Edward Argar MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes his point very clearly and he is absolutely right. Not only is there a lack of clarity in the legislation and in the plans for how the NHS will look, but, as was alluded to during evidence, the missing bit from the Bill, which is highly relevant, is social care. It will be deeply concerning if, when the implications of local government reorganisation emerge from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in a few weeks’ time, the two are not properly meshed together, because we will risk, yet again, a widening disconnect between the two vital parts of our health and social care system, both of which have to work well in tandem for the whole system to function. The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. He also highlights ICB budgets. I suspect hon. and right hon. Members around the country are already seeing the genuine impact of those changes to the budgets, which are actually pulling through into the frontline services that our constituents receive. I know that the Minister cares deeply about our health and social care services, and has a wealth of experience from in this place and outside it. Given the comments from our witnesses and the impact assessment, which has page after page listing the risks associated with this approach, I ask her how she will mitigate that loss of focus and that distraction, which is an inevitable human reaction when there is uncertainty. When she comes forward with the plan to merge NHS England into the Department, how will she ensure that she retains the best, most experienced staff? In any organisation where there is a change, it is often the most able and experienced who find it easiest to go to another role, by virtue of their skillset. How will she ensure that there is not a loss or drain of that expertise and knowledge? I turn to a deeply concerning element that links to the lack of clarity. The impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England is pretty much silent on the monetised costs and benefits and specific figures. The first two pages with the boxes and the summary just say “N/A” in pretty much every box on assessing the costs. If I flick through to the section headed “Monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits of each option”, I see page after page. There are lots of words but virtually no figures, and where there are figures, there is no breakdown of how they were reached, and no explanation of the degree or range of confidence in the few figures that are there. I ask the Minister whether a detailed spreadsheet of all the statistics, costs and benefits, risks, confidence levels associated with the numbers, and the phasing over years of savings and costs will be published during the Commons passage of the Bill so that Members of the House can consider it. If not in Committee, could it be published at least before Report so that we can have an informed debate? More broadly, once the Bill in whatever form is passed—I expect, given the Government’s majority, that it will be—what mechanisms will the Government put in place to ensure that when a target operating model and all the other details are available, Parliament will have an opportunity to not only debate them, but have a meaningful say, potentially with a vote, be it through delegated legislation or in the House?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In her evidence earlier, Dr Dash said that one of the reasons for her recommendations in her second review of changes to the regulatory and investigatory landscape is that it is a problem for the provider landscape that there are so many different organisations making so many recommendations. You have just said that HSSIB makes very few recommendations. Will the merging or folding—however you wish to characterise it—of HSSIB into the CQC lead to any meaningful reduction in the number of recommendations that organisations have to cope with? Dr Benneyworth: No, we do not make recommendations to provider organisations at all. All our recommendations go to national organisations. I completely agree with Dr Dash that there are too many recommendations. In fact, HSSIB raised that concern through our work two years ago and flagged it to Dr Dash. We wrote a report called “Recommendations but no action”. We are very concerned about the plethora of recommendations going to providers, which create a huge amount of noise but, distressingly for the families involved, do not lead to the changes needed. I completely agree that there are far too many recommendations. I am leading some work to address that—we are setting up a recommendations hub with the Department of Health and Social Care—but we are not that problem. We have made 39 recommendations since investigations launched and HSSIB started three years ago, and they are all to national bodies. We might reduce the burden on national bodies by taking that away, but it will not have any impact on providers.