in place for as long as the occupation persists.
To advance the two-state solution, we also need viable and effective Palestinian governance, so I urge the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reform, and I urge Israel to lift its withholding of revenues, which is frankly financially crippling the provision of essential services in the west bank. The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the Government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the occupied territories and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution.
I turn now to Gaza. The horror of 7 October appalled the world and had terrible echoes of the centuries of persecution of the Jewish people: men, women, children and babies killed, mutilated and tortured by Hamas terrorists; people murdered while seeking to protect their families; young people massacred at a music festival; and people abducted from their homes. As the 20-point peace plan for Gaza sets out, that is one of many reasons why Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza. They must decommission their weapons and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure.
Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000. The vast majority of the population is displaced—nearly 2 million people—and they are now penned into just one third of the territory. Lifesaving humanitarian aid and access has been routinely blocked. Hospitals and clinics have been destroyed. Over 60% of homes are in ruins.
International humanitarian law imposes clear rules for states fighting wars, including to ensure access to food and medical supplies, to avoid mass displacement of civilians and to avoid the targeting of civilians. Serious and intentional violations of that law, if proven, amount to war crimes. What has occurred, including the actions of the IDF, has been examined in depth by a number of organisations, including the UN independent international commission of inquiry. The conclusions of these reports represent increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine that.
On the question of genocide, the UK has always supported full, robust and fair judicial processes to consider allegations, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion. That has been the case for all of the genocides since the 1948 genocide convention: Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodia and acts against the Yazidi people. That will remain our policy. It is right that this issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I want to make it clear that we support the court in coming to its determination.
Accountability for what has happened in Gaza matters, but even more urgent is action to address the ongoing crisis, because today in Gaza the death and suffering continue. Nearly a year ago, a ceasefire was declared, yet over 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since, and the people of Gaza are experiencing a totally avoidable humanitarian catastrophe that I am afraid is driven by the decisions of the Israeli Government.
Last week, I talked to courageous doctors and humanitarian aid workers who have served in Gaza. It was a heartbreaking conversation. They recounted children dying waiting for medical treatment, people forced to live next to open sewage and without shelter, and food insecurity rampant. I am sure the whole House agrees that that is unconscionable, so I pledge that we will continue to do everything we can to provide all the humanitarian support possible to help the people of Gaza.
UK-supported hospitals in Gaza will enable around 800,000 medical consultations this year and essential health services for patients. UK expertise will deliver care to over 1,000 child amputees. We recently welcomed another wave of students from Gaza coming to study in Britain, and we will welcome more. But in truth, unless Israel changes course, the situation will remain dire, so we are taking further steps both by ourselves and with others.
Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world. At the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, we will shine the clearest and harshest spotlight on what is happening and what must change. With Jordan, we will convene countries across the world to lead a call for action on health and humanitarian access. We will also lend the UK’s voice to the growing global alliance of countries, led by Arab partners in the region, calling for the full implementation of the US-led 20-point plan, the rejection of extremism and a lasting end to the cycles of violence. As we implement the policy measures I have announced today, we will continue to assess the Government of Israel by their actions. We want to see a new approach in both Gaza and the west bank.
Today we refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution. We call out what is unlawful. We act on the import of goods from illegal settlements. We ban advertising of illegal settlements. We act on services to prevent new settlement expansion. We act on settler violence. We support accountability for what has happened in Gaza, and we pledge to galvanise the international community to confront the ongoing and urgent humanitarian crisis. Above all, we say: Britain is not silent in the face of deep injustice, nor is it powerless.
Today we act in concert with others in a broad international coalition. I can tell the House that today, France and Canada are announcing, alongside Britain, that they will ban the import of goods from illegal settlements, joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—are pledging today that they will support further action. That is what Britain can achieve, leading with others, and it is in our fundamental national interest, because if there is one lesson of recent decades, it is that we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. It is also the case that if we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for, we lose credibility and influence in the world.
My parents came to this country as Jewish refugees, and found sanctuary and a country that stood up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination. Those are the values this Government are standing up for today, and I truly believe that the vast majority of the British people, including in our communities with ties to the region, are united in their desire to see humanitarian suffering end and all sides commit to a durable peace process. Just as we want Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side, we have to live out those values in Britain. Jews in Britain, Muslims in Britain, and people of all faiths and none have a right to live without prejudice or fear. We need a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever they occur, and a Britain that stands up for what is right.
I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
As we meet today, let me start with what we agree on. We agree that illegal settlements are wrong. We all agree that groups of settlers have been guilty of outrageous abuses of ordinary Palestinians and crimes against innocent civilians. We agree that some Israeli Ministers have indulged in hateful propaganda and incitement. We agree that the current path is leading Israelis and Palestinians towards a darker, more dangerous future. We agree that Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October left many Jews in Israel and around the world afraid and vulnerable. We agree that the suffering in Gaza is horrific. But we also agree that those who praise Hamas and other terror groups or see them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are wrong, that payments to those who are killed while attacking Israeli civilians are wrong, and that those who call for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state and the murder of its citizens with cries of, “From the river to the sea,” are wrong. Ignoring the victims on all sides and putting at risk the viability of the two-state solution is wrong.
This is not about Israel alone, and it certainly is not about reducing the complexity of the region to a single sentence. Sadly, the Government are in the process of doing just that. When they recognised the state of Palestine, only recently, they did so against the laws we ourselves have defended since 1933, in contravention of the Montevideo convention and of the principles we have set out. When they sanctioned Israeli Ministers, they failed to make the case to many others, including the European Union, and today they are enacting a policy that the Foreign Office knows will not work.
The Government also know that this policy will harm innocents. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers of this Government—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), rejecting this very policy as the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected—innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer. Still this Government are pressing on in haste, despite warnings from the Labour Benches from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and from the Government’s own reviewer of terrorism legislation that turning Israel into a pariah risks sectarian division in our own country and a further rise in antisemitic violence on our streets.
As the Foreign Secretary knows, others are waiting. The Israeli election is in just seven weeks, and many have correctly argued that this action will help the extreme candidates’ campaigns, not those who are making the moderate argument for a united Israel. In the week before Rosh Hashanah and the high holy days, the Government are acting without prudence, introducing sanctions that are both light and serious. They are light because they will not actually target settlers—as the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations has said—but will be stretched to include all Israeli and Palestinian businesses, leaving many without opportunity, including those who make the pharmaceuticals that keep many British patients alive. They are serious because they risk what the Foreign Secretary has himself condemned: encouraging sectarianism and antisemitism at home, and discouraging co-operation abroad.
As such, I have six questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, on the coherence of the policy, can he confirm that the advice from his Department on the practicality of sanctions has changed so dramatically that these sanctions will in reality be targeted, not area as previously stated? Secondly, what conversations has he had with wider partners and allies to co-ordinate a full international action that might actually work, and why will he not wait for the result? Thirdly, what assessment has he made of the impact on domestic security and community cohesion in the United Kingdom, barely a year since the first antisemitic murder in our country in generations? Fourthly, what assessment has he made of the impact on our security partnerships with both Israel and the United States, which have kept Iranian regime-backed murderers off our streets for the past few years? Fifthly, what instructions has he given to the enforcement bodies to ensure that Parkinson’s, myeloma and multiple sclerosis patients will still get the drugs that keep them alive? Finally, will he let us know now what instructions he has given to the Foreign Office for the accreditation of diplomats to the Palestinian embassy should Hamas win the elections in November and send their own envoys here under diplomatic immunity?
We have seen growing antisemitism in the United Kingdom, and we have seen increasing violence against Jewish targets. The Conservative party will always reject the hate-filled sectarianism that we have seen on our streets. We can—and where appropriate, should—criticise the Israeli Government, and still defend the right of the Jewish people to a home. I place on record my and my party’s deep sadness at the violence we have seen in recent months and years, our commitment to the right of Palestinians and Israelis to live in dignity and peace, and our recognition of those who have been victims over generations. None of us here rejects the Government’s stated aim that we must do everything we can to end the cycle of violence, and we welcome the sanctions against Al-Qard Al-Hassan and the condemnation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. However, I am sorry to say that this Government are wrong. As the Foreign Office has previously stated, this policy will damage the interests of innocent Palestinians, Israelis who condemn settlements, and the British people. What we reject is not the intent, but the performative politics and acting without wide support that leaves our envoys weaker and their voices irrelevant. We know, from our own history, that we do not make peace from just one side, and nor do we make it alone.
Ed Miliband
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his response. It is our first time opposite each other at the Dispatch Box, so let me congratulate him on his appointment—he has a proud record in Parliament as Security Minister and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and brings great expertise to this House. However, I profoundly disagree with his conclusions. At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned a number of things that we agree on, and it is important to highlight those. I will answer his specific questions in a moment, but the underlying problem of his position is this. He supports the two-state solution with great vigour; he believes in the two-state solution; he sees the two-state solution being destroyed before our eyes; and I am afraid his prescription is to do nothing about it. There is a choice that we face in this. Do we stand by? Are we bystanders to the end of a long-established Government policy, and indeed the only hope for security and stability in the middle east, or do we act? We have chosen to act, and I think that the country—most of the country—will be with us, because we cannot simply stand by.
Let me now deal with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I say this with the greatest respect to him, but the voices that I listen to more than his on the Palestinian people are those of the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine’s ambassador to the UK. Both of them have been urging us to act, and have been urging us to act for a long time. I think that this is a profound point: their voices are incredibly important in this debate.
I utterly reject the idea that we want to make Israel a pariah state. I could not have been clearer in my statement about our friendship with the Israeli people, and indeed our wish to have trade with Green Line Israel, but, in a sense, we have to take a view about the occupation. If the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no. The right hon. Gentleman apparently says yes, which I think is a mistake.
Is this a coherent policy? Absolutely. As I said, it will take six to nine months to come into place, and we will have discussions with Members of the House and others, but it is a SAMLA—Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—based sanctions regime. There are sanctions regimes involving a number of other countries. Will it be geographic? It will be in relation to the import ban. It will be focused on the settlements in the occupied territories, and we will absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we should act with others. We have assembled a very wide international coalition precisely to act with others. As for community cohesion, it is incredibly important, but the point—the absolute core—is that surely we must all accept what I said in my statement. We can disagree with the Government of Israel. We can take action with the Government of Israel, and at the same time be absolutely steadfast in protecting Jews across Britain and across the world. We cannot let these debates be confused. I am confident about our intelligence and security partnerships, which I talked about in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about medical supplies, and so on; they will absolutely be protected.
Let me finally say—to all Members—that one fact that has been most apparent to me in my seven weeks or so in this job is that Britain is a highly respected partner across the world. Britain has influence. Britain has reach. We cannot take the view of Britain that we are powerless in the face of injustice, and today we say that we are not powerless; we can act.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
At last! I am so very happy to see a British Government—a Labour British Government—finally doing the right thing and taking a strong stance against the illegal building of settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine, no longer a bystander wringing their hands. The Foreign Affairs Committee called for this unanimously over a year ago. As I look around the Chamber, I see so many people who have spent years campaigning, and there are many more outside the House. We are all smiling today. Britain has an absolute obligation to take a strong, clear stance on this issue, as a country that played such a pivotal role in the establishment of Israel during our mandate but has frankly failed in the protection of the interests of the Palestinians.
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on taking such a brave stance, and on his powerful and moving statement. I am so proud that this has finally happened; but could Ministers and officials meet my Committee and me, and some of our officials, to discuss whether we can implement these sanctions as quickly as possible?
Ed Miliband
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her words, and I pay tribute to her. Let me also do what I should have done in my statement, and pay tribute to Members in all parts of the House who have been advocates of this issue—I see them behind me, and opposite me as well—and to the people outside the House whose voices have been heard in this debate. My right hon. Friend and I have had good discussions about these questions, and I look forward to working with her and her Committee on matters including the speedy implementation of the plans that I have announced.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also thank him for sharing the painful history of his family. I know that that will echo with many Jewish families in the UK, including those in my constituency.
Let me strongly associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s clear statement that robustly challenging the illegal actions of this extremist Israeli Government is compatible both with staunch support for the rights of the states of Israel and Palestine to exist and with resolute support for the rights of British Jews to live free from the scourge of anti-Jewish hatred. For years, Liberal Democrats called for the proscription of the IRGC. We will work across the House to support the rights, freedoms and security of the British Jewish community.
The recent scenes from Palestine should horrify every Member of this House—the abhorrent violence against Palestinians; families, awoken by soldiers breaking down the doors of their homes, evicted; the accelerated annexation of the west bank, spurred on by the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich; attempts to destroy the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state through E1 settlement construction; and the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The two-state solution is being fatally threatened. That is why today’s announcement is greatly welcomed from these Benches, but is also long overdue. Liberal Democrats have called for a trade ban for years, and have asked the Government to declare Israel’s occupation in Palestine unlawful. It is also right that the Government have included services in this ban, with those financing or facilitating settlements now facing legal consequences.
The Foreign Secretary has billed today’s announcement as a reset in our relationship with Israel. This requires a vision for that future relationship. We want a relationship with Israel based on shared liberal values, but that requires the Israeli Government to recognise their obligations under international law, and not ride roughshod over them. The Foreign Secretary supports the role of the International Court of Justice in the determination of war crimes and genocide. Will he explain how the Government are providing resources to allow the ICJ to complete its work in reaching a judgment? I also welcome the clear statement, long overdue, that the Government accept the ICJ’s 2024 opinion that the occupation is unlawful. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the Government’s assessment of the duties that this creates for the UK?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s candour about the fact that the Government have previously failed to do enough. Today’s measures cannot simply be symbolic; they must be robust, enforceable and sustained for as long as necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us in more detail how enforcement measures would be implemented in response to any violation of these bans? He says that the ban on arms exports will endure as long as the illegal occupation. Will he confirm that that will apply to all arms exports, including F-35 parts? Will he spell out more clearly what he means when he says that the existing global human rights regime will be extended?
Parties on both sides of the House have been united in our support—with international partners—for a two-state solution. It is this outcome that will bring peace, security and stability to the Palestinian and Israeli people. As we approach an autumn of elections in Israel and Palestine, so critical to the future prospects for peace and justice, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will insist that the Palestinian Authority hold to the timetable for elections in November, and that they will be free, fair and open to all parties? Before the elections, will he work with international partners to ensure the disarmament of Hamas? Will he also commit himself to conveying clearly and with no ambiguity to the Government of Israel that the UK will stand up against breaches of international law, and that there will be consequences when they occur?
This extremist Israeli Cabinet has repeatedly acted to erase the prospects of a viable state in Palestine. In doing so, it has furthered a pattern of violence and destruction. Today must be the day that the UK says, “Enough is enough.”
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures we are announcing today, and I recognise his advocacy on this issue over a sustained period. Let me deal with his questions in turn.
We fully support the work of the ICJ, including in the so-called South Africa case. We have previously submitted to the Court on the question of Myanmar, which I think will help inform some of its deliberations, and we look forward to the ICJ continuing its work.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the ruling of unlawfulness. That is where we have taken a view as a Government that the occupation is unlawful. We concur with the conclusions of the ICJ. It is a matter of principle what we then do across our economic relationships, and today I have announced the measures that we are taking.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of arms, and I talked in my statement about the double lock. I want to take on his point on the F-35s. To be clear with the House, we stopped providing direct parts to Israel’s F-35 programme in October 2024, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) when he was Foreign Secretary. The only provision we make now is indirectly to the global supply programme. I am afraid that those who say we should stop supplying parts to the global supply chain are actually advocating the downing of the whole programme, which is crucial to our NATO and other allies. I want to be clear about that.
Obviously, our ruling on legality is an important one. We will continue to keep all our responsibilities under review, including in relation to the F-35 programme, but I wanted to set that out for the hon. Gentleman.
We are extending the global human rights regime to international law. We think this will be another important tool that we have to take action, because the sanctions regime did not previously apply to breaches of international humanitarian law. As we set about our sanctions regime for settlements in the occupied territories, this will give us a faster tool to act, and I am very happy for us have discussions about that.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must provide support for reform of the Palestinian Authority, that Hamas must disarm and cannot be part of a future Government in Gaza as part of the 20-point plan and, let us be frank, that we need to accelerate the implementation of the 20-point plan. There was some hope when the 20-point plan was produced but, frankly, the situation in Gaza is unspeakable, and the plan is not being implemented as it should be.
I end by saying to the hon. Gentleman and Members of all parties that I want to work with people across the House who have worked on this issue over a long period, so that we get the legislation right and get our action right. As much as is possible, I think we can be united on this.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome this well-rounded statement from the Foreign Secretary, and put on record my thanks to the new Prime Minister for the hard yards that I know he has put in over recent days and weeks.
It is not enough to recognise the state of Palestine and then stand idly by while illegal settlers destroy the Palestinian state and the Palestinian economy. I have to correct the shadow Foreign Secretary: he did not give an accurate representation of the correspondence between Ministers and my Committee. But when Ministers came before us on 15 July, they did tell us that they lacked the legal power to fully implement the proposals that the Foreign Secretary has made today. Can he confirm to the House that he is taking on new legal powers in order to implement the full ban that he is proposing on goods, services and investment? That is what is needed to give the measures full effect, full force and real teeth, and we know that nothing less will do.
Ed Miliband
I thank my right hon. Friend for his great advocacy and for our conversations on this issue. I can confirm that there will be a new sanctions regime that covers settlements in the occupied territories, under the SAMLA regime. That is what will give us the powers to take action on both goods and services, and he is right to say that action on both is necessary if we are to have an effect. I come back to the point that this is partly about what goods we should accept in this country, but truthfully, our trade with the settlements in the occupied territories is relatively small when it comes to goods. I believe that we can make a real difference to settlement expansion through the action on services, and we will be working to make sure that happens.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Those of us who love the Jewish people and faith know that the reason why they have overcome all the empires that have tried to destroy them is that they are primarily people of the book and not the sword, but what is happening in the west bank is violent and egregious. It is worse than stopping the two-state solution; it is ethnic cleansing.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Israeli Government could quite easily differentiate between general trade and trade to these illegal settlements? Does he agree that there is no reason, when our country fully supports the right of Israel to defend itself, why this should affect our intelligence relationship? As the longest serving member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, I am proud to say that I absolutely and fully support what he is doing today, because it is about standing up for freedom, for morality and for justice for all people in this world.
Ed Miliband
I thank the Father of the House for his words. I read his extremely eloquent contribution to the Back-Bench debate on these questions that took place in July, and I was incredibly moved by his words in that debate. He is absolutely right in the way that he talks about these issues. He is absolutely right to say that he and I consider ourselves deep friends of Israel. That is absolutely consistent with and, I would argue, necessary for what we are doing today, because there can be no security for the people of Israel without a two-state solution. The actions of its Government over the past few years has not made Israel more secure; they have made it less secure, and that should trouble all friends of Israel across this country and across the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I appreciate how important this statement is, but questions must be short. Foreign Secretary, please keep your answers short too.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome the entirety of this statement, particularly the acceptance of the ICJ advisory recommendation that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. The ICJ recommendation is broad and damning. It is not just about settlements; it is about taking Palestinian natural resources, forced transfer, taking Palestinian land, taking their goods and taking their businesses. It is also about stopping Palestinian trade and the free movement of people, and about imposing Israeli laws on the Palestinian people.
Has the Foreign Secretary given any consideration to moving a motion at the UN Security Council to protect Palestinian rights? Is he doing anything to support the Palestinian Authority to be able to govern effectively? Is he doing more to urge Israeli politicians and the Israeli Government to enable journalists and politicians to enter Gaza, so that we can see for ourselves exactly what is going on?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend has played an incredibly important role in the advocacy on these issues, including through the International Development Committee, and I take all her points on board. One of the things that we will seek to do through events that will take place at the United Nations—not just the conference we are holding with Jordan, but other events that we will be announcing shortly—is precisely to try to get at these issues. The situation in Gaza is so urgent and so desperate that we must do everything we can to act.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this action is unlikely to affect the policy of the Netanyahu Government? As I hardly need to remind him, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Has he reason to believe that this action might affect the policy of the Israeli Opposition, and did he have any contact with the Israeli Opposition parties before coming to that conclusion?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely; we talk with all partners in Israel. I do not want to in any sense interfere in that election. The election is for the Israeli people to make their own decisions about their future. I have set out the policy of the British Government, and I have made it clear that our quarrel is not with the Israeli people, but with the policies of the Netanyahu Government. I said something in my statement that I would just highlight to the right hon. Member, which is that we will assess the actions of any Israeli Government in the future whether on Gaza or the west bank.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I place on record my support for the Foreign Secretary for taking this strong stance today. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, “At last!” Finally, we can breathe, but we still cannot breathe like the Palestinians deserve to be able to breathe while they are still being occupied, and it is so welcome that our Government have taken this position. The situation needed Britain to lead, and today Britain has led. I am equally proud of our Government for taking this stance. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain needs to continue to show this leadership to ensure that the two-state solution happens and that the Palestinians are free of occupation?
Ed Miliband
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I again praise her for her work on this issue. I am grateful for the kind words about my statement, but I feel a deep sense of humility when compared, for example, with people I have met such as the doctor—a British paediatrician—who was going to Gaza to try to help children and people who are sick. There are so many people in our country who have not only campaigned on this issue, but actually gone there and tried to make a difference, and I think we should recognise them today.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Many of my Jewish constituents have very grave concerns about the conduct of the current Israeli Government. However, Israel is the Jewish homeland, and I think many of them are concerned about the content of the statement, the highly political tone of the briefing around it and its timing before Israelis themselves can decide in an election—a democratic election. In all of that, the message they are getting is that the current Government no longer regard Israel as a friend, and that heaps pressure on an already beleaguered Jewish population. What does the Foreign Secretary say to my constituents, many of whom are simply giving up on this country?
Ed Miliband
I do not agree with the right hon. Member. I respect his point of view. I think we have to distinguish in this debate, as I have said, between Jews in Britain and indeed across the world and the Israeli Government, but we also have to distinguish between the Israeli people and the Israeli Government. There is a whole diversity of opinion in Israel on these questions.
I just want to say on the election, because it was raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary as well, that I obviously listened to those people who said, “Let’s wait. Let’s wait even longer.” I do not believe we can wait. I believe the situation is too urgent. Look at E1, where the tender finishes before the election. If I can put it this way—I do this carefully—we cannot outsource our political and moral responsibilities to the Israeli Opposition. It is our responsibility to decide what we accept, what we consider legal and what we do.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I am supportive of further measures on sanctions against the current extremist regime in Israel, in concert with our international allies. As we approach the Jewish high holy days, however—and to protect the religious freedom of British Jews, who bear no responsibility for the actions of the Israeli Government—I would like some assurances from him that there is sufficient clarity on imports, particularly agricultural products such as etrogim, which are a feature of the festival of Sukkot, so that there are not unintended consequences of the implementation of today’s announcements as they take effect.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a really important question—I am glad she did—and I said in my statement that there will be suitable religious exemptions from the import ban. Some hon. Members may wonder why it takes six to nine months to bring this in. It is precisely because we want to get it right, and getting it right means a proper dialogue with the Jewish community.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I have to say that I shed a tear—not necessarily at the sanctions part of the statement, but the part where the Government said that the occupation is illegal. Ever since my election as the first British-Palestinian MP, I have stood up to ask that question in statements such as this—I do not speak for the people of Palestine; I speak here for the people of Oxford West and Abingdon, but I could only ever speak for myself—and, frankly, I felt gaslit every single time I could not get a straight answer, so for that I say thank you.
Now that Britain is standing tall on the world stage again—the United Nations was founded in Westminster in 1946, and we are applying international law without fear or favour again—how does the Foreign Secretary intend to work with Members across this House so that we can all play our part in ensuring that that institution and ours stand tall forever more?
Ed Miliband
If I may say so, I find the question the hon. Member asked and what she said incredibly moving, and I am very glad she asks that question. Let me say to her and Members across this House that I undertake to work together on these questions. I know that a lot of work has been going on before I became Foreign Secretary, including with Ministers, but I think there now is a real opportunity to work together across parties, and I say from this Dispatch Box that I will make sure that happens.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I know has the support of British Jewish organisations such as Yachad and Progressive Judaism. I was with the Father of the House when, in an incident he has talked about, gun-wielding settlers came to visit us while we were in the west bank, and they had British accents, which is distressing. The Secretary of State said in his statement that this is a “prelude to justice”. Will the Government consider looking at universal jurisdiction so that British citizens who are supporting the illegal occupation will face the full force of the law?
Ed Miliband
I think we have sent a clear message today about those involved—businesses and individuals—in settlement activity. I will look at the point my hon. Friend has raised and write to him.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
This is a sad day for the UK-Israel relationship, given the risks of what the Foreign Secretary is doing. Affecting the Israeli elections by making even moderate politicians even more hawkish is a huge risk. Equally, this is strengthening the Arabs’ view that suddenly they can actually destroy the state of Israel, and indeed giving a victory to the BDS movement, which will look at full sanctions. He will know that it is very difficult to differentiate between products and services on either side of the green line, and this runs the risk of a full boycott of Israeli goods. What assessment has he made of the impact of his proposal, and what discussions has he had with his opposite number in Israel?
Ed Miliband
There were a lot of questions there, but I really do utterly reject the premise of the hon. Member’s question, which is that this is somehow about the destruction of the state of Israel. Actually, my real fear is that the path the Israeli Government have embarked upon is undermining Israel’s security. I say to him very gently that it must be possible for us as a House, at the level of principle, to understand the difference between green-line Israel—within the 1967 borders—and the occupied territories. If we conclude that the settlements and the occupation are illegal, the right thing to do is to act.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
On behalf of all communities in Glasgow South West, I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their global leadership. That leadership means we call the atrocities in the west bank terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and that we continue to support the Gazans—with full fervour—with anything they require. On Gaza, he knows that many of my NHS colleagues have worked and served there, so may I ask him to continue to support them, and to provide medical aid not only by bringing children here, but by making sure there is better infrastructure closer to home?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for the conversations we had in the run-up to this statement. I make this open offer to people across the House: the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I will work with Members in the run-up to the work we will do at the UN General Assembly. We have an important opportunity at UNGA to try to make a difference with the situation in Gaza. I look forward to working with him and others across the House on that question.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his words? They were overdue, but they are welcome. More than 1.4 million people in Gaza are acutely food-insecure, yet the flow of essential goods faces significant restrictions, and Gaza is systematically denied the essential items it needs for long-term sustainability. People can buy an egg, but not a fertilised egg. They can bring in a potato, but not a potato tuber. What assessment have the Government made of whether the current interpretation of dual-use restrictions in Gaza is compatible with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises such an important point. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East was at the Al-Arish checkpoint, where he saw supposedly dual-use goods being blocked from going in. My answer is that the way that dual-use goods are being blocked is appalling. One’s only conclusion is that it is a strategy. It is deeply disturbing. I call on the Government of Israel to stop blocking the many entirely innocent dual-use goods that could make a difference to the people of Gaza.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for lifting the mood of the whole House. We are no longer bystanders wringing our hands; we are doing something active, and I thank him for that. I met Dr Nick Maynard this week. He is a surgeon in Gaza, and it is clear that the health professions have been deliberately targeted, with more than 2,000 killed. There is even a new word for it: healthicide. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and some doctors to discuss how we can prevent this happening?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that the number of aid workers and health workers killed in Gaza is appalling and dreadful. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East and I are happy to meet him and others—particularly in the run up to UNGA, but also beyond—because we need to try to make a difference.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I, too, applaud the Foreign Secretary for finally taking some assertive, confident steps to deter Israeli ambitions in the west bank, but I am perplexed as to why he is waiting nine months. The diggers may well have started in E1 by then. So, first, can he just explain in a little more detail why he is waiting so long? He has got a majority; let us get on with it.
Secondly, has the Foreign Secretary made it clear to the Israeli Government that if this deterrent does not work, he is willing to take further steps and this is not the end of the story?
Thirdly, I welcome his embrace, finally, of the strength of international law. Does he recognise that the security of Israel, Palestine and the United Kingdom stands in the impartial application of international law across the world? Will we see a pushback against American attacks upon the institutions that underpin international law?
Finally, as part of the accountability that he has talked about, can we please have a UK-led investigation into the murder of our own citizens who worked for the World Central Kitchen? The Israeli Government have declined to conduct a criminal investigation, and officers of the IDF who were involved in that operation have been out in the media boasting that they would do it again.
