Danny Beales MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Time and again this issue is raised in the House, whether at business questions or in questions to Ministers, and we are assured that the situation can and will get better. We are given deadlines and meetings. My constituent Mark’s case was even taken off the tracker, and my office was assured by Capita that the case was solved. Then, last week, we found out that it still had not been resolved and he still did not have the pension he was due. Barbara had to fight six months for her late husband’s pension. She dealt not only with the grief of losing a husband, but with not being able to get the pension that was owed. Frankly, it is disgraceful that we are treating anyone like this, let alone public servants who have served for many years and deserve a peaceful retirement. Instead, they are having to battle the system to get what they are owed. What out of pocket expenses will be covered? People are having to pay extra for legal support and to get extra documents reprinted and sourced, as well as getting by day to day. At what point do we draw a line and say, “Enough is enough,” end this contract, and bring it back in house or give it to another supplier that can actually provide what it is paid for?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Committee for its work and for the report. I completely agree with the Chair’s presentation of the level of mistrust among graduates and learners when it comes to the broken system. Does she agree with me that this is not simply a communications issue? It is not about telling people more clearly how bad a deal they have. Fundamentally, this is a broken system—a bad deal that is having massive intergenerational impacts. Does she agree that we need a full and thorough review of the student finance and loans system?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  Every year, millions of people travel through Hillingdon, to visit the country or the city of London or go to Heathrow, and stay at hotels near the airport. That creates real costs for local communities—policing, street cleaning and transport impacts—and addressing those threats to the tourist economy requires funding. As such, I support this measure, but can the Minister assure me that those issues that are often locally driven and funded will also get support in a mayoral-led system?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Vulnerable victims and witnesses of crime deserve full and proactive support from the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. Yet one of my constituents struggled to get clarity about what protections would be put in place should they give evidence in court, and also whether their victim personal statement was even properly considered during the sentencing stage of the trial. Will the Minister outline what is being done to better support victims, particularly vulnerable witnesses, to ensure they get proper advocacy in the court system?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentions the commitment to peace long term, but unfortunately it has never seemed further away than it does today. Peace will involve building bridges between communities in Palestine and Israel, and supporting civil society, which has been under attack, in Gaza and in Israel, unfortunately, by the Government. My hon. Friend’s predecessor and the last Prime Minister committed to the international peace fund, which many of us were advocating for. Can my hon. Friend provide an update on the Government’s position on the peace fund, and their support, I hope, for its continuation and growth? What role does he think it can play in building these bridges?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  Is the situation my hon. Friend describes—Thames Water not being there when crises happen, while at the same time hugely increasing customers’ bills and failing to invest in infrastructure—not exactly why we cannot have a sweetheart deal with its creditors and shareholders? They must be held to account; they cannot continue with their record of failure on the backs of hard-working Londoners.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I would say you have saved the best to last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you can be the judge of that. My predecessor, when he was in this place, famously campaigned for a new fish and chip shop in Uxbridge. Now that he is the leader of the Conservative council, he seems to be closing the fish and chip shop that does exist in Hillingdon, along with the florist, the pharmacy, the hairdresser and the local convenience store. Local shops, whose landlord is the council, are facing a 100% rent increase, backdated for several years, all while repairs have not been done, sometimes for up to nine years. Does the Leader of the House agree that local businesses are the lifeblood of our communities and should be supported by councils? Can we have time for a debate in this place on the importance of local high streets?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. I strongly support the provisions in the Bill to support victims of violence, who far too often have to be evicted or leave while the perpetrator stays with the tenancy, as the Minister said. Rent arrears also prevent victims from gaining a tenancy or moving out of temporary accommodation into settled accommodation. Requirements that prevent those with rent arrears from getting a new tenancy do not take into account whether someone has been a victim of domestic violence. I know that the Department is looking at consulting and guidance on that. Could the Bill be a key mechanism for changing that across the country?