What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
My hon. Friend talks about medical appointments, and I was horrified to hear from a constituent of mine in his 80s who did not have post for a whole month recently. He was waiting for bank cards and medical correspondence, and missed an appointment because of that lack of post. My hon. Friend mentioned rural areas. Does she agree with me that not receiving post makes people a lot more vulnerable?
I want to raise the issue of the prioritisation of parcels. As the Minister says, the volume of letters may have gone down, but the overall volume of items to deliver has not. She will be as worried as me that the number of people working in Royal Mail has reduced significantly, and many people are leaving because of low morale. What can she do to make Ofcom do more in this situation—for example, spot checks? Fines are obviously not working.
Derbyshire constabulary has seized and crushed more than 1,000 illegal electric scooters, some capable of travelling at 50 mph and being ridden by children. At such a speed, the damage that can be done is catastrophic. Older constituents have told me that they are afraid to go into Derby city centre for fear of being hit, and that is not to mention the house fires that have been caused by e-scooter batteries. Does the hon. Lady agree that the sooner we legislate to tackle illegal scooters and protect the public, the better?
In an earlier answer, the Minister talked about the fact that the summer we have just experienced has been the hottest on record, but we fear that it may look cold in comparison with what is to come in the future. As a response, a lot of my constituents are becoming very engaged with issues of the environment. I have held several MP eco-forums, and attendance at them is going up week by week. My next forum is in the next two weeks, and I can predict a question that will be put to me, so I hope that the Minister can help me by giving me the answer on the Floor of the House. What does today’s decision mean for the UK’s leadership on the global stage when it comes to tackling climate change?
The facts are that approving Jackdaw will neither lower energy bills, nor bring thousands of jobs, and it certainly will not improve the UK’s energy security, but a Government-owned company shaping the new renewables industry and exercising market control over it certainly would. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to reindustrialise the country, and when he comes to Grangemouth to meet me and the local community, we very much look forward to hearing exactly how he plans to do that for the benefit of our town. People in Grangemouth are sick, tired and exhausted of empty promises. They do not want to hear any more about energy transition funds or sovereign wealth funds, because £200 million from the National Wealth Fund has still not been spent. My people and communities across Scotland need action now. Does the Minister realise that the Labour party is in danger of losing working-class communities through inaction?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate, for his leadership on behalf of miners and also for taking the time to recognise and remember today’s anniversary. The poet Ron Cook described Aberfan as the day “when the world stood still and the mountain moved”. Aberfan was one of those tragedies that so overwhelming in its injustice that it is painful to think about, but that is precisely why it is essential to remember. My hon. Friend’s speech also brought to mind a story I read of the Victoria colliery disaster in my own constituency, where 63 men and boys were killed. The bodies were laid out in the churchyard of St John’s church in Barrhead, where the local women faced the unimaginable horror of having to identify the remains not just of a husband but of a son. I will come to what miners are owed in a moment, but it is right that we recognise at the start of this debate that those debts cannot be repaid by anyone. My hon. Friend says that this is not about money, but as we discuss money and pension schemes and their distribution, we remember that, my God, the miners earned every penny of it. As my hon. Friend will know well, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme dates back to 1946 and the mineworkers’ pension scheme to 1952. When the British Coal Board was privatised in 1994, the schemes were closed to new entrants and the remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee: the value of the fund would not decrease—this would ensure that pensions would continue to be paid—and the Government would take half of any surplus from the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus pensions. For the miners’ scheme, this surplus sharing arrangement has continued, although this Government have not taken any money from the scheme since we came to power in 2024. For the British Coal staff scheme, the surplus sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, and future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid. The aim is to return the reserve to Government in 2033. Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the campaigners who, all the way through this, have spoken up for miners, ensuring that they get what they deserve. Today, there remain almost 150,000 members of the two schemes, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Five thousand of them are in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and 37,000 are across the east midlands. The average age of members across the two schemes is 76, as hon. Members have said. The group includes 30,000 widows, with an average age of 84. We owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity, and we must acknowledge and recognise the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers, who powered this country for decades.