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on this issue. I will quickly clip through his questions, knowing the constraints on time, Madam Speaker. I agree with him on the World Central Kitchen. It is appalling that the investigation has been closed down. When one hears what happened in that incident, it makes one’s blood run cold, frankly. In the end, it amounted to a cold-blooded killing, in my view.
On international law in general, we need to uphold international law, and we say that to all our partners. On timing, let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I want to do this as quickly as possible. We have to get it right for some of the reasons that have been discussed in this House—whether that is religious exemptions or making sure that we do not hit green-line Israel—but we want to do it as quickly as possible. If we can do it quicker, we will. I look forward to cross-party discussions on these questions. The other thing I would say to him is that our extension of the global human rights sanctions for international humanitarian law breaches will allow us to act more quickly, including on some of the things that could be captured in goods and services action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Asking more than one question just denies other colleagues the opportunity to contribute.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary and the new Prime Minister have shown leadership and moral courage by introducing these sanctions. I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the International Criminal Court’s case on genocide in Gaza. What discussions will he have with allies to encourage more countries to support the ICJ’s judicial process to bring about justice for Palestine?
Ed Miliband
We are strong supporters of the ICJ and the work it does on this question and a whole range of others. To bring together his question and the question from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it is very important that we uphold the work of these courts.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
We genuinely welcome this statement. The Foreign Secretary has hinted at this, but let me be clear: it is somewhere between heartbreaking and criminal that it has taken three years and 70,000 Palestinian deaths for the UK Government to finally arrive at this position. Already, however, we are hearing that elements within the FCDO are briefing that these sanctions are largely symbolic. Will the Foreign Secretary utterly refute that? Will he confirm that these sanctions are not fixed and that there can and will be further action, should Israel press ahead with this illegal expansion programme?
Ed Miliband
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Prime Minister this Government recognised the state of Palestine. That was a major thing that we did. I praise my predecessors for that, and we also took action on arms licences. I do not completely accept the picture he gives. I do agree though, and the Prime Minister has said this, that we need to do more. That is what we have done today. I think the sanctions regime will make a substantive difference, and that is absolutely our intention. He is right that once we bring in the sanctions regime, we will, as always, keep its scope under review.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In July I led a debate on settlement expansion. I argued for international law to be respected and for the status quo to end. For far too long, we were told that a trade ban was too difficult—even impossible. For far too long, Palestinian lives have not carried the same weight as Israeli lives in British foreign policy. Palestinians deserve to have the exact same freedoms as Israelis. They deserve to live free from checkpoints, free from settler violence, free from occupation, and free from oppression. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his words, his action and, more importantly, the change of direction, and for showing that Britain can lead with a clear moral compass once again. Today is one of those rare moments when foreign policy can genuinely make a difference. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that international law can and must mean something once again? Will he confirm that the ICC arrest warrants still stand and that Britain will respect that policy?
Ed Miliband
I praise my hon. Friend for her work on this issue and for leading that debate. She is right that we are big supporters of the work of the ICC. More widely, she makes such an important point about upholding international law. It undermines our reputation globally when we fail to uphold international law. If we want to build strong alliances, we need to be consistent in our approach.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Can I welcome the moral, legal and ethical thread running through the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child? He is right to talk about consensus on the two-state solution. Where there is not consensus is on the timing of recognition of a Palestinian state. He will know that eight Members on the Opposition Benches joined the Saudis, the French and the British Government in recognising a Palestinian state last September. I am glad there is also consensus, including from our Front Bench today, that we want to protect the viability of a future two-state solution. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is action that is now required to reconcile those two positions, so that we have a viable state in the future?
Ed Miliband
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the conversation we had on this issue the other night when we ran into each other, which I found incredibly useful and important. He is absolutely right. We cannot stand by; we have to act. This is partly about our psychology as a country. We are not powerless—particularly when we work with others.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I stood in a farm in the west bank and saw all the olive trees burnt and all the families in the village turfed out at knifepoint, so I really welcome this statement and the step-up of action on the settlements. I welcome the action on the sanctions, on arms sales and on justice. Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate a bit more on the crucial demand that Israel releases the revenues—the tax paid by Palestinian people to Israel—that are being withheld and cannot be spent on schools, hospitals and rebuilding? Can he say a bit more about what he will be doing on that?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely. These are issues that we raise with our Israeli counterparts. There are so many crises in Palestine, but this is a terrible crisis, which perhaps does not get the attention it deserves. The withholding of money, in its own way, is threatening the viability of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian state. Yes, they need to keep reforming, but Israel needs to release the funds.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. When I visited the west bank in 2022 with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), we met Palestinians whose homes and schools had been demolished to make way for settlements. It was utterly heartbreaking. The measures announced today are very welcome, albeit overdue. Will he tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies such as JCB, which facilitate that destruction—
Munira Wilson
It finances some of our political parties in this country, but not the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not need any contributions from those I have not called to speak. I call Munira Wilson to finish her question—quickly, please.
Munira Wilson
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies that facilitate this destruction, given that we were told by a Trade Minister this time last year that there was guidance on gov.uk—that is all there was—and that such companies should be aware of the reputational risk?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I think she will know that as we design a sanctions regime, we do not comment on individual companies in advance, but I think my statement was very clear: we do not want to see the construction, financing and so on of settlement expansion. That is the way we will think about our sanctions regime.
Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the substance and the moral clarity of his statement today? Last weekend, Mike Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, condemned Israeli settler violence as terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share the widespread concern that the IDF, rather than taking action to arrest these terrorists, is all too often to be seen watching—or even facilitating, as has been widely reported—while Palestinians’ homes are attacked and their properties seized?
Ed Miliband
My right hon. Friend speaks with enormous distinction on these and many other issues, and I thank him for his contribution. He is right. I urge Members in all parts of the House to read the accounts of what is happening in the west bank and what is happening in relation to the settlers. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that members of the IDF are anything other than complicit in what is happening—episode after episode that has been documented of what is actually happening on the ground.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I join that long list of UK Ministers who have raised, at the very highest level in Israel, the most egregious practices in the west bank, designed specifically to prevent a two-state solution, only for Israeli policy to double down. Accordingly, I congratulate the Secretary of State.
Ed Miliband
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. His experience speaks to the frustration of Ministers on both sides of this House who have repeatedly tried to make a difference, pleading with Israeli Ministers to see what was going on and to act on it, and who have been rebuffed. That is what has led to today’s announcement.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I hope the whole House will join me in condemning the personal attacks and smears that the Foreign Secretary faced over the weekend. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for the strong stance they have taken. Does he agree that the acts of violence perpetrated by the settlers in the west bank must be called out for what they are: settler terrorism designed to forcibly remove Palestinian communities?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The world’s eyes have rightly been on the crisis in Gaza. The world’s eyes have to be on that crisis and also on the appalling settler terrorism we are seeing in the west bank. I talked about it in my statement, but the fact that a former Israeli Prime Minister described it as ethnic cleansing should give people—not just in this House, but in Israel—proper pause about what is actually happening.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is welcome that the UK is finally banning trade with illegal settlements in Palestine and it is right that we no longer condone economic tolerance for these settlements, which fly in the face of international law and the sovereignty of Palestine. But if the sanctions are to be truly more than symbolic, can the Secretary of State tell us how the ban will be enforced and how we will ensure that goods from illegal settlements are not simply re-labelled, or services concealed within contractual sleight of hand, to get round his proposals?
Ed Miliband
Like all our sanctions regimes, fines and action will be taken against companies that breach them. We are widely known across the world for the strength of our sanctions regime. It is really important to underline the point that, by using the SAMLA powers, these will be tough sanctions, and it will be absolutely clear that there will be penalties for breaching them.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Government’s new sanctions, which are the right and moral approach to the crimes we have been seeing and continue to see in the west bank. The Foreign Secretary will have seen the comments from Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir that, in response to the sanctions, Israel should recognise Argentina’s claims on the Falkland Islands. Will the Foreign Secretary now make it clear that such threats will not stop the UK upholding international law and the right of people to self-determination, whether that is in the Falkland Islands or in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Ed Miliband
Obviously, those comments are absurd and wrong. The Falkland Islands are British and will remain so because that is what the islanders want. Those comments show a complete lack of understanding and comprehension of the injustice and unlawfulness that is going on in relation to the occupied territories, because it is an occupation against the will of the people there. The Falkland Islands are British, as I say, because that is what the Falkland Islanders want.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Since the Foreign Secretary is not going to get the co-operation, fulsome or otherwise, of the Israeli state in differentiating goods and services made in the settlements from those that are assembled, repackaged, produced and grown in Israel itself, how is he going to distinguish the one from the other?
Ed Miliband
That will be the responsibility of British businesses and other businesses that want to import into this country. I want to underline this point. That is the point of the sanctions regime we are bringing in. Just to develop the point a bit more, it is likely to be based on the postcodes of where the settlements are. Companies will have to say that the goods they are bringing in do not come from those areas.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I support the Government’s complete opposition to the expansion of E1, and their opposition to the violent settlers who put the two-state solution genuinely at risk. I just want to press the Foreign Secretary further on his comments about BDS. What further specific details can he give this House that these measures will not be interpreted as support for that movement, or indeed—following on from questions from others—spill over into a de facto ban on other Israeli goods? We know that the BDS movement is supported by people who think that the Jewish people and the Jewish people alone have no right to self-determination.
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I also thank him for the conversations we have had in the run-up to the statement; they have been important. I will say a couple of things. We absolutely oppose the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel. This is about settlements in the occupied territories. In answer to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on why this will take six to nine months, it is precisely to get the regime right so that it does not affect or impinge on green-line Israel.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. On behalf of my constituents, I am asking him not to overlook the Palestinian healthcare workers, including Dr Abu Safiya, who are being held in Israeli prisons, and for him to work to secure their release.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises a very, very important case, and I am glad that she has done. I am happy to look at it and will endeavour to do everything I can to make a difference.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his incredibly moving and courageous statement. He has been a friend of Israelis and Palestinians. When he was Leader of the Opposition, he and the Labour party recognised Palestinian statehood, and I am proud of the fact that this Labour Government have recognised Palestinian statehood. We know that at least 17 companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements were found to hold 125 UK public sector contracts worth £2.1 billion, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that without sanctions, we will not be able to take the necessary action to protect a viable two-state solution and ensure that we see the day when we have a Palestinian state?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend has been an incredibly powerful advocate on the issue for a long period of time, and I welcome her words. She is absolutely right: I am afraid that inaction is simply abdicating our responsibilities for what we see happening before our eyes, and what has been eloquently described by Members on both sides of this House. That is why we have taken this action, which is designed to make a difference and help to save the two-state solution.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The middle east and north Africa contain multiple wars, protracted civil conflicts and severe humanitarian crises. Of the 193 UN member states, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary think explains the relentless focus—morning, noon and night—on the one Jewish state, a country covering just 0.01% of the world’s surface? Does he really think that all the antisemitic, Corbynista, activist crowd, and unintegrated, sectarian, immigrant groups, will again vote for his party if he panders to their unhealthy obsession?
Ed Miliband
I regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question, honestly. He needs to take a sober look at what has happened in relation to Israel and Palestine, and what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. From Members on his own side, as well as across the House, he has heard the huge injustices eloquently described. My view is that we need to be tackling injustice across the world, but we cannot ignore the centrality of Israel and Palestine—both our historic relationship with Israel and our responsibilities, and the suffering of the Palestinian people. Frankly, in terms of our geopolitical interests, we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. For all those reasons, it is right that we act.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This session has been conducted with good tone and temperament, and that is how it should continue.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
All of us want to see an end to violence in the west bank. The Government should challenge the Israeli Government, but also the Palestinian Authority. I find myself asking, “Will these sanctions bring peace any closer and how will they impact Britain?” Given that other anti-Israel measures have failed to have the impact that the Government seek, what difference does the Secretary of State think this new round will make? Given our deep trade relationships in areas like defence and health, as well as warnings about possible conflict with US policy, is there not a risk that British interests could be harmed as a result of this announcement?
Ed Miliband
I think the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no. I want to correct him on one thing: these are not anti-Israel policies. This is about the occupied territories, which we as a Government, along with the ICJ, have found were unlawfully occupied—it is really important to say that. Once we decide that it is an unlawful occupation, I do believe that, as a matter of principle and morality, then other things follow about the economic relationships that we choose to have.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the statement and thank the Foreign Secretary for taking this step. Yes, it has been far too long coming, and, yes, there is much more to do, but this is a significant statement, both in terms of recognition—the reality of the unlawfulness of the occupation—and in following through, with a promise to take action to ban trade with settlements. However, does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that, in the context of now years of genocide in Gaza—ever-accelerating ethnic cleansing in the west bank, as he has pointed out himself—waiting another six to nine months to implement these sanctions is still too long? We must speed up.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Member for her kind words, and for her kind words behind the Chamber as we were coming in; they meant a lot to me. I want to do this as quickly as possible. Six to nine months is what I said in the statement, but if we can do it quicker, we will. We want to get this step right, because it is important that it actually makes a difference. It is also important to say—because it is, in a sense, the thing that will have got less attention today—that our extension of the global human rights regime to international humanitarian law violations will also help us to take action even more swiftly.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, and also for the light he has continued to shine on Gaza. He talked about the students we have brought across, many of whom I have met—they are bright and intelligent, and any country would be proud to have them as part of its future. For there to be a future, children need to have a future. The Foreign Secretary talked about the appalling death toll of children, but there are also tens of thousands of unaccompanied children in Gaza in desperate need, particularly since the collapse of the medical system. Will he tell us what more we can do to give those children protection and medical aid, so that they have the future they deserve?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for the conversation we had earlier. He raises such an important issue about the healthcare crisis in Gaza. The answer is that we want to do as much as we can as a country, and as much as we can working with others. I spoke to the Jordanian Foreign Minister on Sunday about an event that we are going to hold at the UN General Assembly, and one of the things that we both agreed on was that we want to move things forward and make a difference. I absolutely promise my hon. Friend that that is what we will endeavour to do.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
Will the Foreign Secretary recognise that the hundreds of thousands of us who have marched and met in support of the Palestinian people, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, have done so out of a motivation to bring about justice and peace for the people of Palestine? Will he specifically call on Israel to withdraw in totality from Gaza—not just the 70% it occupies now, but the remaining part that it is bombarding? If military sanctions are to mean anything, surely that must include an end to the sharing of surveillance information by the RAF overflying Gaza, the use of RAF Akrotiri and Israel’s ability to manufacture weapons at Elbit Systems factories in this country. If we are serious about ending a military occupation, then we have to play a full part in achieving it.
Ed Miliband
I want to see Israel withdraw from Gaza and I want to see Hamas disarm. That is the whole point of the 20-point plan—I agree with the right hon. Member on that. Campaigners on the issue have played an important role. The way in which young people and people across the country—not just in Britain but across the world—have been mobilised on this issue should tell all of us in this House something about the deep sense of injustice that people feel about what has unfolded. On the right hon. Member’s point about intelligence—I want to be careful on this—we are not, in any sense, helping with the occupation, but we have important and valued intelligence and security relationships with Israel.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I oppose the E1 settlement plan and welcome this Government’s action against extremist settler violence. My constituent Ruth Jacobs and others have raised with me that, with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur approaching, British Jews are facing an elevated threat, so what steps have the Government taken to ensure that these measures do not contribute to further antisemitism or undermine the security and confidence of Jewish communities in Birmingham Edgbaston and across the UK?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I talked about in my statement, through investment we have made a difference to the security of Jewish people across Britain. In a sense, we all have a responsibility on this issue, not just as politicians but as a society. I re-emphasise what I said in my statement, because it is so important: no British Jew should be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government. All of us—I really urge this of all Members—have a responsibility to transmit that message to the public, because whether through a combination of prejudice or ignorance, I am afraid that people often do not understand that lesson, and it leads to terrible antisemitism.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I also welcome not just the substance of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks today, but the tone, responsibility and commitment to a two-state solution. I know that that welcome will be reflected in my constituency among people of all faiths and none who have been profoundly affected both by what they have seen in the middle east over the past few years and by the tension they have felt rising in this country, which we have to address. What steps will the Foreign Secretary take to allow UK banks and corporate institutions to audit their own customer base to ensure that the supply chains are being dealt with properly?
Ed Miliband
We will look at all these issues as part of our sanctions regime. It is important to protect trade with green-line Israel and financial services within it as well, and that is why we want to be careful with this sanctions regime.
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s remarks, I thank her for what she said. I do feel a sense of humility. If I could just add this, Madam Deputy Speaker: as some in this House will know, my late mother, who died a few months ago, was a big campaigner on these issues, and I have thought quite a lot in this process about what she might be saying on these issues.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
May I say how proud I am to sit behind a Foreign Secretary with the courage to take this action? I thank the Prime Minister for showing leadership on this matter as well. Let us be clear what this is about: Israel’s occupation of the west bank and Gaza is illegal under international law. Israel has moved more than 700,000 settlers on to Palestinian land and forced half a million Palestinians from their homes, while the new planned E1 settlement will, according to Israel’s own Ministers, “bury” a two-state solution. These sanctions target trade from illegal settlements, not Israel and not Jewish people, and anyone who says otherwise is being deliberately misleading. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that no amount of pressure from Washington or Tel Aviv would cause the Government to retreat from doing this?
Ed Miliband
I have set out our plans today; this is what we are going to do. My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these questions. We have to decide what is in our national interest and what is the right thing for Britain, based on our values.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We all deplore settler violence, but the simple reality is that these sanctions are a grave mistake. Does the Foreign Secretary understand that so many people are concerned that all they will do is embolden the scourge of antisemitism against British Jews on British streets, endanger our relationship with the United States and our security, and lead to tit-for-tat sanctions from the Israeli Government?
Ed Miliband
If I may say so, I do not think that is a very responsible way of talking about these issues. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to disagree with our actions, as I think the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) did, but I do not think he should be talking in this way. I could not have been clearer in my statement that no British Jew is responsible for the policies of the Israeli Government, and it behoves us all, whichever side of this debate we are on, to ensure that there can be no confusion about that question. I am afraid his question fell afoul of that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on not just the content, but the tone of his delivery. He has elevated the status of not just this Parliament and this Government, but this country, by ensuring that everybody—all states and all individuals—are seen as equal before the law and in terms of human rights. I specifically agree with him that we must all play our part to protect our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours and ensure that they do not see this as collective punishment. Could he give details of the next steps around the SAMLA statutory instrument?
Ed Miliband
I will answer briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will get on with the process now of making the statutory instrument happen.
I just want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s earlier point. On the day the new Prime Minister was sworn in, I happened to meet a young man—he was 17 or so—who had been at school in the UK, and he spoke to me about the antisemitism he had faced since the age of 11 at his secondary school. All of us in this House need to take so seriously the everyday experiences of British Jews, which sees antisemitism not just in schools but elsewhere. We all have a responsibility to tackle that.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Apart from the Netanyahu fan club on the Tory Front Bench—in spite of the change of guard there—and the latecomer on the Bench behind me, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), the vast majority of people in this Chamber strongly support the Foreign Secretary in this statement today. Indeed, I warmly welcome his remarks about the need for a proper investigation into what he described as the appalling and unlawful killing of those serving in the World Central Kitchen, including Cornishman Jim Henderson. Could he say more about what sanctions he will impose on British banks and citizens who are complicit in what is going on in the west bank?
Ed Miliband
As I said earlier, when we impose sanctions on specific companies or entities, we do not say who they are in advance. However, I do not think I could have been clearer about the intent here; as I said in my statement, we do not want British companies being involved in the financing, construction or infrastructure of settlement expansion. That will be the purpose of the regime when it comes to services, and that is what we will make happen.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
While I recognise this was not the main part of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I thank him for raising the plight of British Jewish children who are fearful going to school. As he will know, a lot of British Jewish children live in my constituency, and their safety is my main priority.
On the subject of children, a recent report showed that 40% of displaced children in Palestine lose complete access to education. The Foreign Secretary has outlined a host of policies and legislation in his statement today; has he given any thought to how he would help these displaced children to ensure that they do not lose access to schooling?
Finally, if you would indulge me for one second, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to say that my right hon. Friend’s mother, Marion, who lobbied me endlessly when I was a local councillor, would be very proud of him.
Ed Miliband
Well, that was worth my hon. Friend getting some extra time—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend raises a really important issue around education, and an important issue around the safety of Jewish children going to school in the UK. We will take forward both of those issues.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
This Government still describe Israel, an apartheid state committing genocide in Gaza, as a strategically important partner. They announce a partial arms sales ban while continuing to provide intelligence and F-35 fighter jet components via the international pool. Whether directly or indirectly, arming a genocide is still arming a genocide. They announce a settlement ban as a dead cat, hoping to distract us from wider UK complicity. The Foreign Secretary could impose full economic and diplomatic sanctions on Israel, but he refuses. He could end all arms sales and intelligence co-operation, but he refuses. He could call this what it is—a genocide—but he refuses. I will ask him directly: how many more Palestinian men, women and children must be killed by Union Jack weapons before this Government finally stop arming Israel completely?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady’s statement is a complete travesty. This Government are taking action. We are taking action on goods and on services, and we have banned arms licences for the IDF in Gaza. We have taken action across the board. We have declared the occupation unlawful. Her statement might have been designed for TikTok, but it really does not become her.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear-sighted commitment not only to talk about a two-state solution, but to actually try to act to achieve it, as the only foundation of a safe Israel and a free Palestine. I also thank him for his clarity that international law matters and on who it is who is putting the two-state solution at risk: the current Israeli Government.
It is good to see the Foreign Secretary working across the world on this. We can see that we have partners in this mission, but we know that there are also those who would oppose what he is seeking to do. Sadly, we have already heard talk that there will be retaliation, particularly from Israel and America, if the ban goes ahead. Could he reassure the House that we will not acquiesce and bend to such pressure, and that the only action that could ever be acceptable to us to make us contemplate reversing this ban would be a halt on the E1 development and a permanent end to settler violence?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on these issues, and she is absolutely right. We are going to act in our national interest on the basis of our values. That is not just our right but our duty as a country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I join the thanks to the Government for these actions, but am deeply concerned about the fear that the shadow Foreign Secretary’s comments may have caused. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that this is action against the settlements; he confirmed the continued trade within green-line Israel. Will he assure our constituents that life-saving drugs made in Israel—mainly around the Tel Aviv central area and not in illegal settlements—are not at threat, and that the supply chains for medications will not be affected by this very welcome action?
Ed Miliband
I am glad that the hon. Lady asked that question. She is absolutely right, and I can answer with an emphatic yes.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Two months ago, our new Prime Minister admitted that the UK needed to do better. Today, the Foreign Secretary has shown us how things get done, by working together with our allies to declare a ban on trade with illegal settlements and declaring the occupation unlawful. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and I were denied entry to the west bank for our advocacy in this House. The Foreign Secretary has already withstood threats and intimidation as a result of his bold, principled stand. Will he continue to do so with the moral courage he has shown us?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is absolutely right about the question of access. Across the board, politicians and others are being denied access to see what is going on for themselves. That should make one extremely sceptical and fearful, frankly, of what is happening on the ground.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary has said that his concern is for the behaviour of some settlers on the west bank, and I think we all share that, but does he accept that the fear of losing votes to the Green party and the independent Members on the Bench behind me is also a major reason why he is politically and economically punishing one of our allies, which supplies us with important intelligence information? Does he also accept that this will punish Palestinians, eventually lead to a total boycott in order to be effective, and lead to economically damaging retaliation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will have to cut people off if they continue asking long questions, and that will ruin their social media shots if that is what they are here for. There are far too many people still wishing to contribute. You are only going to disappoint your own colleagues. Keep your questions short. I call the Foreign Secretary.
Ed Miliband
I do not accept any of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have known him a long time, so I say this to him: how dare he try to speak for the Palestinian people instead of the Palestinian Prime Minister or the Palestinian ambassador in the UK? Why does he not meet the Palestinian ambassador in the UK and hear from him?
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary started by talking about our shared history of visiting our grandmothers in Israel. It gives him a clarity and authority on these matters that few else in the Chamber have. We would not accept goods from Russian-occupied Ukraine or Chinese-occupied Tibet, so why would we accept goods from Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory? I still have many Gazan students wishing to come to Leeds University, as do other colleagues to other universities, and not being able to get their visas. Can we look at a visa-lite or visa-free regime for those Gazan students?
Ed Miliband
We will keep looking at what we can do for students and others from Gaza. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. He makes a fundamental point: the ICJ has made its statement on legality, and we have taken a view on legality. People can accept that or not, but if we accept it, how can we possibly defend a continued and unchanged economic relationships with the occupied territories?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his eloquent and moving statement giving his perspective as a British Jew in this awful situation. Settlers have been deliberately killing Palestinian men, women and children. They have also been killing and stealing their livestock and preventing them from grazing in pastoral areas. For pastoral communities, this is absolutely devastating, and it is simply another mechanism of forced displacement. Will the Foreign Secretary consider sanctioning the Israeli Ministers who are encouraging and endorsing such violence?
Ed Miliband
We have already sanctioned two Israeli Ministers who did that, but we always keep our sanctions regime under review. The hon. Gentleman makes a profoundly important point about the everyday intimidation that Palestinians on the west bank face—not just this year or under this Government but under previous Governments. It has been an endless amount of intimidation, and I saw it and heard from people about it in 2014 when I was there. Frankly, it is totally indefensible.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, both its content and its tone. I would like to ask about his discussions with our colleagues and allies in other countries who are looking to implement similar sanctions. The Netherlands Government announced their intention to reimpose sanctions in July and will implement them on 22 September. Will my right hon. Friend ask them why that has only taken them two months, when we are going to take eight to nine months?
Ed Miliband
I think they have a slightly different regime, but I am in touch with my Dutch colleague and will definitely ask him if we can do it more quickly.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Egyptian-American author Omar El Akkad said:
“One day, when it is safe, when there is no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it is too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.”
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and many of my constituents will thank him. It is late—70,000 Gazans dead, late—but it is not too late to hold those perpetrating war crimes to account. What will he do to hold the war criminals to account?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I believe in accountability for war crimes. That is what the international courts are for.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
These sanctions on Israel for its illegal occupation are incredibly welcome as a step towards meeting our moral and legal obligations. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to resist pressure from those who say that he should not make international law apply to Israel? May I urge him to push forward and demand the full implementation of the ICJ ruling so that the Palestinian people can have justice?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend has campaigned on these issues for a long time. He is absolutely right about the importance of both accountability and international law. We will be guided by it.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Before the recess, a group of schoolchildren from my constituency handed in a petition to No. 10 as part of their “Courageous Advocacy” project. They wanted children in Palestine to have the same right to education as they do. Will the Foreign Secretary respond to their petition now and say what steps he is taking to ensure that their words are heard?
Ed Miliband
We want to do everything we can to help Palestinian children in Gaza and the west bank. The best thing we can do is get a two-state solution without the intimidation, threats, death and destruction that so many Palestinian children have faced. I take this opportunity to congratulate the children at the school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on being moved by this issue and advocating on it.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the long-awaited announcement, but may I press him on the UK’s existing intelligence and security partnership with Israel? Given that experts have said that RAF spy planes over Gaza and Lebanon this year have provided visuals and intelligence to the Israeli military shortly before massive air strikes, can he confirm whether the UK Government are assessing the UK’s legal position regarding the 2020 UK-Israel military co-operation agreement? I have asked his Department many times and have not had an answer.
Ed Miliband
We do not comment on intelligence and security matters, but I can honestly assure my hon. Friend that we are not involved in the occupation or actions in Gaza and the west bank. That is not the nature of our intelligence and security co-operation with Israel.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
May I join many hon. Members across the House in thanking the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for the statement and this vital change in Government policy? However, many will ask why this action has taken so long, since the ICJ advisory opinion was issued in July 2024 and ethnic cleansing and genocide have continued both in the west bank and Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why it has taken the Labour Government so long to act? Will they now fully comply with their obligations under the ICJ advisory opinion? Will they conduct a review of British policy of non-compliance with international law in Israel?
