Edward Argar MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Gentlemen, do you have anything to add? Steve Montgomery: I do not think we have much more to add, other than that, given the way the Bill is written at the moment, how can you be comfortable with what is in the Bill when you cannot see what is in the licence conditions that are going to be set out? As it stands, clause 63 at the moment can override everything. We would need to see how, when you word the Bill in a certain way, and then the licence, we can get more comfortable with it when they write it up in the access conditions. John Thomas: The licence is a bit of a worry for me, because of all the indications, as we have been discussing, of ORR’s weakened powers. For example, it will not be able to enforce business performance in future. It will be able to advise the Secretary of State, who can then decide whether to take enforcement action or whatever action she deems necessary. That is a far cry from the current licence, which is a much stronger Network Rail network licence. We have not seen it yet, so we cannot really comment, but all the indications are that it would be a much weaker licence for GBR than under Network Rail. As Maggie said, there has been good communication with DFT and Network Rail on the access and use policy, for example, but what are the checks and balances on GBR to create something that is fair and non-discriminatory? As one example, the charging framework is really good. It is based on the current framework of cost directly incurred plus a mark-up; it says—this is a point of detail—that if the operator can bear it, it needs to revert back to whether the market can bear it. On the whole, the provisions are good, but there are different ways of calculating charges even based on those principles. My worry is this: what is the incentive on GBR not to increase charges to price people off the network in order to support its own services? As long as there is good engagement and GBR, in the future, and Network Rail and DFT now, listen to us, that is all we can do at this point in time.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to pick a little further at the accessibility point, particularly on step-free access. By way of example, last week I got a letter from the Minister—neither of the two excellent Ministers in the Committee—saying that Sileby station in my constituency, which can be reached only by very steep steps, along with 40% of other stations in the current programme, was being cut from works to improve accessibility on the grounds of funding pressures. The reality is that there will always be tensions between what is desired and what is affordable—that is in the nature of government. Building on what you have already said, how can those tensions be resolved to meet the duties envisaged in the Bill and the aspirations that all parties in this place have for improved accessibility, while recognising that there will always be a funding tension in anything the Government do? I was a Health Minister and wrestled with such issues when deciding what to put in primary legislation, in secondary legislation and in statutory guidance. I would argue they have greater weight than, for example, a business plan, which is vaguer, less enforceable and less tangible than each of those other layers. You have to strike a balance of proportionality. Where do you think the specific obligations on accessibility would best sit in that hierarchy, from primary legislation in the Bill, which is right up at the top and cast in stone, to a business plan, which is much less enforceable, vaguer and can be changed? Alex Robertson: That is a good question. You have set out the challenge and the dilemma that is true for this aspect of public services, as it is for many others. I will try to answer it in this way: wherever you put it, it must allow for the consideration of the ambition to significantly—it must be significantly—improve the service that disabled passengers receive, with decisions about funding. If you separate those two, you will get into a position where you have set a target, but it is not realistic and has no plan behind it. You have to do that and, as I have said before, do it in a way that involves disabled passengers in the decision making. Whatever the scale of the ambition, it is perfectly possible to spend good public money inefficiently and ineffectively, and not on doing what is in the best interests of disabled passengers. It is about doing it right, as well as the amount you do. Emma Vogelmann: From Transport for All’s perspective, as has been picked up by many others, unless accessibility is enforceable, it is treated as an optional and a nice to have: “We will get to it when we get to it, or when there is a surplus of money,” which of course there rarely is. We have seen initiatives to make changes in the name of affordability; I am thinking particularly about the proposals to close ticket offices at stations in England a couple of years ago. That was very much an economic argument about staff not being confined to the ticket office, but in practice, for disabled people that meant that the network would become increasingly unusable and a completely unviable mode of transport for some. I agree with what was said about needing a balance between ambition and the reality of how far those ambitions can go, but we need to be ambitious. We need to make sure that we are not accepting a slower rate of change because it is more economically secure. Ben Plowden: Going back to a point I made before, I think the Bill should set the strategic intent that accessibility should increase over time, not just that it should be taken into consideration by GBR and the Secretary of State. The Bill should also set out how that increase is delivered. To Alex’s point, that could be done in a number of different ways, such as through service provision, infrastructure investment and so on, that would then be set out in the subordinate documents such as guidance, the licence and the business plan. The intent in the Bill would clearly be that, over time—in a way and at a rate to be determined by those other processes—accessibility would increase, not just be taken into consideration, Michael Roberts: You have exposed exactly the difficulties in trying to navigate through all these challenges and priorities. At the risk of motherhood and apple pie, I think co-creation with the disabled community is extremely important in trying to find a way of managing these different priorities that carries the confidence that that is being done with the full consideration of the needs of the disabled travelling public. I also think legislators ought to think, “What are the mistakes that we want to try to avoid next time around?” and then think about what levers can address those mistakes. It is extraordinary that the industry is spending over £1.5 billion building a new station at Old Oak Common, and there is no level boarding for the Elizabeth line, which is the busiest railway in the UK. I am not sure that legislation is going to fix that—that is as much about the quality of decision making within the industry—but thinking about what good looks like and then working back and thinking, “Right. What are the ways in which we can best promote that?” seems like a good way of trying to think around the problem.