partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I often have to start with the refrain that energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, but there are points to make on two fronts. First, our interconnector with Ireland, which takes gas from Great Britain into Ireland, will benefit from the security of supply that we are delivering through this decision, which is important. Secondly, although I do not have responsibility for decisions on energy policy in Northern Ireland, we have said from the beginning that the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy will operate and invest in projects in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that the £2 billion we have set up today will be part of that picture and ensure that we can invest in projects in Northern Ireland.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   That is a really important question. As a former teacher, I used to teach pupils who would come to school worried about this issue, because they had seen things in the news and felt a sense of threat. That is why it is important that people understand that the Government are taking the issue seriously and are determined not to only tackle climate change at home, but to play our international role abroad, rebuilding some of the international consensus to make climate action a reality. Factual information is always really important in these debates—at times, I think that it might help in this House as well. People should seek out information about what we are trying to do and about the progress that we are making as a country towards decarbonising our energy system.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   Let me be clear that that is a separate consenting decision. I am not making any comment at all today on the Rosebank decision, which will be made in due course. We are absolutely committed to tackling climate change. There is no change at all in my commitment or the Government’s commitment to delivering the clean power mission and improving homes so that we can get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but the reality is that Britain will need oil and gas for decades to come as part of that transition. Today’s decision is about a particular project that helps us to get those things out of our own continental shelf. My hon. Friend is right to say that that will not bring down bills, but it will provide energy security benefits, jobs and investment coming in through tax receipts, which we are deploying to deliver more clean power.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I declare an interest: I am a member of the GMB, and I am very happy to celebrate the role that it plays in this area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of National Gas and the transmission system, because we often talk about oil and gas workers offshore, but I have met a number of those workers who help to get the gas to homes and businesses across the country. It is an incredibly skilled job, and I pay tribute to the work that those workers do. He is absolutely right; during the transition between what is here now and what comes after in the oil and gas industry, workers have to be right at the centre.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of national resilience. That is front and centre in my mind as the Minister responsible for energy security and resilience, particularly as we go into the winter months. This decision is part of how we ensure that we can absolutely meet the standard that is expected for our gas supplies as we go into the winter—we will say more about that in the coming days. This decision is also part of the wider picture of the transition, because our long-term energy security and resilience cannot come from our being dependent on a fossil fuel that we will always be a net importer of. We have seen the price spikes that have been caused by a war in which we have no part, and they are affecting people’s bills right now. The long-term answer is the clean power that my hon. Friend talked about. She is right to raise the point about warmer homes and how we get more homes to use less energy. That is absolutely critical for our consumers to live in warmer conditions and to spend less on their energy bills.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   My hon. Friend is right that the North sea is a declining basin—I have said that on a number of occasions. That is not going to be turned around by decisions that we make, but none the less, we were elected on a manifesto that very clearly said that we would “not issue new licences to explore new fields”, but would manage existing fields for their lifetime. This decision is on an already licensed field, so it is compliant with our manifesto, and the investment resulting from it will allow us to build the clean power that will get us off fossil fuels. It is about recognising that we have to do both—the long-term future comes from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and phasing them out completely, but we will need oil and gas in the interim.

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary hears it. We are doing everything we can on industrial prices as well as domestic prices, but I know we need to do more. Breaking the link between gas and electricity prices is crucial for the electricity bills that those industries face, but I know that my hon. Friend is particularly focused on the gas they use. I have talked about phasing out gas; we have always been clear that a strategic reserve will be necessary for particular industries and parts of the power system, but we should be using it much less. We need to support industries by finding new ways to decarbonise, be it with hydrogen or other fuels, but some will continue to require gas. I recognise that fact, and will continue to work with my hon. Friend and others to make sure we are doing everything we can to support those industries.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   My hon. Friend is right—the affordability crisis is the No. 1 thing facing all our constituents. I am not going to cut across what the Chancellor may or may not say next week in his Budget, but I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have already taken action by removing VAT from electricity bills, as well as the £150 of costs that we took off bills previously, but the first point he made is critical, because the situation in the middle east is what is driving up everyone’s bills. We can continue to take action to reduce those bills, as the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine, but if we do not fix the fundamental problem, we will have to bail people out every time there is another fossil fuel price spike. While deploying clean power will not immediately affect everyone, every wind turbine we switch on and solar panel we plug in helps reduce our dependence on gas and brings down people’s bills.