Ed Miliband
I say bluntly to the hon. Member that we should have acted earlier. It has taken the new Prime Minister to come in and recognise the gravity of the situation and the degree of public concern on these questions. We concur with the ICJ’s conclusions on the unlawfulness of the occupation and we will ensure that we abide by what that implies.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his strong statement and extend to him the gratitude of my constituents who have already been in touch with me. I have spoken before in this place about the villagers of Jayyous in the west bank who have been living under constant intimidation and fear, with farmers unable to harvest their crops and children unable to get to school. Does he agree that the statement sends an important message to the people of Jayyous and those across Palestine that they are not alone and that their calls for solidarity and the rule of law to be upheld have been heard?
Ed Miliband
I feel moved by what my hon. Friend has asked. I really thank her for the work that she has been doing. As I thought long and hard about the statement and some of the words I used—one has to weigh one’s words carefully—I thought precisely that those people who are under, for example, settler terrorism and the attempts at ethnic cleansing deserve at least the truth to be told about what they are facing. So, absolutely, this is in part an expression of solidarity with the people my hon. Friend talks about.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and its tone, and especially the fact that he referred clearly to ethnic cleansing and an illegal occupation. We have to stop the E1 settlement, which is a red line for the two-state solution, so I welcome these sanctions. Although we had been told for a long time that they were not possible, it is really good to see them today.
On the sanctions, there will be Israeli companies exporting from the green-line area and occupied territories; we will be relying on their honesty to declare that. Likewise, military hardware made in the UK might go to green-line Israel, but it might be deployed in the occupied territories. Will he explain how he can guarantee that the sanctions will work?
Ed Miliband
Let me deal with those two issues. First, one thing that I said in my statement was that the declaration on the occupation means we will now look at all arms licences to see whether they materially contribute to the occupation; if they do, they will not be allowed. Secondly, part of the point of a sanctions regime is proper enforcement, and we will do that.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My father served in Gaza from 1945 to 1947, and the position was the same then: this country had failed to discharge its responsibilities to the people of Palestine. But I commend the Foreign Secretary for his statement and the courage and clarity of both him and the Prime Minister in making it. It is broadly welcomed, and massively welcomed by the Palestinian people and those who stand up for them. May I ask him to move with all pace on the regulations that he will introduce? Since the Government now acknowledge that the occupation is illegal, surely the already granted licences for arms used in the occupation should be suspended.
Ed Miliband
I can assure my hon. Friend on his last point: all licences that materially contribute to the occupation will not be allowed. That is why we now have a double lock in relation not only to Gaza but to the occupation. On the speed of action, we want to move as speedily as we can with these measures.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I was elected to the House not just because people saw injustice or hypocrisy from the previous Labour leadership but because this topic became a litmus test of credibility, integrity and morality for the British people, who could see what was taking place in Gaza and in the west bank. I saw the attacks on the Foreign Secretary, who was referred to as a “Jew hater” when he came out with this proposal, and the disgusting comments by the American ambassador, labelling him often as antisemitic for talking about justice and the rights of Palestinians. Will he work with colleagues on this side of the House so that we can forge stronger relationships between British Muslims and British Jews, preventing those actors and agitators—even in this House—who want to sow division in our communities?
Ed Miliband
I undertake to work with Members across the House on these questions; more unites us than divides us on them, and we do need to act. I say to the hon. Member and others in the House that part of acting is upholding Israel’s right to exist and its security, which includes opposing BDS, because part of being faithful to a two-state solution is upholding the rights of the Palestinian people and the Israeli people.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the statement condemning the E1 settlement project in the west bank and the sanctions. With that in mind, we must think of the Palestinians who are directly impacted and prevented from accessing basic health care; ambulances are being stopped from taking acutely unwell patients to hospital and 20,000 children have died. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with international partners to ensure that the aggressive Israeli settlements do not prevent Palestinians from accessing healthcare?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right: this is a heartbreaking emergency both in the west bank and in Gaza. Part of the advocacy and the work we now want to do, including at UNGA, is about moving forward on those questions and making a difference both in Gaza and in the west bank.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the general shift in mood in the House. However, given that Israel as a whole—not just the illegal settlements—is on trial for genocide, should the Government not be taking all measures in their power to prevent complicity in genocide, including an immediate and comprehensive suspension of all arms transfers to Israel, an end to the sharing of all military intelligence, an end to all trade that materially supports the Israeli state or its war efforts, a reassessment of diplomatic ties and full compliance with the UK’s obligations under international law, including those as a state signatory to the genocide convention?
Ed Miliband
I will not answer every point that the hon. Member made. We have announced a comprehensive set of measures today. I say to him—I want to be careful in what I say—that it is very important that, as I said in my statement, our action against the occupied territories cannot be about the erasure of Israel. It is important that all of us in the House respect the role of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and protect its security as part of our commitment to a two-state solution.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I, too, welcome these measures. We must see the Palestinian people protected and clear progress towards a two-state solution. I am proud of the Government’s stance. However, I must speak on behalf of my Jewish constituents, who have continually talked to me about the rise in antisemitism. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that the Government will continue to work towards greater community cohesion in this country and ensure that all British Jews and all British Muslims are protected?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely; this must be a campaign for us all. It is about government, but truthfully it is also about us as a society—in fact, it is even more about us as a society, because the Government can do their bit, but it is about what each of us as individuals do to counter antisemitism.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his action today, demonstrating British leadership on a global stage; I hope he agrees that it is long overdue. Settlement expansion is a project driven by the Israeli state. Will he consider further action such as suspending the UK-Israel trade agreement?
Ed Miliband
We believe that trade with green-line Israel is important. We value it and we do not believe that it should be ended. It is so important in this House that we make the distinction between the occupied territories and green-line Israel.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I have been privileged to support Bedford Friends of Al-Walaja and to meet children who, despite the horror they have endured, are full of hopes and dreams for the future. Their village’s only school is now under threat of demolition by the Israeli authorities. I welcome the Government’s action to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements. What intervention can the Foreign Secretary make to protect Al-Walaja co-educational school in the west bank and uphold those children’s rights to education under international law?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, and I or the Minister for the Middle East will take that up.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s emphasis on international law, which is important in Gaza and the west bank, but also elsewhere. In Sudan, people who have committed atrocities involving babies and children at El Fasher’s hospital must also be held to account. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm our Government’s absolute commitment to the independence and proper resourcing of the international court?
Ed Miliband
Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary’s words and actions are strong, welcome and—I know my constituents would want me to say this—overdue. Does he agree that it is incumbent on all of us in this House and, to make my wider point, across the country to always be guided in the actions that we take by the need to do all that we can to achieve a two-state solution, which is the only way to bring a just and lasting peace to the lives of all Israeli and Palestinian citizens?
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am glad to see the ban on trade with illegal settlements, for which I and many others have called for a long time. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the safety of British Jews, who are being violently targeted by racists simply for being Jewish. Will he join me in urging the Israeli Government to pull back from their expansionist actions and instead work with us and the international community towards a safe and secure Israel alongside a free, democratic Palestine?
Ed Miliband
I totally share what my hon. Friend said about this or a future Israeli Government. We want them to draw back; we want them to change course.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, which will come as a welcome addition to the debate. I was proud when this Government took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. However, the very prospect of a single unified Palestinian state is, as we have heard, under enormous threat from the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank. Having visited that area with Members from across the House earlier this year, the sheer scale of the E1 settlement makes it clear that Israel is determined that there should be no possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that anyone—and I mean anyone—who believes in a just and lasting peace in the middle east must also oppose illegal settlement expansion and the violence that so often comes with it?
Ed Miliband
I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. She speaks very eloquently about this.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
May I commend the Foreign Secretary for making what I think is the most powerful, principled and important speech by any British Minister for many years on the issue of Palestine? The people of Derry understand well that it is in the moments of greatest despair that those who are committed to hope come to the fore. Will he continue to travel in hope, to hold together the coalition he has built and to do everything he possibly can to bring peace to the people of Palestine and Israel?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is just the beginning of what we must do in this endeavour, and there is so much more to do.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent, Jim Henderson, was killed in the World Central Kitchen attack on 1 April 2024. Two weeks ago, the Israeli authorities said there would be no further investigation. Our Government and the Canadian and Australian Governments condemn that decision. The commander who ordered the strike said he does not regret it. What more can we do to ensure there is accountability?
Ed Miliband
I send my deepest condolences to the family of my hon. Friend’s constituent. What happened was a horrifying event. Those were people trying to make a difference in a humanitarian way to the people of Gaza. I will endeavour to talk to her, along with the Minister for the Middle East, about whether we can do more on that issue and what that might be.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and the moral courage the Government are showing to sanction trade with the occupied territories and condemn expanding illegal settlements. The Israeli state will not listen to the UK alone, and collaboration with global partners gives the strongest leverage. Will he say some more about how he is acting alongside international colleagues to demonstrate co-ordinated opposition to illegal settlements and human rights atrocities and reinforce international support for the two-state solution?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the coalition of countries that we have, as well as our actions, that gives us hope that we can actually make a difference on this issue, both substantively in relation to sanctions and on all of the humanitarian issues that so many Members have raised.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Violence and intimidation carried out by settler extremists and the expansion of settlements mean that there cannot be a two-state solution. Yet illegal settlements and outposts targeting Palestinian civilians would not happen without the collusion of the Israeli army. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that he is making representations at the highest level to say that collusion with extremist settlers must stop?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely. I say this with some sorrow: it has been obvious that there has been collusion for a long time and the collusion has been allowed to continue. That is the view of former Israeli Prime Ministers and, frankly, former Israeli generals who have spoken out on the issue. I continue to urge the Government of Israel to deal with that.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
It is 29 years this week since I first visited Israel and the west bank, and I have been a supporter of peace ever since. May I start by putting on the record my tribute to all the victims, from all sides, who have suffered during this period, not least those who suffered at the hands of Hamas and the 20,000 children who have perished in Gaza?
Although self-defence is important, it is not a green light to ethnic cleansing or to illegal occupation. We need international law, as was set out by the Foreign Secretary. I welcome the statement and the fact that he is joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is a great campaigner on this issue. While international law is threatened by many actors around the world, what more can we do to support not just justice but the institutions of international justice?
Ed Miliband
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I say more widely that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) is right: we need to work with our international partners—at this time of all times—to uphold international law in Gaza, in the west bank and elsewhere.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am a strong supporter of the right of the state of Israel to exist in security and prosperity and of the state of Palestine to exist in security and prosperity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve that, it is essential that the very welcome measures he has outlined take place at pace? We can demonstrate that the state of Israel, under the current Israeli Government, does not get to determine the destiny of the west bank and, for that matter, Gaza.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say to Members of the House that while I am critical of the current Israeli Government, this occupation has become entrenched over a long period. We have to work to unwind it and find ways in which we can get back to a two-state solution, and we have to act urgently.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his moral leadership today. Since I came into this House, hundreds of Gloucester residents have told me that the Government could and should be doing more in the light of the atrocities in Gaza and the west bank. That is a point I have made in this House and to Ministers directly, and I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for acknowledging those concerns today and for going further. Does he agree that this shows that the Government are not just going to show warm words in the light of these atrocities, and that they are going to take action to uphold the values that we hold dear?
Ed Miliband
My hon. friend raises a really important point, which is that this issue has mobilised ordinary British people right across our country. It is really important to understand that. The immorality of what is happening has stirred the conscience of millions of people across our country, and it is right that we act.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Palestinians in the west bank have told the world of being held at gunpoint, of blockades, and of searchlights and lasers being shone into their homes and at their livestock. Given that the integrity of the E1 zone is essential for a two-state solution, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the international community should do whatever it can to prevent settler occupation, and that settlements constructed there should be dismantled as part of the peaceful future that we all want to see?
Ed Miliband
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. E1 crossed a long-standing red line for the international community, which is why we saw such an outpouring from our allies. He is absolutely right about the urgency of acting.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his statement and the manner in which it was delivered. I want to ask about international collaboration and how the allegations of war crimes can be addressed and compiled so that those responsible can eventually be brought to justice. I am thinking not only of the situation in Gaza and the west bank, but of the actions in southern Lebanon. Can the Foreign Secretary illuminate me on the plans to ensure that the allegations of the alleged crimes are properly compiled?
Ed Miliband
This is something that we work on with the courts, and the most important thing is upholding the role of both the ICC and the ICJ in these processes. They are incredibly important institutions, in the view of the British Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
In thanking him for his patience, I call Douglas McAllister.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
During the debate in this House on 9 July, I and other Members raised our concerns about charities working in the illegal Israeli settlements and, in particular, about the use of taxpayers’ money through gift aid contributions to those charities. As a result, I received a response from the Charity Commission for England and Wales sharing those concerns about the potential impact, including on public trust and confidence in the charity sector, of charities being seen to actively assist in the development or expansion of illegal settlements in Palestine. What more will the Foreign Secretary do, in the light of today’s statement, to ensure that gift aid is not given to organisations linked to Israeli settlements?
Ed Miliband
I will undertake to look at that issue. We are very clear that we do not want to see illegal settlement expansion, so I promise to look at this. I want to take this opportunity to thank all Members of this House for their questions, and I reiterate my undertaking to work with Members across Parliament as we take forward these issues.
Online Safety
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the next steps that this Government will be taking to protect children online. This Government’s ambition is to be the world leader in shaping an online environment that works for us. We intend to be an active Government that will help to create an online environment that is not just safe, but enabling and empowering. That starts with fixing the fundamentals, and this House can expect to see us acting more quickly and more decisively from now on to keep us safe online.
In December last year, the Government published their action plan to tackle violence against women and girls. I would like to put on record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who are here today, for their clear ambition and determination that the UK would become the first country in the world where it would be impossible for children to take, share or view nude images online. In June, the Government challenged industry on a three-month timeline to work with us and set out road maps for how they would strengthen device-level protections for children with a view to preventing children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images on phones and tablets.
Today I can update the House on the progress that has been made and the next steps that this Government will take to protect children. Since June, officials from my Department and the Home Office have overseen an unprecedented work programme with Apple and Google, working with senior leaders and engineers to explore new ways of preventing child sexual abuse and strengthening protections for children online. I can report that, following this engagement, Apple and Google have provided the Government with significant commitments. Both companies have developed meaningful changes at operating level to make it harder for children to share nude imagery. We have seen progress in the blocking, not blurring, of nude imagery on underage devices, and this builds on significant milestones already in implementation, including Apple’s roll-out earlier this year of operating system-level age assurance and tighter safety features preventing a child from receiving or sharing nude imagery on iMessage or FaceTime. These proposals are a step in the right direction. However, the truth is that they do not meet the scale of this crisis.
Children are facing unacceptable levels of sexual harm online. They are being groomed, coerced and manipulated into creating and sharing intimate images across online services. The Internet Watch Foundation believes that 91% of these images are self-generated by children. They are used for blackmail and sexual extortion. Each year, around 9,000 child sexual abuse offences involve an online element, with under-18s the subject of almost a quarter of online blackmail. I challenge anyone to listen to those statistics and come to the conclusion that the internet is a safe place for kids or that the Government should not get involved.
This is not the first time in history that new forms of technology have up-ended society, but what is unique to this moment is that the technology has been developed almost exclusively in the private sphere. I am clear that there is a central role for Government in shaping that technology for good, not just to protect from harm—although that is a basic obligation of any Government—but to enable and empower.
When it comes to the development of technology that affects our lives, we are not neutral. In no other walk of life would we tolerate this crisis harming our children, and we will not tolerate it online. For too long, technology companies have failed to protect children from some of the worst harms. To be frank, I am not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that progress will continue at the pace we need it to, while harm is being done now.
For that reason, I make the following announcements to the House. First, the Government today commit to introducing primary legislation to require major tech platforms to build in device-level protections for children. We will introduce the legislation to Parliament as soon as we can, recognising the urgency of the issue while ensuring that we work with colleagues across the House to get it right. We want to see movement on this quickly. If platforms in scope of the draft legislation develop and implement technical solutions while our work is ongoing, we will of course reassess whether legislation is necessary. We know that this is a sector that can, when required, innovate at an extraordinary pace when the chips are down.
Alongside the measures on devices, the Government will, as soon as possible, require that apps used by children prevent children from accessing or sharing nudity. We will explore what legislation is needed to implement that commitment, with a view to moving as quickly as possible. This will ensure that the whole ecosystem changes, tackling the means by which children are most often abused or groomed online. Put simply, we will give tech companies the chance to lead; we will not give them the chance to lag.
These measures, taken together, will make Britain the first country in the world to go this far, and a world leader in online safety. The message we are sending to tech companies is clear: planning must now become implementation, and progress must translate into protections that make a real difference to children’s lives. I give my commitment to all Members of this House, and to anybody listening out there in the country who has been desperately worried about what is happening to our children online, that when it comes to children’s safety, we are not, and never will be, bystanders. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. It is heartening that she so clearly recognises the seriousness and urgency of the child safety issue before us. I welcome the spirit of today’s statement in two capacities: as shadow Secretary of State and as a mother. Every parent wants to know that, when their child inevitably picks up a phone, they have done everything reasonably possible to protect them from exploitation, abuse and harmful content.
We should take a moment to remember children such as 16-year-old Murray Dowey, who took his own life just hours after being tricked into sending an intimate image online. No young person should ever be put in that position, and no family should ever have to endure such a tragedy. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on device-level protections, particularly the commitment that children will be prevented from taking or sharing nude images on their devices. That is a huge practical step, which has the potential to prevent immeasurable harm.
I remember raising device-level protection from the Back Benches before summer recess, so I am pleased that this work is being pursued. But although the good intent is clear, the execution is often more challenging, so I would welcome more detail on the Secretary of State’s plans, including on what exactly can be done to ensure that tech companies take more responsibility in this space.
Before recess, the Government set technology companies a clear three-month deadline. Ministers said that if sufficient progress was not made, they would act. The Secretary of State’s assessment today is that progress has not been good enough, so the House now needs to know exactly what will happen next. We have heard a commitment to primary legislation, but “as soon as we can” is not yet a timetable. When does the Secretary of State expect to introduce the legislation? She has also said that the Government may reassess whether legislation is necessary if companies make sufficient progress in the meantime. What precisely would constitute sufficient progress and who will make that judgment?
I would welcome clarity on the devices themselves. Is the aim for these planned protections to apply only to new phones and tablets, or will companies be expected, wherever technically possible, to push them through software updates to devices already in use? Millions of phones are in young hands at this very moment. Protecting only the next generation of devices would leave a large gap. Where older devices cannot support these measures, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the scale of that problem?
The Secretary of State also said today that
“there is a central role for Government in shaping…technology for good”.
It is a very broad proposition, and I hope that she can reassure the House about exactly what she means by it. The Opposition want to see device-level protection and support further exploration, but it is just one part of a far larger picture. I pay tribute to the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who has led the charge by the Conservatives for stronger online protections for children. As His Majesty’s Opposition, we have relentlessly pushed for restrictions on social media for under-16s. To be frank, the Government got to the right place in the end, but we did have to drag them kicking and screaming. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the under-16s social media restrictions remain on course for early 2027, and that the necessary age assurance and enforcement arrangements will be ready in time?
There is considerable common ground across this House. We want parents to be more empowered, children to have stronger protections, and technology companies to take responsibility for the content they display to young people. I look forward to working constructively across the House with the Secretary of State and the Ministers towards these worthy goals.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Member for the way that she has engaged with these proposals. I will try my best to briefly answer as many of her questions as possible. First, on the detail, I have instructed my officials today to begin working up legislation. I appreciate that it is frustrating when a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says, “We intend to do this imminently”—the hon. Lady’s party has been in government; they understand the difficulties—but I want to reassure her and the whole House that we intend to do this without delay. The only reason there is not a firm timetable at the moment is because we are the first country in the world to do it. There are a number of questions, some of which she posed, which we need to iron out to ensure that we get this right.
On what would constitute sufficient progress that would rid us of the need to introduce legislation, I would much rather the technology companies move at pace to meet their own social and moral obligations, but in the absence of that, the Government will step up and act. Frankly, if we were able to reach a situation very quickly, which we should be able to do with the right will, where children were not able to take or share nude images, then the problem would be solved. But I have to say, based on what I have seen in progress over the last three months, it is almost certain that we will be legislating in this area.
The hon. Lady asked about which devices. It is phones and tablets at a minimum, but I accept the point she makes, and we are exploring whether it is possible to extend this to other forms of technology.
The hon. Lady asked what I meant when I talked about shaping technology for good. I am a big supporter of the action we are taking on social media for children. I say this as the mum of an 11-year-old and someone who is going through it at the moment and trying to help navigate that; I know all parents across the House will recognise the challenges. I would love us to get to a situation as a country where all people, including children, can be online and find good, trusted information and things that help them to be creative, to feel empowered and to enable them to live the richer, larger lives that they want to live. I think the Government have a right and proper role in helping that to happen. One of the ways in which we are already doing that, building on the great work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), is in trying to use gov.uk as a pioneering service that really does help people to live better lives.
The hon. Lady says that this Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to doing this. Her party was in government for a very long time, and the amount of time it took them to try to introduce any legislation in this area at all was quite shameful. That is not to downplay the role that some members of the Conservative party played in ensuring that we got there, but if it was not for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West, I do not think I would be standing here today in a position to make this announcement. We should give credit where credit is due: this is a Government who are leading the world in keeping children safe.
The last thing the hon. Lady asked me about, which I know many colleagues are concerned about, is the social media ban that we announced earlier this year. I can reassure the House that we do intend to stick to both the spirit and the letter of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West set out earlier this year. We are on track to meet the timetable that she set out, to lay the first regulations by the end of this year and for the ban to come into force in the spring of 2027. We also intend to go somewhat further than our initial proposition statement, and I would welcome the opportunity to talk with the hon. Lady in more detail about that.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I really welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend today. It will, indeed, be a world first to take this action on device-level protections, protecting children right across the country, and I am very proud to be part of a party and a Government who are doing that. I also thank her for confirming that the vote on the ban on social media companies providing their services to children under 16 will take place this year, for the ban to come into effect early next year. Could she say more about the timetable for other proposals that were made on AI chatbots, overnight curfews and bans on doomscrolling for older children? Together, this package will make the world a safer, better place for children online—that is as well as the work we are doing offline.
Lisa Nandy
Once again, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and thank her so much for all her support both when we worked together in government and since; she really is a class act.
I am not in a position to give a firm timetable for the measures that my right hon. Friend mentioned, but I will commit to coming back to her with one, because I understand that Members across the House will want to know that there will be no delay in taking action on those things. We are also looking at a more comprehensive system, very much in the spirit of the reforms that she set out earlier this year, and we intend to move quickly on that without delay. I do not think we will be in a position to do the whole package by the end of the year, but I would be very disappointed if we had not made enormous progress by then, including meeting the commitments that she set out. I would be particularly disappointed if, by this time next year, we did not have a much more robust and comprehensive package of measures in place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
When the last Prime Minister gave tech giants three months to voluntarily implement technology that would prevent children from taking and sharing nude images, the Lib Dems were clear that we should not rely on the good will of companies that have repeatedly put profit before children’s safety, and I am pleased to see today that the Government agree with us. The need for action cannot be clearer. In 2024, 91% of online child sexual abuse reports involved self-generated content from children online, and last year there was an 8% rise in child sexual abuse image offences across the UK. These are not just statistics; they are real children being exploited online.
This is a serious problem that urgently demands serious legislation. That is why the Lib Dems welcome today’s announcement of primary legislation that will require device-level and app-level protections for children online. However, this House has heard the phrase “as soon as possible” many times before. I hear what the Secretary of State is saying about a timetable for legislation, but what she said earlier slightly hinted that what the tech giants were doing might affect the progress of the legislation, so I seek reassurance that legislation will be ploughing forward regardless of what those companies are doing.
The Lib Dems are supportive of legislation to protect children from abuse online, but protection cannot come at the expense of privacy. Any legislation that is brought in must be accompanied by guarantees that technology will be highly effective and preserve privacy. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that will be the case?
Too often, the Government have left tech companies to mark their own homework. I am glad that today they have decided enough is enough, but this announcement could have been made three months ago. If we truly want to protect our children, we need a Government who act before harm is done, not a Government who wait until it is too late. I hope that will be the case going forward, as the Secretary of State has intimated.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for these measures. She asks me a number of questions. Will the legislation be developed regardless of the action taken by companies? Yes, it will—my officials have begun drawing up that legislation today. Both she and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) raised specific issues. We will want to discuss those issues with Opposition parties and colleagues on the Government Benches to ensure that our response is right, and privacy is one of those issues. It is not our intention to ignore or sideline the privacy concerns, and we believe that it is perfectly possible to do this without encroaching on privacy in any way.
There is a particular challenge around end-to-end encrypted services, which the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) will be aware of. I would welcome cross-party discussion about that; we have a number of potential solutions that we are currently exploring, so it would be good to discuss the matter further with her.
Finally, the hon. Lady heard what I said about acting quickly and more decisively. Many colleagues will know that before I came to this place, I worked with children and young people. Keeping children safe is the first and most basic responsibility of any Government, and I am very pleased to hear such broad consensus on that across the House.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
This statement and the previous one are about the two things that I have previously resigned over, so I feel that my moral compass is back. [Laughter.]
First and foremost, I want to help out my right hon. Friend. To those who are concerned about the timeliness of this statement, let me say that the original statement may have had a timeframe in it, and I found in my negotiations with her that that was not quick enough. Actually, “as soon as possible” is quicker than what was going to be suggested, so I have every faith that she will do this quickly.
I want to stress the importance of the “take” element; there is no privacy issue if we just stop children taking images in the first place—the image will not exist to be able to go anywhere. But the take is the thing that the tech companies, for some reason, are faltering on. It is the most important thing to stop children being abused and groomed. Addressing that element will move the market away from our children here in the UK; they will not be able to use their phones for that terrible market of sexual abuse any more than they will be able to use them to make toast, because that will not be what they are for. When we remove the UK market, though, we will send the market somewhere else in the world. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to work with partners across the world to ensure that while we lead the world, we are not standing alone for too long.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend makes a typically well informed and well thought-out point. I thank her not just for her support, but for all the work she has done to ensure that we have got here. I know that she is appreciated not just by me, but by many of the incredible, brave families who I have had the privilege to get to know over the last few weeks and who have wanted to see action in this space for a very long time. I pay tribute to those families as well as to her. She has made an important point about working with Governments and other partners across the world to keep children safe. That is the promise of the UN convention on the rights of the child. A child harmed anywhere means that children can be harmed everywhere, and we have to take that really seriously.
My hon. Friend should be encouraged—and I suspect that she is—by the fact that many Governments are now acting more decisively. They are stepping up and recognising that the development and regulation of new forms of technology cannot be left to the private sector alone. There is a clear role for active, empowering Governments working in this space, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I have not hesitated to reach out to like-minded Governments across the world to see what more we can do together.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I also warmly welcome this announcement. The sheer number of young people whose lives have been impacted by this issue is a damning indictment of a collective failure to keep children safe. Let us not forget that major tech companies have the capability to implement device-level controls but have chosen not to do so. As far as I am concerned, it is simply unforgivable that those companies innovate quickly on new products, yet so slowly on children’s safety. Given Ofcom’s sluggish implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, can the Secretary of State explain to me how compliance with this policy will be monitored, and what sanctions will be available to address non-compliance?
Lisa Nandy
At the risk of spending the entire duration of this statement paying tribute to absolutely everybody, I thank the hon. Lady and her Committee for the work they have done on this issue, and that she has done in particular. I agree with her that it is a damning indictment if a country does not step up to keep its children safe, and I hope she is reassured by what she has heard today.
The hon. Lady has asked a specific question about how this policy will be enforced, and I have heard loud and clear the concerns from across this House about the enforcement of the Online Safety Act. Before she left office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) appointed a new chair of Ofcom, and specifically tasked Ofcom with stepping up its enforcement work; I have picked up the baton on that work, and I continue it.
When it comes to this specific issue, we are looking in particular at the making and selling of devices here in the UK that do not have technology enabled to prevent children from taking and sharing nude images. We are also looking at what we can do in relation to particular apps, especially where highly verified age assurance does not apply, to make sure that we close every loophole. Given that we are the first Government in the world to do this, the way I would describe it to the House is that we are taking a major problem—a crisis—and trying to come at it from every single angle in order to keep children as safe as possible. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to develop the detail.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this major step forward—it is a massive intervention in this space. She has rightly given the industry time to think about how it is going to approach these issues, but we cannot wait forever. Time is of the essence, and our young people are being put at risk every single day, so can the Secretary of State assure the House that while this legislation is being developed and while we look at the issues around it, the Government will continue to press these companies to act with the urgency and sense of moral leadership that they should be acting with?
