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
I support updating the framework for funding air navigation services. Will the Minister explain how the changes will ensure that costs are shared fairly among those who benefit, with proper scrutiny on charges and a clear expectation that the money supports a reliable service?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this critical debate. He has been a champion in pursuing long overdue reform to the upper Chamber. Let me start by saying, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, that I have had the privilege of working with a number of excellent peers who are deeply committed to legislative scrutiny and improving our legislation. There are many members of the Lords who perform a vital public service. But good people can still be trapped in a bad system, and the public can see that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said, why is it acceptable in this country for lawmakers in the upper House to work as lobbyists at the same time? How can the public be expected to trust the system when those shaping legislation can also be paid to influence it? In my old life as a compliance officer, that would not have passed the most basic conflict of interest test and it should not pass such a test in Parliament. Transparency International UK has gone so far as to call the House of Lords: “a lobbying network for hire.” If that does not set alarm bells ringing—Transparency International UK is the true expert—I do not know what will.
I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to talk about kangaroo courts in Hong Kong and to say that UK lawmakers should not be complicit in supporting them. While we are asking difficult questions, here is another one: why is it possible to be appointed to the legislature of the United Kingdom and then barely show up? I can think of no other workplace where someone can disappear for months, sometimes even years, and still retain the right to walk back in and take part in making decisions that affect millions of people. An honour should come with responsibilities; membership of Parliament should not be a lifetime pass with no expectation of participation. Then there is the size of the place. With about 800 peers— 800—the House of Lords is larger than almost every comparable second chamber in the democratic world. When people talk about a bloated state, perhaps they should start by walking through Westminster Hall and turning right at Central Lobby. Nobody seriously believes that adding more peers automatically leads to better scrutiny; what it does lead to is a system that looks increasingly detached from the public it serves. Also, who gets to participate? The overwhelming majority of working peers are based in London and the south-east, and it is not right that, for example, the north-west— my region—is so under-represented. However, it is hardly surprising, given that the accommodation allowance is £125 a night. That sounds reasonable, but try finding somewhere to stay in central London at that rate. The result is obvious: those with substantial means, or those who live close enough to commute, have a built-in advantage. We should not have a legislature that prices out talents from the nations and regions. Then there is the transparency. Why do peers not have to declare how much time they spend on outside employment compared with their parliamentary duties? Why do they not have to declare how much they are paid for those jobs? The public are entitled to know where lawmakers are earning their money, and who could be influencing them. Elsewhere on standards, the new legislation on disgraced peers, announced in the last King’s Speech, is long overdue. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that proposal? Elsewhere, what progress has been made on the Government’s three other manifesto commitments: first, introducing new participation requirements; secondly, delivering a national and regional balance for the upper Chamber; and finally, and most importantly, reforming the appointments process? Removing the worst offenders is not the same as fixing the system that allowed them through the door, which is why we need stronger suitability and propriety checks through the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The reforms should include putting HOLAC on a statutory footing and giving it an effective veto on demonstrably unsuitable appointments. Let us tackle one final issue head-on: why should major party donors be rewarded with lifelong seats in the legislature? Public appointments should be earned through service and expertise, not purchased through cheque books. The House of Lords does important work, but many diligent and hard-working peers feel that they are having their reputations dragged through the mud by certain individuals who are exploiting, or who are sometimes actively enabled by, a broken system. We need a smaller House, a cleaner House and a more transparent House. That is not radical; surely it is just common sense.
Meur ras, Sir Christopher; it is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for adopting this important debate. It will not surprise him that I am going to talk largely about Cornwall. Across Cornwall, our beautiful coastlines hide some of the deepest pockets of deprivation in the country. That deprivation and the lack of opportunity is felt most sharply by our young people. In my constituency, we have neighbourhoods where the child poverty rate is over 40%. Equally concerning is the number of young people claiming unemployment benefit, which is up 39% in the last year alone. But there is hope on the horizon for Cornwall. Our critical minerals sector offers an incredible opportunity to create well-paid, highly skilled jobs that our young people and communities need, all while strengthening the country’s industrial resilience and supporting the transition to a green economy. However, we will realise that opportunity only if young people are equipped with the skills that our local economy and businesses need. To that end, we are moving in the right direction. In September, the new Engineering Mining Academy was launched at Cornwall college, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted, in partnership with Cornish Metals, based at the South Crofty tin mine. The academy’s location could hardly be better, as it is moments around the corner from South Crofty, which was the last tin mine in the UK to close and is now on course to reopen after 30 years. As projects like South Crofty and the Agratas battery gigafactory advance, demand for mining and manufacturing skills will only grow. I therefore welcome the academy’s focus not only on the engineering and technical skills associated with modern mining, but on transferable skills that create a clear pathway into apprenticeships, employment or further study: welding, construction, carpentry, electronics, plumbing—a lifetime trade for our young people with their hands. Those are the partnerships with industry that we must champion to support our critical minerals and downstream manufacturing sectors. They create good jobs and give young people the aspiration and opportunity to raise their horizons and to build their futures in Cornwall. I therefore ask the Minister to consider what further steps can be taken to realise Cornwall’s potential as the UK’s critical minerals skills hub.
Will the Minister give way?