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I welcome my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the decision we have made today. The longer-term impact of climate change will be felt by his constituents as much as everyone else’s, so it is in all of our interests—as I know he appreciates—for us to take action to tackle it. While this is an important decision, the action we have taken to deploy clean power and break the link with fossil fuels is also really important. My hon. Friend is right to centre this discussion on jobs. We have worked not just to create new jobs in the clean power of the future, but to make sure those are good jobs. With offshore wind, for example, we are making sure there is fair work for offshore workers, in conjunction with trade unions and the workforce. We want to grow the number of jobs in clean power, but we also want them to be good, well-paid and sustainable jobs.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    On the international point and the message this decision sends about the climate emergency, I cannot be clearer about how central tackling climate change still is to the wider agenda of our energy policy. The transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy will require oil and gas for decades to come, and this decision is about where we get that from, not about the end goal, which is to remove our exposure to fossil fuels in the long term. We continue to take action on the climate crisis in a whole range of other ways. For instance, the Secretary of State will lead our delegation to COP to make sure we continue to press for international collaboration. On the wider point, consenting decisions are regulatory decisions for the Secretary of State to make, and then it is for the North Sea Transition Authority to make the final decision and issue the consent. Those decisions are not subject to debates in this House—they are quasi-judicial decisions. However, I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that decision, like this one, will be based on a whole range of factors, and the environmental impacts will be absolutely central.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I am glad that people across the country are engaging in those kinds of discussions. It is really important that people get together, discuss this issue and recognise the absolute centrality of climate change to our lives right now, as well as its future impact. I would say two things: first, this Government take the climate emergency very seriously and are taking action right now to tackle it, whether that is building the clean power that gets us off fossil fuels or improving homes so that people use less fossil fuel energy to heat them. Secondly, young people right now should believe that their Government are taking this issue seriously. Despite the noise of the political debate, this Government take climate action seriously, and we are delivering good, long-term jobs in every single community for those young people in the industries of the future—jobs in clean energy that we as a country can be equally proud of. I hope the young people who attend my hon. Friend’s meeting will see some of those opportunities as a real chance, not only for a career in this country, but to help us tackle the climate emergency.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    As a Government, we are making it as attractive as possible to invest in clean energy sectors. That is why we have seen more than £100 billion-worth of private investment in the clean energy transition since we came into Government—£110 billion of investment in two and a half years. It is clear that people see the clean energy transition as a route for investment and helping to build our energy security. I would say to all those, pension funds or others, who do not take the economic opportunity seriously that there is a huge opportunity here to build the country we want to see and to get good economic returns as a result. We have set up things such as the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to help crowd in that investment.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I do not agree with that, actually. I will give the same answer that I gave to the Green party. We absolutely believe in tackling the climate crisis and in building our way out of a dependence on fossil fuels, but I cannot just click my fingers and make that happen overnight. We have to build this infrastructure over time, and there is a transition period in which gas will remain the main source of energy for people heating their homes. We have to move even faster to change that by electrifying heating to bring down people’s bills and get us off fossil fuels. I am open to any ideas my hon. Friend might have on how we can go faster on that.

    Hansard source
14. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his putting on record the fact that there are jobs in oil and gas in Hartlepool and in towns like it across the UK. Although there is a concentration of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, it would be wrong to say that this is a problem for the north-east of Scotland to solve. There are such jobs all across the country. We must get this transition right. As for the oil and gas workers, the new nuclear that we want to see in his constituency, and renewables, I make the point that the workforce is the same, and we are going to support them to retrain and bring their immense experience into what we have to build in the future. It is in our self-interest to centre this transition on the workers who currently power the country through oil and gas and who will take us through into the future. He is right to call out those politicians who talk about pragmatism, but who want it all to be one way. Pragmatism means being clear that oil and gas will be important for decades to come and that we have to invest now in the jobs of the future, in his constituency and across the country.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I thank the Minister, and recognise how much time he takes to talk to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; he is barely ever out of the chair in front of us. He is very dedicated. Today’s decision is one that the Tories could not get over the line, but under this Prime Minister, a rapid decision has been made that will protect jobs and, critically, ensure that skills will be retained for a changing supply chain. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue with investment and equally rapid decision making for clean power projects?

    Hansard source
16. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. The original draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 July. Following the identification of omitted text affecting the calculation of two fee categories, they were withdrawn, corrected and re-laid on 1 September. Local planning authorities are integral to delivering the new homes and infrastructure that our country needs, and the Government appreciate fully that, to do so, they require sufficient capacity and capability. Yet for too long, local authority planning departments across the country have wrestled with significant financial pressures that have constrained their ability to recruit and retain skilled planners, invest in modern systems and make timely, high-quality planning decisions. For that reason, the Government have invested significant sums to boost capacity and capability in local planning authorities. At the 2024 autumn Budget, the then Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. At the Budget on 26 November last year, she announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period. Of that funding, £28.8 million has been allocated to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s planning capacity and capability programme, equating to an additional £9.6 million per year for the next three years. That allocation will supplement existing budgets. In total, the programme now aims to deliver around 1,325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-Government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase that figure further to approximately 1,400 planners. That new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by expanding the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme. For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally and are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, which means that local planning authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service. That is why the Government acted through regulations to increase planning fees for householders and introduce fees for certain minor applications from 1 April last year, and why our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 included powers to allow local planning authorities, subject to safeguards, to set their own planning fees through a local variation model. The draft regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. Their objective is twofold: first, to reduce funding shortfalls and improve the financial sustainability of local authority planning departments, which they will achieve by providing a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services; and secondly, to establish a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which will be implemented through separate regulations later this year.