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of miners throughout his life. I will come to the specifics of the scheme and his ask in a moment, but he is absolutely right that issues like this are exactly why all of us came into politics in the first place; we came into politics to deliver for individuals like these. Previous Governments have failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the amount of pension they deserved. In 2021, the Select Committee looking at the mineworkers’ pension scheme recommended that the Government take no further funds from the scheme, transfer the reserve to scheme members and review the surplus sharing arrangements. That Conservative Government declined to accept those recommendations, but miners, as my hon. Friend said, deserve those historical wrongs to be righted. That is why the Government are implementing those recommendations, for both schemes. We continue to guarantee both schemes, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid. As has been said, in 2024, one of the first decisions we made was to transfer the £1.5 billion investment reserve in the miners’ scheme for use as bonus pensions. The hard work of colleagues on the Labour Benches increased those incomes by 32%—an average of £29 per week. We have also transferred the £2.3 billion equivalent in the British coal staff scheme. That led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 per week in scheme members’ pockets and, as has been said, that went into local economies. That is direct support for the pensioners and local communities who powered this country for decades. However, as all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have said, there is more to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raises important questions. We are in that terrible pre-Budget period when lots of Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and ask for patience. I have to do the same, but I recognise that we are dealing with people who are incredibly advanced in years and cannot afford to wait indefinitely. We have been discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme with the trustees, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance benefits, and we have been making good progress. The Government will make an announcement once that agreement has been formally reached, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while managing wider funding risks. The Government and trustees have had very constructive discussions. I hope to be in a position to announce a way forward shortly, and I will continue to work with hon. Members towards that end. Question put and agreed to.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and the commitment to going ahead with Jackdaw. The Select Committee has heard evidence time and again about the damage done by the chaotic deindustrialisation of the ’80s, and the failure in the 2010s and early 2020s to take action in the North sea. The phrase “North sea energy wealth fund” has striking echoes with what Norway did right to avoid disastrous consequences of deindustrialisation. The Committee has heard just how important supply chain companies and North sea oil and gas workers are, and how important they will be, when working with renewables, in the future. The Minister announced the fund and the North sea transition deal. Does he agree that the fastest, most effective way of delivering the energy transition is to support existing operations, supply chains and workers in North sea and oil and gas, so that they are available as we gear up on renewables and nuclear?
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. To start off, we need to talk about the SFI scheme, which has been a painful subject in conversations I have had with my farming community. There is no way of sugaring this issue. I know that the Minister will diligently look at the process going forward, but I fear that this debate will focus on the symptoms, not the cause. The overapplication that we have seen is because profitability does not exist in the system of farming. We have so few schemes available that ensure that our farmers can get that profitability back, and we need to solve that problem. I put it to the House that one thing we should consider is removing as many financial and regulatory burdens as we can from our farming community. Let us look at our Australian colleagues, for example. The Labour Government of Australia set themselves a farm gate value of 100 billion Australian dollars by 2030, and they have hit that figure three years in advance, because they have the farming resilience fund, which they have expanded over recent years. That ensures that in good years, farmers can put aside a tax-deductible lump sum. I believe we should be pursuing that on a greater level within the United Kingdom—maybe up to £500,000 a year—but there is something that we should do differently from our Australian cousins. We should ensure that if a farmer draws down on that scheme for reservoirs, new silos and grain stores, or investment in their livestock, for example, that remains tax-deductible. I estimate that would cost the Treasury about £100 million, and it would allow us to show our farming community, in good faith, that we are giving them a leg up, not trying to cut them down. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) that we need to streamline the planning process, and not just for on-farm reservoirs; we also need to look at how we can support diversification of our farming sector. However, this debate is not just about financial issues—it is bigger. We have the veterinary reform Bill coming up as well, about which I have had quite a few conversations with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). It cannot just be about domestic animals; we also need to look at how we support our veterinary practices to ensure that we can get profitability into the farming sector, because if we do not have a secure veterinary sector, the farming sector will fall apart very quickly. The other aspect that flows from that point is biosecurity. I welcome the investment that the Government have made in our biosecurity systems over the past two years, but I still have concerns, especially about the port of Dover. A 27-mile gap until the inspection of meat and produce takes place is dangerous. When I visited the Agriculture Minister in Australia, I heard about the Australians’ concerns regarding the first flight of bird influenza to their country. They have been able to solve such problems because they take biosecurity so seriously. African swine fever is the real concern for us, and I would like it if the Minister could, in his winding-up remarks, expand on what we will be doing on that. Beyond that, we also need to look at our trade arrangements, which are addressed in today’s motion. The motion mentions the Australian and New Zealand trade deal secured by the previous Government—which has been disastrous, especially to our upland farmers—but there have been good trade deals secured by this Government, such as the Indian trade deal. To be honest with the House, as a Member representing a huge sugar beet production area of the United Kingdom, I was extremely worried that a free-for-all on Indian sugar would fundamentally undermine our market. However, the Government took the right action and ensured that there was a carve-out. They have also taken the right action with the US trade deal, giving access to the beef market but not flooding our market. I do, though, politely recommend to Government Front Benchers that we ban Brazilian beef within the UK market; that would also be a gesture of good will to our European partners, who have done exactly the same. As we approach the sanitary and phytosanitary trade agreement, which will be vital to expanding our food sector, that sort of action would be extremely helpful to the UK.