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a couple of quick questions, following on from some of the comments that you have just made. Do you think that a 30-year strategy, or whatever, is a realistic proposition, given that the Government can change every five years—it may be more than that, but there is the potential for that—and a new Secretary of State may want to draft their own strategy, which may be completely different from the previous Government’s? That is a factor of politics. By adopting the approach taken here, do you think we bring that political risk even more starkly into this space than it is currently? Richard Brown: Unless you have a long-term strategy, you will always be condemned to short-term decision making. If you are running a business, you might have a 10, 15, 20 or even 30-year strategy, and you will need to change and adapt that according to circumstances at the time. What I think is very important—Mr Williams has highlighted it—is that the railway assets are long-life. The trains have 30, 35 or 40-year lives, and the signalling and track last even longer. If you do not have that long-term strategy for investment and the sorts of things that you are planning to buy, taking account of new technologies, you are condemned to short-term decision making, which, to an unfortunate extent, is too often where we have been.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you. Mr Brown, I think it was you who mentioned the integrated business units and accountability, and you also mentioned communities and passengers. How will the Bill provide direct accountability to individual communities? How will it ensure that those integrated business units are directly and meaningfully accountable to individual passengers or an area, and that the director or MD of a particular integrated business unit is directly accountable to them rather than upwards to the chief executive of GBR? Richard Brown: In terms of governance, they have to be accountable to the chief executive of GBR, who has to be accountable to the Secretary of State. You could say that one of the complexities of the Bill is that there are a number of accountabilities. If you are running a regional or local railway, such as Southeastern trains in Kent, particularly given GBR’s responsibility to consult with and take account of local transport plans, you cannot avoid developing a relationship with the towns, communities and mayoral authorities on your route, as well as the passenger groups. If you do not, GBR will move you on to another job, or even get rid of you. I have run business units like that within British Rail and in privatisation, and I think the local focus is a really important feature. That is why I am really encouraged by what is happening: as each franchise comes to its end, where it can be merged with the local route management of Network Rail, it is being done very quickly. That can happen across the piece when GBR is fully up and running.

• 14 Jan 2026 · UK-France Relations · Hansard source

  More

  It is right that we recognise, despite the ups and downs in the relationship between our two countries, that the interaction of their histories and cultures has made them what they are today. However, relationships take work, so will the hon. Gentleman—I do not think he will have to declare an interest as a former distinguished diplomat in Paris—join me in paying tribute, as I hope the Minister will, to the fantastic diplomatic team that we have in our Paris embassy, and that the French Government have in their embassy here in London, both of which build and strengthen the relationship between our two countries, often behind the scenes?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate both the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and the British Horse Society for their work on this hugely important issue. The demand to speak in the debate shows the importance of this issue to so many hon. Members and communities. It is especially important in rural constituencies such as mine, which has a very large number of riders and horses, and is home to the Defence Animal Training Regiment at Asfordby. It is rare to be out and about in the constituency and not see people out riding in the Vale of Belvoir or other places; it is an activity that appeals to people of all ages and backgrounds. BHS stats suggest that there were only 21 incidents in the Melton area out of 234 in Leicestershire between March 2021 and the end of 2024. That is possibly because it is a very rural constituency, and many drivers are horse-aware and seek to pass sensibly—slowly and at the appropriate distance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury for rightly highlighting the work of Leicestershire police and Leicestershire fire and rescue service, but of course every incident is one too many, and we do not know how many incidents go unreported. There is a strong bond with horses in rural communities, as there is a strong bond between horse and rider. I have been in the Minister’s place, on the receiving end of campaigns by campaign groups, and I have to say that some are challenging to agree to, but the BHS is very measured and pragmatic. What consideration are the Government giving to clarifying highway code rule 215 on treating horse and rider as a single unit, rather than as a person and property? What more can be done to improve communications and awareness? I suspect that many incidents arise from ignorance, not intent. Will she take the opportunity offered by the road safety strategy to improve safety for riders and horses, and indeed improve access to safe routes?