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As someone for whom a council house was a lifeline out of the cycle of homelessness, I strongly welcome this Bill and the Government’s actions outlined in it. I was homeless not because of someone born abroad, but because of decades of Government inaction, the mass sell-off of council homes without them being replaced, and the housing crisis that has developed in this country over decades. The comments made today by the Conservative party and by its spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), were absolutely shameful—people in temporary accommodation in my constituency will not be served better by the actions the Conservatives are proposing. They will be served better by the measures in this Bill. I strongly welcome the Government’s action to support victims of domestic violence. Many of us will have seen victims having to leave their accommodation instead of the perpetrators and the awful situations that result. I strongly welcome the measures on that in the Bill. As I said to the Minister earlier, I hope for action on rent arrears. Only about one fifth of local authorities specifically exclude the rent arrears provisions for victims of domestic violence. I welcome the guidance, but I encourage the Minister to outline the timeline for that guidance and how its effectiveness will be assessed. I support the measures to review shared ownership. I have been contacted by Fiona and David and so many other constituents who were sold a dream that turned into a nightmare. They have a percentage of ownership, but all the responsibility when things go wrong. I encourage the Government to make that review comprehensive and thorough. Finally, we have heard from a number of other Members about the trap of furniture poverty. I heard from Shannon, who was a victim of domestic abuse. She said: “At times, I considered returning to the abusive relationship so my daughter would have a bed to sleep in.” We have to end furniture poverty. It is not a luxury to have a bed or white goods; they are essential, and not having them traps people in a debt cycle and pushes them towards rent arrears and future homelessness. I encourage the Minister to meet me and other colleagues who are interested in ending furniture poverty to explore how the Bill could genuinely do that.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her opening remarks and for the measures in this Bill, which are broadly very welcome for passengers and for many in airport communities such as mine. To share the Secretary of State’s comments, my thoughts are also with those individuals and families who face significant disruption this week through the failure of NATS. It shows just how vital air travel is to people right across this country for business and for leisure, and the impact when it goes wrong. Although it is not directly related to the Bill, there has been lots of discussion in this debate about the incident and about the lessons that we can and should learn. At Heathrow, the major airport in my borough, we have now unfortunately got somewhat used to quite significant incidents. There was recently a grid power outage, which caused significant disruption, and there have been a number of other incidents. We clearly need to look at the resilience of our air travel system and at planning for such incidents, which are increasingly common and can cause significant and harmful disruption to businesses and individuals. I hope that there will be a thorough consideration of the issue, as the Secretary of State said there would be. The sector could learn lessons more broadly than from this instance and better resilience planning could be put into place. The Bill is welcome news for my constituents and the travellers who come through my home borough of Hillingdon. The borough has not just one airport but two: we are home to Heathrow and RAF Northolt, which has a significant and increasing civilian operation involving private flights that come under civil aviation. We are not shy of or ignorant of issues arising from civil aviation—flights, disruption and balancing some of the trade-offs and challenges that come with air travel. My constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, has already talked about some of the concerns about potential Heathrow expansion and the third runway; I am sure that the House will rightly turn its attention to those very soon. Those of us who believe in a better but not necessarily bigger Heathrow need to see measures to address the current challenges that Heathrow presents, regardless of expansion. That is why the Bill is particularly welcome. There will be much better consumer protections when things go wrong, as they sometimes inevitably will. The Bill also takes action to tackle some of the wild west behaviours and differences between the approaches of airlines and contractors; that has been mentioned when it comes to hand luggage, but there are also different, hard-to-navigate approaches when it comes to compensation and delay payments. Those who have experienced disruption will often remember having to hunt down air staff at 10 or 11 at night when the desk is closed. They have tried to find anyone who works for the airline concerned to find out what is going on and what compensation they may be able to get—only to get a £5 paper voucher for refreshments, which will buy about half a sandwich in an airport concession. I support comments from Members about looking at best practice and upping and standardising the quality of provision, as well as learning from other sectors such as rail; the automatic “delay repay” system has been mentioned. For my sins, I have recently travelled on Avanti and have had to use that quite frequently. It is a helpful tool, and there is a quick compensation turnaround. Notably, the compensation is a payment for the cash that the customer paid for the travel that they did not get. Unfortunately, far too often the disruption payments from airlines are an invitation to travel on the airline again. A voucher to travel again on easyJet when someone has not been able to travel the first time seems perverse.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree, and this Bill is a fantastic opportunity to address some of the issues that have lingered for too long in the sector. Boosting enforcement powers at the Civil Aviation Authority would enable faster enforcement when those rights are not applied. That is also welcome. Members have rightly mentioned the need for a much tighter definition of “extraordinary events”, and the need to ensure that it is properly applied. It cannot be a catch-all opt-out for airlines, allowing them to get around the requirements. I strongly welcome the removal of the cap on baggage, specialist equipment and wheelchairs. In the Health and Social Care Committee, and in other debates, we talk a lot about the challenge of getting specialist adaptive equipment. It can take a long time to get bespoke equipment. It is incredibly damaging and destructive if it is lost or damaged when a person travels, and they are not able to reclaim the full cost, so I strongly welcome that provision. I encourage the Minister to ensure that when the cap is removed and the provision is applied, there are no unintended consequences—that airlines do not become unwilling to allow