    Hansard source
17. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    I will address that more fully in my closing remarks, but we do expect the fees to be ringfenced. The hon. Gentleman may recall that we took powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to ensure that that is the case. The draft regulations will establish that baseline by providing for a national default fee that will continue to apply unless a local planning authority chooses to set a different fee to reflect its costs. Earlier this year, we carried out a consultation on fees for planning applications, seeking views on a proposed national default fee schedule, including in respect of the appropriate level of fees, whether structural changes should be made to specific fee categories, and the wider framework for local fee setting. The feedback indicated broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the additional income is reinvested in planning application services and results in improved performance. The Government are clear that the additional funding should support measurable improvements in performance. We expect authorities to use the additional income to strengthen their planning application services, reduce delays and provide a better service to applicants. We will of course continue to monitor performance through planning statistics and the existing planning performance regime. In general terms, planning application fees typically account for less than 1% of overall development costs, while delays and uncertainty in the planning process can impose far greater costs on development and investment. Ensuring that planning authorities are properly resourced is therefore in the interests of applicants, communities and the wider economy. However, it is of course important that any changes to planning fees strike the right balance, ensuring that authorities can recover their costs while remaining proportionate for applicants and supporting continued investment and development. Having considered the consultation responses carefully, we think the revised schedule does just that. Let me briefly set out the main changes made by the regulations. First, they introduce a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fees schedule. Fees will increase by varying amounts across existing application categories, with the aim of recovering approximately 90% of the estimated processing costs for each application type. The increases are informed by benchmarking work undertaken by the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service, which showed that every application category operates below cost recovery. Increasing all fees to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. We are not moving to full cost recovery through a nationally set fee schedule because the cost of processing applications varies significantly among authorities. A uniform national fee set at 100% of estimated average costs could therefore lead to over-recovery in some areas. Secondly, the regulations simplify and restructure selected fee categories. This includes aligning the household fee thresholds with the medium-sized development category introduced through the national planning policy framework, and simplifying the fee bands applying to certain agricultural, minerals, waste and other operational development. These changes will make the national fee schedule clearer and easier for applicants and local planning authorities to operate. Thirdly, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior-approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior-approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment, so it is right that applicants contribute towards the costs. As part of this third change, the regulations also enable the £310 fee to apply where prior approval is required for larger electricity substations. The separate statutory instrument introducing that prior-approval requirement was laid before Parliament on 30 September and comes into force on 21 October. Finally, the regulations correct omissions in existing indexation provisions. This will ensure that mixed-use outline application fees and the new standard prior-approval fee are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as other planning application fees. Subject to parliamentary approval, the regulations will come into force on 8 December 2026. To conclude, the regulations will provide an immediate increase in funding for local planning authorities, support the Government’s wider programme of planning reform and establish a stronger baseline for the future operation of local fee-setting powers. In return, applicants should expect improved performance, more timely decisions and greater certainty across the planning system—a better resourced planning system that is better able to deliver the homes, infrastructure and growth that this country needs. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
18. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    I thank the shadow Minister for his response and the questions he put to me. Before I address each of them in turn, I want to reinforce a general point that I made concerning the rationale for the regulations. As it stands, based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, councils are facing an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, as a result of the gap between the fees they are able to charge and the cost of processing and determining planning applications. It is entirely reasonable, on the principle of the matter, that we seek to close that gap so that local authorities are able to deliver a timely service. The shadow Minister spoke at some length about viability pressures and the role of regulations in those pressures. I gently say to him that lots of the regulations either that we are bringing into force or that were in force were introduced by his Government—the requirement for second staircases is a good example. We recognise that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. We are acutely aware that viability pressures remain pressing in many parts of the country—London is a good example—and that they have become, in many cases, more acute over recent months as a result of the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Minister will know the statistics when it comes to the increase in, for example, building materials costs that all developers are facing. I come back, though, to the point I made in my opening remarks. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently, because there is a cost to delays resulting from planning application services that are not efficient. I argue that by ensuring that local planning authorities can make high-quality and timely decisions we can support viability and investment, just as much as by keeping application fees proportionate.

    Hansard source
19. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    I will come to that, and I will answer the specific point on ringfencing as well, because I think the shadow Minister slightly misrepresented my response to the hon. Member for Broxbourne. On a related point about viability—the shadow Minister tempts me to stray way beyond the the regulations before us—it is important to say that we consulted on the fee schedule that we are discussing. We received 173 responses to that consultation and, overall, 59% of respondents supported the proposed national fee schedule. The support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of developer respondents. There is, then, support out there for the fee increases, provided, as I said, that they result in an improved service. On ringfencing, the Government are clear that planning fee income should be invested in planning application services. I slightly take issue with the shadow Minister saying that we are just relying on moral suasion to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced a statutory ringfencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. The ringfencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee-setting measures I mentioned earlier are introduced. The ringfencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so the shadow Minister can be assured that, in due course, as soon as we have commenced those regulations, the ringfencing will apply. While those provisions are not in force, the Government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. Once we have commenced those regulations, that will not be an option for authorities. On general planning performance, the shadow Minister will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions and not performing as required. We will continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for us in respect of individual local authorities. To conclude, the regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, thereby enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. As I have said, they will facilitate an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and, by providing for a new national fee schedule, provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which we will debate in respect of a future statutory instrument. A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. The regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high-quality manner. I commend them to the Committee. Question put.