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am slowly beginning to get used to life on the Back Benches and to sitting on neither the Government Front Bench nor the Opposition Front Bench in Delegated Legislation Committees. Following the Minister’s announcement earlier, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Helen Newlove. I had the privilege of working with her in both her first and second terms as Victims’ Commissioner, both times while I was serving as the Victims Minister—the role the Minister now occupies. Helen brought to her role integrity, decency, kindness and fun; indeed, when I first met her, she had been on “Desert Island Discs” and we ended up singing one of her choices, “Bring Me Sunshine”, before our first ministerial meeting. That set the tone for how we worked together, and she became a friend, so I will miss her hugely. I know the same will be true of victims up and down the country, because whatever her friendship she was always fearless and forthright in speaking up for the rights of victims and in making sure their voices were heard loud and clear. Today, this country—but especially the victims community—has lost a very powerful champion. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, for his comments: I did take the legislation on which this statutory instrument is based through in the wash-up period just before the last general election. I also pay tribute to Dame Maria Miller, who campaigned very hard on this issue, and to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who was a forceful advocate—although always polite and friendly—in banging on my door and seeking to nudge me a little further. I will not comment on the amendments before the House more broadly in the Victims and Courts Bill. All I will say is that I welcome the pragmatic and sensible tidying-up in this instrument, which is a bridging measure, but also a means to fill in a few gaps that were, I suspect, missed by both sides of the House in their desire to get the 2024 Act through before the election. I therefore welcome the instrument the Minister has brought before us today.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Draft Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the shadow Minister, has set out, we welcome the intent behind the statutory instrument, which has the potential to considerably benefit the consumer. I echo a number of the points made by my hon. Friend. He highlighted the mission creep in what will potentially have to be reported, and a degree of vagueness in the SI and its supporting documents. Paragraph 238 of the impact assessment states that there are 8,329 PFSs, of which 698—just over 8%—are deemed to be those of minor brands. One can surmise that means they are smaller operations and therefore potentially disproportionately impacted by a one-size-fits-all approach. I have about half a dozen factual questions, if I may. First, what was the rationale for using worldwide turnover as the basis for the fines? Has the Minister made any assessment of whether there are—and there may not be—any operators that have huge overseas operations but only a very small footprint in this country? My hon. Friend the shadow Minister talked about the potential impact on small rural operators. Paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the potential impact of legacy technology, and to how the reporting mechanism will work. It simply says that the impact will be “mitigated with taking a holistic view…of the scheme.” What does that mean, in practical terms? Paragraph 246 of the impact assessment says that the scheme will be launched at the end of this year, from which we are less than two months away. Is it on target to be launched then? If so, where has the procurement process for the aggregator got to? If an aggregator has been appointed, is the Minister able to tell the Committee which company or organisation has received that appointment? Similarly, paragraph 247 of the impact assessment talks about training that will be done in advance of the launch of the scheme. When will that be done and how, given the very tight timescales? Finally, paragraph 248 of the impact assessment talks about enforcement guidance to come. Where has that guidance got to in the process, and when will it be published?

• 30 Oct 2025 · GP Services: Melton and Syston · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and through you I thank Mr Speaker for granting this important Adjournment debate. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), on his well-deserved promotion to ministerial office—it was in very short order, but it is very well deserved. I thank him for being present to respond to this debate tonight, because he has, as I have just indicated, a rather longer journey home to his constituency than I do back to Leicestershire. At the outset of this debate, I should put on the record that I am, of course, registered as a patient at one of the NHS GP practices in my constituency, which I may refer to in the course of this debate. As every Member of this House will recognise, general practice is in many ways the gateway to the NHS for our constituents. It has the potential to do a huge amount more. Sadly, on some occasions the gateway to NHS services for our constituents is simply to go to A&E, rather than seeking to go to their general practitioner, or indeed rather than using—to the extent that it has the potential to be used—pharmacy as a first port of call, as people can see a pharmacist for some advice in the first instance. For the vast majority of people, though, it is the GP practice that is the route into the NHS and where people go when they are concerned about their health. I am sure that all Members of the House would recognise the challenges and pressures faced by general practice irrespective of Government in recent years. There are a number of factors behind that. We should not forget the impact of the pandemic, with the changing patterns of attendance that followed it and the increased demand that came immediately after it. We are also seeing the consequences of an ageing population in our country, with people living longer with more chronic conditions. We also see the increased pressure in many of our communities, irrespective of where they are in the country, that arises from increases in housing development that are not met with increases in the provision of key local infrastructure. This has been especially true in recent years in my constituency, where we have seen huge increased local development without that infrastructure. There is also the prospect of significantly more development. I am going to talk primarily today about the particular issues in Melton Mowbray and the surrounding villages, as I have indicated to the Minister, as I am keen that he is able to give a pragmatic and helpful response for my constituents. I will also touch on some broader themes and on the provision of general practice in the village of Sileby in my constituency, which also faces pressure and challenges.