such equipment to be stowed and boarded, and do not refuse to fly individuals because of the insurance risk around their equipment. I hope that we will ensure that there are no unintended consequences of applying the right policy. I strongly support the provisions around modernising our airspace. We have to modernise outdated routes, now that we have modern flights, and now that technology is emerging that has a much lesser noise impact. There are options and flexibilities that remove the significant impact on heavily trafficked flight paths. How we do this is just as important as if we do it; it must be done with proper assessment and consultation of residents. It cannot be right to have just a few heavily trafficked routes, leading to the piling up and circling of flights and an unnecessary additional burden on communities. I support the comments made about the value of the Bill looking at abusive travellers and their impact on staff, both at the airport and cabin-side. Air workers face unacceptable amounts of abuse in all forms, physical and verbal, and it is increasing. The stats from a recent Unite survey of just 300 workers in Scottish airports showed that 90% had experienced verbal abuse on a regular basis, 75% had experienced intimidation and aggression, and almost a third had experienced some form of physical assault. We are becoming a bit numb to the abuse and regular intimidation that public sector workers and those in customer-facing roles experience; it happens to hospital, rail and shop workers. We have to take action; we have done, for shop workers. I hope that we can explore the issue and use clause 13, which gives a power to create offences to properly deal with airline and airport abuse. Crucially—Unite the union is right about this—this has to apply not just to abuse in the cabin; it has to apply to the whole journey, from entering the airport to sitting on the plane. Any abuse and intimidation has to be dealt with properly. We need a comprehensive system that ensures that when a person is banned from one airline, that carries across the whole airport system; the ban cannot put the staff at other providers at risk. Finally, I turn to drop-off charges, which have been much discussed. We had a significantly busy Westminster Hall debate on this, which the Minister attended and responded to. This is an issue of great concern to my constituents. Charges have gone up significantly at Heathrow and at the other airports we have heard of today. Frustratingly for people locally, airports do not disclose what the revenue is used for. It is not clear whether it goes towards improving the situation, or is invested in community transport so that people can avoid having to drive to the airport. There are no direct public transport routes to Heathrow for staff and airport visitors from the north or Ruislip parts of my borough. It is incredibly difficult, particularly for evening and night workers, to get there on public transport. I hope that the provisions added to the Bill will increase the transparency of information about drop-off charges, ensuring that they are adequately advertised, there are easy ways to pay them, and they are fairly implemented, and will ensure that the revenue they generate genuinely goes towards improving community transport. As has been said, the charges mean that people do not drive to the airport, but instead drive to the area around the drop-off zone. Local councils are made to pick up the enforcement costs relating to that parking, and to the illegal commercial car parks opened without permission. Through the review, I hope that we can properly address those issues, which are of significant concern to many of my constituents and my communities. Overall, I strongly welcome the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that it makes swift progress through this place.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is giving an excellent and thorough speech based on her and her Committee’s work. I agree with everything she has said, with one caveat, which is that even for those living a stone’s throw from the airport there often are not public transport links. In my constituency and my neighbour’s, many people who work at the airport cannot get there directly on one bus, so they are forced to drive and pay drop-off charges or park in questionable places, causing disruption to communities. Does my hon. Friend agree airports need to do much more on public transport?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Summer Health and Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Secretary of State to her place and look forward to working with her. Over the summer I visited a number of GP practices, and they reported frequent instances of racism, abuse and even violence against staff. This summer we also saw a horrific stabbing of a doctor at Hillingdon hospital. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about the unacceptable levels of abuse that we are seeing in our health system. The practices think that more could be done, with panic alarms, cameras, increased security staff and speeding up some of the regulatory processes. NHS Property Services can take a long time to make even the simplest improvements, such as a security door or additional CCTV. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning in no uncertain terms the abuse faced by NHS staff in Hillingdon and across the country, and outline what more action could be taken on this issue?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Fuel Duty: Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend might have read my speech, because I was about to turn to her amendment’s proposal of a report on integrating health and social care. It is an interesting idea that has a great deal of merit, and I hope that the Minister, in her response, will outline the Government’s approach to enabling more progress on integrating health and social care, particularly with the ongoing Casey review. Inequalities have already been mentioned in the debate. Obviously, one of the Government’s key ambitions is growth in every postcode; another is good health in every postcode. Time and again we see disproportionality and inequalities that are seemingly hardwired into our health system. To change that, we are going to have to do something differently, and I welcome new clauses 90 and 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) which would definitely reinforce the Government’s 10-year plan commitment to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest regions and the poorest, and to raise the healthiest generation of children ever. Unfortunately, we have moved away from those goals over the past 10 years, and we will have to do something differently if we are to bridge that gap. In my own constituency, from north to south, there is a huge divide in the quality of health and outcomes based on postcode. That must change. Although the Government are not minded to accept those amendments, I know that the Minister is passionate about inequalities and that the Bill requires neighbourhood health plans to be developed. That will be an important new measure when responding to neighbourhood health needs, and in preparing those plans, “the responsible local authority and…partner integrated care boards must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.” I hope that the Minister will explore using this guidance to ensure that as they are developed, neighbourhood health plans specifically address inequalities between neighbourhoods. Finally, I turn to the SEND system, which is another major challenge with which the Government are rightly grappling. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), a fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for new clause 85, which would address the chasm between the education system and the health system. While this is fundamentally a health Bill, it is right to ask what more the health system could and should be doing. As the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), has rightly said already, the “H” is far from present in EHCPs. Decision makers are not required to come round the table, and the specialists are not provided. I have been to specialist schools in my constituency where there is no nursing provision, so people miss school days, and where there is no specialist transport, so people cannot even get to school, because bus drivers do not have the proper health knowledge. We need to have an education and health response. I therefore hope that the Minister will address in her closing remarks how, if this Bill is not the right mechanism, future SEND reforms may pick this issue up and how the Department of Health and Social Care will contribute. There is a great deal to support in this Bill. It is a major step forward, particularly for digital healthcare, giving people control of their records and joined-up care. I hope that the Government will continue to drive forward reform of our health system.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is much to support in the Bill, and I support its ambition to enable many of the provisions of the welcome 10-year plan for the NHS. The plan is the right one; the three shifts are correct, and we have to fundamentally reform the health system if we are to meet the modern health and care challenges that we all see in our constituencies. To some extent those challenges are not new, and neither are these ambitions—we have seen similar initiatives before—but the systems, the structures, the bureaucracy and the siloed budgets push against change in the health sector. They have been a hinderance, reinforcing silos and making the same investment choices. They have prevented digitalisation, kept care in acute settings and stopped joined-up working. This Bill could and should be a key lever in overcoming those challenges, which we need to do if we are to achieve those ambitions. I very much support the digital single patient record, which is a key ambition in the shift from analogue to digital health. We have all heard from patients who have to tell their story over and over again at every single health appointment—between care and health, between community and secondary care—so a genuine single patient record has the potential to be transformational. We have, however, heard from pharmacies and community mental health services that if this is to work, they have to have a seat at the table. While this Bill enables the architecture, I hope that the delivery will ensure that the whole of the health and care system is part of the decision-making process when the single patient record is designed. That is crucial. Turning to the abolition of NHS England, the idea of streamlining bureaucracy at the centre is a good one, and delivering power—including decision-making power—budgets and resources locally is also admirable. Success, however, will mean the right decisions being taken at the right scale.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party parliamentary group; he is a real champion of this cause. AJM Healthcare, the contractor in my constituency, has a similar level of failure. People are left for months—sometimes six months—without a wheelchair, bed-bound and unable to get out of the house. Does he agree that ICBs seem completely at sea on this issue, and are totally unaccountable? Does he agree that we need much tougher measures, such as those he suggests, to hold them to account?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Having worked in neonatal care services and areas of specialised services in the NHS for 10 years, I understand that one of the benefits of NHS England was that it brought together highly specialised services, ensured consistent service specifications and uplifted the quality and availability of care across the country. I hope that when we make decisions about which specialised services will be devolved to ICBs, consideration will be given to that point. Equally, we have heard from national population health programmes such as the Diabetes Prevention Programme, which has been a huge success. As we make the final decisions about the level at which decisions are made, we cannot lose the benefits of public health initiatives at scale, such as vaccinations and prevention programmes. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts and reflections on that. Integrated working is also important—as I say, we have to blend budgets and bring together decision makers across current silo divides. In that spirit, I very much welcome the change made by Government amendment 60 to give local authorities a seat back at the table. We need a bigger voice for public health and social care in health decision making, not less, so I thank the Minister and the Government for listening to the Health and Social Care Committee and moving on that. In the view of the NHS Alliance, this is not enough; it would like to see a reciprocal duty to collaborate, which is an interesting suggestion. However, the Government’s amendment is an important start.