    Hansard source
20. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Rodda

    E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate. I am aware of the time pressure, so I will try to be brief. I strongly support cycling and the legal use of electric bicycles, where permitted. However, I am afraid to say the irresponsible use of e-bikes and e-scooters is a serious problem in my constituency, and residents have raised a range of issues on a range of fronts. First, intimidating behaviour on footpaths and pavements, particularly near and in parks, is causing serious concern in many parts of the town. That includes e-scooters whizzing down narrow streets where the pavements are less than 1 metre wide, e-bike riders riding over the two road bridges across the Thames on the pedestrian footpaths and intimidating residents, the lack of use of bells and the speed at which people are riding the bikes. It also includes high-powered electric motorbikes—I think that is the only way to describe them. I have seen two absolutely shocking incidents relating to these types of vehicles. In one case, it was a group of black-clad young people with black balaclavas riding around the Reading inner distribution road, a major highway around the town centre, pulling wheelies in front of cars. On another occasion, I saw a similarly dressed group doing dangerous stunts and jumps in a park, close to where families were picnicking with toddlers. That is absolutely irresponsible and utterly unacceptable. I am pleased to say there is some good news. As the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) mentioned, Thames Valley police is taking a firm line. It has been crushing the bikes, using drones to follow them in parks and using the new legislation introduced by the Government to arrive at people’s houses and confiscate them immediately rather than having to issue a warning, which was previously the case. Our local council has also secured a public space protection order, which gives local council officers more powers to address the bikes. I praise the police and the council for the action they are taking, but I ask the Minister to see what further powers could be used to try to contain this very serious problem.

    Hansard source
21. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Markus Campbell-Savours

    Support for Farmers

    To be honest, I am not a big fan of Opposition day debates in Parliament. I made my discomfort clear in a debate on farming in 2024, when I put the Government on notice of my intention to vote against the APR Budget measure. That evening, as the news that I had voted against the official Opposition’s motion was circulated on social media—a motion that quite rightly called for the Government to halt their planned changes to APR, but also appeared to claim that the last Conservative Government were the greatest gift to farming since Jethro Tull’s seed drill—I noted the way my vote was being reported by Conservative Members. One said I had “misled the chamber” and had “voted to impose the family farm tax”. As all Members know, Opposition day motions do not enact change. They are expressions of opinion, not instruments that alter policy or law, or as “Erskine May” says, they do not bind the Government. It was the same last week. In a debate in which the Conservatives tried out their new theory that sticking the word “family” in front of a tax makes it unpalatable and ripe for scrapping, I objected to the idea that a £175 million penthouse flat could be exempt from tax. For this, I was accused by Conservatives on social media of “nit picking”, being spineless and of “toadying” to get my Whip back—which I have had back, by the way. The post was accompanied by a meme that made reference only to family farms. I would like to be explicit: I want to see the end of the family farm tax, and I urge the Chancellor to do so in the Budget, but I do not believe the plight of my farmers should be conflated and used by politicians who want to give tax breaks to the mega-rich. Let me now turn my attention to today’s word salad. I like tomatoes, and I agree that the APR changes should be scrapped. I like olives, and I agree that the SFI has been a disaster. Lots of Members like olives, even those on the Labour Benches. The end of universal payments seems like a missed opportunity. Farmers are perfectly candid about how many in the industry who received the basic payment were doing very little for it, but I am increasingly of the view that a universal offer linked to delivering key public goods as a baseline, with a top up ELMs-style offer, would be preferable. It would give all farms a chance, and provide a buffer that they may rely on when times are hard. The farmers I have engaged with since my election have described how they take risks with every investment decision. Bad weather or market conditions can change and do change. A universal payment could not only provide a cushion, but help reassure those considering an investment that they are safe to do so. Last week I read an article in the Financial Times, which described issues faced by some farmers in accessing SFI. It quoted one Cambridge farmer as saying: “I will literally take a plough to everything… We will have to go back to farming more intensively than the 1950s.” It worries me that we may see farmers reaching the end of existing schemes simply plough up the good work they have done and look for what is commercially best for them. I believe a universal offer could, if implemented properly, prevent that from happening. I do not object to everything in this salad and I am quite pleased it has been served, but everyone has something they do not want in a salad—fennel, just in case you were wondering, Madam Deputy Speaker—and in the case of this motion it is the Liberal Democrats’ inclusion of a commitment to “an additional £1 billion a year to properly fund environmental land management schemes.” It sounds tasty, but having sat through a large number of debates in the House, I know that at the heart of their Budget plans is their claim that re-entering Europe would pay for everything. That is as silly as claiming that we could pay using lithium mined on Mars; its presence does not preclude the fact that there is one hell of journey before we get there. These motions are a con: a word salad full of things that Members across the House love, but ultimately containing an ingredient which makes them edible only to the author.

    Hansard source
22. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

    I thank the hon. Member for making such a strong argument. Along with other hon. Members, I recently met representatives of Guide Dogs for the Blind. They made a strong case for visually impaired and blind people, who are often put off going out on to their own streets, due to the silent nature of e-scooters and e-bikes. Does she agree that that point alone underscores the need to enforce the law properly in this area?