• 30 Oct 2025 · GP Services: Melton and Syston · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right. Although I spent two and a half years as a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, I was never the Minister for Primary Care, but I am very much aware, as I suspect Members across the House are, that that is an additional pressure on time for general practitioners. We in government sought to do what we could to reduce that, and to be fair to the new Government, I know the Secretary of State is actively looking at what can be done to further streamline administrative processes to allow general practitioners and their teams to spend more time with patients. Although my focus is on GP services in Melton Mowbray and Sileby, it is true that all GP surgeries in my area—whether that is the County practice and Jubilee medical practice in Syston, or practices in Thurmaston, Bottesford, Long Clawson and other nearby villages—continue to face huge pressures. It is important to say that these practices really do their best. Their staff—not just the GPs, but the whole teams—work incredibly hard, and I know they care deeply about the service they provide to their patients. In Melton Mowbray especially, they see acute pressure, particularly on appointments: we have just one GP practice for a growing town. Latham House medical practice has over 36,000 patients on its books, making it one of the largest in the country. Timely access to GP appointments is one of the largest regular issues to appear in my constituency inbox, with waits—according to the correspondence I receive—of at least six weeks, and it can be eight or 10 weeks before an appointment is available. Clearly, that is not right. It is important to say, to be fair to Latham House medical practice, that when my constituents get to see either a nurse, an allied health professional or a GP, they regularly cite in their emails the quality of the care and the kindness shown by the staff. Indeed, we recently saw a Cavell star award given to Debra Gilbert, one of the nurses at the practice, so the team there work hard and are passionate about what they do. In 2024, they saw an average of 6,900 appointments per 1,000 of the population on their list. That is higher than the national average, but I would urge a little caution because that is a crude statistic that does not necessarily comparatively reflect the different demographics of different areas, such as whether an older population or deprivation in an area lead to a higher need. It is important to put on the record that they are doing what they can to try to improve access, but clearly, an increase in provision is needed locally. Back in 2021, the then clinical commissioning group agreed that it recognised the need for increased provision of GP services in Melton Mowbray. In 2023, the integrated care board continued with that and agreed to explore a second GP practice, recognising the need for it. I believe that was a sensible decision by the ICB, but regrettably, just a few weeks ago in early October, it announced that it was pausing its work to develop such a plan until 2027. I have been around the Department of Health and Social Care and worked with the NHS long enough to know what a pause, sadly, all too often means. In Melton Mowbray, we have seen a pause of six months at the St Mary’s birth centre—a midwifery-led unit—to allow for staffing shortages to be addressed. Four months into that pause, we have yet to see any suggestion of how it might be brought to an end. When I hear the word “pause”, I fear that will run on into something more permanent. This issue, which is hugely important to my constituents, has been covered extensively and powerfully in the local media—in particular by the excellent local paper, the Melton Times. It is important to say that I am conscious that neither I, as a Member of Parliament, nor Melton borough council—which is equally keen for increased provision and with which I have spoken—or indeed the Minister himself have the power to simply overrule a decision taken by an integrated care board in a local matter such as this. I took through the 2022 Act, so I have a vague recollection of how that works. That remains a deeply disappointing decision, and, I believe, the wrong one. The value of access to general practice, and the impact that a lack of access has, is writ large. Earlier today, I had one of my regular catch-ups with Councillor Ronan Browne, the leader of the opposition on Melton borough council, who did a lot to get us to the point where we were hopeful of seeing a second GP practice. He set out his deep disappointment about this decision. There is a clear remaining need. The ICB, in its announcement on reaching its decision, stated that the section 106 payments on which it was aiming to base the provision of capital for the new building were now insufficient. It also stated that slow growth in new registrations, and slower population growth than had been anticipated, were relevant to its decision making. However, that does not help my constituents. I am conscious of the challenges of funding buildings. As the Minister and I have discussed, in a sense—ironic though it may sound—finding money for a building is sometimes easier than the second part of the equation, which is securing the staff, and managing the oncosts to fund that. I should say that I am grateful to the ICB for its engagement and to Toby Sanders, its chief executive, for his open engagement with me. As I say, he has emphasised that he believes that section 106 payments are not enough, and the ICB has said that it has no funds to backfill that or pay for anything from its own funds. It is important to remember that, as the Minister will be aware, general practitioners and general practices are, in many ways, private businesses contracted to provide services to the NHS, but they are not direct employees of the NHS, so they cannot be directly instructed by the Minister, by ICBs or by NHS England—it is important to put that context on the record. In respect of the argument by the ICB that there were insufficient increases in new registrations and new patients to justify a second GP practice at this time—noting the pause—I am afraid that that fails to reflect the importance of choice for patients in switching to a different service in their locality if they so wish, and, in so doing, potentially easing pressure on the existing practice’s list. Pausing without a clear alternative long-term plan is simply not good enough. Latham House surgery has recently announced that it has taken steps to help to address this in the short term. On 15 October, it announced that it was recruiting an extra five GPs and additional nursing staff, that its Asfordby satellite surgery would be opening full-time in the future, and that it was looking to create new provision in a small premises on Sherrard Street in the town. Those are welcome steps for which I am grateful, and I look forward to hearing more about those proposals from the practice, but they do not alter my view on the long-term needs of Melton Mowbray and the surrounding villages. The ICB needs to act and be supported in doing so by the Department of Health and Social Care. It is true to say as well that ICBs face real challenges, including the Government requiring them to force cuts in staff and to restructure, but without seemingly providing them with additional ringfenced funding for the costs of that restructuring, be they redundancies or otherwise. That means that regardless of whether the end is a good one—that is, a leaner ICB—ICBs will potentially have to cut from the frontline in the short to medium term to fund that restructuring. As I have alluded to, there are also the challenges of oncosts and funding GPs to staff a surgery. GPs have a choice as to where they choose to