• 7 Sept 2026 · VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by welcoming the Government’s decision at the start of the summer to pause the application of VAT on medicines donated for free to patients through compassionate access, early access and related schemes. The health charities, patients and industry bodies that I have worked with are grateful to Ministers for recognising that this issue needs to be addressed, and in particular for the ministerial statement setting out the Government’s intention to introduce a new approach to VAT on free-of-charge donations of medicines. I know that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and previously my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, have both worked a great deal on this issue. I thank them for their commitment to find a resolution. Without a permanent solution, however, pharmaceutical companies do not have the legal certainty to fully re-engage with early access programmes. Although, to date, only Bayer has withdrawn from these schemes outright, I have heard from a number of other companies that tell me that the uncertainty is causing them to reconsider, drug by drug, whether they can afford to continue offering free access, for fear of creating open-ended VAT liabilities. Tragically, the people who are paying the price for the delay are patients. I know that the Government recognise the consequences for patient outcomes, which is why they have committed to bringing forward a new approach, either through changes to VAT rules or through a reimbursement scheme. I welcome the fact that the new approach, once introduced, will apply to donations made on or after 23 June 2026. However, a pause is simply not good enough to resolve this issue fully. I called for this debate to ask the Government to reconfirm their commitment to find a permanent solution and to ask them to move forward as quickly as possible in determining that comprehensive solution.

• 7 Sept 2026 · VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being very generous in giving way, as ever, and I appreciate his response about the limitations of the business brief process. If amending the VAT Act 1994 is the right route, does the Minister know roughly how long that would take to find a resolution? I fully his support his point about Bayer re-engaging. The Government have moved in good faith, and I hope Bayer will, too.

• 7 Sept 2026 · VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medicines and medical devices, I have heard those stories far too often. I completely agree that we should be removing every single barrier.

• 7 Sept 2026 · VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we do need to find a permanent and comprehensive solution. Hopefully we can air those issues fully today. Fundamentally, the principle underlying this issue is very straightforward: if a pharmaceutical company is willing to provide a lifesaving medicine to a patient free of charge because that patient has a serious or life-threatening condition and has exhausted the available standard treatment options, the tax system should not make access to those lifesaving drugs more difficult. That reflects the points raised by the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge). Pharmaceutical companies already operate these schemes at a loss. For example, over the last four years, AstraZeneca alone has given more than 2,500 patients access to innovative, lifesaving medicines free of charge, costing millions of pounds. This is clearly not a commercial transaction. It is a moral, compassionately motivated decision and programme, and in my view that means it should be supported, championed and facilitated by Government, not blocked, disincentivised, or made administratively more burdensome—but unfortunately that is exactly what has been happening since HMRC started charging VAT on those donations. This is not just a line on a tax return, impacting on the bottom line; the impact is also having real-world consequences on patient groups. The consequences of this delay are gut-wrenching and deeply frustrating for clinicians, patients and their families. Every day, every week and every month that we wait for a permanent solution to move forward, more severely ill patients are denied access to drugs that could save or extend their lives, at no cost to the NHS. It is also important to note that patients with rarer cancers are disproportionately affected by this issue, as they generally have fewer treatment options. In August, I was contacted by Emma and her husband Ian. Ian and Emma are currently watching this debate online from Ian’s hospital room at University College hospital, as they could not be here in person. Ian has an advanced, rare and aggressive bile duct cancer. Following his latest chemotherapy, his consultant Professor Bridgewater recommended regorafenib as Ian’s next treatment. Regorafenib was previously supplied free of charge by Bayer through a compassionate use programme. However, since Bayer became liable for VAT on the medicines it was donating, it withdrew from the programme, meaning that Ian lost free access to this potentially life-extending treatment. Ian and Emma are now urgently trying to find the money to pay privately for Ian’s treatment, and the cost is thousands of pounds per month. It goes without saying that many families cannot afford to pay thousands of pounds, each and every month, for treatment. Working with Sarcoma UK, I have also heard from Dr Robin Young, a consultant medical oncologist at Weston Park cancer centre. He reported that a 62-year-old patient with metastatic leiomyosarcoma, whose disease had progressed through all the standard chemotherapy options, was also denied this drug in January 2026 because of Bayer’s withdrawal. That patient subsequently self-funded an alternative treatment at a cost of £3,500 for one month, before deciding that he could not afford to continue with that treatment. These are heartbreaking decisions for patients and their families. I have also heard from Dr Alex Lee, a consultant medical oncologist at the Christie NHS foundation trust, who has reported that two patients with advanced osteosarcoma were refused access to the drug earlier this year, with Bayer citing the VAT position. Tragically, one of those patients has since died. She was just 20 years old. I hope these stories make clear the urgency of resolving this issue as soon as possible. This would not only enable Bayer to re-engage, but ensure that existing participants could continue to access their drugs through the programme and enable potential new drugs to enter early access and compassionate access schemes in