Lisa Nandy
Overnight, I was thinking about how to address the House on this issue. During the financial crash, there was a live debate about the moral and social responsibilities that companies have to citizens, to one another and to all of us. I think we have slightly lost that part of our public debate. Working with some of these companies, I have been struck by how seriously they take those obligations. I want us to bring back that sense that we are all in this together—that we all have a responsibility to keep children safe—and given that these are some of the most innovative, fast-moving and successful companies in the world, it cannot be beyond our collective wit to do this more quickly. Frankly, I do not think we should be in a position where a Secretary of State is standing at the Dispatch Box and announcing that we have to legislate in order to uphold our responsibilities to our own children; but, like I said, if we have to, of course we will.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I remind Members that these exchanges will be followed by a ten-minute rule motion and a debate on the Health Bill? I am therefore aiming to end them at about 4.30 pm.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I welcome the intent that the Secretary of State has set out this afternoon, and the urgency with which she will require the relevant companies to act. I think she knows that I sympathise with the Government in respect of the complexity of this legislative area and the challenge that they face, but she may also know that my ongoing concern has been the compatibility of the individual measures that the Government may take with the ongoing responsibilities of these companies under the Online Safety Act. Would she be prepared to meet me to discuss that in a little more detail?
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Children are being exposed daily to horrific, violent content online. Ofcom’s own research shows that nearly a quarter of 11 to 17-year-olds have seen violent content in just four weeks, and nearly three quarters have seen harmful content of some kind. The number has barely moved since the Act’s child safety duties came into force. Much of this content is not even sought out, but is served up by algorithms as children scroll. We know the pattern: cruelty to animals first, then violence against people, desensitising a generation and, for some, opening a path to real violence and criminality. Primary legislation to enforce all this at the app and device level is welcome, but we need to give Ofcom the tools that will enable it to deal with this immediately, as it becomes an issue.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is right. Let me say to him, as someone who shares his concern about the increase in exposure to violent content to very young children, that we are also looking at the issue of chatbots and strengthening the law to ensure that we protect children better from all these different forms of exposure.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I welcome these actions on child online safety, and the Minister’s comment that there is a role for the Government in shaping technology and not being neutral on online harm. She may have seen, in the last 24 hours, some very disturbing posts on Meta and X in which the identities of brave rescuers from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution have been revealed. In response, charities such as the RNLI are now having to ask people to take real action on their personal safety and their privacy. What more can the Government do to hold tech companies to account and take down posts that put the safety of children and adults at risk through doxxing?
Lisa Nandy
I have had an initial discussion about this with some of the tech companies. As the hon. Lady will know, as well as the horrific incidents that she mentioned, there has been a campaign by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers relating to the way in which shop workers have been targeted. The Government are concerned about this, as am I personally, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to see what more we can do.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
May I place on record my heartfelt appreciation of the dignified leadership that the parents and family of my constituent Murray Dowey have shown on this issue? Will the Secretary of State say more about the ongoing conversations that she will have with tech companies while the primary legislative clock is ticking, so that they know we expect them to tackle this issue with the same speed of innovation that they show in bringing new products to market when profit, not safety, is the goal?
Lisa Nandy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and thank him for being such an outstanding advocate for them. He will have heard what I said about ongoing discussions with tech companies. We ought to be moving quickly on this, and it ought not to require primary legislation, but given the lack of progress, I think it only right for the Government to step up. We do, however, want to see faster progress, and I think that many of the tech companies will have noted the strength of feeling throughout the House about their own responsibilities in this regard.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Children are facing unacceptable levels of sexual harm online, and they need protection. When the Government do the right thing, I will say so, although it has taken them rather a long time to get to the right place.
Many children use older phones handed down by family members. How will the Secretary of State ensure that children using devices with older operating systems are fully protected?
Lisa Nandy
We have been discussing that as a Department, and it is something that officials are currently exploring. I am very familiar with what the hon. Gentleman says: many children will be using older devices. We think there may be some solutions to this, but I am very keen to work with colleagues from across the House to address some of these issues.
Although we will not hesitate to take the action that we need to take or to take action where it is needed, as I said to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), we are trying to come at this issue from lots of different angles to ensure we close loopholes one by one, and close as many as we can at the same time. Part of that is about the action that we are taking not just on the taking of nude images—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) said, that is the most central part—but on the sharing of nude images. Even if a child has an older device, the protections that we are bringing in around the sharing of nude images will take effect immediately.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
As a parent, I can understand the anxiety that Gloucester parents have about keeping their children safe online, so I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement. Given the financial resources that the tech companies have and the innovative, brilliant minds that they have working for them, will she reassure the House that she will not accept any argument that it is too expensive or too difficult to stop children being able to take nude images and send them to people?
Lisa Nandy
I strongly support that; frankly, there is no excuse. My hon. Friend mentions the anxiety that many families feel. I have worked with the outstanding organisation that is the NSPCC, and with Childline, for many years, as has the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson)—we used to work together many years ago. This particular form of abuse is happening in families’ homes. It is often happening in children’s bedrooms while their parents are in the house, but it is not known to them. There is something particularly frightening about that for many parents. Speaking for myself, I find it particularly disturbing. Having worked with bereaved families for just a few weeks, I have been struck by how hard they have found it to come to terms with that element of this issue. They did not know that it was happening, even though at times it was happening under their own roofs.
Once again, I pay tribute to all the families who have campaigned so long and hard to make this happen. I give them my commitment that we will work with them and not hesitate to continue to innovate and to take the steps that we need as the technology develops.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I first raised the issue of self-generated images in Parliament more than four years ago. I have asked almost every single Culture, Media and Sport team about the issue of livestreaming. I am pleased to hear from the Secretary of State that action is being taken, and about the belt-and-braces approach that is coming in. Even though we will have a social media ban and there will be device-level protections, I would like to see children’s accounts banned from livestreaming, regardless of whether it involves nude images, because so much of that can be held over children for the purposes of blackmail or abuse. I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State reassured me that that action will be taken, as well as the other actions that are moving ahead.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Lady for being such a long-standing campaigner on this issue, and I am sorry that it took many Secretaries of State before we were able announce this. I am really committed to looking at the issue seriously. I will go away after this statement and ask my officials to come back to me on it, and then I will reach out to her so that we can have a proper conversation about it.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. We have a massive crisis of digitally enabled child sexual exploitation in the UK. As an illustration, there is a global industry for livestreamed abuse material from the Philippines. The UK is the second largest global consumer and is second only to the US, which is a much larger country. The abuse extends beyond our borders. It extends to adults as well as children on adult devices, and it extends to interfaces as well as content. We will need a broader approach. The Secretary of State is right to identify that technology has disrupted society before. In such cases, we have seen massive expansion, harm and then regulation, and then moved to product safety. I have been working with experts and innovators on how a product safety approach might work. Will she meet me to discuss that?
Lisa Nandy
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. We have talked a lot about the tech companies in relation to this, and it is right to do so because there are obligations that must be met, but there is also traditional law enforcement, and we need to ensure that we do not let the individuals causing harm to children off the hook. The Home Secretary has been incredibly supportive of working hand in glove to ensure we deal with this from every angle.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I also welcome the statement. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State shared with the House a little bit about how the highly efficient age assurance system actually works. In particular, I confess to the fact that over 60 years ago my parents, recognising that my sister and I were rather precocious readers, lent us their tickets to the senior library, rather than the junior library where we were confined. What would there be to prevent a parent choosing to allow a child to use their phone under their identity, and would there be a penalty for doing so?
Lisa Nandy
We are not envisaging imposing penalties on parents. However, the right hon. Member is right that, as we are already anticipating, with any system we introduce there will be people who find ways to get around the safeguards we put in place. That is one lesson we have learned from the pioneering approach taken in Australia. When I say to the House that we intend to move more quickly and more decisively, it is precisely for those reasons. We will have to keep revisiting the safeguards for children in this space to ensure we close loopholes.
On the highly effective age assurance, companies are already rolling this out, including through iOS 26. This requires someone to have a form of ID to prove their age. At the moment, as all parents will know, most of the apps and sites that children use just require them to either tick a box to say that they are over the age of 18, or to put in a birth date. They do not require them to show a form of ID—a credit card or some other form of ID. The new systems are requiring that, and one lesson we have learned from looking at what happened in Australia is that unless we do that, most children will find a way around.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for her statement, but also for her personal decision to leave Elon Musk’s X. I left the platform over a year ago because I did not want to have any association with a platform whose founder has consistently called for civil war in our country and that amplifies extremist content. When she sits around the Cabinet table, will she make the case to her colleagues that there are many ways we can reach our constituents by social media, but we do not have to play by Elon Musk’s rules?
Lisa Nandy
I think this is a personal decision, and all Members of the House should be free to decide how and where they communicate, but for my own part, I did not want to encourage more people to a site that I think has become more of a force for harm than for good.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements. As she said, she and I have worked together on children’s issues for many years, so I know how committed she is, but may I press her a little further on AI companions? We know that they can expose children to inappropriate sexual content, even when safeguards are in place. While the Government announced earlier this year a ban on sexualised AI chatbots for under-18s, it remains unclear how these will be defined and how any such a ban will be enforced. Can she provide any clarity on that work, and whether the legislation she is announcing may be broadened to cover that issue?
Lisa Nandy
This is a live issue and it is very much at the front of my mind. Over the last few months, I have been working with campaigners and Members of this House and the other place to ensure we get this right. With some of the protections previously asked for, particularly in relation to offences involving creating AI companions and chatbots that fulfil particular functions, I think recent developments have shown that that approach may have its limitations. She will be aware of the recent case in which an AI system was able to escape its own sandbox and the parameters set for it, and caused damage. We are looking at strengthening our approach in this area, because at the moment there is a great big gap where there is no liability for the output from those AI systems. We urgently need to resolve that major gap in our child safety protection system. It is not straightforward to solve, but we are determined to get on the front foot on this. As I have said to other Members of the House—I say it particularly to the hon. Lady, given our history—I am very happy to talk about it with her further.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to the Ministers before her who have laid out some of the tough language and now the tough legislation that we will bring in. This could be done tomorrow. All it requires is an update to the iOS and Android operating systems. That software exists. Will she join me in calling for these companies to turn it on in the next update and to make that tomorrow? Will she promise every child and parent in this country that if those companies do not do that quickly—in fact, even if they do—we will introduce legislation within the year?
Lisa Nandy
We are moving as fast as possible, and I give my hon. Friend my word that we will not unduly delay. She will have heard the debates that I have just had with some hon. Members about some of the complexities, but complexity cannot be an excuse for inaction when children are being harmed now. I give her my word that we will move as fast as is humanly possible to resolve this. I support what she has just said about the obligations on technology companies. Far more could be done right now, and we would like to see them do it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
A child cannot unsee a sexualised image online. I raised with the former Secretary of State parents’ concerns regarding highly sexualised images popping up in children’s games online. Will today’s announcement cover in-game adverts, or is that a loophole that the new Secretary of State can commit to looking at?
Lisa Nandy
I certainly commit to looking at that issue. I am concerned by what the hon. Lady said. I will take that away and make sure that we take the appropriate action to protect children from those sorts of images.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Like parents and grandparents in Hartlepool, I find it incredible that technology companies even had to be asked to put software in place that protected against child sexual abuse. Having been asked, they apparently have said no. As the Secretary of State rightly points out, there will be further loopholes that need to be closed. Would it be better just to assume these companies’ moral bankruptcy and not ask in future, and just to legislate straightaway?
Lisa Nandy
I support what my hon. Friend says. We need to stop thinking about the online world as somehow distinct from the offline world. As someone who worked with children and young people for many years before I came into Parliament, I know that there are systems and protections in place for people to work with children and young people in the real world. It would be unthinkable not to have that. I find it astonishing that we do not have the same level of expectation for the online world. I very much support what he says.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Secretary of State is right to push the tech companies to live up to their responsibilities to keep children safe. One of the many horrifying things when considering online safety is the number of abuse perpetrators who themselves are children. We have had a case in my local area where a young girl—I obviously will not name her—had covert images taken of her, which were run through a nudifying app. Those images were then circulated by a fellow pupil. Can the Secretary of State say more about what she is doing with colleagues in the Department for Education and elsewhere to support schools and families as they work to prevent children from becoming victims or perpetrators?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady raises an important point about some of the apps that exist. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) for taking such quick and decisive action in this place on Grok. The hon. Lady is right to say that other forms of technology out there are a problem.
The hon. Lady is also right to point to the fact that we need to be much better at supporting schools, parents and wider families to help protect children. When we developed the national youth strategy last year with young people across the country, one of the biggest concerns that both they and their parents had was that far too many young people growing up in this country do not have an adult they trust who can help them to navigate the online space. Many of us—I say us, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am on a very steep learning curve as the mum of an 11-year-old—would welcome extra help and support. That is something we have been seeking to address through the national youth strategy, but I intend to put rocket boosters under it now.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) to finally take back control of our children’s safety online. Tackling misinformation and disinformation is also a part of creating safe online spaces. I have been leading, with my constituent Debbie Duncan, a campaign to tackle tragedy trolling. Will the Secretary of State meet me to find out more about the importance of trying to protect victims who have lost people in suspicious circumstances, when that horror happens to them?
Lisa Nandy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her constituent for their campaign. I would be very happy to offer a meeting with the relevant officials and to discuss this issue personally with her. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of tackling misinformation and disinformation. She will know that the House recently debated proposals to give more prominence to trusted sources of news online. One reason for doing so is that young people in particular consume broadcast media in a very different way from older generations. I personally believe that we are not doing enough to help them find accurate information and distinguish between truth and fiction.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State, the work she is doing and the work begun by the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). Protecting our children is very important. My query relates to the allegedly robust complaints procedure provided by social media apps. For example, a constituent of mine faced serious harassment on TikTok. Numerous complaints were made, but nothing was done. In fact, the X account of the leader of Birmingham city council has been hacked for weeks now and cryptocurrency is being sold in his name, but very little has happened. What steps can the Government take to ensure that social media providers follow their complaints processes?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman gives an astonishing example. I am very happy to pick that up with the social media companies directly.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on misinformation and disinformation. We know that hostile states around the world, from Russia to Iran, are actively using social media disinformation as a tool as part of their forward defence strategy to disrupt democracies and sow division. What more will the Government do to address that?
Lisa Nandy
We are coming at that from a number of angles. As well as the measures I have been outlining to colleagues today, we are looking at how we can develop gov.uk. We are pioneers when it comes to gov.uk, but we believe we could do even more to make it more relevant and to provide better avenues to trusted sources of news. My hon. Friend will also know that, along with the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), we produced the first ever local news strategy to support the incredible local news outlets that did such amazing work during the riots a few summers ago to tackle misinformation and disinformation and to do myth-busting on the ground. Colleagues will also know that we are about to embark on the BBC charter review, which is our opportunity to take what is perhaps our best weapon against misinformation and disinformation, and make sure we put it on a firm and secure footing for the foreseeable future.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join the House in welcoming the statement and thank the Government for the steps they are taking to keep our children safe. Earlier this year, I met campaigners from SafeToNet who had invented hardware-level protection that they had installed on HTC-only devices and were trying to persuade other mobile manufacturers to include it. As well as software controls, hardware-level controls are out there, so I urge the Secretary of State to look at those. We know that Meta has just agreed to pay $18 billion in a legal settlement in the US, so will the Government pursue similar robust enforcement against such companies?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of enforcement. As has already been mentioned, any legislation that we introduce is only as good as our ability to enforce it, so we take that extremely seriously.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
As the youngest parent in this place, I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership and that of our Prime Minister. Will she look at AI-enabled smart glasses, which could be filming our children, and the content from them that is being put online? Will she also look at loopholes in VPN usage—in particular, with app-based browsers—as she looks to progress the measures?
Lisa Nandy
I have already discussed issues around VPNs with officials; device-level controls are one part of the answer but not the whole answer, so my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. I will take up the issue of smart glasses as well.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
When I speak to parents in Bracknell Forest, they tell me of their anxiety about what their young people might be exposed to online and their feeling of powerlessness—they do not feel that they have the tools to do anything about it. Today’s statement makes it clear that this Government believe that the power to act lies squarely with the tech companies, and that they should get on and fix their platforms so that our young people can be safe.
Lisa Nandy
I support my hon. Friend in saying that it is the responsibility of all of us to keep children safe, and we would like to see the tech companies do more—and more quickly. Today’s statement also shows that the Government can do things to improve people’s lives. We are not powerless; we were elected to do that, and we intend to fulfil that promise.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement from the Secretary of State, but the focus is too often on what young people are doing, rather than on the adults who are grooming and coercing them. Can the Secretary of State say more about the work that her Department and others are doing with tech companies to identify and disrupt adults who are targeting children and pressurising them to put images online?
Lisa Nandy
I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) nodding vigorously at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is absolutely right, and I am working closely with the Home Secretary to ensure that we come at the issue from every angle and hold to account all who are responsible.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. It is long overdue and builds on great work by her predecessors. Unfortunately, we do not have full sovereign capability in developing our own tech in this country, and we are vulnerable to politics in other countries. Will the Secretary of State tell me what she is doing to work with people across Government to ensure that if there is pushback against these changes, particularly in the United States, and challenges from the tech companies, Britain will get what it wants—not what some people in certain other countries want?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend raises two linked and important points. First, we are the Government of the United Kingdom and are responsible to the people of this country. Although we have close friends and allies all over the world, we reserve the right to take our own view on technology. Particularly when it comes to keeping children safe, that is non-negotiable. Secondly, we have to be on the front foot in developing new forms of technology. I believe that tech, the online space and AI should be—and can be—a force for good in the world, but in order to help create that and be leaders in the field, we have to be on the front foot in developing forms of technology and having sovereign capability. I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point because I discussed it, this very morning, with the Business Secretary and the AI Minister.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank and commend the Secretary of State for the Government’s world-leading action. Does she agree that at some point in the future, we are going to look back and wonder how we let the tech companies get away with hijacking our children’s attention and safety for so long? She talks about closing loopholes, but will she say more about what is happening across Government and with the regulators—as well as internationally—to ensure that those who produce the devices and what goes on them all play their part in keeping our children safe?
Lisa Nandy
I think we have been living through a revolution in the way we interact with one another and with Government, compared with when I was growing up. I am going to sound incredibly old now, but I think I was 17 before I got my first email address, and Google was not a thing at that point—it was Ask Jeeves, if anyone remembers that. We have been living through this revolution for quite some time, and it is about time that Governments caught up. We have to ensure that we are on the front foot, helping to shape the society we want to have, not just allowing that to be relegated to the private sphere.
My hon. Friend talks about the global consensus, and I think there is a global consensus forming on this. We are seeing more and more that states are prepared to step up and be on the front foot and taking action. We are working closely with our friends and allies around the world, trying to move in step so that this can be as effective as possible.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
This is a really tremendous statement—I welcome it, and congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for it. We have touched on the tech companies. Sadly, we can expect them to push back, and they may get support on the other side of the Atlantic. I encourage my right hon. Friend to work closely with our friends in the European Union who have similar aims to protect their children to give ourselves as much clout and oomph in the negotiations ahead.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a rule, I think this Government have taken that approach; we want to have a much closer relationship with our closest friends and neighbours across Europe and to repair some of the needless damage that was done to that relationship under previous Governments. When it comes to tech and what happens online, it is absolutely essential that we work with other like-minded countries in order to move in step, so I can certainly reassure him on that point.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Unfortunately, young people and their parents in my constituency do not believe that the big tech companies are taking their responsibilities seriously. I speak to young people in schools across Harlow who are concerned that it is very easy to flout the age verification rules. In much the same way as it is a shop’s responsibility to ensure that no one under the age of 18 buys alcohol, can we make it very clear to the big tech companies that it is their responsibility to ensure that underage people cannot use their software and sites?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think the views of his constituents in Harlow are probably mirrored in every constituency across the country. I want to be really clear about our message today to parents who have been struggling with this matter for so long: you are not on your own. We believe that we are as responsible for keeping their children safe as they are, and we are stepping up to take the necessary action, whether that is through support, advice and training for parents and children, or through the reforms and measures that I have outlined today—we are the first country in the world to do so, and I strongly suspect that we will not be the last.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Tom Hayes.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Democracies face a choice between allowing the online world to be a wild west or stepping in, so I really welcome this Government’s decision to regulate the tech titans that have been putting profit before protection. I have families in my constituency who have been deeply affected by traumas online that have repeated what has been experienced in the real world, and they would really welcome the chance to meet the Secretary of State at the Department. Would she meet them with me so that they can share their experiences and help to shape the legislation as it goes forward?
Lisa Nandy
Yes, of course; it would be a privilege to meet them. I have had the honour of getting to know some of these families—both bereaved families and families of survivors whose children have been harmed because of the lack of action in this space—and I gave them a commitment that I will do everything in my power to stop another family having to experience what they have gone through. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents.
Bill Presented
Illegal Trading (Temporary Closure of Premises) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gideon Amos presented a Bill to make provision about the temporary closure of premises connected to illegal trading; to make further provision relating to such closures; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 141).
Artificial Superintelligence
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to prohibit the development, deployment and operation of artificial superintelligence systems; to establish monitoring and control powers in respect of such systems; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this Bill alongside respected colleagues representing parties across the House. I also would like to thank ControlAI for its support with the Bill.
This summer, artificial intelligence systems developed by OpenAI executed the first autonomous cyber-attack on a real company. The AI systems were being tested, and during this they escaped the testing environment, which should have been secure, and reached the open internet. From there, the AI systems conducted a cyber-attack on the AI company Hugging Face to steal the information that would help it cheat on the test that OpenAI had set it. To put it simply, the AI systems went rogue and launched an unprecedented attack just to cheat on a test. Meanwhile, our own AI Security Institute has had AI systems that it was testing engaged in sustained, potentially harmful activity directed at real people and organisations, including attempts at social engineering to trick humans into accepting malicious code.
It is important to understand why this happens. The general-purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, like traditional software. Using vast amounts of data and compute, they are grown, not built. This results in systems that nobody fully understands or can reliably predict. In other words, no engineer programmed the rogue, deceptive behaviours that I earlier described, and no engineer can simply patch them out.
This is the least powerful or autonomous that AI systems will ever be. Companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI a reality. The chief executives at top AI companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life between 10% and 25%. In the words of renowned British computer scientist Professor Stuart Russell of Berkeley,
“For Governments to allow private entities to essentially play Russian roulette with every human being on earth is, in my view, a total dereliction of duty.”
Despite the risks, top AI companies continue a reckless race towards superintelligent AI—AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. That is the reason why experts such as Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio and other notable figures signed a statement saying that mitigating extinction risk from AI should be a global priority.
The main vector of this risk is superintelligent AI, because no company, Government or individual knows how to keep superintelligent AI under human control. Honourable colleagues may remember that I proposed a kill switch amendment to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to protect our critical national infrastructure—a metaphorical big red button that the Government can press to cut off a catastrophic emergency caused by AI. This is a common-sense proposal—one that is being considered by US lawmakers—and I am pleased that the other place will be taking it forward in the autumn. It is a power that the Government should already have.
But even kill switches will not be enough if the development of superintelligent AI continues. Let me be very clear: AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century, promising vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK’s prosperity, but superintelligent AI is different. It would not be a tool that we can leverage but an entity in its own right, capable of improving itself, replicating itself and resisting attempts to shut it down. It would be a force so uncontrollable that, if developed within the UK’s borders, it would put our security in jeopardy. It would amount to a rogue power stationed inside our data centres, under no one’s command, capable of seizing control of our critical infrastructure and running sophisticated influence operations.
Colleagues, we need to take back control. If the UK is to be truly sovereign, we cannot allow a threat to our national security like superintelligent AI to be developed. My Bill is therefore not a verdict on AI as a whole; it is a targeted Bill that addresses a problem of unmatched severity. It strengthens the security of our country as a whole by specifically targeting the systems where the greatest risks are concentrated—superintelligent AI systems—by prohibiting their development.
The Bill strikes a balance to address the grave security risks posed by superintelligent AI development while not undermining the UK’s AI ambitions, especially those relating to economic prosperity. Instead, it is acutely focused on mitigating the risks that superintelligent AI presents. Rather than betting on technical definitions that the technology will outgrow, it defines superintelligent AI by what it could do. Just as the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 defines toxic chemicals by the effect they have on living organisms rather than their technical characteristics, my Bill defines superintelligence by outcome: it is an AI system that can cause serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom because of its capabilities to neutralise, displace, circumvent, subvert or render ineffective relevant human authorities in the exercise of their functions.
The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum, so it matters where we draw the line. That line must recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement—the full automation of AI development with no humans in the loop. That is the point where we lose control as development towards superintelligent AI proceeds too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control.
My Bill would also empower the Government to monitor and, where necessary, restrict precursors to superintelligent AI. A challenge that we cannot overlook, however, is that if anyone builds superintelligent AI—wherever they build it—we are all in danger. Some talk of a race to develop superintelligent AI as if there could be a human winner. The only winner of that race would be superintelligent AI itself, and we would all be at its mercy. When a machine can outsmart our best engineers and resist shutdown, national borders offer no protection.
Domestic legislation can protect us from the risk of superintelligent development at home, but it cannot by itself address the risks posed by superintelligent programs abroad. A global program necessitates a global solution. My Bill recommends that the Government work with other countries to secure an international agreement prohibiting superintelligence.
Why should Britain lead this effort? Because we already have. AI’s foundational theoretical groundwork was laid by Alan Turing at Cambridge, Bletchley Park and Manchester. Google DeepMind was founded in London. Most importantly, Britain hosted the first global AI safety summit at Bletchley Park, which brought the US and China to the table to shape the future of AI. Britain established the world’s first AI security institute, building crucial expertise within Government. With AI policy now at the Cabinet table, Britain has an opportunity—and, I would argue, a responsibility—to leverage its state capacity and lead the next stage of international AI governance, especially when we have the next presidency of the G20.
The Bill recognises that responsibility. With this Bill, the UK becomes the first G7 country in which legislation has been introduced to address the national security and extinction risk from super-intelligent AI by prohibiting its development. It is a watershed moment that lays the foundation for the UK to champion and work with others on a lean international agreement—a “trust but verify” regime—that does not need to wait on the slow machinery of traditional institutions.
Key choke points in the AI supply chain would provide Governments with the ability to monitor and control the development of superintelligent AI. The most advanced AI systems depend on state-of-the-art chips. Such features make the supply chain inherently controllable and an international agreement eminently enforceable—for example, through the programming of chips. What is missing is not the technical ability to implement such a treaty, but a coalition of countries ready to tackle this national and global security threat. Britain can lead the way.
I am proud to champion this Bill, but we are not alone in this effort. In June this year the United States Government suspended access to Anthropic’s Mythos model on national security grounds. If the Trump Administration, who are perceived as historically against AI regulation, can contemplate drawing a line on models that are too powerful and dangerous, it would be strange for us not to ask what our response should be. That is especially true given our legacy of being a first mover on AI security, with Bletchley Park and the world’s first AI security institute.
A growing worldwide coalition of the willing is calling for decisive action. We should kick-start this effort at home. The clock is ticking.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am as keen as anybody to get on with discussing the Health Bill, but this topic is too serious an opportunity to miss, given that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has raised such important issues. I really commend his speech and his initiative. Everybody should read it.
All I want to say is that a kind of unilateral disarmament on AI is not going to solve the international problem. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran: these are not respecters of international treaties or international laws, even if they were to sign such treaties or laws, and we do not want to disable our own industry. The jury is out on whether AI is an extinction-threatening phenomenon, but I really do commend the hon. Member for raising the topic. I hope he will forgive me for opposing the Bill because I want the debate to continue.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alex Sobel, Jess Asato, John McDonnell, Afzal Khan, Dr Allison Gardner, Bambos Charalambous, Sir Desmond Swayne, Charlie Maynard, Manuela Perteghella, Ben Lake, Yasmin Qureshi and Wera Hobhouse present the Bill.
Alex Sobel accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 142).
Health Bill (Money)
Health Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 79 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 108 / Noes: 357 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 95—Disclosure of information relating to medicines.
Government new clause 98—Disclosure of information relating to medical devices.