work, and I suspect the old Carr-Hill formula, which the Minister and I have spoken about in the past, does not aid that. It is a challenge that Governments of all complexions have faced and I hope that he, if he is willing, will take on the challenge of looking at the Carr-Hill formula. He will have my constructive support in doing so. Latham House practice has cited the challenges in securing and retaining staff so I recognise that, but again, those are challenges for the Government and the ICB to assist and support with and not ones that should be borne, as a consequence, by my constituents. I will briefly mention Sileby, another village in my constituency. It has two good GP practices, but it is a rapidly growing village, and larger premises are needed. Again, the ICB has indicated that it will not have funds to fund or support that and once again, section 106 moneys are likely to be insufficient. It is a real challenge faced by GP practices up and down the country as to how they take that step, often having to accept more patients as houses are built. Even when there is a section 106 payment, it is only triggered later in the process once they have already had to absorb an increase in patients. I hope that the Minister might look at that. Although I recognise and welcome Latham House’s actions and hard work and I hope that delivers results, I fear it simply is not enough to tackle the long-term needs. The Secretary of State’s new neighbourhood health centre programme may well help us in the longer term. For example, one of those could be allocated to Melton Mowbray, which already has Melton Mowbray hospital—in my view an underused and therefore perfect site, and the Minister can take that as a potential early bid for such a centre. That may help in the long term, but we still need action now for my constituents to improve access and to build for the long term. I am sure the Minister will know that Melton Mowbray and the surrounding villages and towns are fantastic places with a real sense of community, a proud history, a great present and huge future potential, just like the other parts of my constituency. Melton Mowbray’s residents are good, decent people who need, and frankly deserve, improved access to GP appointments and an increased focus on tackling this for their communities. Will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking in partnership with ICBs to help address increased need for access to GP appointments, both nationally and locally? Is he willing to take on the challenge of looking at the Carr-Hill formula and how GPs are funded per patient for their activity? Will he reassure ICBs that all restructuring costs, over and above their current budgets, will be centrally funded to avoid them cutting frontline services? Will he work for better links between section 106 moneys and the needs of healthcare provision locally? Will he meet me, ideally in Melton Mowbray—he is very welcome—to discuss what can be done locally to improve GP provision? I genuinely hope that he shares my view that Melton Mowbray and the nearby villages not only need further enhancement to existing services, which Latham House is trying to put in place, but genuinely need that second GP practice to meet their future needs. I will continue to campaign on behalf of my constituents for that, but I will also, as I hope he has seen in the brief time we have known each other, be willing to work with the NHS and with any political party that helps facilitate that locally and nationally. Finally, will he agree to work with me and my constituents to deliver the improved premises and services needed to meet the current and future primary care needs of my fantastic constituents in Melton Mowbray and the surrounding villages?

• 30 Oct 2025 · GP Services: Melton and Syston · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for that. The only point I would make is that when, at the age of 47, one is described as an elder statesman, one can see retirement looming. I want to reassure him that I have no intention of retiring or stepping back from my duties in this House.

• 29 Oct 2025 · UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this announcement, and I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and their Conservative predecessors on the team effort in getting us to this point. Following this announcement, what next steps are the Government planning to take to build on it and further strengthen the UK’s hugely important defence, diplomatic and economic relationship with our close NATO ally Turkey?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful. As a former sentencing Minister, I can see no logical reason why the Government would oppose new clause 1—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my fellow Leicestershire MP—which simply asks for an assessment and recommendations to be made and for them to be reported back to this House. Can my right hon. Friend, who is himself a former senior Home Office Minister, see any reason why the Government could not simply do the right thing and accept new clause 1?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On new clause 1, will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks to you and your constituents with respect to recent events. It is a pleasure to make a brief speech in a Delegated Legislation Committee opposite the Minister. When he shadowed me, and sat on this side of the Committee Room, we spent many a happy hour on the Committee Corridor. However, he should rest assured that I do not intend to use this opportunity to get my own back on him for what he did back then, because I regard him not only as a friend, but as an extremely diligent Minister. In that vein, regarding the largely technical measure before us, I seek only one real assurance from him. It reflects the penultimate two paragraphs of the letter sent yesterday by the Security Minister to members of the Committee. He has reassured the Committee that he has put in place ongoing co-ordination processes to ensure that, on an ongoing basis, any issues that arise are dealt with in a timely fashion. I seek the Minister’s reassurance that he and his officials are now confident that they have taken this opportunity—with this piece of delegated legislation—to remedy any other errors that might have been identified, or at least checked that there were no other anomalies in the existing legislation.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Charnwood.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  What commitment can the Minister give to my constituents in Thurmaston, Syston, Queniborough and nearby villages who wish to remain in the county of Leicestershire and have services provided in Leicestershire that they will not against their wishes be absorbed into the city of Leicester, as advocated by Labour’s city mayor in the context of local government reorganisation?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Education Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady and her Committee for a detailed and important report on a subject that is of huge importance to all our constituencies. I wanted to pick up particularly on parental involvement in the process, which is primarily covered in paragraphs 96 to 102 of her report. Too often, parents feel that the process is something that is done to them, rather than with them. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could set out what immediate, practical steps she and her Committee think can be taken to move the process away from feeling like a confrontation and towards more of a collaboration.