the future. On paper, this might be a niche and complex part of tax policy, but in real life it is a desperately ill patient, it is a family and it is a clinician having to explain why a medicine that had previously been made available can no longer be provided. I shall turn now to the position of the pharmaceutical industry. Patients, clinicians and the Minister will be pleased to hear that the pharma companies are keen and willing to re-engage with compassionate, early access and other similar schemes once a suitable solution has been finalised with Government. However, I have heard concerns from the industry about the pace and scope of negotiations since the Government announced the pause. The first issue is about the breadth of the definition of the products that will be exempted from VAT liabilities. The definition used to determine any VAT exemption should include the full range of schemes that pharma companies engage in to provide these medicines free of charge. These include: compassionate use, where a clinician requests a specific medicine as a last resort once other options are exhausted, usually off-licence; early use, for new patients immediately after a trial; post-trial provision, for patients who responded well during a trial and need to continue; and bridging prescriptions, for patients where a drug has been approved but is not yet funded on the NHS. However, I have been told that the definition initially suggested by HMRC during negotiations has been too narrow to cover all those uses. I encourage the Minister to look again at this, given that compassionate use of off-licence drugs accounts for a substantial proportion of the patients who benefit from donations to the programme. I understand that the Government may be now moving to a better position on this point, and I would welcome confirmation of that from the Minister. The second issue I have heard is that HMRC is considering attaching two conditions to any VAT exemption: first, that the patient must be treated on the NHS rather than by a private clinician; and secondly, that medicines must be supplied directly by the company to the NHS. I am sceptical of the merits of both those points. First, patients should not potentially lose access to a lifesaving free treatment, which is at the cost of industry, just because the clinician recommending the treatment is a private doctor. On the second point, I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how such an arrangement would work on a practical level. We know that the NHS can refer to private clinics and that clinicians can, particularly for specialist issues, work regularly between NHS practices and private clinics. The fundamental question must surely be whether the medicine is clinically needed and whether it is free at the point of use for the patient. The third issue raised by pharma pertains to the question of historical liabilities. My understanding is that many pharma companies have already paid VAT for historical liabilities, and it is important to say that we do not expect that they will be able to recover that in full. However, given the upcoming changes, it would be helpful if the Government provided some clarity on the legal position on historical liabilities before the pause. I urge that settlements should be negotiated constructively and with understanding based on the nature of these liabilities. Closely related to the issue of historical liabilities is that of co-ordination between Departments on this issue. AstraZeneca has told me that, despite ongoing negotiations with HMRC and the pause announced in July, it is currently being pursued by His Majesty’s Treasury for accounts by the end of September, which it has been indicated should include VAT liability on compassionate access—a position AstraZeneca is not confident is consistent with what it is hearing from HMRC. Business needs certainty to prepare accounts. I encourage the Minister to ensure that HMRC and the Treasury are working from the same hymn sheet. On the method and pace of resolution, my understanding is that the Government are looking at creating an exemption for the compassionate donation of medicines through a legislative change to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. However, have the Government considered issuing a business brief from HMRC to clarify the new position, given that this could be a faster and more effective route? I would be grateful for the Minister’s perspective on that. As well as the patient benefits, there is also a key strategic opportunity for us as a country to be a global industry leader in life sciences research. Many other countries have complex schemes in place, and sometimes charge VAT or the equivalent on such things. However, I understand that although liabilities technically exist in the Netherlands, they are not enforced in practice. If the UK were to fully resolve this issue and put it beyond doubt, this would be a genuine point of competitive advantage in attracting life sciences investment, research and clinical trials to this country, at a time when our overall competitiveness in the sector is under pressure from other directions and policies. It would also encourage the participation of innovative new drugs and potential wider patient applications of them, driving forward potential research opportunities and improving healthcare practice. To sum up, my questions to the Minister are as follows. First, can he confirm that a permanent solution will define eligible products as widely as possible, to include the full range of schemes that are currently used? Will he reconsider the proposal to restrict eligibility to NHS-treated patients only? Secondly, the Government have said that they will act as soon as possible, but for a patient with a life-threatening disease, that phrase can feel like a very long time. Will the Minister set out a clearer timetable about actions and next steps, and when the consultation with industry is likely to conclude? Will the Government decide to bring forward a reimbursement mechanism? Can the Minister explain why a business brief route has not been preferred, or whether one can be explored? When is detailed guidance likely to be published and operational? Finally, what is being done to repair the relationships with industry, which have been damaged as a result of this policy? Where a company such as Bayer has withdrawn, I hope that it will be strongly encouraged to re-engage as soon as possible, so that the patients we have heard about today can gain access quickly. Will the Treasury work with the Department of Health and Social Care to engage industry and be in direct communication with