Government new clause 99—Further and consequential amendments relating to medical devices.
Government new clause 100—Power to amend meaning of “medical device”.
Government new clause 101—Power to restate medical devices law in Northern Ireland.
New clause 9—Powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health system failings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a standard mechanism for coroners and medical examiners to refer cases where they suspect failings in the provision of health care.
(2) A coroner or a medical examiner has a duty to report (a “duty to whistleblow”) using the mechanism established under subsection (1) if, in the course of their duties, they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a death or incident involved systemic failings in a health care setting.
(3) A referral under this section must be directed to any or all of the following bodies, as the coroner or medical examiner considers appropriate, based on the nature of the suspected failing—
(a) the chief officer of police for the relevant police area,
(b) the Care Quality Commission,
(c) the Department of Health and Social Care, and
(d) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) the information to be included in a referral,
(b) the timeframe within which a referral must be made following the formation of a suspicion, and
(c) guidance on the criteria for determining to which of the bodies listed in subsection (3) the referral must be directed.
(5) A disclosure made in fulfilment of the duty under subsection (2) is a protected disclosure for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection for whistleblowing).
(6) The duties imposed by this section are in addition to, and do not affect, a senior coroner’s duty to make a report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (reports on action to prevent other deaths).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for them to formally refer suspected health system failings (including systemic issues) directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It provides legal protection for those making such referrals.
New clause 10—Duty of NHS boards to report medical malpractice—
“(1) A member of the board of directors of an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust in England must report any evidence or reports they have seen of systemic medical malpractice within the trust to—
(a) the Care Quality Commission,
(b) the Department of Health and Social Care, and
(c) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
(2) The board of directors of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England has a collective duty to—
(a) refer the trust to the Care Quality Commission, and
(b) alert the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, if staff employed by, or acting on behalf of, the trust raise concerns of systemic medical malpractice.
(3) In this section, “systemic medical malpractice” means an action or omission in the provision of health care that falls below the expected standard of care and indicates a widespread, patterned, or recurring failure within the systems, processes, or governance of the trust.”
This new clause would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS and Foundation Trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB. It also imposes a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns regarding malpractice.
New clause 13—Medical Disinformation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a strategy on anti-vaccine and medical disinformation (“the Strategy”).
(2) The strategy must consider—
(a) support for medical professionals to build trust and engage with persons who are anti-vaccine,
(b) support for medical professionals and NHS leaders to engage with anti-vaccine councillors or officials in local authorities,
(c) investment in public messaging to combat medical disinformation, including engagement with trusted online influencers,
(d) outreach campaigns focused on communities who are sceptical about vaccinations,
(e) introducing criminal liability for those, including online influencers and politicians, who profit from medical disinformation,
(f) a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this strategy before Parliament upon publication.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation.
New clause 14—Healthwatch funding—
“(1) The Secretary of State, must within 12 months of the passing of this Act, enact a scheme to fund Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations for the 2027/2028 financial year to the level estimated by the Department for Health and Social Care in 2013/14.
(2) The Secretary of State must consider uprating this funding with inflation for 2026/2027.”
This new clause would ensure that Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations are funded to the level estimated by the Department for Health and Social Care in 2013/14.
New clause 20—Cancer Survival Research—
“(1) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Cancer Survival Research Programme.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) require government co-ordination and funding for research into cancers with a five-year survival rate below 20%, and
(b) establish a fellowship programme for foreign academics in cancer research.
(3) Any programme established under paragraph 2(b) must make provision to waive visa fees for entry into the UK for participating academics.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the government to coordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.
New clause 24—Strategy for provision of Minor Injuries Units and Urgent Treatment Centres in rural areas—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy for expanding the provision of Minor Injuries Units and Urgent Treatment Centres in rural areas.
(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the implementation of the strategy every 12 months after the strategy has been published.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a strategy for expanding the provision of Minor Injuries Units and Urgent Treatment Centres in rural areas and report on the implementation of the strategy annually.
New clause 26—Patient safety recommendations: national oversight—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme relating to the oversight of patient safety recommendations (“the scheme”).
(2) The scheme must make provision for the monitoring and delivery of patient safety recommendations arising from—
(a) investigations,
(b) inquiries,
(c) reviews, and
(d) other patient safety bodies,
relating to patient safety.
(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and every subsequent year, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on the progress of the scheme.”
New clause 27—Duty of candour and enforcement of standards of ethical conduct in DHSC—
“(1) In discharging its expected standards of ethical conduct, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), must, in particular—
(a) set out the steps DHSC will take to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies and other relevant health-related organisations are consistent with the statutory duty of candour and the principles of openness, transparency and learning following patient safety incidents,
(b) set out which oversight body is responsible for ensuring the standards set out in DHSC code of ethical conduct are adhered to and enforced,
(c) set out provisions to allow a relevant oversight body to examine, on its own initiative, suspected serious or systemic breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct,
(d) set out a mechanism for ensuring that any breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct are recorded and that proper data is kept and published that records the extent to which complaints have been made regarding its ethical conduct and their outcome.”
New clause 28—Review of NHS neurodiversity policy—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review on—
(a) standards of NHS care for neurodiverse people,
(b) the effectiveness of current NHS trust policies regarding care for neurodiverse patients,
(c) the quality of training and guidance for frontline NHS staff in supporting neurodiverse patients, and
(d) health outcomes for neurodiverse patients at NHS trusts.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 30—Review into acute stroke support services in rural areas—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review of acute stroke support services in rural areas.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an evaluation of—
(a) decision making processes,
(b) evidence used to justify decisions,
(c) public consultation processes,
(d) health outcomes,
(e) travel times for access to services, and
(f) impact on the NHS workforces.”
New clause 41—Remit of the Human Tissue Authority—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, by order under section 14(4) of the Human Tissue Act 2004, amend the remit of the Human Tissue Authority to include the regulation of funeral directors, private mortuaries, direct cremation services and other organisations which transport or hold the bodies of deceased persons for the purposes of ensuring that the carrying out of their functions is consistent with the protection of public health.
(2) The Authority must establish and maintain a register of the bodies subject to its oversight under subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision regarding the establishment and operation of the register under subsection (2).
(4) Regulations made under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to extend the remit of the Human Tissue Authority to include regulation of funeral service providers to ensure their activities are consistent with the protection of public health; and to maintain a register of those bodies subject to its regulation.
New clause 42—Oversight of funeral service provider premises and practices connected to the storage, preparation and movement of human remains—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a body corporate, or confer functions on an existing public authority, ("the Regulator") to provide oversight of the premises and practices connected to the storage, preparation and movement of human remains by funeral service providers in England.
(2) The purpose of the Regulator is to ensure that the activities undertaken under subsection (1) are consistent with the protection of public health.
(3) The Regulator shall be independent in the exercise of its functions and shall not be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown.
(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision for—
(a) a scheme for the registration of funeral service providers;
(b) the inspection of premises, vehicles and other facilities used by registered providers for the storage, preparation, care or transportation of deceased persons, or from which funeral services are arranged or conducted;
(c) the publication and enforcement of a code of practice for the funeral services sector; and
(d) the imposition of sanctions, including suspension or removal from the register, for breach of that code.
(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) providers of funeral services;
(b) such persons representing the interests of bereaved people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 45—Secretary of State directions relating to early access to medicines—
“(1) The Secretary of State may give directions to any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) about the implementation of a scheme providing early access to medicines to people with life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions.
(2) The bodies are—
(a) integrated care board,
(b) NHS Trusts,
(c) NHS Foundation Trusts,
(d) NHS Advanced Foundation Trusts, and
(e) other health and social care bodies.”
This new clause would give the Secretary of State power to direct integrated care boards, NHS Trusts, NHS Foundation Trusts, and NHS Advanced Foundation Trusts to implement a scheme to provide early access to medicines to people with life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions.
New clause 47—Review of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the regime for early and accelerated access to medicines in England and Wales.
(2) The review conducted under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the effectiveness of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS),
(b) the effectiveness of early access outside of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS), and
(c) equality of access across England and Wales, with the aim of reducing geographical inequalities between different NHS trusts.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report and recommendations of the review before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of regime for early and accelerated access to medicines.
New clause 49—National Guardian’s Office—
“(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must re-establish the National Guardian's Office.
(2) The Office established under subsection (1) must—
(a) hold any responsibilities held by the National Guardian's Office as of 29 June 2026; and
(b) be operationally independent.”
This new clause will re-establish the National Guardian’s Office.
New clause 52—Cancer treatment: waiting times—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision for every patient to have access to cancer treatment within 62 days following referral.
(2) Provision under subsection (1) must by regulations amend the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) Regulations 2012 to place a right in the NHS constitution for England for every patient to have access to cancer treatment within 62 days following referral.
(3) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme to support NHS hospital trusts in meeting the requirement under subsection (1).
(4) As part of the Scheme, the Secretary of State must expand the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
(5) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to Parliament on progress made in meeting the requirement under subsection (1).
(6) Any statement made under subsection (5) should be made as close as reasonably practicable to 4 February.”
This new clause would give patients a right under the NHS constitution to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and requires the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver this. It also requires the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on or around the time of World Cancer Day.
New clause 63—Social Care—
“(1) Within 3 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament detailed proposals for reform of the social care sector.
(2) Proposals under subsection (1) must include provision for—
(a) a respite care scheme;
(b) reform of carers allowance;
(c) free personal care; and
(d) a cap on care costs.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament plans to reform the social care sector, including free personal care, a cap on care costs and that delivers for family carers.
New clause 68—Report on dementia care—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—
(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia.
(b) the provision of social care in relation to dementia.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must have regard to—
(a) any targets or standards set out in a national plan, guidance, or framework relating to dementia services, and
(b) any other information the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of variation in dementia services and outcomes between Integrated Care Board areas,
(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,
(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers of dementia patients,
(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,
(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,
(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and
(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the provision of NHS care and social care in relation to dementia.
New clause 72—Provision of Minor Injuries Units in Rural Areas—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and implement a strategy to improve access to minor injuries units in rural communities.
(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must include measures to—
(a) expand, maintain and protect existing minor injuries units serving rural populations;
(b) ensure that integrated care boards assess local demand for urgent treatment services in rural constituencies and make provision accordingly, and
(c) promote the recruitment and retention of healthcare professionals required to staff such facilities.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on—
(a) the number and geographical distribution of minor injuries units in England;
(b) changes in patient access to urgent care services in rural areas; and
(c) progress made in implementing the strategy required under subsection (1).
(4) In this section, “rural constituency” means a parliamentary constituency designated as predominantly rural by the Office for National Statistics or such successor body as may be prescribed by regulations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to expand and safeguard minor injuries units in rural communities with the aim of improving access to urgent care, reducing pressure on major hospitals, and ensuring equitable healthcare provision regardless of geography.
New clause 81—Family support duty following serious childhood diagnosis—
“(1) Where a child is diagnosed with cancer or another life-threatening condition, the responsible NHS provider must, within 14 days of diagnosis, ensure that the child’s family is offered appropriate information, support and coordination services.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the responsible NHS provider must offer—
(a) access to a named family support coordinator;
(b) information regarding welfare benefits, financial support and relevant public services;
(c) information regarding employment rights and workplace support available to parents and carers;
(d) signposting to appropriate mental health and psychological support services;
(e) information regarding relevant local and national charities, support organisations and peer-support services;
(f) a written family support plan setting out the support available to the family during treatment; and
(g) notification and information sharing in accordance with subsection (3).
(3) The responsible NHS provider must provide the child’s registered general practitioner and where different, the registered general practitioners of the child’s parents or primary carers, with a Family Support Summary.
(4) A Family Support Summary must include—
(a) the child’s diagnosis;
(b) the proposed treatment plan;
(c) the expected duration and intensity of treatment, where known;
(d) information regarding the potential impact of the diagnosis and treatment on parents, carers and siblings; and
(e) any recommendations regarding wellbeing support, monitoring or referral for the family unit.
(5) Following receipt of a Family Support Summary, the relevant general practice shall be encouraged to consider the wellbeing needs of parents, carers and siblings and, where appropriate, provide information, assessment, referral or signposting to suitable support services.
(6) The Secretary of State must publish guidance for NHS providers on the discharge of duties under this section.
(7) In this section—
“child” means a person under the age of 16;
“family” includes parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings; and
“life-threatening condition” means a condition designated as such by the Secretary of State in guidance.”
This new clause places a duty on NHS providers to offer practical information, coordination and support to families within 14 days of a child being diagnosed with cancer or another life-threatening condition.
New clause 82—Parent mental health and bereavement support duty—
“(1) Where a child is diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the psychological wellbeing of parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings is considered as part of the child’s care pathway.
(2) Within 14 days of diagnosis, the responsible NHS provider must offer—
(a) a parental psychological wellbeing assessment;
(b) access to a designated family support practitioner, psychologist, counsellor or other appropriately qualified professional;
(c) information regarding the psychological impact of serious childhood illness, including trauma, anxiety, depression, stress and bereavement;
(d) a written Family Mental Health Support Plan;
(e) notification to the child’s registered general practitioner and, where different, the registered general practitioners of parents or primary carers.
(3) During active treatment, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that parents and primary carers are offered periodic psychological wellbeing reviews.
(4) The responsible NHS provider must offer an additional psychological wellbeing review following any—
(a) significant deterioration in the child’s condition,
(b) relapse,
(c) progression of disease,
(d) transition to palliative care, or
(e) other material change in prognosis.
(5) The responsible NHS provider must ensure that support under this section is offered proactively and must not be dependent upon a parent, guardian, carer or sibling requesting support, identifying their own need, or making a self-referral.
(6) Following the death of a child, the responsible NHS provider must—
(a) offer a bereavement wellbeing assessment to parents or primary carers;
(b) offer access to bereavement counselling, psychological support or equivalent specialist services;
(c) make proactive contact with the family within 14 days of the child’s death;
(d) offer further follow-up support at intervals specified in guidance issued by NHS England; and
(e) ensure that referral pathways are available where significant psychological distress, trauma, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress symptoms are identified.
(7) The responsible NHS provider must ensure that information regarding available support services is provided to siblings and that age-appropriate emotional support pathways are available where required.
(8) NHS England must publish guidance regarding—
(a) parental psychological wellbeing assessments;
(b) family mental health support following serious childhood diagnosis;
(c) bereavement support following the death of a child;
(d) support for siblings affected by serious childhood illness;
(e) referral pathways into specialist mental health services; and
(f) minimum standards for proactive family mental health support.
(9) NHS England must publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on compliance with this section.
(10) In this section—
“child” means a person under the age of 16;
“family” includes parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings; and
“life-threatening condition” means a condition designated by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(11) The Secretary of State must, within three years of the commencement of this section, undertake a review of its operation and lay a report before Parliament.”
This new clause would establish a statutory duty on NHS providers to identify and support the psychological wellbeing of parents, carers and siblings following the diagnosis of a life-threatening childhood condition. It would create a proactive, opt-out family mental health pathway from diagnosis through treatment and, where applicable, bereavement.
New clause 83—Review of uncertain imaging findings in high-risk childhood illness—
“(1) Where imaging undertaken in relation to a child with a high-risk cancer or other life-threatening condition identifies findings that are—
(a) inconclusive,
(b) indeterminate, or
(c) suspicious,
the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the findings are reviewed by a consultant clinician responsible for the child's care.
(2) Following such a review, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the child's parent, guardian or primary carer is informed—
(a) of the nature of the uncertainty identified;
(b) whether disease progression, relapse or recurrence can be confidently excluded;
(c) what further investigations or surveillance are being considered; and
(d) the risks and benefits associated with immediate further imaging, alternative imaging modalities, or continued observation.
(3) Where disease progression or relapse cannot be confidently excluded, the responsible NHS provider must consider whether additional imaging or investigation should be undertaken within 14 days or as soon as clinically practicable, whichever is sooner.
(4) The outcome of any discussion held under subsection (2), including the views expressed by the child's parent, guardian or primary carer, must be recorded in the child's medical records.
(5) NHS England must publish guidance on the operation of this section, including circumstances in which further imaging should be considered following uncertain or indeterminate findings.”
This new clause requires consultant review of uncertain imaging findings in children with designated high-risk conditions. It also aims to ensure that parents are informed of the uncertainty, the available options and the risks and benefits of those options before a decision is made.
New clause 86—Compassionate access to innovative treatments—
“(1) In exercising their functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for compassionate access to innovative treatments, involving substances listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions in circumstances where conventional treatments have been unsuccessful, unsuitable, or unavailable.
(2) Regulations made under this section must make provision for the authorisation, supply, possession, administration and supervision of such treatments, notwithstanding any restriction imposed by or under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, including provision for—
(a) appropriate clinical and regulatory safeguards;
(b) approval arrangements for participating clinicians, providers and pharmacies; and
(c) case-by-case decision-making having regard to clinical need, patient safety, and available evidence.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a serious or life-threatening condition is defined as a condition involving a substantial risk to life or serious impairment of health or functioning.
(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for compassionate access to innovative treatments, involving substances listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions in certain circumstances.
New clause 87—Research into innovative treatments involving controlled substances—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations take steps to enable and support the development of research relating to innovative treatments, which use substances listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
(2) Regulations made under this section must make provision, for—
(a) the lawful possession, supply, administration, production and importation of such substances for the purposes of clinical trials or other research activities approved in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001; and
(b) proportionate and timely arrangements relating to the approval, licensing and oversight of authorised research activities under this section.
(3) Provision under subsection (2) applies to—
(a) approved research bodies,
(b) authorised researchers, and
(c) participating healthcare providers,
and specified substances used for approved research purposes, and does not alter the schedule or classification of a substance.
(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take steps to enable and support the development of research relating to innovative treatments, which use substances listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
New clause 88—New Hospital Programme: publication of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) reports—
“(1) Within three months beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish the MCDA reports used to determine the prioritisation of schemes and their allocation to waves within the New Hospital Programme.
(2) The information published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the multi-criteria decision support analysis tool used to prioritise schemes;
(b) the input data used in that analysis for each hospital in the New Hospital Programme;
(c) the scoring mechanism used in that analysis;
(d) any assessment of estate condition, including data from the NHS England Estate Return Information Collection;
(e) any assessment of patient safety, service disruption or maintenance backlog;
(f) any assessment of the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete;
(g) any assessment of the risks associated with delaying individual schemes; and
(h) any review of the appropriateness of the input data or scoring mechanism by NHS England or the Department of Health and Social Care.
(3) The Secretary of State may redact information published under this section where publication would—
(a) prejudice commercial negotiations,
(b) disclose personal data, or
(c) endanger the safety or security of patients, staff or NHS premises.
(4) Where information is redacted under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining the reason for the redaction.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay the reports and information published under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish the criteria, input data and scoring mechanism used to determine the prioritisation of schemes and their allocation to waves within the New Hospital Programme. Whilst the input data was obtained from publicly available sources, the MCDA reports are currently not publicly available.
New clause 89—New Hospital Programme: estate failure—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must review whether hospitals experiencing significant estate failure are being appropriately prioritised within the New Hospital Programme.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “significant estate failure” includes the closure, partial closure or restricted use of hospital buildings because of structural, safety or infrastructure failures.
(3) In prioritising schemes within the New Hospital Programme, the Secretary of State must ensure that hospitals experiencing significant estate failure are treated with the same urgency as hospitals affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of the review in subsection (1).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review whether hospitals experiencing significant estate failure are being appropriately prioritised within the New Hospital Programme, and to ensure that such hospitals are treated with the same urgency as RAAC-affected hospitals.
New clause 92—Duty to report on the regulation of cosmetic surgery—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the effectiveness and safety of current regulation of cosmetic surgery.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must investigate regulatory measures regarding professional checks on the providers of cosmetic surgery, including whether they—
(a) are registered medical practitioners;
(b) have completed recognised specialist surgical training; and
(c) hold Cosmetic Surgery Board Certification, or an equivalent certification, accreditation or qualification.
(3) The report must also consider the safety of current regulations of the premises where cosmetic surgery procedures are undertaken.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report assessing the regulation of cosmetic surgery.
New clause 102—Report on impact on health of social media addiction—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, commission a report on the impact on health of social media addiction.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider and make recommendations concerning—
(a) the mental health effects of social media addiction;
(b) the physical health effects of social media addiction; and
(c) the effects of social media addiction on demand for NHS services.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report with proposed actions to minimise the health harms of social media addiction before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a report considering the impact on health of social media addiction.
New clause 103—Communication with parents of critically ill children—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance to integrated care boards on communication with parents of critically ill children, with particular reference to major decisions in the child’s treatment and care.
(2) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must—
(a) make provision for ensuring that parents have been fully consulted and are fully informed of decisions concerning the care or treatment of their child and the rationale behind such decisions;
(b) make provision, where potentially life-ending or life-changing decisions are to be made, to facilitate parents in accessing an independent specialist second opinion;
(c) make provision, where there is a disagreement between parents and clinicians on the care or treatment of a child, for the appointment of an independent mediator;
(d) make provision, following the advice of an independent specialist second opinion, for transfer of the child to another hospital, subject to appropriate clinical safeguards;
(e) make provision, prior to the death of a child, for family members to be given access to the child, whether in the hospital, a children’s hospice or the family home.
(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must have regard to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to integrated care boards concerning their role in communicating with parents of critically ill children, and involving them in decision-making.
New clause 107—Fracture liaison services: implementation framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an implementation framework for ensuring universal access to fracture liaison services in England by 2030.
(2) The framework must set out—
(a) the minimum standards expected of fracture liaison services;
(b) the steps to be taken to reduce unwarranted variation in access and quality between integrated care board areas;
(c) the respective responsibilities of integrated care boards and NHS trusts;
(d) the workforce, diagnostic, digital and data requirements necessary to support implementation; and
(e) arrangements for identifying people at risk of further fragility fractures and ensuring that they receive appropriate assessment, treatment and follow-up.
(3) The Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament each year, until 2030, setting out progress towards universal access to fracture liaison services.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an implementation framework for ensuring universal access to fracture liaison services in England by 2030.
New clause 110—Rural access to child and adolescent mental health services—
“(1) Each integrated care board must make arrangements to ensure that children and young people in rural areas have reasonable access to child and adolescent mental health services.
(2) In exercising its functions under subsection (1), an integrated care board must have regard to—
(a) travel distances and travel times;
(b) the availability of public transport;
(c) the availability of locally accessible community facilities; and
(d) the particular needs of children and young people who may face barriers to travelling to a centralised service.
(3) The Secretary of State must provide appropriate support to integrated care boards and local authorities to develop community-based child and adolescent mental health services in rural areas.
(4) An integrated care board and a local authority may make arrangements for the use or repurposing of vacant or underused public buildings for the provision of child and adolescent mental health services.”
This new clause would improve access to CAMHS in rural areas by supporting locally delivered services and enabling vacant or underused public buildings to be repurposed for community mental health provision.
New clause 111—Child and adolescent mental health workforce and service capacity—
“(1) Each integrated care board must assess whether child and adolescent mental health services in its area have sufficient staffing and clinical capacity to meet the needs of children and young people.
(2) Where an assessment under subsection (1) identifies a significant shortfall, the integrated care board must prepare and implement a plan to address that shortfall.
(3) The plan must include measures to support the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified staff and, where clinically appropriate, the provision of specialist services including trauma assessment, dialectical behaviour therapy and art therapy.
(4) In preparing the plan, an integrated care board must have regard to—
(a) the number of children and young people receiving CAMHS services;
(b) waiting times for assessment and treatment;
(c) the number and complexity of cases managed by individual staff members; and
(d) the availability of specialist clinical services.”
This new clause would require integrated care boards to assess and address staffing and service capacity in CAMHS, including access to appropriate specialist services.
New clause 112—Review of child and adolescent mental health services in rural areas—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, reviews of the provision of child and adolescent mental health services in rural areas in England.
(2) Any review must consider—
(a) waiting times for assessment and treatment;
(b) access to interim support following referral;
(c) travel distances and access to public transport;
(d) staffing and specialist service capacity;
(e) the availability of community-based provision; and
(f) the use of vacant or underused public buildings for the delivery of services.
(3) A review must identify areas where the provision of child and adolescent mental health services is insufficient to meet local need.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the findings of any review and an action plan setting out measures to address any significant deficiencies identified.
(5) The first review under this section must be completed within 12 months of the passing of this Act and subsequent reviews must be completed at intervals of not more than five years.”
This new clause would require a national review of CAMHS provision in rural areas, including access, waiting times, workforce capacity and the availability of community-based services.
New clause 113—Radiotherapy services: access and accountability—
(1) The Secretary of State must publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
(2) The framework must set out nationally agreed metrics against which integrated care boards must measure and report their delivery of, and investment in, radiotherapy services.
(3) The metrics must include, but are not limited to, metrics relating to—
(a) waiting times for radiotherapy;
(b) access to radiotherapy services, including variation in radiotherapy treatment rates between integrated care board areas;
(c) the age, capability and replacement needs of radiotherapy equipment;
(d) radiotherapy capacity against assessed population need; and
(e) workforce capacity.
(4) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report on its performance against the metrics in the framework.
(5) Before publishing or revising the framework, the Secretary of State must consult persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy services.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, at least once in each financial year, a report on the implementation of the framework and any steps proposed to address underperformance or unwarranted variation.
(7) In this section, “radiotherapy services” means services involving the use of ionising radiation for the treatment of cancer.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services. Integrated Care Boards would be required to report annually against national metrics on waiting times, access, equipment, capacity, workforce, investment and variation.
New clause 114—Radiotherapy services: access and waiting times—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review of access to radiotherapy services and waiting times for radiotherapy in England.
(2) The review must include an assessment of—
(a) variation in access to radiotherapy services between integrated care board areas;
(b) waiting times for radiotherapy services, including where radiotherapy is the first, second or subsequent cancer treatment received by a patient; and
(c) the extent to which capacity, equipment, workforce or investment constraints are affecting access to radiotherapy services or waiting times for radiotherapy.
(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy services.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament and set out any steps proposed to address identified gaps in access to radiotherapy services or waiting times for radiotherapy.
(5) In this section, “radiotherapy services” means services involving the use of ionising radiation for the treatment of cancer.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review access to radiotherapy services and radiotherapy waiting times. The review would examine variation between ICB areas, delays where radiotherapy is a first or subsequent treatment, and the capacity constraints affecting patient access.
New clause 116—Access to medicinal cannabis for children: review and clinical trials—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a review on access to medicinal cannabis for children on the NHS.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) variation between integrated care boards in the referral and prescribing of medicinal cannabis to children;
(b) the barriers preventing children from accessing medicinal cannabis through the NHS, including the number of patients who access private prescriptions as a result;
(c) the current evidence base for the clinical effectiveness of medicinal cannabis for children; and
(d) options for expanding that evidence base through clinical trials.
(3) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to support and facilitate clinical trials into the use of medicinal cannabis for children, with the aim of establishing a clearer evidence base to inform NHS prescribing guidance.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review inconsistencies in NHS access to medicinal cannabis for children, including the extent to which patients are forced to rely on private prescriptions, and would place a duty on the Secretary of State to support clinical trials to strengthen the evidence base for prescribing.
New clause 117—Access to speech and language therapy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a strategy for improving access to NHS speech and language therapy services in England.
(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of waiting times for speech and language therapy across integrated care boards;
(b) an assessment of variation in access to speech and language therapy between different areas of England;
(c) an assessment of the speech and language therapy workforce, including current vacancy rates and future workforce need; and
(d) proposals to reduce waiting times and geographical variation in access.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish a further report reviewing progress against the strategy within eighteen months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to address waiting times and geographical inequality in access to NHS speech and language therapy, and to report on progress against that strategy.
New clause 123—NICE technology appraisal recommendation: accountability scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish by regulations an accountability scheme relating to the implementation of NICE technology appraisal recommendations (the "scheme").
(2) Under the scheme, Health and Social Care bodies must take all reasonable steps to implement a NICE technology appraisal recommendation within three months of receiving such a recommendation.