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) both for bringing this debate during Baby Loss Awareness Week and the incredibly thoughtful and moving contributions they have already made to the House. I suspect we will see this House at its best this evening, debating in a measured but passionate way something of huge importance to so many of our constituents. I welcome to the Public Gallery those family members who have stayed until this late hour because this matters so much to them. I pay tribute to Bliss, Sands and other charities that do so much in this space. It has been a privilege for me to meet, and read correspondence from, constituents of mine who have been affected by baby loss. I have to say, they have carried themselves with the most incredible dignity given what they have been through. I am very conscious that it is something that they will never get over. I will not use surnames as I have not sought permission, but some families have given me the name of the baby they lost, and I want to place those names on the record, because it matters: baby Wynter, baby Harry and baby Ciara-Mae. I know that they will always be their parents’ baby. It is important that we remember that. I hope to do them justice. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest spoke with incredible eloquence when she said that it is about not just mourning the past but fighting for the future. She sums up what this debate must be about if it is about anything. We have seen progress, but it is sadly not enough. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash mentioned, that progress has apparently plateaued since the pandemic. We still see terrible inequality of outcomes across different groups in our society. Sadly, giving birth is not risk-free, but by no means are all those baby losses inevitable—many are avoidable. We need to ensure that we do all we can to reduce that risk. When something goes wrong, as sadly it has on too many occasions, families deserve transparency, openness and a fight for improvement. They need to be believed and listened to. We have seen problems in Morecambe Bay, Telford, East Kent, Nottingham—I could go on. Let me focus briefly on Nottingham—as a Leicestershire MP, many of my constituents will have been affected. Donna Ockenden’s work is very welcome; she has built extraordinary trust with the families and those who have been failed. I also welcome the national review that the Secretary of State has put in place, and the work being done by the noble Baroness Amos. I know that the Secretary of State knows this, but I gently say to him that there are different views among the families, and I encourage him and the review team to continue taking the families with them, to work with them at each stage, and to listen to them. Improvements are needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash mentioned the CQC and he was absolutely right to do so. We need to see continued transparent engagement by that review with the families. We need to see whether more can be done to consider the role of the independent regulators. It is important that we look at the support available for both parents when the worst happens and they are bereaved. We need to raise more awareness. I know that the Secretary of State knows that. The families I have spoken to speak well of him. I know him well; he is a decent man and cares deeply about this. I know that he is listening. The fact that a Secretary of State is on the Treasury Bench at this hour and will conclude the debate at around midnight is testament to his commitment—I wish him well in his work. It behoves us all to continue to strive and do more to reduce the number of avoidable baby deaths and the pain the avoidable baby loss causes. Equally—I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash—we must also focus on hope and progress, and on safety, accountability and what more we can do to ensure that a child coming into this world is not a moment of sadness and grief but a moment of joy. I wish the Secretary of State well in his work on that.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Dementia is one of the greatest health challenges that we as a society face today and in the future, but too many people with dementia end up in hospital, rather than being treated in more appropriate community settings. The 10-year NHS plan offers a real opportunity to shift care into the community and away from acute settings, including for dementia. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with Dementia UK, the Alzheimer’s Society and other fantastic charities as he develops the implementation of his 10-year NHS plan to ensure that it truly delivers for people with dementia and those who care for them?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Maintaining the focus on local communities, the fantastic St Mary’s birth centre in Melton Mowbray, in my constituency, has recently been temporarily closed by the local NHS trust for six months due to staff shortages. Although I appreciate that the Secretary of State does not have powers over such temporary closures and that local NHS leaders have engaged constructively, many local people fear that “temporary” could risk becoming permanent. If that risk looks like becoming a reality by the end of the summer, will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers pre-emptively agree to meet me at that point to discuss it? Mr Speaker, if I may briefly crave your indulgence at what is my last Dispatch Box appearance for the foreseeable future, may I take the opportunity—after seven years, almost continuously, on the Front Bench in government and in opposition—to thank you, to say that it has been a privilege, and to tell the Secretary of State that it has been a pleasure to shadow him? I think he knows it, but I genuinely wish him well.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  The resident doctors’ strike is unnecessary, irresponsible and wrong. Recently, and again today from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State has been resolute in not giving in to the BMA resident doctors committee’s demands. Although I do not know the details of the current status of his discussions with the committee, may I encourage him to remain firm in his stance and, while being fair to doctors, to always ensure that he puts the interests of patients and taxpayers first?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy and advance sight of his statement. I also note that he is among the most assiduous of Ministers in volunteering himself to this House to be questioned on issues of importance. I am, however, afraid it comes as no surprise that we are here today discussing likely industrial action on this Government’s watch. Last year, we warned the Government that caving in to union demands for above-inflation pay rises without any conditions or strings attached would set a dangerous precedent. It would send a message that the Government were weak, and we warned that the unions would simply come back for more. Unfortunately, events in recent days have shown that we were right. The public will be understandably concerned about what this industrial action will mean for them and the provision of local NHS services. For patients with an appointment scheduled or even on a waiting list, that concern will be particularly acute. Let me be clear: this BMA strike action—as the Secretary of State has said, it is supported by less than 50% of those eligible to vote—is irresponsible, wrong and unnecessary. On that, I agree with the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State enlarge on the additional steps that he is taking to seek to resolve the industrial dispute and prevent the strike action from going ahead? I heard what he said about his willingness to talk. Does he anticipate further meetings before strikes start on 25 July, and does he anticipate a risk of any other parts of the NHS workforce balloting for strike action? If this strike action does take place, what steps are being put in place to minimise disruption, what