    Hansard source
23. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I welcome the Government’s pragmatic decision on Jackdaw; it makes sense to use gas from the North sea, rather than import it from abroad. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that the funds it raises in tax revenue will be used to support the green transition, hopefully with a view to bringing down energy bills in the future. However, my constituents know that their energy bills will go up in January, and they want help with that now. Given that the Minister has ruled out using those funds to support them through direct help with their energy bills, can I encourage him to use any mechanism available to him to get people the support they need with their energy bills in January, and possibly to have conversations with the Treasury too? As he knows, the cost of living crisis is biting now.

    Hansard source
24. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    Antisemitism has swept across the UK and I am so sorry to see the report confirm what I think we already knew, which is that schools are yet another battleground against the world’s oldest hatred. That is why I commend the Government for their swift acceptance of all the recommendations set out in Sir David Bell’s review, as well as the Secretary of State’s excellent answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) on anti-Zionist antisemitism and why it should be condemned. On one particular recommendation, treating antisemitism in schools as a safeguarding issue will create an explicit duty on all schools to address it as they would a threat to any other child’s safety. How will the Government support schools to enact that duty and how will they ensure they are accountable for delivering it?

    Hansard source
25. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Ferguson

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    It is a pleasure to close what has been a genuinely fascinating debate. I give thanks to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their thoughtful contributions, in addition to their support for this worthwhile and historic piece of legislation. As we heard earlier from the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), this important Bill will facilitate the removal of an outdated 19th-century restriction. We have spent a lot of time today talking about history, and who does not enjoy a little conversation about history? I certainly do, and I know the Minister of State would agree. It is enjoyable to be involved in preparing for a debate where someone uses a phrase like “not since the reformation”. It reminds us of the scale and scope of what we do in this place, but we are here to talk about where we are in 2026. This Bill ensures that any Prime Minister, regardless of their religious beliefs, can advise the sovereign on Church appointments. We have heard in this debate a number of views and contributions from Members across the House. I welcome support for this Bill from across the House, including from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. Religious freedom and tolerance of faith before the law are crucial principles that we must uphold. In response to why we are bringing forward this legislation at this time, when there are undoubtedly more important issues, I simply say two things: one, the Government are handling this in a pragmatic way, tackling minor constitutional issues as and when they arise. This is an obvious problem with an obvious solution. The legislation is pragmatic, quick and will not detain the House long, despite the enjoyable history lesson that we have had today. Secondly, I am a strong believer that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and our ambition is a matter of public record: to rewire the state and to deliver the largest re-industrialisation of our nations and regions in at least a generation and the biggest redistribution of power our country has ever seen. In response to the specific issues raised by the Members of the official Opposition, let me say that this is a narrowly focused Bill without knock-on consequences. The temporary arrangement in respect of the Lord Chancellor will be brought to an end once this Bill has been passed, and there are no wider constitutional changes. I am happy to give a firm commitment in that regard. This is not a wider constitutional change, and the existing arrangements between the Crown, the Government and the established Church will remain. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) talked about the wider role of religion in public life. It was an interesting contribution, but this is a tightly focused Bill which deals with this issue and this issue alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) also entertained the House, although I should say that I do not express a preference for any particular religion in No. 10, and I say that as a lapsed Methodist, if one can even be such a thing. I am very happy to have a Catholic Prime Minister, although once a Methodist always a Methodist—much like “once a Whip, always a Whip”. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), entertained us with a historical tour de force. I am afraid I do not have any historical forebears such as his to call upon, so I will simply say that it is right and proper that the senior adviser to the sovereign, the Prime Minister, should be able to advise the sovereign. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about political input. That is not what we are talking about today, so in a sense we may differ on that point, but it was nonetheless a thoughtful contribution. The debate has indicated that there is clear support for this legislation on both sides of the House. When I speak to my constituents, whether at Gateshead’s Jewish Kehilla or at Cardinal Hume Catholic School, I want the students there to know that they can play a full role in democratic life, where their faith is no barrier, and I know that that view is shared across the House. I look forward to hearing further from hon. Members during the remaining stages due to follow shortly, and I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

    Hansard source
26. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Ferguson

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    I hope that I will not detain the Committee for long in dealing with the two clauses. Clause 1 is the only operative clause of the Bill. Its purpose is to remove the restrictions that prevent a person who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the sovereign on Church appointments. It also removes parallel restrictions that prevent a person of those faiths from making Church appointments, when they have a right to do so by virtue of their office. Some office holders appointed by the sovereign, such as the Lord Chancellor, have the right to nominate someone directly to a benefice—for example, the right to nominate the local vicar of a parish. The sovereign has no involvement in those appointments. The clause achieves that by repealing sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 in their entirety. It also contains some consequential repeals of Church legislation that cross-referred to some of these provisions. Finally, the clause provides that once it comes into force, no person can be convicted under the provisions in section 18 of the 1829 Act or section 4 of the 1858 Act. Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, and applies UK-wide. It will come into force on Royal Assent, which will ensure that the Prime Minister can assume his constitutional duty to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without delay. It is clear that the Bill commands broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to it. I look forward very much to the rest of today’s debate, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Myer

    University Hospital of North Tees

    This is a Teesside-wide issue, and it is felt by communities across the region. All of us, as MPs representing the Tees Valley, believe that there needs to be a long-term future for this hospital. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is also supporting the trust’s strategic outline case for the future of the hospital. We need to see a future here. However, there are also other hospitals within the trust’s area that are sitting and rotting. I see one in my constituency in East Cleveland. It is controlled by NHS Property Services and there are huge parts of that building that are sitting empty, which could have more services in. I urge the Minister to meet with us collectively to talk about the future for hospitals across the Tees region.