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I know that in this conversation some have highlighted that patients have stated that their experience has worsened or not improved, but I would argue that is not a Healthwatch failure; it is actually down to the NHS or ICBs not acting on Healthwatch recommendations. It seems to me perverse to give that voice to the organisations that are actually part of the problem through not acting. As a Minister, I was on the receiving end of some quite sharp recommendations from Healthwatch, but they were always constructive. Whether right or wrong, my fear is that this measure risks a perception among patients that it will be down to NHS managers and ICBs essentially to make recommendations that reflect their priorities, rather than the priorities and voices of patients. Professor, even if the principles that you have enunciated that might mitigate that risk were applied to the new model, are you really confident that they could mitigate the risk to patients’ confidence that their voice is genuinely and independently heard, loud and clear, however unhelpful it is perceived to be by bits of the NHS? Professor Croisdale-Appleby: I cannot be confident of that, because we are in the foothills, not up the slope, and the details have not been given. ICBs have received something approaching a 50% cut in their running costs. I will not comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of that, but one has to be realistic and think about how high a really informed patient voice—particularly one that seeks out the views of both communities and individuals where the health inequalities are the greatest—will be on the priority list. I would question that, but I will leave it there.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Having been both a local councillor and a Health Minister, I am very conscious that the real test of any joint working arrangements between different bodies comes when budgets start getting a little tighter. We see that tension growing a little bit with the cuts made to ICBs’ budgets. I was the Minister who created ICBs, and I sat on that Bill Committee with the current Minister for Secondary Care. I am getting a sense of déjà vu—we are on different sides of the Chamber now, but we sat through the Committee stage of the Health and Care Act 2022 together. I deliberately created ICBs to match the geography of upper-tier authorities because health and social care is essentially one system. If one bit does not work, the other bit does not work. Since then, we have seen significant mergers and larger areas, further removing them from that direct relationship and read-across. Although the good ones do, I fear that a lot of NHS ICBs do not fully reflect the intention behind their creation, which was to see them as a genuinely collaborative exercise with equal voices in the room. My question is: if we see ever-larger areas or fragmented areas, whether through neighbourhood health plans or mergers and acquisitions among ICBs, how do we maintain genuine local accountability and the relationships that underpin any structure written in law, on a piece of paper or in guidelines? Notwithstanding what is being done about the health and wellbeing boards’ increasing involvement, do they actually have the teeth they need? In my experience, however good the collaboration, it is within the ICB boardroom that the decisions are actually made. However well things have been discussed beforehand, the ICBs will make their own decisions based on their own priorities. Does the removal of that voice from the ICB strengthen or weaken the ability to see this as one local system and to deliver a genuinely holistic local solution? Councillor Wright: It will probably weaken it, unless we are given more say in our local health and wellbeing board. Our Thames Valley ICB has one director of public health. Thames Valley ICB I think has nine local authorities, and one chief executive and one director of public health sit on the board, so already the voice on it is quite small. If we lose that voice, where would we have those conversations? That brings me back to the whole thing about health and wellbeing boards needing to be stronger, definitely. Sally Burlington: We would agree with that. If you take away the voice that is able to speak on behalf of social care, public health and wider public services, it will be harder and an additional job to bring in that consideration. It will be even harder to expect there to be notional teeth in that relationship, so we have concerns about that. Maria Higson: It is also worth recognising that the delivery of any strategy or plan will require partnership working with local authorities, so whether or not they are in the room, they will be needed for delivery, and the proof is always in the pudding. For me, the partnership is somewhat non-negotiable in order to achieve delivery.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I am particularly keen to speak in this debate, having had a constituent write to me powerfully on behalf of a close relative with a brain tumour. That constituent rightly highlighted that we must and can do better, not just on research and on improving access to innovative treatments, but in supporting those with brain tumours and their families while they are going through any such treatments. I pay tribute to the petitioners, many of whom are in the Public Gallery, and to fantastic charities and organisations, including Brain Cancer Justice and many others, for their work. I also pay tribute particularly to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) who, through her passion and determination, has done so much to raise awareness of this issue in this House and beyond. More importantly, she has not just spoken about that passion, but turned