(3) Any Health and Social Care body that fails to meet the requirement set out in subsection (2) must—
(a) publish an explanation of the reasons for the failure;
(b) specify any circumstances which have prevented implementation; and
(c) publish a plan setting out the steps it will take to implement the recommendation.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 131—Activities of religious groups in medical settings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations concerning the activities of religious groups in medical settings in England.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for—
(a) clinical oversight of training provided by representatives of religious groups to healthcare professionals and students on the treatment of patients who hold religious beliefs that may influence their choice of treatment;
(b) ensuring that the contacting of any religious group on behalf of a patient, or for advice on care, is made only at the request of the patient;
(c) requiring opportunities for patients to indicate final treatment preference in the absence of religious representatives, and ensuring religious representatives cannot later verify a patient’s final treatment choice; and
(d) any other matter that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the activities of religious groups in medical settings in England, to prevent medical coercion.
New clause 132—Non-therapeutic male circumcision—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations relating to non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC).
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for—
(a) a requirement that NTMC may only be performed by a suitably qualified healthcare professional and must be inspected by the Care Quality Commission;
(b) the inclusion of NTMC as a regulated activity under the Health and Social Care Act 2008;
(c) the creation of a statutory duty for integrated care boards to produce annual data on prevalence and complications of NTMC;
(d) a requirement that NTMC be included in the Single Patient Record; and
(e) any other matter that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulation of non-therapeutic male circumcision, following several prevention of future death reports issued by coroners as a result of deaths arising from this procedure.
New clause 137—Cancer outcomes—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1GA insert—
“1GB Cancer outcomes
In exercising functions relating to the health service, the Secretary of State must treat objectives relating to cancer outcomes as having priority over any other objectives relating specifically to cancer.””
The Secretary of State is currently required to set cancer outcome objectives for NHS England, with those objectives taking priority over other cancer goals. The Health Bill removes this provision. This new clause would place a new duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise cancer outcomes such as survival by inserting a new section into Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
New clause 138—Report on occupational health screening for fire and rescue personnel—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on access to occupational health screening, including blood testing for biomarkers of exposure to carcinogens, for members of fire and rescue services in England.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of occupational exposure as a firefighter as carcinogenic to humans;
(b) the current provision of occupational health screening for fire and rescue personnel by fire and rescue authorities, NHS bodies and integrated care boards;
(c) options for a national baseline entitlement to periodic health screening for fire and rescue personnel, informed by exposure risk;
(d) the resource and workforce implications of any such entitlement; and
(e) the interaction of any such entitlement with existing work by the Fire Brigades Union and the University of Central Lancashire on the UK Firefighters Cancer and Disease Registry.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on occupational health screening, including blood testing, for fire and rescue personnel, in recognition of their elevated risk of cancer arising from occupational exposure to carcinogens.
New clause 139—Duty on integrated care boards to share data with fire and rescue authorities concerning vulnerable persons—
“(1) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to share, or to facilitate the sharing of, relevant data with a fire and rescue authority for the area, or part of the area, for which the integrated care board has responsibility, for the purpose of enabling the fire and rescue authority to identify and prioritise vulnerable persons in the event of an emergency.
(2) In this section, “relevant data” means data relating to a person’s vulnerability, including but not limited to age, disability or mobility, that is necessary and proportionate for the purpose in subsection (1).
(3) Data may only be shared under this section—
(a) in accordance with the requirements of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018;
(b) subject to arrangements agreed between the integrated care board and the fire and rescue authority setting out the purpose, extent and security of the data sharing; and
(c) where a mechanism exists for a person to object to the sharing of their data under this section, save where doing so would be likely to endanger life.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this section coming into force, publish guidance for integrated care boards and fire and rescue authorities on the operation of this section.
(5) In this section, “fire and rescue authority” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.”
This new clause would place a duty on integrated care boards to share relevant data concerning vulnerable residents with fire and rescue authorities, subject to data protection safeguards, to enable fire and rescue services to identify and prioritise vulnerable people in emergencies, including fires and flooding.
New clause 140—Corridor care—
“(1) The Secretary of State must end the practice of corridor care in NHS hospitals within one year of the passage of this Act.
(2) If the requirement under subsection (1) is not met, the Secretary of State must commission an independent inquiry into the Government's handling of corridor care.
(3) The inquiry under subsection (2) must—
(a) investigate the effectiveness of policies, funding and guidance relating to corridor care in the Department of Health and Social Care;
(b) assess the impact on patient safety and staff morale from the continued practice of corridor care; and
(c) recommend steps the Secretary of State should take to end the practice of corridor care.
(4) The inquiry under subsection (2) should be supported by patient safety professionals from the Health Services Safety Investigations Body and the Care Quality Commission.
(5) The inquiry under subsection (2) must be published and laid before Parliament as a final report within 6 months beginning on the day on which the inquiry is established.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to end Corridor Care within 12 months, if they fail to do so they must order an independent inquiry into corridor care and the failure to eradicate the practice.
New clause 141—Suspension of Advice and Guidance pending HSSIB report and mitigation plan—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the operation and further rollout of Advice and Guidance services (including any targets, incentives, pathways or contractual requirements that treat Advice and Guidance as a prerequisite or preferred alternative to direct referral) are suspended until the conditions in subsection (2) are met.
(2) The conditions are that—
(a) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (or, if its functions have already been transferred under section 63 of this Act, the Care Quality Commission exercising those functions) has laid its final report on Advice and Guidance services before Parliament, and
(b) the Secretary of State has published a written mitigation plan addressing the patient safety risks, harms and recommendations identified in that report (including any linked to patient deaths, near misses, treatment delays, resource and capacity gaps, workforce training, digital systems and incident reporting).”
New clause 142—Puberty blockers—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations which ensure that puberty blockers may not be prescribed, dispensed or supplied to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, in the United Kingdom.
(2) Regulations under this section must ensure that such drugs cannot be given out or used as part of clinical trials for the treatment of gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, unless that trial has specifically been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(3) For the purposes of this section, puberty blockers means—
(a) a “gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (“GnRH”) analogue” which means a medicinal product that consists of or contains buserelin, gonadorelin, goserelin, leuprorelin acetate, nafarelin or triptorelin, and
(b) any other drug which has the effect of suppressing or delaying puberty that the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint.”
This new clause would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations which prevent puberty blockers from being prescribed to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender incongruence, or being given in clinical trials related to gender incongruence unless specifically approved by Parliament.
New clause 143—Single sex facilities—
“(1) The Secretary of State is required to ensure that there are single sex—
(a) changing rooms for NHS staff,
(b) toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff,
(c) wards for NHS patients, and
(d) toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.
(2) The Secretary of State may make exemptions to the duty in subsection (1)(c) and (1)(d) where necessary for—
(a) children,
(b) intensive care units,
(c) critical care, and
(d) specialist high observation areas such as resuscitation in Accident and Emergency and the initial recovery area in theatres.”
This new clause creates a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure certain single sex facilities are made available for NHS staff and patients. It provides exemptions in certain circumstances.
New clause 146—Fracture liaison services: delivery plan and annual reporting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a delivery plan for securing universal provision of fracture liaison services across England by 2030.
(2) The plan under subsection (1) must include—
(a) a baseline assessment of current access to, and quality of, fracture liaison services in each integrated care board area, distinguishing clearly between services established before and after July 2024;
(b) annual milestones for the number of patients identified, assessed and treated through fracture liaison services, sufficient to reach the level required for universal coverage;
(c) the specific steps the Secretary of State will take to support integrated care boards to commission and sustain high-quality fracture liaison services, including any use of directions, guidance, financial incentives, capital funding or other mechanisms;
(d) workforce, diagnostic (including DEXA capacity), digital and data requirements, with associated funding assumptions;
(e) arrangements for independent monitoring and public reporting of progress against the milestones; and
(f) an estimate of the expected reduction in fragility fractures, hip fractures, associated deaths and NHS bed days, drawing on available evidence including that published by the Royal Osteoporosis Society.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of publishing the plan under subsection (1) and every 12 months thereafter until 2030, lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) progress against each annual milestone;
(b) the number of new fracture liaison services established and the number of patients identified in the preceding year;
(c) any revision to the milestones or timetable, with the reasons for any such revision; and
(d) action being taken to address any shortfall.
(4) In this section “fracture liaison service” means a service for the systematic identification, assessment, treatment and ongoing monitoring of people who have sustained a fragility fracture, for the purpose of reducing their risk of further fractures.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan to roll out fracture liaison services across England and publish reports of progress.
New clause 147—Plan to manage acquired brain injury—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a plan for the management of acquired brain injury across England.
(2) A plan under subsection (1) must include but shall not be limited to—
(a) proposed government actions to prevent acquired brain injuries;
(b) proposed government actions to improve acute treatment for acquired brain injuries;
(c) a statement of priorities regarding the Secretary of State’s approach for rehabilitation and long-term support for persons with acquired brain injuries across public services delivered by—
(i) the Department of Health and Social Care,
(ii) the Department for Education, and
(iii) the Ministry of Justice;
(d) proposals for data sharing between government departments, health care, and rehabilitation providers to improve patient—
(i) identification,
(ii) care, and
(iii) support;
(e) a commitment to providing 95% of people with complex needs with a personalised care plan by 2027;
(f) commitments for research into acquired brain injuries in sport;
(g) any proposed use of directions, guidance, financial assistance, incentives or other mechanisms to secure delivery of the plan’s objectives;
(h) workforce, diagnostic, digital and data requirements for implementation of the plan; and
(i) arrangements for monitoring, publishing and reporting progress against the plan.
(3) The plan under subsection (1) must be laid by the Secretary of State before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of publishing a plan under subsection (1), and every 12 months thereafter until 2030, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the proposals and commitments in the plan.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish their action plan to manage acquired brain injury within 30 days of the passing of this Act.
New clause 148—Radiotherapy cancer treatment services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
(2) The framework must include nationally agreed metrics against which integrated care boards must measure and report their investment in, and delivery of, radiotherapy services.
(3) The metrics must include provisions relating to—
(a) waiting times for radiotherapy, including time to definitive treatment;
(b) patient travel times to radiotherapy services, including defining an appropriate recommended travel time;
(c) the number of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy and the quality of such radiotherapy;
(d) the age, capability and replacement needs of radiotherapy equipment, including the proportion of linear accelerators that are more than 10 years old or otherwise beyond the recommended replacement age;
(e) access to modern radiotherapy techniques and technologies;
(f) radiotherapy capacity against population need and the projected increase in number of cancer patients;
(g) variation in access to radiotherapy services between integrated care board areas;
(h) provision of sustainable, flexible workforce that is equipped to harness advances in radiotherapy for patient benefit; and
(i) investment in radiotherapy services and the extent to which such investment reflects clinical need.
(4) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report on its performance against the metrics in the framework.
(5) Before publishing or revising the framework, the Secretary of State must consult persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, at least once in each financial year, a report on the implementation of the framework.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
New clause 149—Modern Service Framework for Respiratory Disease – prioritisation and reporting—
“(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a statement setting out the criteria and process by which the National Quality Board will assess proposals for future Modern Service Frameworks (including respiratory disease), and
(b) lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the prioritisation of respiratory disease for a Modern Service Framework.
(2) The report under subsection (1)(b) must include—
(a) an assessment of the current burden of respiratory disease in England including—
(i) emergency admissions,
(ii) variation by integrated care board area,
(iii) outcomes;
(b) the evidence of potential for rapid and significant improvements in quality of care and productivity that a respiratory Modern Service Framework could deliver;
(c) the status of existing work on respiratory pathways including for—
(i) pulmonary fibrosis,
(ii) pulmonary rehabilitation,
(iii) diagnostics,
(iv) early detection and lung cancer screening,
(v) supported self-management,
(vi) access to medicines;
(d) the expected timetable for any decision by the National Quality Board on whether to prioritise a respiratory Modern Service Framework; and
(e) interim actions the Secretary of State and NHS England are taking to reduce unwarranted variation and emergency admissions attributable to respiratory disease pending any such decision.
(3) If the National Quality Board decides not to prioritise a respiratory Modern Service Framework within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, within three months of that decision, publish and lay before Parliament an alternative national plan for improving respiratory care that addresses the matters set out in subsection (2)(a) to (c) and (e).
(4) The Secretary of State must publish an updated report under subsection (1)(b), or a progress report against any respiratory Modern Service Framework or alternative plan, at intervals of not more than three years.
(5) In preparing any report or plan under this section the Secretary of State must consult clinicians with expertise in respiratory medicine, organisations representing people with respiratory disease, integrated care boards, and NHS providers of respiratory services.”
New clause 150—Modern Service Framework for Musculoskeletal Care – prioritisation and reporting—
“(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a statement setting out the criteria and process by which the National Quality Board will assess proposals for future Modern Service Frameworks (including musculoskeletal conditions), and
(b) lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the prioritisation of musculoskeletal care for a Modern Service Framework.
(2) The report under subsection (1)(b) must include—
(a) an assessment of the current burden of musculoskeletal conditions in England including—
(i) waiting times,
(ii) emergency admissions or unplanned care,
(iii) variation by integrated care board area,
(iv) impact on work and economic inactivity,
(v) outcomes,
(b) the evidence of potential for rapid and significant improvements in quality of care and productivity that a musculoskeletal Modern Service Framework could deliver;
(c) the status of existing national programmes including—
(i) the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) MSK Community Delivery Programme;
(ii) any related elective recovery or neighbourhood health initiatives,
(d) the expected timetable for any decision by the National Quality Board on whether to prioritise a musculoskeletal Modern Service Framework; and
(e) interim actions the Secretary of State and NHS England are taking to reduce unwarranted variation, waiting times and the impact of musculoskeletal conditions on patients and the wider economy pending any such decision.
(3) If the National Quality Board decides not to prioritise a musculoskeletal Modern Service Framework within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, within three months of that decision, publish and lay before Parliament an alternative national plan for improving musculoskeletal care that addresses the matters set out in subsection (2)(a) to (c) and (e).
(4) The Secretary of State must publish an updated report under subsection (1)(b), or a progress report against any musculoskeletal Modern Service Framework or alternative plan, at intervals of not more than three years.
(5) In preparing any report or plan under this section the Secretary of State must consult clinicians with expertise in musculoskeletal medicine and related professions, organisations representing people with musculoskeletal conditions, integrated care boards, and NHS providers of musculoskeletal services.”
New clause 151—Patient safety recommendations: Government response—
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State commissions a review or a report into a patient safety issue.
(2) The Secretary of State must—
(a) decide within six months whether they are going to implement each recommendation of the review;
(b) publish a response to each recommendation with a statement indicating whether each recommendation will be implemented; and
(c) publish a timeline for implementation of recommendations which will be implemented.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to respond to patient safety recommendations.
New clause 159—Mental health waiting time standards and reporting—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 12F (expected mental health spending) is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) stating the Secretary of State's expectations for that year regarding performance against the waiting time standards published under section 12FA;”;
(b) in subsection (1), after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(ab) stating the Secretary of State's expectations for that year regarding the relationship between performance against those waiting time standards and expenditure on mental health services, and”;
(c) for subsection (1)(b) substitute—
“(b) explaining the reasons for the expectations stated under paragraphs (a), (aa) and (ab).”.
(3) After section 12F insert—
“12FA Mental health waiting time standards
(1) The Secretary of State must adopt target national waiting time standards covering mental health services, including community and urgent care.
(2) In determining standards under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must have regard to advice from the Chief Medical Officer about the standards necessary to ensure safe and effective mental health care.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish waiting time standards under this section within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations under section 14Z45A to give effect to the waiting time standards published under this section.””
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to adopt and publish waiting time standards for mental services having regard to advice from the Chief Medical Officer. It would expand the Secretary of State’s existing annual reporting duties to parliament to include reporting the NHS performance in meeting the NHS waiting times standards.
New clause 161—Report into the availability and quality of data relating to dementia care—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the availability and quality of data relating to dementia care within 12 months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The report must include an action plan to address gaps in dementia data across prevalence, the health and social care interface, the dementia care pathway, experience of care, and workforce.
(3) The action plan must, in particular, address the absence of key performance measures, including but not limited to—
(a) waiting times to assessment and diagnosis;
(b) non-medication related interventions; and
(c) care and treatment outcomes.”
Amendment 82, in clause 62, page 45, line 37, at end insert—
“(8B) Provision under (8A) about the period within which a recommendation is to be complied with must—
(a) only apply to individual recommendations in the case of exceptional circumstances,
(b) follow a process aligned with NICE's health technology evaluation procedures,
(c) be subject to engagement from industry stakeholders.”
Amendment 106, page 45, line 37, at end insert—
“(8B) Regulations under subsection (8) must include provision about the period within which NICE guideline NG206 on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) must be complied with.
(8C) The Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NICE guideline NG206, including the extent to which integrated care boards and relevant NHS bodies have implemented recommendations relating to ME specialist services and severe or very severe ME.”
This amendment would require that a period must be set within which the NICE guideline NG206 on ME must be complied with by ICBs and other health bodies. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NICE guideline NG206 across the NHS in England.
Amendment 1, page 45, line 39, leave out clause 63.
Amendment 2, page 46, line 3, leave out clause 64.
Amendment 3, page 46, line 39, leave out clause 65.
Amendment 4, page 47, line 36, leave out clause 66.
Amendment 7, page 48, line 15, leave out clause 68.
This amendment removes the clause abolishing Healthwatch England.
Amendment 5, page 48, line 18, leave out clause 69.
Government amendments 65 and 66.
Amendment 6, page 52, line 34, leave out clause 75.
Government amendments 67 to 69.
Amendment 89, in clause 80, page 54, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the condition in subsection (3B) has been met.
(3B) The condition is that the Secretary of State has published an impact assessment in respect of the abolition of NHS England that complies with subsection (3C) (a "qualifying impact assessment").
(3C) A qualifying impact assessment must include—
(a) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the total transition costs of abolishing NHS England, including in particular—
(i) redundancy costs;
(ii) the costs of integrating data, digital and information technology systems;
(iii) the costs of reorganising and rehousing staff and functions; and
(iv) productivity losses during the transition period;
(b) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the ongoing annual costs of the restructured Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England, including any costs falling on integrated care boards as a result of the transfer of functions to them;
(c) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the estimated annual savings arising from the abolition, including savings from the elimination of duplicated corporate functions and reduced administrative costs;
(d) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the net present value of the abolition, being the difference between the total costs under paragraphs (a) and (b) and the total benefits under paragraph (c) over a period of not less than ten years;
(e) a statement of the key assumptions underlying the estimates in paragraphs (a) to (d) and an assessment of the sensitivity of those estimates to changes in those assumptions;
(f) an assessment of the risks to the delivery of the anticipated benefits, including the risk of disruption to NHS functions during the transition period; and
(g) a statement of the methodology used to produce the estimates, including any data sources relied upon.
(3D) Before publishing a qualifying impact assessment, the Secretary of State must submit it for independent scrutiny to the Regulatory Policy Committee (or any successor body) and must publish the Committee's opinion on the assessment alongside it.
(3E) The Secretary of State must lay the qualifying impact assessment and the Committee's opinion before both Houses of Parliament.
(3F) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3G) A draft instrument under subsection (3F) may not be laid unless at least 60 sitting days have elapsed since the qualifying impact assessment was laid under subsection (3E).”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish, and submit to independent scrutiny, an impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England, containing quantified cost and benefit figures, before making regulations to abolish the body.
Amendment 90, page 54, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the condition in subsection (3B) is met.
(3B) The Secretary of State must publish a plan setting out how health services provided by or under arrangements made by NHS bodies are to work alongside and be integrated with the social care system in England (the "health and social care integration plan").
(3C) Before preparing the health and social care integration plan, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the recommendations made by the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care (or any successor body undertaking that Commission's work) in any report published by the Commission; and
(b) the need to reflect any recommendations of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care in the plan which are relevant to the interface between health services and adult social care.
(3D) The health and social care integration plan must include—
(a) a description of the structural and operational arrangements for joint working between NHS bodies and local authority social care services following the abolition of NHS England;
(b) proposals for how the transfer of NHS England's functions to the Secretary of State will affect the coordination of health and social care commissioning, including commissioning of services for people with complex needs spanning health and social care;
(c) arrangements for reducing delayed discharges from hospital attributable to the absence of suitable social care provision;
(d) proposals for how the funding flows between the NHS and the social care system, including NHS Continuing Healthcare, will be managed following the abolition;
(e) the workforce implications for the health and social care sectors arising from the abolition of NHS England and the steps to be taken to address them; and
(f) a timetable for implementing the arrangements described in the plan.
(3E) The Secretary of State must lay the health and social care integration plan before both Houses of Parliament.
(3F) Regulations to commence section (1) must be subject to the affirmative procedure.
(3G) A draft instrument under subsection (3F) may not be laid before either House of Parliament until at least 60 sitting days after the health and social care integration plan has been laid under subsection (3E).
(3H) In this section—
“NHS body” has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 2006;
“social care system” means the system for the provision of care and support under the Care Act 2014 and services provided by local authorities in the exercise of their functions relating to adult social care.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a plan setting out how health services will work alongside the social care system following the abolition of NHS England before using their powers for its abolition. The plan must address joint commissioning, funding flows (including NHS Continuing Healthcare), delayed hospital discharges, and workforce.
Amendment 25, page 112, line 18, leave out schedule 9.
Amendment 12, in schedule 9, page 130, line 16, at end insert—
“(2A) After paragraph 6(8) insert—
“(9) A committee of the Commission is to be appointed in accordance with regulations.
(10) The purpose of the committee is to oversee the health services safety investigation functions formerly conducted by HSSIB, transferred to the Care Quality Commission under the Health Act 2026.
(11) The committee is to be operationally independent from the Care Quality Commission.
(12) The committee is to consist of a chair appointed by the Secretary of State, and not less than six and not more than twelve other members appointed by the chair.
(13) A majority of the members of the committee must not be members of the Care Quality Commission.
(14) So far as is reasonably practicable, the persons appointed to the committee must include persons with knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of functions under this paragraph.””
This amendment would ensure that oversight of HSSIB’s functions would remain operationally independent of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) following the transfer of its functions to the CQC.
Amendment 8, page 134, line 20, leave out schedule 10.
This amendment removes the schedule abolishing Healthwatch England.
Amendment 9, page 136, line 1, leave out schedule 11.
This amendment removes the schedule abolishing Local Healthwatch organisations.
Amendment 78, schedule 11, page 137, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) In making arrangements under subsection (2), an integrated care board must have regard to the need to facilitate participation by persons who may experience barriers to engagement, including persons with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions.”
This amendment would require an integrated care board, in making arrangements for gathering patient views, to have regard to the need to facilitate participation by persons who may experience barriers to engagement, including persons with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions.
Government amendment 72.
Amendment 100, in schedule 12, page 155, line 5, at end insert—
“(10) An order under this section that establishes, varies the area of, abolishes or merges an integrated care board may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 33, in schedule 12, page 156, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) must publish any evidence the Secretary of State has received in respect of the impact of the proposal.”
Government amendments 73 to 75.
Karin Smyth
I know that many hon. Members want to talk about the provisions in the Bill covering many important issues. I will therefore speak briefly about two Government amendments relating to medical device licensing and information sharing.
I will first address new clause 94 regarding medical devices licensing, and consequential amendments new clauses 99 to 101 regarding medical devices disclosure. These amendments are about ensuring that Great Britain’s medical devices regulatory framework remains fit for the future. As we know, medical technology is evolving rapidly, particularly in areas such as software and artificial intelligence, while our current framework was designed for a very different technological landscape. This set of amendments establishes the statutory foundation for a future medical device licensing regime, applying to Great Britain only. EU medical devices legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland.
Such a regime would require medical devices to be licensed and certain persons operating within the supply chain to hold a licence. By placing the detail in the regulations, the amendment allows us to work with patients, healthcare professionals and the medical device sector to create a regulatory framework that protects patients, supports innovation and strengthens the UK’s life sciences sector.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
In the aftermath of the Windsor framework and the damage done to intra-UK trade, section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was passed, which was said to promise that there would be no further export procedures that could impact adversely on trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Yet, in new clause 94, we have such constraints in the imposition of a licensing programme, whereby to bring—I will not say “export”, as it is an internal market—a medical device from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, a licence is needed by the recipient. How is that compatible with section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act?
Karin Smyth
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows—we have spent many long hours in this place discussing the arrangements with regard to our leaving the European Union—there are different regulations, as a result of Brexit, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As is currently the case, due to the Windsor framework, that results in Northern Ireland following the EU device regulations. This has been discussed with the Northern Ireland and Windsor framework taskforce in the Cabinet Office, and we are content that the provisions are right, given the framework’s application. I know and understand the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, and I am sure that he will pursue it with the Government in other areas.
New clauses 95 and 98 update and clarify the Secretary of State’s information-sharing powers for medicines and medical devices. They provide a clearer legal framework for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to share information with UK health systems, organisations and trusted international partners. The current legislative framework does not always provide the MHRA with the powers or clarity it needs to share information quickly and effectively, and this creates barriers to collaboration, including with the NHS. The new clauses will address these challenges, providing a clear statutory basis for information sharing.
There is currently no explicit statutory domestic information-sharing power for medicines, whereas there is for medical devices. The new clauses bring information-sharing powers about medicines in line with those for medical devices and updates the list of statutory purposes for which the MHRA may share information. Importantly, these reforms do not weaken existing safeguards. Patient information will not be shared internationally without consent, and domestic protections under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation remain unchanged. These new clauses and amendments will act in the interests of patients, and I commend them to the House.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I think the Minister has finished her remarks.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As is now routine, I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Yesterday the Government voted not to introduce a backstop to decide on the Hughes report. I submitted a written question that also had a deadline of last night to ask when they were going to respond, and they have not answered that either. Taking their time about something is one thing, but for the Government to completely ignore victims, refusing to give an answer and refusing to provide a backstop or a deadline, is frankly shameful.
Patient safety is really important, and one key element to improving it is striking a good balance between accountability and blame. If we do not hold people accountable for their actions, they may not be as careful, but if they feel that their superiors are looking to find fault, they will be defensive and may cover things up. That makes it hard to get to the root cause and prevent mistakes from happening again. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body, or HSSIB, was set up with this problem in mind. Like the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, it has a safe space. This means that people are not held legally responsible for what they reveal to that team. They can then get to the bottom of why things are going wrong and find system errors. People come forward because they know and trust that HSSIB is independent, but this Labour Government want to change that.
The Health Bill will abolish HSSIB and transfer all its functions to the Care Quality Commission—the body responsible for regulating health and social care. This is the same CQC that, according to Ministers, is not fit for purpose. Why are the Government doing this? Ministers cite a review by Dr Penny Dash that said that the patient safety landscape was “cluttered” and “fragmented”, but too many different organisations are producing too many recommendations. That report was narrow in scope, and the clutter is not caused by HSSIB. In recent years, 30 public inquiries produced 1,400 recommendations, but HSSIB produced just 56.
The Government have suggested that moving HSSIB into the CQC can improve the quality of care and safety, but it is not clear how. People come forward to HSSIB precisely because it is a safe space, and this Government are removing the confidence in that safe space. For the new set-up to work, frontline workers will need to believe that the new unit in the CQC is independent, despite the law making it clear that it is not. The Government’s impact assessment says that the national quality board will provide clear direction to the new investigations unit, but the national quality board is tied to the NHS, so how does that square with the new unit staying independent? The impact assessment also says that the vast majority of investigations are expected to be directed by the Health Secretary. How can we be sure that the new unit will have the power and resources to look at things that might be politically difficult for the Government? How will the people in charge of the CQC balance the responsibility of investigating with the responsibility of maintaining that safe space?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On the question of how the CQC leadership becomes conflicted, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, in an Adjournment debate I held in July, the then Patient Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), made it clear that the person responsible for deciding what safe space information might be released would be the chief executive of the CQC? If the chief executive of the CQC is to see all that information, how would he or she not be able to use it, or be tempted to use it, when he or she inspects hospitals for the purposes of the CQC? Would the safe space not then be hopelessly conflicted, and therefore lose public confidence?
Dr Johnson
Absolutely; my hon. Friend has obviously read my speech. What would happen if the new unit identified the CQC itself as the problem? Ministers have not provided good answers to these questions. To be honest, they cannot, because the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. Either HSSIB remains independent or it is folded into the CQC and loses its independence. The Government are either decluttering the landscape by removing an organisation or simply hiding it inside another organisation, to the detriment of both. We have tabled amendment 1 to protect HSSIB, and I urge the Government to support it in the interests of patient safety.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about HSSIB. We have heard time and again that frontline staff value the safety that HSSIB provides to them and the confidence they have in reporting. Given that we in this Chamber have heard some harrowing stories about maternity services around the country, does she not think it is important that we listen to the staff, and not just one individual with a different point of view?