My hon. Friend makes an impassioned plea against the flag-washing that we see in the United Kingdom. One of my concerns is that we are getting into a very easy situation of exporting our morality when it comes to food production. We cannot continue down this alley of increasing our standards to a certain level while other nations are undermining theirs. All that does is put our farming communities in a situation where they cannot fight against that race to the bottom. I would appreciate it if, when the Minister winds up, he would say what discussions he and his colleagues have had with our European partners, especially on the SPS agreement, to ensure that there will be a level playing field—when, for example, neonicotinoids are used in Hungary. Also, vitally, what are they doing to ensure that there will be a long transition period in the United Kingdom? We have an issue with black-grass, and if we lose our herbicides from our market, our yields will be harmed hugely. In conclusion, today’s debate looks at the symptoms, not the causes. I urge the Minister to explain in his winding-up remarks what we are going to do to fix the underlying profitability issues.
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the huge things we must protect in the SPS agreement is precision breeding—not just the research and development aspect but how we get it to market? From other conversations we have had, I know that he has been working hard with our European colleagues. Can he explain what action he is taking to ensure we can keep precision breeding as that benefit to the UK?
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate, and in particular for underlining the potential impact of catastrophic injuries from such illegal vehicles. I will add a couple of other problems resulting from the lack of regulation in this area. There has been a reduction in sales of legal e-bikes—surely not something that we want—because of the proliferation of illegal ones. Unfortunately, we are also seeing links with exploitation in the gig economy and with criminality. There has been a catastrophic drop in the sales of L1 category motorbikes too. This problem is symbolic of people’s sense of a lack of control over their local area. It is exactly the kind of thing that the Prime Minister is getting a grip on right now, and it is important that we show leadership. My questions are all about solutions. First, when will the Department for Transport release its research into illegal e-bikes and food delivery? I believe it is due in the spring. Will the Department push for parliamentary time to talk about that? Secondly, what progress has there been on the national work-related road safety charter? Can we see some details of that? Thirdly, we need more control over the supply chain and sales of illegal e-bikes, e-scooters and conversion kits. We need oversight and enforcement. One mechanism for that would be through the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025—a number of Members have been pushing for that. It has been three months since the consultation on that; when are we going to see some outcomes?
I am sorry, but I will not, because I want to be fair to everybody else. Finally, can we please have a commitment from the Department for Transport to convene other Departments on this issue? I know that the Minister cares passionately about local people having control over their area, as he has shown in every role he has undertaken. With his Department, will he take the initiative to bring together all the Departments concerned about this problem, and will he do so before Christmas and make a big splash about it, so that people hear about it in the media and do not buy their kids these dangerous products and kits for Christmas, leading to the kinds of injuries that we have heard about?
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I am very grateful, above all, to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. This is not the first debate that we have had on this subject, even in this Chamber. Some of us have spoken on this matter many times. In fact, very sadly, it feels like some of the rest of the country is now catching up with some of the issues that we have had in Oxford East over many years. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned, those issues have been highlighted by the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee. They were also indicated by the meeting that a number of us had recently with Ofcom and the CWU, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). In my area, the root of the challenge relates to recruitment and retention—I very much agree with comments that have been made—and over time there has been increased transparency. After a certain amount of denial that there was a problem, there is now better communication, at least with my regional Royal Mail, and sometimes with national Royal Mail as well. However, there is a huge challenge. I am concerned to hear that the model that was developed in Oxford for the prioritisation of NHS mail does not seem to be operating everywhere; perhaps the Minister can look into that. That model was devised by Oxford posties to pull out that NHS mail. Again, the approaches to mail prioritisation and rotation that are sadly having to be used in Oxford because of the number of absences, and failures in recruitment and retention, do not seem to be being used everywhere.