it into a reality for many people. We need to focus on access to innovative treatments when all else has not worked, and on the need for research and progress—something we call for in this debate—but also to do more in real time to support those with brain tumours. I have several questions for the Minister. What progress have the Government made on implementing each measure in the Rare Cancers Act? On behalf of my constituent who wrote and posed questions, I ask the following. What Government investment is committed year by year to research into brain cancer and its treatments, particularly brain cancers of paediatric patients and young people? How many clinical trials relating to brain cancer are expected to start in the UK this year? What assessment have the Government made of the adequacy of incentives to industry in the 2021 legislation for clinical trials in this area, for research and for participation in the orphan drugs regime? In this place, and in life, there is a time to act, and I believe that this is that time. We have huge potential and huge talent in this country. Let us help to focus that on saving more lives and giving more precious time to more people.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), the former Defence Secretary, and his reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to all the recommendations in the strategic defence review. Given that reaffirmation, how many of those 62 recommendations currently have the necessary funding fully agreed and committed to by the Treasury?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on his success in securing this important debate. He has set out how this is the answer to a question that no one asked. Whatever anyone thinks about local government reform, the Government have made it clear that they will impose it, and if we and councils do not engage with it, it will simply be done to us. I was very clear from the outset that if the Government were fixed on local government reorganisation and reform, there were certain conditions that, at a very minimum, had to be met. I made it very clear that what emerged should not move local services further away from local communities or local accountability, and that as part of the process there should be a genuine listening exercise not just with upper-tier and lower-tier authorities, but with parish councils and, most importantly, local representatives and residents of affected areas. Similar to my hon. Friend, there are very real concerns among my constituents and genuine anger about what may happen. I have a few questions for the Minister. I know her of old, and she is extremely diligent. I know she will do her best to answer the questions, in anticipation of which I am grateful. Will the Minister confirm that when she, or the Secretary of State on her advice, makes a decision, it will be based on the proposals that have been presented, not on a proposal that was never presented or on a merging of proposals by civil servants in her Department? There are three different proposals before her, from the borough and district councils, from the county council and from the mayor and city of Leicester. The mayor’s proposal does not, at this stage, take in all the areas of my patch that are very worried about it. There are very real concerns in places like Syston, Thurmaston and the villages. Notwithstanding that, the Minister’s officials could still recommend that a line be drawn on a map to expand the city of Leicester to take in those villages and towns. Councillors Poland, Bradshaw, Seaton, Jackson, Braker and Lowe have been campaigning very hard to make sure that local voices are heard. My constituents in those areas are strongly opposed to a land grab by the mayor that would take into the city areas that are, historically and in every sense of their identity, communities and economy, very much of the county. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out their concerns very clearly. They know they would end up paying more if they were absorbed into the city. They worry that reform is simply a reason to enable the mayor to build on greenfield sites outside the city boundaries that do not want that extra burden. They are already taking an awful lot more housing, and the communities I have just mentioned have taken an incredible amount of development in recent years. The communities worry about their sense of identity. The Minister knows that every community, even a village community, has a very strong sense of identity compared with the next village, let alone of being a county village as opposed to being part of the city. My worry is that the pillars on which the Mayor of Leicester is pushing and advocating for an expansion of the city no longer stand up to scrutiny. First, the idea that the city needs to expand to be able to absorb more housing to meet its unmet housing targets is already being dealt with by agreement between the city and the boroughs and districts, which are already voluntarily taking a chunk of the housing that the mayor seems incapable of delivering within the city boundaries. That is already being addressed. Secondly, the mayor has previously argued that the city’s finances need to be more sustainable and that it can come only from an expansion of the city boundaries, which he bases on the city’s previous financial position. We saw quite a generous local government finance settlement