is the plan to protect patients who will need to access NHS services over this period, and can the Secretary of State guarantee that emergency cover will remain and that there will be minimum service levels in place? More broadly, and based on the previous strikes, how many appointments do the Government anticipate are at risk of being cancelled or postponed, and has he assessed what impact the decision by the BMA will have on his aim of reducing waiting lists and meeting his 18-week target? The previous chief financial officer of NHS England said that nearly all the money allocated to the NHS at the autumn Budget will be eaten up by NHS pay settlements, the national insurance hike and increased inflationary costs, just to maintain services at their existing level. Following the recent spending review and the Chancellor’s announcement of additional funding, how much of that does the Secretary of State anticipate will be spent on staffing costs, including the already agreed pay award and the national insurance increase, and how much of it will actually make it to the frontline in the form of additional care, or to fund the reforms that he set out recently? What does the Secretary of State anticipate will be the long-lasting impact of strike action on relations between the Government and trade unions in the health space? The 10-year plan was published just last week. As I said at the time, it is sensible and I am supportive of what he has set out in that, but concerns have been raised about its deliverability. The Secretary of State has said previously that he will need to work with the unions to deliver on the plan. Is he still confident that that will be possible? Does he believe that they will agree to the changes that are required, or is there a risk of further strike action over the coming years because doctors have sensed a weakness? In opposition, the Secretary of State had some very strong and well-articulated views on industrial action. He said strike action was “playing politics with our NHS”. On that, I agree with him. He said that “the Government ought to be pulling out all the stops” —[ Official Report , 22 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 218.] and that “the power to stop these strikes is in the Government’s hands.” —[ Official Report , 12 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 732.] He is the Secretary of State now. Does he agree that the power to stop these strikes is in his hands? Our message to the Government is clear. The Secretary of State needs to do what he has said he will do: face down union pressure and deliver an affordable settlement that is fair to staff, patients and, crucially, taxpayers. On his watch, resident doctors are set to leave the frontline to go on to the picket line—whether that happens will be down to him. Sadly, Labour’s weakness is fuelling this crisis. If the Government do not get a grip now, a summer of discontent and strikes risks turning into a summer of chaos, and it will be patients who pay the price.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Down’s Syndrome Regression Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. We thought we were going to have it a few weeks ago, and then things moved around, so I am pleased that she has been able to secure this time slot, because the issue is extremely important. I would not normally speak in Westminster Hall as the shadow Secretary of State, but this is a very important issue on which I know she has spoken powerfully since her election to this House. This is not only an important debate, but one that has been conducted in a tone that does credit to this House, without party politics. Instead it has focused on those who are genuinely impacted by the topic we are debating. This Chamber so often succeeds in giving a voice to those who might not normally have their voice amplified in political debate, or indeed in the main Chamber, to the extent that it should be. In that sense, this is extremely useful. Although Down’s syndrome has been debated in the broadest sense by this House on numerous occasions, Down’s syndrome regression disorder has been debated rather less so. I recall that in March the hon. Member for Thurrock talked about it in a speech. Today’s debate has helped do something that was among her objectives, which is to raise the profile of this very important issue and draw greater attention to it. Right hon. and hon. Members have already highlighted the nature of Down’s syndrome regression disorder, how it works, and what happens. It is important to note that, according to research, 1% to 2% of young people with Down’s syndrome between the ages of 10 and 30 can experience it. As the hon. Member for Thurrock and others have highlighted, one of the great challenges, and one of the most impactful parts of this, is the speed with which regression can occur, often without warning, or possibly with warning for those who know what to look for, as she touched on. She spoke very movingly about Fran, giving a real life example of how regression can happen, its impacts, and what can bring it about. It is important to remember, as hon. Members have highlighted, the impact on family when regression disorder occurs. The hon. Member for Thurrock set out clearly the challenges: the speed with which regression can occur; the lack of knowledge among many, including some in the medical and caring professions, of Down’s syndrome regression disorder; and the challenges around getting a diagnosis and treatment. Like others, I pay tribute to the work of the Down’s Syndrome Association for its campaigning on the broader issues, and specifically on this one, and the helpful briefing and advice that it sent to right hon. and hon. Members. It is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister for Care. Although we might occasionally tussle on some things, I know he is a very thoughtful Minister who understands his brief. I therefore look forward to his response; I know it will be considered and measured. I have a few questions for him, which will come as no surprise. First, in 2021, the Down’s Syndrome Association supported research undertaken by the University of Cambridge. I would welcome from the Minister his thinking on how that can be built upon, and what further work can be done around that. Having been a Minister in the Department, I know that it is not always directly within the Minister’s gift to do x and y, because often it will be undertaken by arm’s length bodies or different parts of the system, but I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Department can drive forward an increased focus on research. We have heard about some trials—some treatments—in the US that may offer a positive way forward. To echo the words of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what more can be done to create clearer diagnostic and treatment pathways for young people with Down’s syndrome regression disorder. I am conscious that, in 2022, Sir Liam Fox secured the passage into law of his Down Syndrome Act, but the guidance on it is still outstanding. Does the Minister have a timeline for when that will be produced, and might that guidance offer an opportunity to wrap in some of the issues around Down’s syndrome regression disorder, to better inform people and raise awareness? I am conscious that the Minister needs time to reply, and I suspect the hon. Member for Thurrock will want to have a few minutes at the end. I will therefore conclude here. I hope that today’s debate is one of those in this place in which we can see broad agreement across both sides of the House and, in the Minister’s remarks, the potential way forward. As well as debating this and raising awareness, what we all want to see is progress. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give me succour in that respect.