I certainly agree. Many of us have been very frustrated that we often get stock letters back about the problems being experienced, that our constituents have to go to sorting offices and that we are not seeing the change we urgently need. Given the challenges with recruitment and retention, I have been trying to promote vacancies myself as a local MP. Three things need to happen. First, we need the national management to listen to the local posties and the CWU, because they have ideas about how to deal with this. Secondly, we need to get a grip on the unlevel playing field, especially when it comes to parcels. We all know that the volume of letters is going down, not just in the UK, but right across Europe and other industrialised countries. The parcel trade is therefore really important, but we have a farcical situation where 98% of Royal Mail workers are employees on permanent contracts, yet they do effectively exactly the same job as people who are not employed—people who are under terrible terms and conditions and are treated as if they are self-employed. We all know that is bogus. That needs to be dealt with, because it is leading to an unlevel playing field. Given the Minister’s great experience of working rights legislation, will she ensure that the consultation on bogus self-employment going on at the moment leads to the change that is needed? Finally, I urge the Minister and the Government to focus on the potential of Royal Mail. We are talking about the challenges and representing our constituents’ concerns now, but we have an amazing network in the UK, from the most northerly to the most southerly point. It proved its worth during covid. We should be doing everything we can to recognise and build on that potential. I ask them to please listen to the CWU’s proposals on that in particular.
I have also been running a local survey on this issue, and up to 80% of respondents in South East Cornwall report delays. As a rural and coastal area with a large number of elderly residents, this is a huge cause of concern. As the daughter of a postie, I know at first hand just how hard our frontline workers are working to make sure those elderly residents get what they deserve in a timely manner. What more can we do to make sure this problem is addressed?
I thank the hon. Lady for the excellent seminar she held last week, which I attended. Illegal e-motorbikes are a blight on my constituency. I have spoken to the police and to the lead police officers who she convened last week, and they say that this is the preferred vehicle of choice for organised criminals. Will she press the Minister to work with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure that non-compliant conversion kits are banned from sale as soon as possible?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I recently spoke to an A&E doctor in my constituency who had witnessed the rise in catastrophic injuries, particularly to children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that we have to get to the source and ban conversion kits to stop these deadly bikes?
I have been out with my local police, and it is clear that they do not have the powers to pursue these very fast, illegal e-bikes to detain people. Gathering evidence is often not possible because of balaclavas. Does the hon. Member recognise that the Government’s action to give the police stronger powers to seize and destroy bikes from garages and lock-ups is a proportionate response to tackling this problem at source and helping the police to do their job?
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I recently visited a delivery office in Bradford that serves my Shipley constituents, to understand how the new delivery model will work. The management reassured me that it would solve much of the litany of complaints about the late and infrequent deliveries experienced by my constituents, along with those represented by many of the Members present. Does the hon. Lady agree that, if the new delivery model does not lead to more reliable postal services, we need to look at other options, including the renationalisation of Royal Mail?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. Like many colleagues from across the House, I have received a litany of complaints from constituents. I visited my local delivery office back in the summer with a massive dossier of those complaints. That was just at the beginning of the roll-out of the new delivery model known as DM26, which the management there reassured me would solve all my constituents’ postal delays. Unfortunately, I continue to receive testimonies from constituents about the impact of late deliveries. I will share a couple of the most impactful ones. One constituent’s elderly parents live in Cottingley. The father is 82 and the mother has dementia at 79. They do not use a computer. They have missed three NHS appointments and incurred additional charges on mobile phones, and when their children tried to raise a complaint online, they found it very difficult. The second area is Crossflatts. A constituent there has had three hospital appointment letters delivered after the appointment date, and as we have heard from other Members, birthday cards have gone missing too. None of us blames the posties. They do a fantastic job, but we need to make sure that they are working in an environment that supports their health and wellbeing. We can see that there is low morale and there are high rates of sickness absence, which I hope the Minister will address in her remarks. We must also not level down. There is a real problem with the wider gig economy, and I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in asking how the Minister will address bogus self-employment in the wider parcel delivery market so that Royal Mail and its workers have a chance. I urge the Minister to really focus her remarks on the fact that Royal Mail is a failing company. It is in financial distress. We have a regulatory model with Ofcom that is clearly not working. The financial penalties are not working. Ofcom is almost at the limit of its powers to force Royal Mail management to get its act together and address these problems. We have changed the universal service obligation once. We have introduced this new delivery model, or at least Royal Mail is introducing this new delivery model. If we get to April next year and there is still a failure to meet that USO, will the Minister look at radical options, including the nationalisation of Royal Mail?