for the city of Leicester, and I am sure those in the city will be very grateful to the Minister. It was a little less generous for the county of Leicestershire, but the city now has its finances in a more sustainable place. I would argue that the city needs to do a lot more to spend that money wisely and efficiently, but the Minister has, to a degree, addressed that problem for it, too. I worry that the arguments no longer hold water. I also worry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out so ably, that the ideology of “bigger is better” sadly does not reflect the reality of service delivery. I have known the Minister a very long time, and I know she is very diligent and genuinely cares both about her brief and about communities up and down this country. Will she please listen to the people who have responded to the consultation, and to Members of Parliament today? Do not impose what people do not want by endorsing a city land grab of our counties, towns and villages. Please do not change the rules of the game midway through by adopting a proposal that was not consulted on and was not included in the initial consultation, and please instead focus on what works and delivers for local people to improve local services.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister confirm that only the three proposals for Leicestershire—from the boroughs and districts, the county and the city—will be considered, and that no new fourth proposal that has not been put forward locally will emerge from officials?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and I have both been Ministers; we know that a written ministerial statement is not a complicated thing to do every three or four months or whatever it is. I struggle to see what reason there could be not to give Parliament that transparency, for the simple sake of a piece of paper tabled once every three months, to ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  In the context of disappearing messages, is my hon. Friend troubled by the fact that in March 2023, the Cabinet Office issued very clear guidance about the use of non-corporate communications channels by Ministers, special advisers and others? It said that disappearing messages should be used sparingly and that the use of disappearing messages does not in any way supersede the record-keeping obligations of Ministers to communicate to their private office a record of anything on their personal devices that is pertinent to the conduct of Government business.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to be written to.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I have been there; I sympathise.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the broader context. The Minister rightly highlighted the broader context of the Renters’ Rights Act, the reforms it introduces and the implications they have for the sector. She also quite rightly highlighted that rights matter only where they are enforceable. Given that context, I have a few questions and points of clarification that I hope the Minister can help me with. I will confine my remarks to the property chamber, which is one of seven chambers at first-tier tribunal level. The Minister gave the example of having a £900 cost versus a £200 fee for a case, and the significant public subsidy that goes into the system, even with the fee changes. Will she set out the overall cost per annum—the cost with regard to the resource departmental expenditure limit—of Government administration of the property chamber? Picking up on a point highlighted by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, what assessment have the Government made of the increased demand for property chamber services in the context of the changes in the Renters’ Rights Act? How many additional staff may be needed in that chamber to avoid any lengthening of case wait times, for a listing or similar? In essence, how many additional cases annually do the Government anticipate will come forward as a result of the Act? Again, the Minister was absolutely right that the challenge is to balance cost recovery and access to justice. What formula or process was used to calculate the numbers for these fees? She said that cases are effectively still subsidised by the taxpayer, but what was the calculation that said that £47 or £200, for example, was the right fee? What went into coming up with that, and discounting it in the way that she has? Paragraph 5.16 of the explanatory memorandum states that “the rent appeal right is substantially different to what existed before, and so our confidence on the effect of a fee on people’s behaviour is lower than normal.” That is understandable, but how do the Government propose to measure—once the fees have been operating for, say, a year—the effect on people’s behaviour? What data will be collected, as a baseline, to measure whether people are using the tribunal service, and why they are or are not using it—that is, both the quantitative and qualitative data? Finally, paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states: “The underlying costs of activities for which fees are charged will be reviewed on a yearly basis”. Will that annual review of the fees come to this House, or will it be an internal process in HMCTS or the Ministry of Justice that comes to this House, with an order, only if something is identified as having diverged?