• 3 Jul 2025 · NHS 10-Year Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in providing advance sight not only of his statement but of his plan. I am grateful, and others on the Government Front Bench might learn a thing or two from him. I am pleased to see the plan published. This Secretary of State is a rare thing these days: one whose announcements do tend to survive largely intact for more than a week. In the case of the plan, it is vital that it does stick. The Secretary of State is not known to be short on ambition, and to be fair that is reflected in his plan; it is ambitious. I believe that his long-term goals are right and that the reforms he has set out build on the reforms that the Conservatives set out and carried out. The desire to shift care from hospital to community, to better use technology and to move to prevention is not new at all, but it remains vital. The NHS undoubtedly needs reform, not just more cash—it is not fiscally sustainable in the long term to have 38% of day-to-day Government spending going on the NHS—so we need to focus on outcomes, not just inputs. But the plan, while welcome, is still sketchy on some of the details of delivery and how it will be paid for without the funds that the Secretary of State mentioned being eaten by pay rises and by inflation, as well as how that shift will be staffed. Greater use of the app is right, and builds on the amazing work done on the app by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) when he was Secretary of State. Greater use of technology and of genomics is right, and the Secretary of State’s big five tech bets are largely right, but, as he knows, tech alone will not deliver this; people will, so a workforce plan that is clearly aligned with his strategy is vital. Neighbourhood health centres are one of the measures at the heart of the Secretary of State’s plan. The concept is an interesting one, but it does throw up a number of questions that I hope he can answer in the spirit in which they are asked. Will the providers of those new centres be NHS public sector organisations, private sector organisations or a mixture? How will the centres fit with GP provision and other services without duplication or fishing in the same pool for staff? What assessment has he made of the cost of new buildings and technology to go in them? How many centres does he envisage, and by when? Crucially, how will he ensure that a public-private partnership model will avoid the downsides of the Blair- Brown private finance initiative model? I ask those questions from a desire not to see this fail but to succeed, because it is in all our interests that the Secretary of State does succeed, but that will take time. Given that, on page 71 of his plan he talks about the need for “immediate opportunities” to be seized. Although there will be others, may I take the opportunity to suggest just one? He should deliver on the pre-election commitment for fracture liaison services to be delivered in all communities, as campaigned for by the Royal Osteoporosis Society, The Mail on Sunday , the Express and many others. That policy would deliver savings within the comprehensive spending review period. Similarly, Melton Mowbray in my constituency has a fantastic community hospital—there will be many up and down the country—and I hope that such hospitals will be a part of delivering more services in the community. On maternity care, I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to a national investigation into maternity scandals, but I hope that will not stop him from delivering on the work done by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and Theo Clarke, which included measures that can be implemented now to help improve maternity safety. On systems reform, may I offer the Secretary of State a couple of words of caution? One is on folding the Health Services Safety Investigations Body into the Care Quality Commission, even as a discrete entity within it. HSSIB is not a regulator and is not designed as such, and it is important that those distinctions are not blurred in making that change. Similarly, may I urge him to be wary of further moving integrated care boards to larger geographies—they are at risk of becoming again the old regional health authorities—as that will move them further away from the local communities they serve and the entities providing social care in those communities with whom they must interact? That brings me finally to a significant question hanging over the plan. Unless we move faster to adjust to the challenges of social care and put it on a sustainable footing, these reforms risk failing to seize the genuine opportunity presented. In the move from cross-party talks to an independent commission, we risk losing that opportunity. Crucially, I ask the Secretary of State again to consider bringing forward the end date of that commission so that we can go further and faster on social care. I have often said to the Secretary of State that where he is wrong we will rightly hold him to account and challenge him, but where he is right we will offer constructive support. The plan, by and large, does say the right things. We must shift to outcomes and not focus continually on inputs, and we must do that through real and genuine reform. The challenges he faces will be in the detail, much of which is still to be confirmed, and crucially for the Government, in the actual delivery. He should not underestimate those challenges. I will work with him to improve the plan where it needs it, but I will support him where he pledges and brings genuine reform to our healthcare system. His plan will have a key test: will patients see the difference, and when will they see the difference? In all that we do, it is vital, as we reform our NHS, that patients are at the heart of our deliberations and our plans.