In rural areas, posties are often already doing extremely long routes. Does the shadow Minister recognise that the new delivery model is breaking up some of the continuity that postal workers have with their communities and making some rural rounds less manageable for them?
In addition to meeting Ofcom, as the Minister mentioned, we also met the leadership of the CWU. It is clear that postal workers are coming forward with ideas about how the business could be reformed. I hope the Minister will assure us that she is urging Royal Mail’s leadership to sit down with the CWU to consider some of the more radical, long-term options for reforming our Royal Mail.
6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill on access to justice for victims and survivors of the troubles.
The Bill we passed last night gives the Attorney General of England and Wales the power to override decisions on troubles-related prosecutions, yet the Secretary of State told the House yesterday: “This is not to take anything away from the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 1018.] But that is precisely what the Bill does. The Attorney General could effectively overrule a decision by Northern Ireland’s independent Public Prosecution Service. How can the Secretary of State reconcile that with the 2000 criminal justice review that flowed from the Good Friday agreement, which deliberately removed political interference from prosecution decisions?
Today we welcome the Sultan of Oman on the occasion of the state visit, which is an opportunity to recognise the deep and historic ties between our countries and the vital role they have played regarding the strait of Hormuz. As you say, Mr Speaker, today also marks the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with that community today and with the people of Wales. I visited Aberfan on Monday and heard how the injustices the people suffered at the time and in the aftermath of the tragedy at the hands of the state still hurt. This is a day to recognise that and say sorry for it, but also to celebrate the strength and spirit of the community that has stood together through adversity all of these years. I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others this morning. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and recognise his sincerity and personal experience in this regard. We have a national cancer plan to drive the improvements that he calls for. As part of that, we are also establishing an independent national cancer board, which I will ask to look at his proposal. Last week I met Archie Goodburn, with the Health Secretary, to look at how we can make the UK a world leader in trials for brain cancer treatments. There is huge progress, but we can work with him to deliver more.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question. I think we all feel for Emma, given the position she is in. I can give him an assurance that she and many thousands of others up and down the country need wait no longer for leasehold reform. We will bring forward the leasehold reform Bill as soon as possible—hopefully this year.
Can we get something straight at the start of Prime Minister’s questions today? We have made a decision that the right hon. Lady’s Government messed up. That is why there was the delay: because they did not do the process properly. We have made a pragmatic decision that will allow us to do two things. First, it will allow us to build a bridge to a renewable future, because the resources that come in from this decision will allow us to invest in renewables, bring forward clean energy and, in this Parliament, substantially delink gas and electricity prices so that we can bring bills down. It will also allow us to do more to help people with bills. I can tell the House today that I have asked the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary to look at whether we can remove standing charges from gas bills and to report back to this House at the earliest opportunity.
Can I find a point of agreement with the right hon. Lady? This decision does strengthen our energy security. It will release gas into British homes and British industries, starting in the next few weeks, and it supports us in a difficult time. I appreciate that she wants us to take further decisions that she messed up when she was in government, but can I make something really clear? The reason why they messed up those decisions is because they are quasi-judicial decisions. We will run those decisions properly. The Energy Secretary considered that decision against our climate obligations and concluded that it was consistent, and she will oversee the same process in relation to future decisions.
On energy, can I just say to the right hon. Lady that she is displaying for the House and the nation today why the Conservatives got those decisions wrong, because she and they did not give any regard to our climate obligations? These things have to be considered in the round, and they have been considered in the round. That is why the decision the Government have made is the right decision. On the economy, I am not sure that the right hon. Lady has read last week’s report from the International Monetary Fund, because if she had read it, she would see its clear conclusion that Britain is the stand-out nation for deficit reduction and the joint fastest growing country in the G7. Britain is the country that, only yesterday, saw unemployment down and improved labour market statistics. It is time that the right hon. Lady talked the country up, rather than constantly talking it down.