clinicians to help to identify which patient groups have been most affected, so they can be notified as soon as possible that the treatments may become available again? This is, on paper, a narrow, technical issue of tax policy—not always the thing that makes the front pages of newspapers or the most engaging social media videos—but in practice, a clear and quick resolution to this issue is a life-and-death issue for many thousands of people. It is the difference between a patient like Ian fighting to save thousands of pounds a month—just to be able to focus on his health and his loved ones— or not. It is the difference between a clinician having to explain why a medicine that was available last year is not available now, and being able to provide that innovative and lifesaving drug to them and many more patients besides. It is the difference between a pharmaceutical company that wants to do the right thing, providing drugs to patients for free or at a low cost, and it withdrawing its drugs completely because the costs become significant. Once again, I strongly welcome the ministerial statement and the pause from June. I thank the Minister and his predecessor considerably for their work to date, which has made a difference. I know that he is committed to engagement on this issue and to finding a way forward.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Vaccination Rates: England · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Desmond, for chairing the end of the debate, if not the beginning. I thank the Minister for her response. I and the rest of the Committee welcome her commitment to get back to us and to work with us. I just politely point out that the very good measures that she has outlined are measures that the Government and the strategy have been undertaking for many years, and we have still seen the decline continue. I encourage her to go back to her officials and press them for a timeline to regain elimination status and reach the WHO targets. If they are unwilling to put a target on that, I would suggest that perhaps they are not confident in the measures that they have so far been taking to achieve them, but I thank the Minister for her commitment to work with us. Question put and agreed to . Resolved, That this House has considered vaccination rates in England.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Vaccination Rates: England · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. Those issues are clearly intertwined and cannot be separated. Every contact should count. Shared digital records should identify, at the next GP appointment, pharmacy check-in, health visit or hospital appointment, where vaccines are missing. The system should be enabled, encouraged and paid to act, but this is currently not the case. The hesitancy argument focuses on the growing prevalence of misinformation around vaccines and falling trust in vaccines and health institutions more broadly. Polling shows that these are not the most important factors numerically, but for the 15% of parents who have concerns, they matter. Evidence from the University of Manchester shows that this is especially important for certain population groups. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) just said, the barriers are multifaceted: poor trust and poor access go hand in hand, because the best way to build trust is through regular contact with known, trusted professionals. To maximise vaccine coverage, we need a system that can reliably identify and locate every child or patient missing their vaccination, repeatedly invite them for appointments and make attending appointments as easy as possible, with clear lines of responsibility when targets are missed. To do that effectively, the vaccination system needs adequate resourcing, accurate data and explicit accountability for meeting targets. Currently, we have none of that. The Government have been acting. We are piloting health visits and community pharmacy delivery, although roll-out has been slow and it is unclear when national roll-out will be possible. Parents are now given access to their child’s records through the NHS app, work is under way to improve the consent process for vaccinating children in school. More is being done, and all of that is positive, but the Select Committee is not convinced that that will be enough to restore our vaccination levels to WHO standards, and neither are officials, who are unable to say whether and when levels will be restored. Moving forward, what do we need? We need resourcing. Data I have obtained through parliamentary questions shows that in 2023-24 NHS England spent 0.51% of its total budget, or £852 million, on vaccination, down from 0.65%, or £989 million, in 2022-23. The very year the strategy released, funding was cut. We also need to be honest about what improvement will cost. Vaccinating the last 10% or 15% of any population is not the same task as vaccinating the first 80%, because of deprivation, language barriers and housing instability. All families affected by those factors need more contact with clinicians, and GPs simply do not have the resources to do the necessary outreach. We need to fund not just new medicines and drugs, but their roll-out. We should be using lifetime parental consent to increase uptake of school-age vaccinations, and developing efficient, convenient and ongoing catch-up opportunities in schools, shopping centres, nurseries and family hubs. The school-age immunisation service should be operating a check-and-offer approach at every contact. For the last 15%, we should be willing to fund what actually works: explicit payments to GPs for outreach programmes for underserved communities, including funding for multiple contact attempts, data cleaning, and non-responder tracking, with incentives linked to real outcomes. We should be training healthcare professionals and community groups to have difficult conversations with confidence and making far better use of our community pharmacy network, which is rooted in local areas. We also need clear accountability; the buck has to stop somewhere locally and nationally, with clear vaccination leads at both levels. Since the Lansley reforms in 2012 and the subsequent austerity cuts, lines of accountability have become blurred. From April 2027, integrated care boards will have greater responsibility for commissioning vaccination programmes locally, but who is overseeing the national strategy? That remains unclear. Who will require corrective action when that is deemed to be necessary? That is not clear. The removal of national targets was clearly a step backward for the system. Health officials and clinicians