• 14 Apr 2026 · NHS Waiting Lists · Hansard source

  More

  Among the things that can help reduce waiting lists and waiting times is increased use of existing community hospital facilities, such as Melton Mowbray hospital in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on the local ICB and University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust to invest in moving more services out of inner-city acute settings and into Melton hospital, so that more of my constituents can get the treatments they need nearer to home?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  When I spoke in the Select Committee debate on this matter in the Chamber, I highlighted that too many parents feel that the system is done to them, rather than working with them. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and the concern of parents in my constituency that in order for trust to be rebuilt, there has to be some sort of individually, legally enforceable backstop for those families?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is typically generous with her time and courteous in the number of interventions she accepts. May I gently take her back to lines 3 to 4 of the text of the Prime Minister’s amendment on student loans, which state that this House “welcomes the Government’s commitment to make the system fairer and financially sustainable”. To avoid this sounding like jam tomorrow and to reassure young people—I have a lot of respect for the Minister, and I will be generous—can she give one or two concrete announcements today of specific measures that she is bringing forward that will achieve that commitment?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Meningitis Outbreak · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks: the thoughts of all of us in this House are with the families of those, tragically, who have died and all those who have been affected. While there are understandably questions about vaccination and antibiotic eligibility, it is important that decisions continue to be guided by clinical experts, and in this country we have some of the best in the world. I welcome the Secretary of State asking the JCVI to review the eligibility criteria, but will he please be unequivocal—I think he has alluded to this—in saying that he will continue to be guided by its expert clinical advice in any decisions he subsequently makes?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, and I look forward to welcoming him to my constituency later this week. I agree with much of what he said, particularly about flooding. This is one debate in which I can argue from the Back Bench, without fear of contradiction, that the east midlands is the best region in the entire country—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] This may be the only time I get such consensus on both sides of the House. As the hon. Member set out, we have all the core ingredients. We have a central location; we have good transport links, although they need to be better; we have great universities; we have great skills. Most importantly, we have great businesses and we have great people with ambition. The potential is clear but, as the hon. Member said, our region all too often appears to lose out. Perhaps that is because we are not demonstrative and we do not always shout about things. When it comes to funding for infrastructure or for our local authorities, the facts are clear. My local authority in Leicestershire has the lowest per-head funding in the country. Previous council leaders and councillors such as Deborah Taylor and Nick Rushton have fought hard to address that. We need fairer funding for our county. Network North was due to bring more money to Leicestershire. Among other things, that would potentially have helped to fund the completion of the Melton Mowbray distributor road. Sadly, when the Government announced the new funding, that was taken away. One challenge we face is that when the Government direct funding to our area, they all too often favour those areas with mayoral authorities, rather than counties without one, such as Leicestershire. Melton and Syston has a limited number of big businesses, but a lot of small and rural businesses. They are the bedrock of our local economy, but they face barriers to growing, including issues with public transport, with attracting people to work and with the ability to travel. The impact of national insurance increases and business rates in town centres, particularly for rural businesses and shops, makes it challenging for them to expand as they would wish to. A key challenge, as the hon. Member set out clearly, is in working together not only to deliver on our ambitions, but to break down the barriers to securing the additional investment bid for the A52, the A46 or even local roads and transport. We also need to break down the regulatory and taxation barriers that stop so many fantastic businesses growing and expanding. There is huge potential in our region, in my county of Leicestershire and in my Melton and Syston constituency. We need those barriers broken down and investment put in to ensure that that potential is unleashed.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend rightly highlights the campaign of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne for the new council to be named West Surrey and South Middlesex. As I understand it, that name is also championed by—this shows my age—popular household name Russell Grant. Does my hon. Friend agree that alongside the questions we are debating about the financial sustainability of the new unitary authorities, their governance and the services they provide, it is absolutely vital that we ensure they have an identity that those who live in those areas can relate to?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 February.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister in respect of Team GB and Ukraine? A great former Prime Minister once said, “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” Like the leader of my party today, she was a leader of principle and backbone, but we know this current Government are no stranger to the U-turn. Given that, can I gently tempt the Prime Minister to add one more to the current tally and help get Britain working again by backing the fantastic shops and businesses in Melton Mowbray town centre and in high streets across my constituency and beyond to succeed and grow by scrapping the Government’s business rate changes, which will hit so many of them hard in April?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I gently take the Minister to task on that. Were not some of the first actions of Secretaries of State of this Government, when they came into office, to publish reports in which they—one can question how accurately—sought to look backwards over what the previous Government had done?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister gently give way on that point?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Western. We have just dealt with a couple of amendments that the selection list described as tabled by the Opposition but were actually been tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which I suspect is where some of the confusion came from. Will it be possible during the lunch break for the Clerks to check the list and update it if necessary, or confirm that there is no further mislabelling, just for clarity?