The right hon. Lady asks me about cutting spending. I did exactly that on my first day in office with the digital ID programme, so that we could take action to support people and remove VAT from electricity bills, which is what we have delivered—a tax cut. The right hon. Lady asks about the big decisions, and I want to come directly back to what she is saying. I am not going to apologise for doing the small things that help people have better lives, but I also take the big decisions that the Conservatives have avoided for many years. Let me go directly to one: social care. I grasped the nettle in a way that nobody on their side ever has. I made a difficult spending decision to lay a path towards a national care service. Have they had the time to read the covid inquiry report yesterday about the appalling state of social care as it went into the pandemic, the hundreds of thousands of British people who suffered as a result of that, and the lives that were lost? I need no lectures from the Conservatives about taking tough decisions on social care. I suggest they go away from this PMQs, read that report and have a period of reflection.
I do not think the right hon. Lady was listening to what I said. I did take a difficult decision to lay a path to the national care service, and it involves a change to the triple lock. I am happy to stand at this Dispatch Box and defend that, because I am confident that we should support older people financially, but with better social care support in later life. That is my decision. I am happy to stand here and defend it. Where is the Conservatives’ decision on social care? When are they going to respond to what the report said yesterday? On welfare, I will do the same. I do not want to see anybody in their 20s on benefits in this country; I want to see them in work, in training, in education. That is the reform that we will bring forward on the back of the Milburn report. The right hon. Lady mentions inflation. She may notice that there is a situation ongoing in the middle east of which we do not have full control. What I can say to her is that the fundamentals of the British economy are getting stronger and stronger under this Government. We will take the right long-term decisions. She should wait for the Budget, when she will see that laid out in this House.
As I have said, there are signs of growing strength in the British economy. Before the Budget next week, we will have a new book published about the mini-Budget of a few years ago. Opposition Members have gone quiet, because the authors of that mini-Budget are sitting on the Opposition Benches, including the shadow Chancellor. Does anybody on this side or anybody around the country believe that party, of all parties? The Conservatives have the audacity to come to this House and lecture us about how to do a Budget. People in this country—British households—are still paying the price of their disastrous Budget.
We agree that the scenes from Gaza and the west bank are deeply distressing, and that is why the Foreign Secretary has taken the action that he has. We will not stand by when the viability of the two-state solution is threatened, and he has made a further statement in relation to that this week. The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based process that came before this House and was endorsed by Parliament. The matter is a live legal case, so I will not comment further.
We have ahead of us a UK-EU summit on 20 November. It is an opportunity for the House to come together and get a good deal for food producers, for farmers in this country and for Northern Ireland in relation to energy costs there, as well as, hopefully, more co-operation on illegal migration. It is an opportunity to take an important step back to secure growth in the British economy and more control of migration. I am picking up the message that the right hon. Gentleman will give us that support. We are already working to reduce the risks from the Made in Europe initiative, and we are making good progress there. If the House were to come together—I wait for the party opposite to do so—it would put me in the strongest position to go to that summit and get a good deal for British farmers and British food producers, which is exactly what they need.
Of course I have concerns about any move that diminishes the military capability of Ukraine in the position in which it finds itself. The right hon. Gentleman is right about that, and I am sure that the sentiment is echoed throughout this country, but the situation is currently fragile and needs careful handling. There were talks in Oslo yesterday at which the UK Government were represented. We need to handle the situation carefully so that we can bring back all sides to get the support behind President Zelensky and Ukraine. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the UK Government are working on every single level to bring that about.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this condition in the House. I know that women across the country suffer terribly with it, and often feel that they are not seen and not listened to when it comes to the treatment that they need. Our women’s health strategy sets out precisely how we will improve treatment for conditions that uniquely or disproportionately affect women, including endometriosis. It is about redesigning clinical pathways and removing the need for repeat appointments. There is a lot to do, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this is very high on the Government's agenda.
The gas would still be needed; it would just be imported from somewhere else if we did not use our own reserves. In these difficult times, when we have resources, the public would expect us to use them to secure jobs in Aberdeen, and I am sure that people in Aberdeen appreciate what has been announced. There is, however, a big difference between an ideological approach, which is what the hon. Lady is putting to the House, and a pragmatic approach, which is what I am announcing today. The truth of the matter is, the revenue that comes into the Treasury from this decision will enable us to speed up the roll-out of renewables and build towards a clean energy future. In the end, that will help us delink gas and electricity prices and get bills down.