Dr Johnson
As always, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
HSSIB has recently produced a report, which it would benefit the Government to listen to. The House will be aware that the advice and guidance service provides GPs with specialist advice, which sometimes avoids referrals. However, Ministers have made it mandatory to ask for advice before certain types of referrals, and set an aim for one in four referrals to be diverted back. The Government said that they were not rationing care or meddling with waiting lists—that there was nothing to see here, and that the Opposition were spreading misinformation—but HSSIB has published an interim report linking this process to delays in patient care, including cancer diagnoses. New clause 141 asks the Government to suspend the new process until they have properly considered it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The hon. Lady may be aware that the Health and Social Care Committee has a pre-appointment hearing with the incoming chair of the CQC tomorrow morning. One question I would like to ask them hinges on the answer to another question, on which I would have loved an update from the Minister. The previous Secretary of State said that HSSIB will not be merged with the CQC until the CQC is ready, but we have never had a list from the Government as to exactly what metrics they will use to decide when that happens. That will have a bearing on what kinds of questions we ask the chair and CEO. What specifically do the Government mean by “ready”? Does the hon. Lady not see that as a problem?
Dr Johnson
I absolutely do. The Government have said that the CQC is not fit for purpose, yet they are now asking it to do things it did not do before, including not only HSSIB but event healthcare management, as the hon. Lady will be aware. It is absolutely right that the Government pause and think this one through again.
One of our other amendments concerns puberty blockers. One of the first rules of medicine is primum non nocere—first, do no harm—and yet here we have a Labour Government sponsoring a £10.6 million trial to put 226 physically healthy children as young as 11 on puberty-blocking drugs. That was said to make the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), “uneasy”. Why was he uneasy? Perhaps because these are powerful drugs that could cause serious long-term harm, because most children get better by themselves, because we cannot reliably identify which children will persist with a trans identity and which will not, because the huge increase in girls experiencing gender dysphoria has not been adequately explained or because the Tavistock data has not yet been reviewed in the data linkage study. There are many reasons for concern, but I am aware that we are short of time.
It is difficult for a clinician to tell which children’s symptoms will self-resolve and which will not. As a result, we risk putting a large number of children on puberty blockers to assess the effects on, as the former Health Secretary put it, a
“very small subset of a very small group”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]
That means the results of the investigation may be unreliable, and it could cause unnecessary harm to children, so why are the Government not ensuring that the data linkage study is, at the very least, done first?
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and the tone in which she is conducting this debate. Would she feel more comfortable, however, if a transgender man with balding hair and a full beard, who was behaving like a man and full of testosterone, was attending a female toilet facility at night at a motorway service station? I would not feel safe, but it seems she would feel safer in that situation than she would with a trans woman getting changed in front of nurses or attending a toilet.
Dr Johnson
I am not sure why the hon. Member has reached that conclusion. I am saying that this is based on biology, and people who are trans require the same protections as people who are not—that is what I have said very clearly.
The Darlington nurses were particularly brave in bringing their case forward. The cost was £187,000 in damages after an employment tribunal ruled in favour of them. That is a victory for dignity, for women and for common sense, but it is also a significant cost of public money to an NHS trust because it decided not to follow the law. That money could have been spent on patient care. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that this guidance is fully and properly implemented across the NHS? How will she ensure that a repeat of the Darlington nurses case does not happen again, and what guidance has been given to NHS managers on how to handle this?
The Minister for Women and Equalities did not help matters. She had the responsibility to sign off the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice to inform businesses, services and public bodies how to implement the Supreme Court’s guidance in law. But for over a year, the Government failed to lift a finger to enforce the law. For over a year, businesses, hospitals, service providers and public bodies were left waiting for the Government to tell them what the official guidance said. Now that it is here, we need to know how it is being implemented. How will the Minister ensure that this guidance is implemented universally in our NHS? How will the Government ensure that single-sex spaces are protected? What provision will they make for transgender individuals? What reassurance can the Minister give to women working in our NHS that they are safe? Our new clause 143 makes it clear that both staff and patients in the NHS must have access to single-sex spaces to protect their dignity and their privacy. I hope the Minister will be able to support this; I cannot see why she would not.
The Government have also decided to abolish Healthwatch and reduce the number of local Healthwatch branches. Healthwatch England has been engaging with patients since 2013, with more than 150 operating in a hub-and-spoke model, but that is about to change. Why? One reason seems to be to avoid duplication. The Government are clearly not keen on lots of Healthwatch branches doing the same thing in different areas of the country and feel that some branches may operate better than others. They say that they want to bring feedback closer to decision makers, but is that a good idea?
The Government could have chosen to improve Healthwatch as it stands. In 2023-24, more than 925,000 people used Healthwatch to get advice and information, and more than 300,000 shared their experiences to improve services. They could have increased awareness further and developed a clear feedback chain, but instead they have decided to abolish Healthwatch altogether. That is of grave concern. How can patients be expected to complain to the system about the system? The Prime Minister previously wrote:
“People speak to Healthwatch because they are outside the system—they are impartial, trusted, and provide a safe space for concerns to be shared.”
On that, he was right, and I ask the Minister to accept our amendment on this subject.
We have tabled a number of other amendments, including one on fracture liaison services, one that would produce a modern service framework for musculoskeletal care and others on radiotherapy, respiratory health, brain injury and the Government’s new medical devices regulations. However, I appreciate that we are short of time, so I will just make two short comments, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker,
First, I of course agree with the intent of the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 140, but it requires the presence of HSSIB, and since the Government seem hellbent on removing that, I do not know how the amendment would work. New clause 81, a Back-Bench amendment that has been selected by Mr Speaker, relates to another really important issue. As a paediatrician, I see the importance of what it suggests. The regulations would need to be carefully drafted for those who have a brief illness, to define life-threatening illness more clearly and to avoid duplication of work, but in principle, it is an important amendment. I commend our amendments to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the exception of Front-Bench speeches, there will be an immediate three-minute time limit.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am speaking today in support of new clauses 113 and 114, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and to which I have added my name.
I say at the outset that I am in full support of this Government’s ambitions on cancer. I welcome the recent investment in radiotherapy equipment, and I sincerely want the national cancer plan, which was published in February, to succeed. But I speak as someone who worked in the health service, who is a cancer survivor and who has taken a particular interest in this issue, not least as vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy. It is in that capacity, and as a supporter of what the Government are trying to achieve, that I respectfully ask Ministers to accept one or both of these new clauses.
By way of brief explanation, new clause 113 requires the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a national framework of agreed metrics for radiotherapy, requires integrated care boards to report annually against those targets and requires a report to this House once a year. New clause 114 asks very straightforwardly for a single review of access to radiotherapy and radiotherapy waiting times to be laid before Parliament within six months.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the ethnic inequalities we see in cancer outcomes and access to cancer treatment such as radiotherapy should also be included in the suggested review?
Grahame Morris
This is a huge issue that should concern everyone. I believe there is cross-party consensus on the issue of health inequalities and huge variation in access depending on which part of the country people live in. That is an absolutely valid point.
We know the international consensus is that around half of all cancer patients have an evidence-based indication for radiotherapy at some point in their treatment. We should be aware that here in the United Kingdom in 2021, the last date for which figures were available, only 35% of cancer patients received it as part of their primary treatment.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the excellent points he is making. Let me add that in Lancashire and south Cumbria, only 29% of cancer patients get access to radiotherapy. He will be aware the Government’s target is that 85% of people diagnosed with cancer should be treated within 62 days, but only 41% of patients who are recommended radiotherapy get treated in those 62 days. He will also know that for every four weeks of delay in cancer treatment, there is a 10% lower chance of survival. Should the Government not accept new clause 114 to make it mandatory for people to be treated within two months so that they get the best chance of survival?
Grahame Morris
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head—that is perfectly put. I believe there is cross-party consensus that this is the way forward. Over the last 16 years that I have been a Member, along with the hon. Gentleman, I have presented the case to a whole succession of Ministers from various parties, all of whom seemed to be in agreement. We definitely have an opportunity to restore what was once a world-class cancer service and get us back to where the international benchmarks say that we should be.
As I am sure Members are aware, responsibility for commissioning radiotherapies was devolved to the integrated care boards. I can understand the logic of moving commissioning closer to local populations. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who tabled the new clause, and I do not seek to undo that. However, we wish to stress to the House that radiotherapy is not an ordinary local service, and it should not be considered as one. It is delivered from a very limited number of highly specialised centres dependent on capital equipment with long replacement cycles. It relies on a small, highly skilled workforce of about 6,000 people, all of whom take years to train, all the while relying on physical infrastructure that cannot be commissioned at short notice.
Patients routinely cross integrated care board boundaries to reach these specialist centres. Many boards, entirely understandably, do not have dedicated radiotherapy expertise in house. In August 2023, 70% of integrated care boards had no named person responsible for ensuring sufficient radiotherapy treatment capacity at all. I am willing to work with Ministers to seek a resolution with the solutions that we propose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Yesterday, I highlighted our concerns about the implications of quick-fix, top-down reorganisation for the sovereignty of the NHS and the interests of patients. In a system that already spends too much time and money reacting to failure, rather than planning for success, patient safety is already under threat. Rather than addressing those failings, this Bill is at risk of making a bonfire of patient safety. Our amendments would reverse the gutting of safety mechanisms from the NHS, all of which have been painstakingly introduced after far too many scandals.
Amendments 8 and 9 would restore Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations, while new clause 14 would restore Healthwatch funding after 10 years of cuts to its service. Given that Healthwatch was originally established as a response to the devastating Mid Staffordshire scandal, its abolition would be a step backwards, showing that lessons have not been learned. An independent patient voice is essential to shape local services and highlight where they are not working well, and folding it into existing NHS structures risks destroying the trust that exists precisely because of its independence.
Helen Morgan
I am not going to give way, because there are many colleagues who wish to speak and there is very limited time. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me.
Another vital body for safeguarding and investigating patient safety is the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which again functions well because of the trust NHS professionals have in its independence and objectivity. Both would be lost under the proposal to roll it into the CQC. Our amendment 12 would ensure that HSSIB’s functions remain operationally independent of the CQC, so that the NHS is not left to mark its own homework. Together, these amendments are designed so that patients are protected from another Mid Staffordshire, another Shrewsbury and Telford, another Nottingham, another East Kent or another Morecambe Bay. Rash decision making must not be allowed to put patients at risk.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, and was pleased to be a member of the Bill Committee. I also welcome the Government’s new clauses, about which the Minister has spoken today.
New clause 159, to which I have added my name, seeks to address a long-standing legislative omission in our health service. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for tabling it. For over a decade since the Health and Social Care Act 2012, Parliament has recognised the principle of parity of esteem between physical and mental health, but without statutory accountability that parity has remained an aspiration rather than a clinical reality.
The scale of the problem is clear. NHS data shows that 1.87 million adults and more than 576,000 children and young people currently hold open referrals for mental health services. While the Government set clear targets to reduce physical healthcare waiting lists, mental health services are excluded from these core constitutional ambitions, and the division has severe consequences. A survey conducted by Rethink Mental Illness found that 83% of patients experienced a deterioration in their mental health while waiting for support, and that nearly a third of those whose health worsened attempted suicide.
New clause 159 would require the Secretary of State to publish national waiting time standards for mental health services within 12 months of the Bill passing into law. The fact is that what is measured is addressed, so we need to give the same attention to mental health that we rightly give to physical health measures. These standards, which cover both community and urgent care, must be developed in consultation with the chief medical officer. Crucially, the new clause mandates the Secretary of State to report performance against those waiting times, alongside mental health expenditure, to Parliament every year. That will ensure that the funding that we allocate in the House is linked transparently to patient outcomes. If we do not measure waiting times we cannot manage them, and patients will continue to be left until they are in crisis before they receive support. It is time that we started to pay the same attention to mental health as we do to physical health, so that we can really achieve parity of esteem.
The Government have set out a welcome and ambitious path to rebuild our NHS, and achieving true parity of esteem is central to that mission. I urge the Minister to look closely at new clause 159 as a constructive measure.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I will speak about new clause 41, which stands in my name.
We put enormous, unquestioning trust in those who care for the bodies of our loved ones when they die. However, in this Chamber six months ago, I told a former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), about Elkin and Bell, the Gosport funeral directors who left 46 bodies decaying in an unrefrigerated room. One of them, an elderly gentleman whose family had already paid for his cremation, was left decomposing for 36 days. I said then that the funeral sector was nothing better than a lawless wild west with no mandatory qualifications to practise, no accreditation for professionals, no licensing of businesses, no inspection of premises, and no law to fall back on when things go wrong. It was only persistence and ingenuity on the part of Hampshire constabulary that saw Elkin and Bell brought to justice. The Minister at the time told me that a decision on regulation would come in the Government’s full answer to the Fuller inquiry, and we are still awaiting.
Since then, matters have worsened. In July, Robert Bush, a funeral director in Hull, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to 67 charges for bodies left decomposing in squalor. Forty-six grieving families had been reunited with the wrong ashes, but the real horror is that these will not be isolated cases. Under the law as it stands today, almost anyone can set themselves up as a funeral director.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for her work in this area in the neighbouring constituency. The vast majority of funeral directors operate with integrity, compassion and professionalism. Does she agree that, as reputable businesses, they are crying out for robust regulation?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I genuinely could not agree more. This is not at attack on the profession. The vast majority of funeral directors do their job with extraordinary skill, great care and huge professional integrity. It is precisely because of the trust that grieving families place in them every single day that we cannot allow a rogue minority to drag the reputation of the whole sector through the mud.
In a written statement on 1 September, the Government said they intended that proposals for regulation would be forthcoming, but they set out no timetable, and detailed plans were promised only “in due course”. Families have already waited years and cannot be expected to wait indefinitely. New clause 41 would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill passing, to extend the remit of the Human Tissue Authority beyond hospital mortuaries, which it currently covers, to funeral directors, private mortuaries, direct cremation services and any other organisation that transports or holds the bodies of the deceased.
Stuart Andrew
Does my hon. Friend agree that Donna Ockenden’s report into what happened in Nottingham, particularly the harrowing stories of the mortuary issues there, adds to the case that she is making?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the fantastic work that he did as shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and he is absolutely right. We really need the full response to the Fuller report in order to implement not only changes to mortuaries, but all the other amendments that it recommended.
New clause 41 would place a duty on the Human Tissue Authority to establish and maintain a register of every business brought within its oversight, with how that register operates set by regulation, so that for the first time a grieving family could check, before they hand over the body of a loved one, whether the business in front of them is properly overseen. I recognise that the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) has tabled new clause 42 on a new, bespoke freestanding regulator. Both new clauses would fix the same issue, and either will do.
The key thing is that this is a moment for the Government to seize, not resist. Ministers have already said that, in principle, they agree with what new clause 41 would require of them. Every trade body agrees. Every family who has been failed agrees. Every Member from across the House who signed our letter agrees. It feels like the Government agree, so I ask the Minister to tell the House exactly when a statutory scheme will be brought forward by the Department of Health and Social Care, and to set out the timetable for implementation.
None of us is comfortable dwelling on our own mortality, which is exactly why the funeral sector has gone on for so long without proper scrutiny. It is a truism—we hear it all the time—that funerals are for the living; they are for families to say goodbye to their loved ones with dignity. They should be able to grieve without the added horror of questioning whether the body they buried was the right one, or whether the ashes they scattered belonged to the right person. Robert Bush’s sentencing should be the last time that this House has to debate such a gruesome case, but it will not be unless the Government push ahead to close this regulatory black hole.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I am sure that many Members from across the House are aware of the campaign in memory of Hugh Menai-Davis, the son of my constituents Ceri and Frances who tragically passed away at the age of just six. As part of that campaign, the amendments that I have tabled to the Bill are designed to support families at the most difficult time imaginable.
Our national health service and welfare state have changed and evolved over almost a century, and we should always keep a close watch on how faithfully they remain connected to their founding principles. Support “from the cradle to the grave” should not a dusty slogan; it must be a constant aspiration. Wherever gaps or shortcoming are identified, we must address them.
It should concern us all that support for parents of seriously ill children is one such gap. When a child becomes seriously ill, the NHS mobilises around the child, quite rightly, but parents must mobilise around everything else—getting to work and hospital appointments, looking after other children, managing existing caring responsibilities, and somehow keeping on top of bills, rent or mortgages that do not stop when a child becomes ill. When all of this takes place alongside the fear that their child may die, the pressure on families is near impossible to bear.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I would like to speak to new clause 137. Cancer Research UK estimates that, in the six months since the national cancer plan was published, over 168,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in England. The number of those diagnosed is at a record high and this is projected to continue. Almost one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime, and no one in this country is untouched by the disease. I welcome the Government’s ambition to improve cancer outcomes in the national cancer plan. Alongside my amendment to the Health Bill, my current private Member’s Bill seeks to guarantee that the Government make progress towards delivering these targets and are held to account by Parliament on that.
Over the past five decades, cancer survival has more than doubled because of lifesaving research, earlier detection and cutting-edge treatments. However, in the last decade progress has slowed, and the 10-year cancer survival index was better in the early 2000s than in the 2010s, so we are in danger of going backwards. The national cancer plan commits to meeting cancer waiting times targets by the end of this Parliament. The previous Government failed to do that, and I really hope that this Government will manage it. It is also important that these targets are met, alongside a full range of commitments in the plan.
The Health and Care Act 2022 required the Secretary of State to include cancer outcome objectives in the annual mandate set by the Secretary of State for NHS England, and those outcome objectives explicitly took priority over other cancer objectives. I have tabled this amendment because the current Health Bill abolishes that mandate, including the previous statutory requirement for cancer outcome objectives to be prioritised over other cancer objectives, and a similar duty has not been replicated elsewhere in the Bill.
With the removal of the statutory requirement to prioritise cancer outcomes over other cancer objectives in the health system, there is a very real concern that progress on cancer outcomes risks being deprioritised amid the competing priorities of a Department facing many external pressures. I am therefore seeking assurances from the Minister that, despite the disruption of the ongoing merger and the removal of the cancer outcomes clause, progress on delivering the transformation laid out in the national cancer plan will be delivered, and that it remains a priority for the new Prime Minister and the new Secretary of State. I ask the Minister to guarantee that the capacity needed to drive forward this essential work on cancer is protected.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
If I may begin on a personal note, just three weeks ago I had a second operation on my back, and I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to the staff who cared for me, from the clinicians who treated me to everyone involved in my care and recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.]
Too often our access to healthcare depends on our postcode. That postcode lottery is stark in a number of areas, but nowhere more so than with IVF. As chair of the APPG on fertility, I have raised this issue repeatedly with Ministers. I again invite Ministers to attend our fertility roundtable tomorrow and to commit to ensuring that every ICB follows, at the very least, the NICE guidelines on access to IVF and fertility treatment.
We must strengthen the role of voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in neighbourhood health planning and NHS commissioning. Voluntary organisations understand the barriers to care for hard-to-reach communities and often have trusted relationships with communities that statutory services struggle to reach. We see that particularly clearly in HIV and AIDS provision. Voluntary organisations have been fundamental to the UK’s response for decades, through prevention, testing, peer support, tackling stigma and supporting people living with HIV. I am extremely grateful to the National AIDS Trust for working with me on the new clauses, and I thank Ministers for their constructive engagement. Members of the LGBT+ community must have trust in healthcare providers, and community groups bridge that gap when needed.
New clauses 142 and 143 would actively harm vitally needed healthcare. The provision in new clause 142 has already been rejected in Committee, and we see it for what it is: an opportunity to attack some of the most vulnerable in our society. Access to much-needed healthcare has already been paused in the UK, and if access to treatment for gender dysphoria is now to be dependent upon additional research, the pathways trial must go ahead without further delay.
The provisions in new clause 143 were also rejected in Committee and are another attempt to vilify. The amendment fails to recognise the framework already in place to ensure that single-sex services are provided where they meet the requirements of the Equality Act. Neither the code nor the Supreme Court judgment mandate the provision of single-sex facilities. Providers must still consider whether the service falls within an exception within the Equality Act, whether single-sex provision is proportionate, what the impact might be on trans people, and what mitigation might be necessary.
I welcome the 10-year health plan. We have made great strides in repairing the damage done to our NHS—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I would very much have liked to have discussed the medical devices questions arising from the Bill. The Minister made an incredibly short speech about that important matter. It is quite clear that these provisions are part of the covert dynamic alignment with the EU and the covert rejoin agenda being pursued by the Government. It raises all sorts of constitutional questions, but those are not for today.
I will concentrate on HSSIB. I rise to support amendments 1 to 4, which would remove the abolition of HSSIB from the Bill. The Government have singularly failed to make the case for removing this crucial safety investigation function. It did not exist until recently, and now they want to scrub it out. I suspect that is because too many people in the health system do not like being held to account by an independent investigative body.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The Minister shakes her head, but she is yet to give a good reason as to why this measure is in the Bill.
When we had an Adjournment debate in July with the then Minister for patient safety, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), she could not answer the question of who would conduct independent safety investigations in the NHS after the abolition of HSSIB. She said that safety investigations would be conducted by the Care Quality Commission, but she could not actually claim that they would be independent; as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) demonstrated, they would not be.
If, as it seems, it is intended that safety investigations should be carried out by the CQC unaffected by the transfer, why make the transfer at all? How much is this transfer going to cost? I asked the Minister, in a letter I sent her after the debate in July, to give us the information on how much the transfer of all this would cost. Nothing has arrived. I never had a reply to the letter. Of course, the Government have changed the Minister and the new Minister for patient safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is not in the House today. I rather suspect that she is more sympathetic to this argument than the Minister sitting on the Front Bench today.
In our earlier exchanges we discovered and once again exposed how the safe space will be brutally compromised by the fact that it will be housed in a regulator with, inevitably, other ulterior motives. The chief executive of the CQC is wantonly conflicted in terms of looking after the safe space, so he cannot be the one left in charge of that function.
The real point here is that we are missing the opportunity to save so much money. Governments keep having public inquiries. The EPUT—Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust—public inquiry, affecting my constituency, cost in its first year £5 million, and in its second year it is costing another £5 million. The whole budget for HSSIB was only £6.3 million a year, yet it does scores of investigations, not just one inquiry. The Ockenden inquiry cost £14 million. If we could save just a fraction of the cost of medical negligence, which is £3.6 billion a year, HSSIB would pay for itself.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Clauses 5 and 6 place duties on the Secretary of State to promote patient involvement, patient choice and innovation. My new clauses 86 and 87 would apply those principles to psychedelic-assisted therapy treatments involving schedule 1 controlled substances.
I have been pleased to be a trustee of the charity Drug Science, which has allowed me to talk to researchers who are looking at therapeutic treatments using what are called psychedelic drugs. Around the world there is growing evidence of the successful treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, trauma, mental health issues and end-of-life distress using these drugs. For some patients they are absolutely revelatory. They change lives for the better and can relieve the burden of those conditions on the wider health service.
Researchers tell me, however, that the barriers the current system puts in place really restrict research. Research involving schedule 1 controlled substances generally requires a Home Office licence, and the bureaucracy and inertia in the system adds delay, cost and an administrative burden to the extent that research grants are being lost because of delays.
The issue has already been considered. In 2023 the Home Affairs Committee recommended urgently moving psychedelic drugs to schedule 2 in order to facilitate research. Later that year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended that research using schedule 1 drugs in universities and hospitals should be exempt from the Home Office domestic licencing requirement and should instead operate under schedule 2 controls. In 2025 the Government accepted the ACMD recommendations in principle. There is supposed to be a pilot of a proposed extension to test operational feasibility, but that has not happened. The Government said the policy work was under way and that further plans would be published in due course, but without a timetable for implementation. My new clause 86 would make it happen. Other jurisdictions are ahead of us on this issue. The US Department of Defence and the US Department of Veterans Affairs are already funding clinical trials for military personnel and veterans.
New clause 87 concerns compassionate access to treatment. International research has identified potential in some treatment-resistant psychiatric conditions and end-of-life distress. There is international precedent. The 2022 Canadian special access programme has allowed clinicians to request restricted drugs, including psilocybin and MDMA, to treat those conditions. We can learn from those experiences.
Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss these issues, and for her agreement on the principle of enabling the clinical research of these drugs and her commitment to get back to me to outline how the Government will take them further.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I will speak to new clauses 116 and 117, which I have tabled.
Clover Carkeet, from my constituency, is a delightful seven-year-old girl who has suffered from intractable epilepsy since she was 12 weeks old. Clover’s seizures could be controlled only by huge doses of steroids, leaving her very unwell, until her parents secured a private prescription for medical cannabis, reducing her seizures by 95%. Medical cannabis is legal and can be bought privately under NHS supervision, but it is not routinely available on the NHS. As a result, families are faced with an impossible choice: fund thousands of pounds a month to pay privately, or watch their child suffer while relying on the treatments available through the NHS. Why are parents being made to make that choice? Colleagues across the House, including the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), have long campaigned on the issue and support new clause 116, which calls on the Secretary of State to assess the availability of medical cannabis on the NHS for children. I hope the Government will support this new clause too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front Bench. I call the Minister.
Karin Smyth
We have genuinely had a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate, and I want to try to address all the points that have been raised. I think there is broad agreement across the House on the goals that we are seeking to achieve with the Bill: safer care, better outcomes and a stronger voice for patients. Every patient deserves safe and high-quality care, every community deserves to have its voice heard, and everyone should be able to access the care they need, when they need it. The question before us is how best to deliver those ambitions.
In general, we do not believe that the current landscape works, and that better outcomes are always achieved through new reporting requirements, additional layers of statutory process or more bureaucracy. Instead, we are committed to devolving responsibility and to empowering leaders in the NHS, while also holding them directly accountable, so that the NHS is focused on delivery and improving care.
I will begin with Healthwatch. I think there is broad consensus that we want to see patient voices heard strongly at every level of the healthcare system—it is something that all MPs feel strongly about, dealing with constituents as we do. Hearing the patient and user voice results in better decisions in a system that is designed around them—a system that is better able to correct when things go wrong.
Our ambition is to ensure that insight and experience from patients, service users and communities is part of commissioning and service planning decisions, rather than being held at arm’s length and outsourced. Our ambition is that this is done effectively everywhere. It is about strengthening the power of patients’ voices inside the NHS, where decisions are taken, not silencing criticism of those decisions. Within our approach, integrated care boards and local authorities will be expected to engage with people in their areas and will have a statutory duty to obtain their views.
That is a core part of the new strategic role of ICBs, and it involves transparency about what people have told the system, what the system has done in response and how learning is shared across partners. ICBs will be held to account if they do not demonstrate those elements. However, we have heard the strength of feeling in this place and in Committee, and as the Bill moves to the other place, I can commit to working closely with colleagues across this House and in the other place in order to review these provisions and ensure that our approach sufficiently empowers and devolves to local populations. We all want to ensure that the changes deliver for patients and service users, building public trust and ensuring that their voice is embedded in the care they receive.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The CEO of Healthwatch Norfolk said today:
“To cease the statutory functions of Healthwatch without a suitable alternative in place…is to risk another major failing in patient safety and scrutiny of the health system.”
Did the Minister’s remarks just now suggest that the Government may be reviewing the plans to scrap Healthwatch?
Karin Smyth
It will not be a surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with his proposition, although I commend the work that many people have done in Healthwatch. We want to work with people in the other place to make sure that this is the right way forward.
I am sorry that we do not have more time to debate HSSIB, because it requires more discussion, although we had a good debate in Committee. We have heard many discussions today. I have met the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), and I hear what he is saying; I will ensure that he gets a response to his letter from the new Minister for Patient Safety—asap, as they say.
It is an issue that we need to get absolutely right. We all know, from our experience with patients and families, about the importance of creating a culture in which concerns can be raised without fear and lessons are learned effectively. The Government fully agree with those objectives. Our view is that patient safety, in line with the Dash review, is best served by clear lines of accountability, effective independent scrutiny, and a relentless focus on learning and improvement. We are therefore transferring HSSIB’s functions to the CQC to ensure that learning from investigations can more readily inform improvement activity across the system.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that the investigation arm has the autonomy to investigate the qualifying incidents that it deems appropriate free from interference, and I can give the House the assurance that we will work with the executive of HSSIB and the CQC to ensure that their operating model upholds this operational independence.