    Hansard source
28. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Myer

    University Hospital of North Tees

    There is not yet much clarity on where some of that funding will go in terms of setting up those mental health services, particularly in Redcar and Cleveland. If we have a hospital with a wing that is sitting empty, it seems to me a no-brainer that that wing could be a site for some of those services, but obviously I would like to have a conversation with the Department to understand whether there are any such plans, and if there are not, whether we can get some confirmation on that.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Myer

    Community Policing: Government Support

    The Minister knows what I am going to say. Two years ago, I was here warning about the systematic underfunding of Cleveland police, and I have done so continually over the last couple of years. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the time he made last week to discuss these matters, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time on many occasions to discuss them, and I am grateful for the mutual aid that we have seen in our region since the tragic deaths of PC Tom Clough and PC Matthew Blades this summer. The fact is that Cleveland police is one of the most overstretched forces in the country. Since 2010, it has been the hardest hit force in England in terms of cuts to police numbers, and Cleveland has one of the highest recorded crime rates in England and Wales. The chief constable, Victoria Fuller, has estimated that the force needs another 500 officers just to get to the national average. However, as Lauren Somerville, chair of the Police Federation in Cleveland, said when I met her earlier this week, Cleveland is a good force and its officers are proud of their work. The new police performance system gave the force in Cleveland its highest rating of level 1 and the force in Cleveland has also been recognised as one of the most improved forces in England and Wales. The problem is not the hard-working, brave officers of Cleveland police; the fundamental problem is the police funding formula, which does not adequately reflect the scale of crime, deprivation and demand in Cleveland. I urge the Government to overhaul that formula at pace and to inject an emergency in-year funding increase so that we can tackle the challenges we have in our region.

    Hansard source
30. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Akehurst

    Support for Veterans

    12. What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Defence to support veterans who served in Operation Banner.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Akehurst

    Support for Veterans

    Veterans in my constituency were let down by the previous Government’s legacy Act, which offered nothing but false promises. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to Operation Banner veterans in North Durham that they will not be subject to unnecessary repeat investigations and that the operational context of their deployment will be taken into account?