tell us that it is not always clear who is responsible when vaccination rates fall at delivery level in a given neighbourhood. We need a new national action plan that sets out concrete steps that will be taken to return coverage to our WHO targets. We do not have all the systems in place to tell us reliably who has and has not been vaccinated. Data challenges run right through the system. Vaccines given in maternity settings, community pharmacy settings or school often fail to make their way back to the child’s GP surgery because the systems do not talk to each other. How can we expect call-and-recall strategies to work if clinicians do not reliably know which children need to be called? Lastly, on hesitancy, we need to tackle misinformation, regulate it online and hold the peddlers of harmful and potentially deadly misinformation to account. Social media companies must step up their game in bringing down anti-vax information and providing clear, evidence-based health information instead. I know much of this is not easy, but that is why it requires genuine commitment and prioritisation. I thank the Minister for listening; will she outline whether the Government accept that the situation is unacceptable and that urgent action is needed, and whether a clear timeline for meeting the WHO targets can and should be agreed by the NHS? If we are to set a timeline, will a clear action plan be outlined to set us on the path back to 95% of all children being vaccinated, so that we can all see a welcome and vital return of our measles elimination status? We must ensure that every child is safe, that people of all ages get the vaccines they need, and that the UK is once again a global leader in vaccinations.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Vaccination Rates: England · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered vaccination rates in England. It is an honour to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Barker. I am pleased to co-sponsor this debate alongside colleagues from the Health and Social Care Committee who are also here today. It is very easy, from the vantage point of the 21st century, to forget that about half of children used to die before the age of 15 from infection and disease. Thankfully, we now have vaccines and our routine vaccination schedule providing protection against 15 preventable infections across our lifetimes. For decades, our system was one of the best in the world. The childhood diseases that used to cause so much suffering—measles, polio and others—sound like things from history books. I am sure we all have memories of our early school-based vaccinations and flu jabs in the winter period, and the joy of the discovery of the covid-19 vaccine and the hope it brought of a return to normality. So why have this debate today? Because, despite a seemingly continued record of progress and innovation since 2012, our vaccination system has been sleepwalking into a crisis. The percentage of eligible people getting the major vaccines has been falling year on year, dropping below the 95% coverage recommended by the World Health Organisation to prevent onward transmission. We have now undoubtedly hit a crisis point. Across England as a whole, the 95% target is not being met for any routine childhood vaccination programme and many adult programmes. For example, in 2024-25, only 83.7% of five-year-olds in England had both doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. In my own constituency, the figure is even lower, at 74%. We are now seeing measles outbreaks in our cities and, shockingly, we have lost our measles elimination status nationally. Tragically, three children died this year from measles—a totally preventable illness. When questioned about these issues at the Health and Social Care Committee, officials assured us that actions were under way and the tide was turning, but the most recent vaccine stats, released at the end of August, unfortunately show a continued downward trend. The 6-in-1 vaccine dose three coverage is down, the meningitis B dose three coverage is down, and the rotavirus dose two coverage is also down. This is also a serious equalities issue. Children who grow up unprotected are disproportionately those living in poverty and from ethnic minority communities, and the gap in vaccination status is growing across the country. How has that been allowed to happen in modern Britain? The 2023 vaccination strategy under the last Government was intended to halt the decline, but it is clearly failing, with vaccination rates continuing to fall in the three years since. The WHO target of 95% coverage for all routine vaccination programmes was removed from NHS planning guidance in 2025-26, with the Secretary of State at the time saying, “If everything is a priority, then nothing is”, but the choice not to explicitly prioritise vaccinations is incredibly short-sighted. My colleagues and I on the Health and Social Care Committee held a short inquiry into vaccination rates earlier this year, and we were, to be frank, shocked by the apparent complacency of leading NHS officials. There was no understanding of when it is hoped rates will return to WHO levels, or of whether and when our elimination status will be reached again. There is no target. This debate must be a call to arms to prioritise rebuilding our vaccination system as a matter of utmost urgency and to restore vaccination rates to 95% as soon as possible. Developing an effective vaccination system is not rocket science. Much of the existing strategy is relevant and positive, but we must acknowledge that we are off track. The debate about what is wrong tends to focus on two key issues: access versus hesitancy. The access argument focuses on systemic, practical barriers that make it harder for people to get vaccinated, such as poor appointment availability, ineffective call and recall systems, lack of data linkage and fragmented health systems. On that argument, recent coverage decline is the sign of a system under strain, rather than a loss of confidence. Most patients and parents do trust vaccines: 85% of people polled by Ipsos in 2025 said that vaccines were safe. But people are busy—moving home, switching GPs—and they do not have endless time to navigate a confusing and increasingly fragmented NHS system. The gap between MMR 1 and MMR 2 uptake is stark evidence of this failure, with MMR 1 coverage at five years at 91% and MMR 2 coverage at only 83%. The loss of contact is a system failure. Missed appointments should be chased, and families should retain close contact with trusted health professionals to guide them through the childhood vaccination schedule.