In response to the Chair of the Health Committee, who is not in her place, let me say that there is obviously no one single metric by which to judge the suitability of the CQC. It is usual in the Department’s oversight of arm’s length bodies and independent regulators to look at things like stable leadership, IT capability, governance and operational effectiveness. This is something I am sure the Select Committee can help with.
Karin Smyth
I apologise, but I am going to press on. There is a lot to get through.
We are committed to tackling health inequalities wherever they arise. There are strong duties on both ICBs and the Secretary of State to tackle these inequalities, and we remain firmly committed to doing so. We continue to drive forward improvement plans including the national cancer plan and the mental health strategy, which will transform mental health care into a system that responds and intervenes early, reduces waiting times for support, and ultimately supports people to participate fully in education. I note in particular that the Government are already making record investment in mental health. All ICBs are expected to meet the mental health investment standard over the next three years, and all are forecast to meet it for 2026-27.
We are also committed to delivering the national cancer plan and focused on driving improvements, including on diagnostic capacity, which is key to addressing waiting times and tackling variation in access to better treatment, as we have heard today from my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), whose work in this area I commend, and for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist).
Karin Smyth
I am going to press on a little bit, if I may.
I remind the House that we are doing this within the existing legal structures, and that our approach is not to put in place additional duties and layers of detail and specificity in primary legislation. I think we should avoid the temptation to create separate statutory obligations for each condition or patient group, particularly in an age where people are living longer and very often with more than one health condition. Instead, we should commit ourselves to tackling inequalities for everyone, everywhere.
We have again heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), about corridor care. The Government have been consistently clear that corridor care is not an acceptable standard of care and should not be normalised, and it is our intention to reduce and ultimately eradicate it. I think it is worth reminding the House that corridor care does not occur everywhere; some places have made huge steps to avoid it, and we want to share that learning. I particularly commend Barnsley foundation trust, South Warwickshire foundation trust and the Dudley group foundation trust, where there have been zero incidents in the last reporting. We must recognise that corridor care is one of the most visible and distressing symptoms of systemic pressures across the urgent and emergency care pathway, and our focus is on taking action now to tackle those underlying pressures.
We are improving patient flow, strengthening discharge arrangements, investing in urgent and emergency care services, and providing targeted support to the systems and trusts facing the greatest challenges from corridor care, so that improvements can be delivered where they are needed most. To ensure that we can understand where these challenges are, we have already introduced a national definition of corridor care, and strengthened reporting and oversight arrangements.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way and wish her a happy birthday, too. The NHS trust in north-west London was recently found to be one of the most improved in London in terms of reducing waiting lists. Does she agree that all the changes that she is bringing in through the Bill, including those discussed today, will help us to bring down those waiting lists even further and address the issues with corridor care that she has outlined?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her best wishes and commend the work that she and many other Members are doing directly with their trusts to understand the impact of the work that we are doing to bring down those waiting lists and improve access for patients. As I have said, corridor care is a sign of systemic failure in the system and is unacceptable. I think we have all witnessed it in our local trusts, but it is coming down in places, and we want to continue to see it eradicated.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his championing of the families of children suffering from life-threatening illnesses. I know that Members on both sides of the House recognise the profound impact that receiving a diagnosis of a life-threatening condition has on a child and their family. It is vital that all these families feel supported, informed and cared for, and I wholeheartedly recognise that the support that they are offered now is often not proactive or joined up, with the onus, as he said, being on families to navigate the system and seek support themselves.
With that in mind, the Government commissioned a report on the mental health impacts of life-threatening childhood illness on families, named in the memory of Hugh Menai-Davis. I pay tribute to Hugh’s parents for their campaigning and offer them my deepest condolences.
The report process is progressing well, and I can commit to the report being published in this Parliament, with a full Government response issued within three months of publication. For too long, children’s health has not been a priority, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has directed the Department to make maternal and child health central to its work. We know that a child’s health has ramifications for the wellbeing of the whole family, and there must be better solutions to join up support for parents of unwell children.
The new cross-Government mental health strategy will also address how we better support parents and families, and the Government intend to work closely with parents, families and campaigners to identify workable solutions and make available more proactive support.
I turn now to the Opposition amendments, starting with new clause 142, in the name of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).
Karin Smyth
I will carry on.
As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows well, provisions are already in place to appropriately control access to puberty-suppressing hormones for children and young people presenting with gender incongruence or dysphoria. Children and young people with gender incongruence deserve evidence-based care. The Cass review recommended a clinical trial to provide high-quality comparative evidence on the potential benefits and risks of the medicines. That is now under way.
I agree with the comments from the hon. Member for North Shropshire, but I have to disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that, uniquely, access to these types of medicines must be subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament. I think that, as a clinician, she understands that.
I would also like to address new clause 143. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows, the EHRC’s updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations commenced on 5 August. It provides guidance on how sex-based distinctions in the Equality Act can be applied, including in the NHS. This new clause is unnecessary. This legislation is the law and the law is clear. The NHS will obviously follow the law. New guidance has been drafted and will be published imminently. For the record, I am due next week to meet the Darlington nurses who she spoke for. I agree that they were brave; they should not have had to go through what they went through.
I want to address new clauses 41 and 42 on funeral regulation in the name of the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who spoke powerfully on behalf of the whole House; I commend the work that she has done. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) has spoken to me in great detail about this issue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards).
The Government were appalled by the offences committed by Robert Bush and the profound harm caused to bereaved families. Every deceased person must be treated with care, respect and dignity. We are undertaking urgent work to develop comprehensive proposals, including formal regulation of the funeral sector to drive out rogue operators and strengthen protection for bereaved families. As the hon. Member for Gosport said, operators that work well will also want to see this. We will begin sharing proposals shortly, and I am very happy to include hon. Members in the discussions.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister said in July that the sector needed to be regulated and that this continues to be a priority for his Government?
Karin Smyth
Absolutely, and I am committed to working with my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members across the House.
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) to discuss his amendments concerning medicines. I hope that I reassured him—from his speech, I think that I did—that the Government do support well-designed research into innovative treatments using controlled drugs, where this is conducted safely and appropriately. We also understand the complexities involved, including the need to minimise the risk of harm and misuse. That is why we are working across government to consider how to implement the recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to reduce barriers to research with schedule 1 controlled drugs. I committed to write to my hon. Friend to set that out further; I will do.
A number of hon. Members tabled amendments on issues with their local infrastructure. We have already published the capital plan and improved long-term capital planning to improve local infrastructure.
I think that I have addressed most things—
Karin Smyth
I am so sorry; I will to talk to my hon. Friend later. The debate has been wide ranging. If there are things that I have missed, I commit to getting back to hon. Members. I know that my noble Friend Baroness Merron is committed to working co-operatively with all Members as the Bill proceeds through the other House.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me thank all those who have been involved in bringing this Bill to this point, including all those involved in Committee. I thank the parliamentary staff, the departmental staff and the legal staff, and the Members on both sides of the House, who have debated so many different issues during the passage of the Bill. In particular, I pay huge thanks to the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has not only chaperoned this Bill through every stage from beginning to end—with some different Health Secretaries along the way—but has done today’s Report stage on her birthday; I wish her a hugely happy birthday.
I am grateful to everybody for their engagement, including those who, as well as debating the issues covered by the Bill, have taken the opportunity of these debates to raise so many issues that are so important to patient care right across the country, and to the improvements we need to make to patient and family care. I include in those thanks the parents of little Hugh Menai-Davis, who were in the House today.
Members in all parts of the House have been raising issues from special educational needs and disabilities to funeral regulation and health inequalities, and it is important that our NHS and health systems continue to improve.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for giving way, because I know time is short. She is talking about the various issues that have come up while the Bill has been debated. One of them is the most common cause of death in the UK: dementia. An amendment that I tabled with the Alzheimer’s Society suggested that we bring the data on dementia, which is scattered right across the health system at the moment, into a single place to drive progress on early diagnosis and treatment. Does she agree that that is an important priority for the Government?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise this vital issue. So many of us will have families and constituents who are affected by dementia. We are committed to introducing a dementia tsar as part of our response to Louise Casey’s commission, and we will be looking at data issues and evidence as part of that.
As this legislation completes its passage through this House, I thank my predecessor Health Secretaries for the work that they have done in bringing down waiting lists, improving treatment and getting more appointments than ever before. There are thousands more doctors, nurses, midwives and mental health workers in place than ever before, and we thank our national health service staff across the country. They also recognised that we inherited a system that was still badly held back by the failed 2012 Lansley reforms, including the huge administrative issue and unaccountable bureaucracy, with lots of duplication, poor communication and no proper accountability. This legislation is about strengthening democratic accountability and the focus on patient care. To be clear, I pay tribute to the work done by many people across NHS England—including in particular the recent work of the current chief executive, Jim Mackey, to substantially improve patient care and to reduce that duplication—but the systems and structures have been holding people back. That is why we have brought this reform forward, part of which will not just end the wasteful duplication, but ensure that our NHS system is better able to deliver.
I will update the House and the NHS shortly on the future operating arrangements. Let me say now that that means returning to some of the arrangements that applied before 2012, when we had strong national NHS leadership, but with much greater partnership and accountability and far less duplication than we have today. I have been frank with both the Department and NHS England that the focus needs to be on patients.
We are making some further reforms in response to the discussions in this House. I have made a commitment that we will bring forward amendments in the House of Lords to establish England’s first statutory maternity commissioner, implementing the Amos review’s recommendation, but also directly reflecting the work and determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), the Government’s national maternity adviser. I thank her for the work that she has done. We have also amended the Bill to ensure that local government is represented on ICBs. That was raised by the Select Committee. I am also clear that we need to ensure that patients’ voices are properly embedded in decision making. Members have all debated the importance of the single patient record to improve care.
It is great to be back at this Dispatch Box as a Health Minister, 24 years since I last spoke at the Dispatch Box as a Health Minister. I am surprised by how little has changed in many ways, but one thing that has not changed, but which is so immensely important to all of us, is the dedication of NHS staff and the people who work right across the country to support patients and communities. This Bill is about helping them to ensure they can do their jobs in the most effective way. I commend this Bill to the House.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State back, as it were, to the Department. As we debate Third Reading of the Bill, she is the third Secretary of State for this Bill. It was about 40 minutes after First Reading that the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) resigned. I wonder which bit he had just spotted. We wish the Secretary of State well, though, and not only because of her East Hampshire heritage. There will be times when we disagree entirely, and there will be times when we find commonality, but at all times it is our job to scrutinise the Government in the interests of the public and on behalf of the dedicated professionals and other staff in these most vital of sectors.
It is also my first opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). He took on that responsibility in the very finest traditions of this House. He had and has respect and admiration across the House, and I know his approach was much appreciated by so many working in and in support of health and social care.
This has been a big Bill, and I thank the Public Bill Committee for all the work they did. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who was the Whip and is now a shadow Minister, and everybody on that Committee. We will not divide on Third Reading, because there are important things in this Bill that we support. However, there is a great deal of concern about a huge IT project with no detail behind it as yet. It should put a shiver down any incoming Minister’s back when they hear that they have been bequeathed a large public sector IT transformation project.
The Government are taking oversight out and putting that inside the body that is meant to oversee things, removing patient voice and, most of all, doing an enormous top-down reorganisation of the NHS. There have already been 10 of those since 1974. If the answer to the NHS’s problems was a top-down reorganisation, perhaps one of the previous ones would have worked. Whatever the outcome, and whatever this legislation ends up being, I know that the other place will be scrutinising it closely. We will scrutinise its implementation and what difference it actually makes in the end for patients.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Further to my online petition, which to date has received over 9,000 signatures, I rise to present a paper petition against the expansion of the local government boundaries of Leicester city council.
Prior to the summer recess, the Government announced proposals for local government reorganisation in Leicestershire. The plans would have placed the villages of Anstey, Birstall, Cropston, Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Leicester Forest East, Thurcaston, Braunstone Town and Thorpe Astley within the Leicester city council area. While I welcome yesterday’s announcement by the Government, the 9,000 residents who have signed this petition have made their views crystal clear. They want it to be a permanent pause. They do not support an enlarged Leicester city council area.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council’s boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
[P003235]
Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Let me say at the outset what a pleasure it is to see my good friend, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), in her place replying to this debate. The whole House was delighted to see her promotion in the recent reshuffle. It was long overdue, and I look forward to how she replies to this debate to work out the benchmark for her appearances on future occasions.
The weight of documentation that I hold in my hands will give the House some indication of the weight of the problem that the organisation of retirement property management companies presents to many of our constituents across the country. My remarks are principally motivated by the lamentable behaviour of a company called Cognatum Estates, which runs three facilities in North Dorset: Home Farm in Iwerne Minster, Castle Gardens in Shaftesbury and Walpole Court in Puddletown. I have had constituents from those three facilities come to see me on many occasions, as well as write and email, with a growing list of concerns that seem to go absolutely ignored.
Those constituents should not take it particularly personally, because Cognatum has been presenting problems in other constituencies too. The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and I met Cognatum representatives some little while ago to talk through the concerns that our constituents were sharing with us. They met, they listened and then they wrote to us to say, “Thank you very much indeed. We will never meet you again. Everything in the garden is rosy. We don’t recognise the evidence that you have given us.” There is a real problem here, and the Government need to act.
Unfortunately, I think I may be correct in highlighting a point raised by my constituent Jean Wilkinson, a resident of one of the Cognatum properties. She wrote to me as follows:
“It is also important to highlight that a significant number of residents are elderly and in poor health. As a result, many do not feel able to raise concerns or advocate for themselves. This creates a situation where important issues risk being overlooked and where residents feel they do not have a sufficient voice.”
I have had a number of emails from across the country and from other constituents that effectively mirror and echo that point. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you too have had issues in your constituency, albeit with a different company—we were talking about it earlier in the day.
Too many property management companies view their residents as elderly cash cows. They are people who have worked and saved hard, want to be independent in their older years, and do not want a huge amount of fuss and bother—they just want a quiet, peaceful, dignified, sensible, grown-up sort of a life. As one gets older, I am certain that one becomes a little less bullish in challenging and questioning authority. Anything for a quiet life: “If the service or management charges go up and I am not given a particularly clear explanation or cogent argument to support it, well, I’ll just write the cheque and pay, because it is the line of least resistance.” I am absolutely convinced that that is now a deep-set and ingrained way in which a lot of those companies operate.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is setting out a compelling case for how providers of retirement homes and accommodation are letting people down, and the absence of redress that a lot of residents have. Does he agree that this is an area in which we desperately need more regulation and oversight, and that the Government need to take action to that effect?
Simon Hoare
I agree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to that matter in a moment, because there are two very specific areas that I think require attention.
Cognatum does not get off scot-free because of one doggedly determined constituent, Peter Wintle, who lives in Home Farm of Iwerne Minster. He has cogently and sensibly asked questions over the years of Cognatum, only to be met with very little in reply. The issues that Peter has raised with me on behalf of those residents, which are echoed by others, is the absence of management transparency—a key and important thing—and accountability of the companies involved, as well as a lack of clear communication that sets out in easily digestible form information that residents require and openness on finance, explaining why service charges go up and why repairs or maintenance are being done in a certain way. There is a lackadaisical and tardy attitude in responding to issues and complaints raised by residents—all things that should not be expected. The complaints system is not worthy of the name. In the case of Cognatum, because of the way it organises itself, there are also unaudited accounts, which make it incredibly hard for anybody to follow the line on the balance sheet.
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, without whom no Adjournment debate would be complete.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Vulnerable retirees in Strangford are facing experiences and anxieties that mirror those he has referred to. While we do have the Ground Rents Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, it lacks a statutory cap on ground rents and it is not possible to regulate the runaway management and event fees levied by private firms. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our elderly population, including elderly constituents in Strangford, deserve uniform financial protections and safety from predatory management practices, regardless of which corner of the United Kingdom they reside in?
Simon Hoare
I agree. That goes back to the point I made a moment ago that too many of these companies see their residents as a soft or easy touch. They think that their residents will just suck it up and simply write the cheque.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again and for securing this Adjournment debate. Does he agree that there is a particularly predatory aspect upon the death of a resident who has occupied one of these properties? I would like to use this moment to pay tribute to Alex Roll, a constituent of mine whose mother’s estate has been crawled all over by predatory management companies that have seen an opportunity to effectively seize the assets of someone who worked tirelessly through their life. This system urgently needs reform—it is desperate for it.
Simon Hoare
I agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent, Alex Roll, who has been in contact with me via Facebook. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes on her behalf, and that she makes on behalf of countless others, which is that these companies are inclined to effectively hunt with the hounds and run with the hare at the same time. When somebody dies and the property then goes up for sale—sometimes, because of the restrictive covenants, the resale can be a slow and difficult business—not only do these companies receive a fairly significant clawback at the point of sale, but they demand service charges to be paid while the property is vacant or while probate is awaited. They really are trying to milk it from both ends, and I just do not think that stacks up in the court of public opinion as being fair or justifiable. One should be able to say, “This property is vacant. We will not levy the service charge, as that will effectively be included in the clawback that we get at the point of sale,” because there is clearly no resident in that property using those services.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just wanted to highlight a case of exactly that. I have a constituent whose property has been on the market since 2022. The landlord chooses who the new owner will be. The adult members of the family, who are struggling to get on to the property ladder, cannot move in because they are not over 55, and the landlord will not allow the property to be rented out, even though it rents its properties out on the same site. They are absolutely banjaxed. There is an exit fee as well. It is catastrophic. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is just opportunistic profiteering at the expense of people who are vulnerable, and actually, when people have died, the families really are catastrophically affected.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady expresses it very well, and I agree with her assessment entirely. It is the age and vulnerability of many—the “anything for the quiet life” factor—that is being exploited to the max.
I want to mention specifically the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—although in this campaign he is very much my hon. Friend. We have been working together very closely on issues relating to Cognatum. He has Mytchett Heath in his constituency, and the issues being raised by his residents mirror those being raised by mine, and it is not a pretty picture.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I, too, am very much aware of this issue. In my constituency I have a property called Williamson Court, which is run by McCarthy & Stone, and everything that colleagues are saying sounds very familiar. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any sense of the scale of this issue right across the country, because it strikes me that we represent very different parts of the UK?
Simon Hoare
I think it manifests itself in all quarters of the United Kingdom, but not all companies are culpable. My other campaign is on the regulation of the funeral sector; it is the rotten apples in the barrel that give the whole sector a bad name. It is on them that attention should be focused.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hoare
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because we want to hear from the Minister.
I am told that Cognatum and its subsidiaries claim small companies exemptions, meaning that there are no independent audits and the directors control the financial disclosures. Inconsistent and exceptional accounting items suggest financial irregularities. The company operates on a “going concern” basis, despite significant inter-company debts, and the auditors do not sign the reported financial statements, raising accountability concerns. That suggests, as the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and others have suggested, the need for regulation.
I have two asks of the Minister. The first is to have a thorough assessment of the effectiveness and independence—or rather, the lack thereof—of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers. They are populated in the main by current operators. Effectively, colleagues are being asked to mark other colleagues’ homework. I do not think that is sustainable or desirable, and it needs looking at.
A number of my constituents believe that there is a rather lackadaisical approach to following the requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. I know that the Government have been doing some work on that, so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
In closing, I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who have supported me in this endeavour. I pay tribute again to the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Honiton and Sidmouth for the work that the three of us have been doing with regard to Cognatum. We did say that there would be an Adjournment debate if Cognatum was not prepared to engage and try to pull up its socks and improve the operation and service that they give to their residents, so this is a debate literally of their own making.
This sector has grown up quite quickly; it is still quite novel in this country. People are still finding their way, and I think we are probably only on the first or second generation of residents experiencing the pitfalls of both resale and clawback issues and the lack of accountability that exists in the management and maintenance of many of these places where people live.
These people have chosen to live there. They have invested a significant sum of their money so that they can live a retired life in dignity.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is somewhat analogous to what we see with park homes, for which there is a requirement for a fit and proper person test, with regulation from the local authority. Might that suit the situation he outlines?
Simon Hoare
That is a good suggestion. Anything has to be better than the status quo, which is neither defensible nor indeed desirable.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman has been frightfully patient. I will give way to him.
Warinder Juss
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I have a 92-year-old constituent, Freda Quinton, who has been unable to live in her retirement property since April because persistent and unresolved leaks have not been repaired, despite repeated assurances that they would be. She therefore cannot live independently. She now has health concerns, emotional distress and financial pressures. Does the hon. Member agree that that is no way to treat older residents and that a problem exists not only with the management company that he has referred to, but with others?
Simon Hoare
I agree. There is a common theme coming through, which is the age, the vulnerability, the “anything for the quiet life,” the “We’re not empowered to ask questions,” and maybe not being digitally alert. Some bigwig from a company comes along and attends a meeting. In the case of Cognatum, they tell us, “Don’t worry, Mr Hoare, Dr Pinkerton and Mr Foord, because we have a tenant representative on the board.” How is that tenant representative chosen? They are chosen by the board of Cognatum—they are not elected by fellow residents at all—so a poacher chooses potentially another poacher to mark their own homework.
There is this vulnerability: this “anything for a quiet life”; this “are we empowered to ask questions?” Indeed, the tipping point for me was when one of my constituents, who was asking perfectly legitimate questions in a perfectly civil way, found on his doormat a letter from Cognatum’s solicitors saying, “We think you are being vexatious and we are considering your lease arrangements.” Effectively, they were saying, “Ask any more questions, sunshine, and you’re out on your ear.” That gentleman is over 80. I do not think that is the right and proper way to treat anybody.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) raised a distressing case, obviously causing concern to him, to his constituents and to their friends and family. I hope that the comments and observations made in the debate have convinced the Minister that the status quo cannot continue. While we all call for a lighter regulatory approach and so on, this is a particular area of operation that has grown swiftly and autonomously, and is now crying out for reform. Reform of the association and rigorous enforcement of the section of the Act that I quoted would be a good starting point.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on securing the debate and thank him for his kind remarks on my appointment? I have fond memories of shadowing him when I was in opposition. I know that he has a breadth of knowledge across housing, communities and local government, and that this issue is close to his heart. I also thank the other Members for their contributions.
I want to start by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that although this area sits with my colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, I have been looking at it and will feed back to him on the key issues. The contributions have highlighted a really important area: the many challenges that leaseholders across the country, and especially elderly leaseholders, are facing with management companies, with flagrant disregard for people who have worked so hard to secure their property and live independently.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the key areas where management companies continue to let people down, including issues with transparency, accountability, communication, responding to issues, raising complaints and unaudited accounts. Those are basic things that management companies should be doing. I think about elderly leaseholders and how, for many of them, if they do not have a network of family support helping them to navigate this, it can feel predatory, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) highlighted. When someone receives those letters with demands, it can be quite scary.
We recognise the hugely important role that the older people’s housing sector plays—I do think there is a role for it—in ensuring people have independence in later life. We want to be able to make sure of that. We are keeping people out of hospital, and that can only happen if they have a safe and secure home of their own to go back to. The Government are committed to enhancing provisions and choice across the residential market, including for older people, and that means both increasing the supply of homes to older people and, most importantly, improving their experience in their own homes.
Many residents of retirement homes have made a significant financial and, in some cases, personal contribution to their homes, and they should have the confidence that when they raise valid concerns, those should be addressed promptly and in a timely manner. When they challenge bad practice, they should get a response and they should not have to come to their Members of Parliament. Yet we are seeing so many people resorting to raising issues and parliamentarians having to name and shame management companies until any action is taken. That should not be the way that things are happening.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am delighted to see the Minister in her place. I am sure she will remember that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recently scrutinised the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. We found it wanting; it did not go far or fast enough. The solution to the problems outlined in this debate is to properly regulate property managing agents and especially those that run retirement homes for the vulnerable elderly. Does the Minister agree that the Bill needs to come back urgently with that regulation?
Florence Eshalomi
I hope the Select Committee is going very well. The hon. Gentleman will know that this is an issue that we championed on the Committee to the point that, if he recalls, in many senses I harassed the former Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing, saying “When will we see the Bill? The Bill has to come before the House. It is an issue that comes into many parliamentarians’ inboxes, it is a cross-party issue and we want to see the Government act on that and make good on that commitment.”
I want to highlight that there are many good managing agents out there. This is not about saying that the issue of managing agents is all bad. There are good ones who are responsible, who respond on time and who are responsible for providing safe and secure homes for their residents. However, we know that far too often, the poor and unscrupulous managing agents let the sector down.
Managing agents play an important role in the maintenance of a wide range of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates. Their importance will only increase as we transition towards a commonhold future, so it is essential that we take action to drive up the standards within the sector. As the hon. Member for North Dorset and other hon. Members will know, the previous Government committed to regulating managing agents in 2018 and asked a working group chaired by Lord Best to advise them on how to do that. Yet, they failed to respond to the group’s final report, which was published in July 2019. We have moved on from that. It is about how we now take those recommendations and bring an outcome for so many people, and the Government are ready to take forward a number of those recommendations.
The retirement sector has some specific arrangements in place. Many retirement housing managing agents already operate under the Association of Retirement Housing Managers’ code of practice, which sets the standards on transparency and complaints handling, but as we have heard this evening that does not seem to be working and it is about how we ensure that we are enforcing some of those key areas. Elsewhere in the sector, similar consumer protection standards are promoted through the Associated Retirement Community Operators’ consumer code for its members. I stress again: we recognise the concerns that remain in parts of the sector and are considering how we can protect consumers and residents to strengthen that and have a consistent approach.
In the recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, we consulted on powers to appoint a manager or to replace a managing agent, as well as on mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents in England. The Government will consult on the introduction of qualifications for estate and letting agents next year. We have also made it clear that we plan to introduce a code of practice this year setting out the minimum standards expected of all residential property agents. This includes estate, letting and managing agents. The Government are considering Lord Best’s report in full, and we will set out our overarching position on the regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course, but this has to come at a timely pace.
Tom Gordon
I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that this was in some sense analogous to the issues that park home residents face. While there is a fit and proper person test in that instance, it is often lacking and not the tightening regulation that people had hoped for. What measures will the Minister bring forward, having learned from those experiences, to ensure that we get proper regulation that has teeth and that will work?
Florence Eshalomi
Nearly right! My apologies. That is an issue that I will definitely be forwarding. I have taken a note of it and I will forward it to the Housing Minister so that the hon. Gentleman can get a proper response.
Tessa Munt
When the Minister says managing agents, does she mean management companies, a bit like FirstPort, which provide a lamentable service? One of the retirement buildings in my patch has just been offered the repainting of its windows for £240,000. I think that works out at over £5,000 per flat. This is just for the birds. It is absolutely bonkers. I want to be sure that they will be captured within the legislation that she is proposing.
Florence Eshalomi
I can reassure the hon. Lady that FirstPort continues to come up regularly. I had the pleasure, in my former role as Chair of the Select Committee, of scrutinising and questioning the managing director and chief exec of FirstPort, and the hon. Lady will be aware that the Housing Minister has also held important meetings with FirstPort. There are other managing agents that we should not let off the hook, but FirstPort has a large share of properties across the country.
The hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned the consultation on section 20, and this is a key issue that the Government have been looking at. The Government consulted on that last year, and my understanding is that they will be setting out the response in due course. Again, this is something that I will push the Housing Minister on, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, to ensure we come back to this in a timely manner.
I also want to highlight the experiences that other hon. Members have raised on behalf of their constituents. It is important that we continue to share these really valid examples to show why we need to move at pace in regulating this important area. We recognise that the pre-legislative scrutiny report into the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill recommended that a number of measures should be extended to retirement providers, and we will consider that as part of our work. I am happy to say that it was a good Member of Parliament who led on that pre-legislative scrutiny.
I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have come to the House this evening to debate this important issue. I thank them for sharing their insights and, most importantly, sharing the lived examples and concerns that many residents continue to face. We continue to see people who are worried, when another bill or letter comes through the door, about what will be demanded from them. We see them worry that, when they do not respond to those letters, they could be issued with court and threatening letters. It is really important that we address this emotional, physical and mental impact; it is not just about the financial impact it is having on vulnerable residents. I want to thank all Members for engaging with this, and I look forward to working with them. I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will also be engaging further with Members.
Question put and agreed to.