    Hansard source
32. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    With permission, I will make a statement on Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges in England. First, let me just apologise for some of the reporting in the media. The full report and Government response were laid in the House this morning and were not given to the media first. I have ordered a leak inquiry into this matter. Today, Sir David has published this seminal review, exposing the shocking scale of antisemitism in British society and how that is reflected across education. Almost three in five Jewish young people and half of Jewish teachers have experienced or witnessed antisemitism. That cannot continue. Let me place on record my sincere thanks to Sir David for his excellent report and to the reference group for their support. Make no mistake, this is a report for every teacher, every staff member, every education leader and every student listening today. All children and teachers should be able to go to school or college free from fear, but there is a wider responsibility for education as a whole to teach our young people British values of tolerance, acceptance and respect for one another. Collectively, we have a duty to educate this generation and the next on what antisemitism is, on why it is wrong, and on what happens when it takes hold in society. Whether or not there are Jewish staff and students in your school or college, this report is for you. This generational challenge belongs to us all. We all know that antisemitism is an ancient evil. Today it remains as pernicious as ever, but its modern mutation is in many ways more prominent and more prevalent. Perhaps most concerning of all, that is especially true among young people. Old tropes have found new life in the modern world. The fallacy that Jewish networks control the global economy and other such delusions once confined to the fringes have found a new home on social media. Antisemitism is now normalised and amplified in echo chambers online, reaching directly into children’s bedrooms. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for her leadership and commitment in tackling this issue, and I am grateful for her collaboration. As Sir David’s report also identifies, the conflict in the middle east has significantly fanned the flames of division here at home. Misunderstanding, ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation can quickly lead to antisemitism—at times casual, at others more serious, and all too often unreported and unchallenged. As a House and a Government, we must be clear: blaming British Jews for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism; assuming British Jews have a particular political standpoint because they are Jewish is antisemitism; and targeting British Jews out of concern for Palestine is antisemitism. When such views and behaviours are expressed in any school or college, whether or not they are aimed directly at a Jewish person, they are antisemitic, and we have a duty to challenge them. Sitting at the centre of our communities, schools and colleges have a leadership role in fostering tolerance, compassion and respect for difference. Let me be clear: teachers should not bring their own political views into the classroom. That is a fundamental of education. However, this principle should not lead to a shying away from difficult debates. In fact, as Sir David’s report clearly recommends, schools and colleges should be the place for important discussions, but school leaders often fear reprisals, protests or accusations of political bias, so they avoid discussing and addressing important topics. I want to empower our teachers and school and college leaders to tackle these issues head on. Our young people have to learn how to navigate contentious debates thoughtfully and respectfully, and to understand that antisemitism and other forms of racism are wrong. That is a job for education, but we all have a responsibility to set the tone, here in this House and in the media too—robust debate and challenge matched with respect, tolerance and disagreeing amicably. A new approach is needed. Antisemitism is unique in both historical context and its reach today. It demands a unique response. That is why this Government accept all 27 recommendations from Sir David’s review. I thank everyone who contributed their views and experiences, but above all, I want to recognise the Jewish community directly for their bravery in engaging with the review. I do not take lightly the personal cost they have paid in recounting their deeply hurtful experiences. They have not only my thanks but my word that their voices will be heard. Change will come. I turn to the report’s recommendations. First, definition matters. Combating antisemitism starts with identifying it. I agree with Sir David that the use of a common and consistent definition will improve understanding and confidence. I will therefore write to all schools and colleges to set out my expectation that they adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. As Sir David recommends, we will strengthen the safeguarding guidance to make it clear that antisemitism is a distinct risk and therefore requires a distinct safeguarding response. I also accept the recommendation that all education settings should record antisemitic incidents as a specific category. Sir David also says that school and college leaders, as well as head and teacher unions, need more support to identify and challenge antisemitism. We will develop and roll out high-quality training, good practice guidance and practical resources, as well as dedicated support for leaders managing complex and serious incidents involving antisemitism and other forms of racism, including support for escalation when it is needed. We will also give schools and colleges clear and specific support when it comes to how and when controversial and sensitive issues should be discussed. We will update and strengthen Holocaust education, so that this generation and the next can better understand the horrors of the Holocaust, how it came about, and why that should matter to us today. I can confirm that such education will continue to be compulsory in the national curriculum. However, as Sir David has recommended, while it is right that every child should know about the Holocaust, that should not be the only thing that they know about Jewish people and their history. We will ensure, through the curriculum, that the contribution, culture and history of Jewish people in Britain are well understood and appreciated. Judaism is a diverse, modern and generous faith tradition, and the curriculum should reflect that as well. However, this is not just about what happens in the classroom. One of the most shocking findings of Sir David’s review was that following the Heaton Park synagogue terrorist attack, educational visits to the Manchester Jewish Museum in my constituency fell by half, just when those visits were needed most. We will boost opportunities for engagement with Jewish cultural experiences. The testimonies of Jewish teachers and leaders in Jewish schools about how much of their time was spent on safety and not teaching were particularly concerning. We cannot build ever higher walls around our Jewish institutions, but we will continue to work with the Community Security Trust and the Home Office to ensure that children and staff can be safe, happy and supported. Sir David looked closely at the issue of political symbols displayed by staff and students. He found it not to be a widespread issue, and therefore concluded that extending existing legal duties on schools would be disproportionate. I accept his recommendation, but as Education Secretary, I should make it clear that I would not expect to see teachers coming to school or college wearing or displaying any political material. There are further important recommendations for leaders of schools and colleges, and for teachers, staff, parents and unions, among others. I will ensure that we work to do what needs to be done and to maintain momentum. I have set up an implementation group, which will get to work immediately, and I have asked Sir David to conduct a one-year review of the implementation of his recommendations. Although universities are not in the scope of the review, I want to make it clear to the House that the rise in antisemitism on our campuses is completely unacceptable. I wrote to all vice-chancellors earlier this month about the steps that they need to take to combat antisemitism, and I will continue to act wherever I can. This is an incredibly important moment for education and for our country. It falls to our generation to educate the next on what can happen to a society when antisemitism is allowed to take hold, and why we all have a duty to root it out. I commend this statement to the House.

    Hansard source
33. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said, for discussing these issues with me yesterday, and for her contribution to the review; I know that she spent time speaking to Sir David, which he really valued. As she has said and as I have said, this is an issue that we should address collectively, with one voice and as one House. I think we all agree that we do not want to hear any testimonies such as those to which she has just referred, although she was right to do so. I will pick up on a couple of the right hon. Lady’s points. Enforcement and data collection and measurement will all be absolutely critical to ensuring both implementation and, more importantly, change. In a year’s time, I hope I am able to come back to the House and say that the situation has improved. That is why we are updating the teacher standards, and why we are including in the safeguarding framework the obligation to have regard to antisemitism. She will know that safeguarding is a key issue that Ofsted looks into and inspects. We are updating and boosting the requirement to report, because when things are reported, action can follow. If we need to go further, we will, but today we have set out, in response to Sir David’s review, a number of ways in which these things will be measured and enforced. Sir David looked into the issue of trade unions in his review, and he was clear in his report. I asked him to do the review, and I fully take what he found in that. He is clear that he does not believe that any education union is inherently antisemitic, and he is also clear that the education unions should have robust policies and processes in place to tackle these issues, and to ensure that members are sufficiently trained. I have discussed these matters with the education unions, and I know that they are keen to put things right. In the spirit of coming together on this issue, I gently say to the right hon. Lady that the fear of reprisal, and of media or political attention, when it comes to being politically impartial—we have heard this testimony time and again—has led to many school leaders and teachers fearing to tackle these issues head-on. They do not want to go into debates on the subject when they hear some of the age-old tropes in the classroom, for fear of reprisals, or of not being supported. Sir David’s review is very clear that schools and colleges absolutely should be places where issues can be debated, challenged, discussed and brought to life. We have to get the balance right. If anything, I would say that things have moved too far in the other direction. The fears about not being politically impartial is hampering our teachers and school leaders, preventing them from doing what they need to do. I am glad that the right hon. Lady mentioned the Green party; I see the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) in her seat. We Labour Members are absolutely clear that the motion passed by the Green party is wrong—it is antisemitic. The Green party leadership has a much deeper responsibility here, because it has such reach with young people. The motion is being repeated in campuses, councils and colleges, and that is causing widespread fear. It has resulted in ever increasing antisemitism since the report was published. I ask the Green party to consider these issues very carefully.

    Hansard source
34. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership, and for the work that she continues to do as Chair of the Education Committee. I know of the incident involving her constituent, which we have discussed a couple of times, and I was as horrified as she was to hear of it. I hope that the students and schools involved in that incident are listening today and understand that they should have gone further. They can still go further in challenging what happened to her young constituent, and take action. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we must support teachers and school and college leaders in developing capacity, skills and confidence, so that they feel supported in challenging these behaviours and creating an environment where this can be discussed. It is absolutely critical that students understand that certain ideas are wrong, and what it means when they are expressed. As she knows, we are in the middle of updating the curriculum. A new citizenship curriculum is coming on stream in primary and secondary schools, and we will ensure this issue is included. We will also update teacher training, as well as doing all the other things that I have announced today, that were in the report.

    Hansard source
35. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful contribution. She is absolutely right to suggest that antisemitism has got worse, not better, since David Bell began his review a few months ago. We have all seen and heard of the horrors that have been reported, but many unreported incidents are happening across the country, and education settings reflect that. As I said earlier, there is a particularly shocking rise in antisemitic views among our young people, and such views are distinct from other forms of racism that are sometimes expressed by different generations. That is why this needs to be tackled as a generational issue for all of us, and for every single school and college, not just those that represent Jewish communities. She is right in what she says about those attending Jewish schools and colleges, and I hear the same testimonies as she does about having to hide one’s faith and hide one’s identity. We are taking forward a plan of action with the British Transport police, so that buses and other forms of travel to and from school can be made safer. There will be funding attached to what I have outlined. I will ensure that schools and colleges have the funding they need to do the jobs we need them to do. However, I think this is really about leadership at the moment, and ensuring that schools do feel that they can address these issues and are confident that they will be supported. There are often counter-protests and reprisals when action is taken, which is why I want every school and college leader to know that I will back them. I will back them on having debates in their schools, and I will back them in any action they need to take.

    Hansard source
36. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s words. Zionism is not racism, which is why the motion passed by the Green party is so wholly wrong and is antisemitic, and I want people to hear that loudly and clearly. The IHRA definition of antisemitism is clear that denying Jewish people the right to self-determination is antisemitic, which is why it is really important that schools adopt it. I thank him for that contribution.

    Hansard source
37. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I thank the hon. Member for that question, and he is absolutely right about the scale and the urgency. How this exists everywhere in every part of society is absolutely shocking and something we must all really take hold of. That is why I have fully ensured that I, as Education Secretary, am the one leading on this in my Department. We have had cross-Government meetings and action taskforces on antisemitism across a range of issues, and he will be aware that a number of other reviews are happening of other aspects of public services. There are really important recommendations in this report, and we accept them all and will implement them all, but this is bigger than one report or one set of recommendations and their implementation. We must have a big national conversation about what contemporary antisemitism looks like, where it is appearing and why it is appearing, and we must be calling it out and explaining to the next generation what goes wrong in a country and a society when we fail to do that. That is a job for every single one of us, not just me.

    Hansard source
38. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    First, I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on these issues over many years and for the role he is currently playing on the board of the IHRA. I am glad that he welcomes the updating and enhancing of Holocaust education, and we will be working with the Holocaust Educational Trust. Its chief executive sits on the implementation taskforce, and I know she will be doughty in ensuring that we do that very well. He is absolutely right that the IHRA definition is a working definition. It is a practical guide, but it comes to life only when it is taught, when it is implemented and when people use it as an everyday tool to navigate the issues they may be facing in their school or college.

    Hansard source
39. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    As ever, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done on this issue over many years. I must say that I find it hard to believe that he has done so for over 40 years; it cannot possibly be so long. He makes a really important point, and I will certainly look at those sections. His history of the Education Acts is better than mine, but I will look at including those sections as an annexe because he is absolutely right. When people go into teaching and become school and college leaders, they absolutely know they have to leave their own political views at the door and they want to educate the next generation on all these issues. We have to regain the confidence in schools and classrooms to have debate, to disagree amicably and respectfully, and to hear each other’s opinions in a balanced way. That is what I want all our schools to feel able to do. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for amending that Bill. I know he will continue to amend Bills in times to come. I will look at those annexes and include them in my letter.

    Hansard source
40. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Powell

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and for agreeing with the findings of the report. Absolutely, Sir David has recommended the safeguarding as an explicit duty and we have accepted that completely. Making safeguarding a statutory issue is a way we can ensure that it is reported, measured and understood, and that there is then explicit training on it for teachers and staff. All the resources, materials and training to implement the report will be available for our schools and colleges within the year.

    Hansard source