The announcements over the past two months relating to post-14 skills have been largely targeted at mayoral strategic authorities. Some 48% of the country is not in a mayoral strategic authority, and Cornwall never will be. Does the Minister agree that funding and flexibility for post-14 skills need to be spread across every postcode, not just in mayoral strategic authorities?
rose—
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us this debate. Does she agree that, with over a thousand children in kinship care in Cornwall, kinship carers play a vital role in keeping vulnerable children in loving family networks, and that when 45% of kinship carers lose their job after taking on the care of a child, we must do more to ensure that those carers receive the support that they need?
I declare an interest as the chair for the all-party parliamentary group on aviation.
Does the Minister find it as curious as I do that the Conservative party tabled amendment 5? It is all about having a smaller state, more effective regulation and competition in the aviation industry, but requiring the affirmative procedure for such matters would put us out of whack with other markets.
Similarly to my hon. Friends who have just spoken, we have serious issues at Newquay airport about connectivity, so I welcome the suggestion on local transport connectivity that promoting alternative modalities will be part of the review, but to what extent will the Minister join up that review with the other work he is doing more broadly to support smaller regional airports through, for example, the review of the public service obligation, which is so necessary for airports like Newquay to be able to bid in a more flexible way?
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about his constituents who are off-gas; likewise, I have a number of constituents in my Carlisle constituency who are off-gas. Recently the committee of a village hall—Hallbankgate village hall—came to talk to me about their ambition to move off the heating oil system and instal solar, but storing the energy—the heat—in a sand battery. I do not know whether he has come across that before, but does he agree that whatever the scale or technology—be it pump or small sand batteries—the Government’s long-term storage strategy needs to be technology-neutral, so that we maximise as many of these different technologies as possible?
My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. I want to go further on the point about investment and the comparison between kinship care and foster care that she mentioned earlier. One of my constituents has been a kinship carer for three children for nine years. She is also a foster carer for her grandson. She reports that because of his legal status, it has been easier for her to access the support she needs for him than for the three children she cares for as a kinship carer. Does my hon. Friend agree that introducing paid employment leave for kinship carers is not about special treatment, but about equal treatment?
T8. I had the pleasure last week of meeting Her Majesty the Queen to discuss the importance of having fracture liaison services in every NHS trust, to which this Government have already committed. On World Osteoporosis Day, will the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking to develop the long-overdue national implementation plan for universal access to fracture prevention services by 2030?
1. What recent discussions she has had with the interim leadership of the Northern Care Alliance NHS foundation trust.
My constituents are very concerned about Northern Care Alliance hospitals. Across the trust, there were 10 serious incidents between 2025 and 2026 that were found to be wholly preventable, lengthy delays causing severe harm to patients and industrial action, culminating in a sustained decline in performance and national rankings on patient safety. What options are therefore on the table if the trust does not show urgent signs of improvement?
Clause 19 introduces some quite fundamental changes, which I fully support, but is the Minister confident that it will still meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights? That is the litmus test.
Having listened to some contributions, particularly from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, I think that most fair-minded people would be concerned that these reforms could have a detrimental impact on children. Can the Minister confirm whether or not these reforms remove protections for children?
This Government have been working to rebuild the NHS dental service since we came to office. The latest data shows that 37.6 million courses of dental treatment were delivered last year—nearly 3 million more than at the time of the general election.
The hon. Member raises an important point—that is a theme in the work I am doing. Last year, 81% of those who wanted to get an NHS dentist were able to, but I recognise that too often people have to have an existing relationship with an NHS dentist to access that. Since the general election, the Government’s effort to tackle dental deserts has seen us ringfence £4 billion for NHS dentistry. Huge amounts have been done, but there is even more to do, and he has the Government’s and my attention on this matter.
I thank my hon. Friend and welcome her back from maternity leave—what a time that is. I know that she has been campaigning relentlessly on the issue of dental schools, but also on addressing the dental deserts that we speak about so frequently. The east of England and south-east dental schools are incoming and will start to take on new students in September 2027. I look forward to their playing a part in strengthening dental provision locally.
We want every cancer patient to benefit from high-quality radiotherapy regardless of where they live. There has always been a need to balance the objective of providing care closer to each person’s home with the imperative of maintaining access to the specialist expertise and technology needed for safe, effective treatment.
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about this matter. A theme is developing of the demands on treatment in rural and coastal communities, where people are expected to travel further, particularly those facing radiotherapy. It is the responsibility of ICBs, supported by our national guidance, to strike the balance that I spoke of between population needs, geography and inequalities. I understand that there have been recent exchanges between him and his ICB. I am happy to have a conversation with him about that and to lean into what options are available hereafter.
It is an honour to have the opportunity to respond to the champion for Harlow. It also presents me with the opportunity to make clear that, contrary to reports over the summer, should men suspect that they have symptoms, they can go to their GP and seek a PSA—prostate-specific antigen—test for prostate cancer. This is the first Government to launch a men’s health strategy, and there is more information to come. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House who have a strong record on this matter.
I recognise that too many of my hon. Friend’s constituents are struggling to secure an NHS dentist, despite the improvements that have already been made. Responsibility for commissioning dentistry sits with the local integrated care board, and I encourage him—through me, by all means—to reach out to the ICB and have a conversation with it. The Government have provided £4 billion in ringfenced funding for NHS dentistry, which has gone some way towards making the improvements we have seen, but there is plenty more to do, and my hon. Friend has my attention.
I thank the hon. Member for his excellent question. The Government are protecting choice in the Health Bill. It is a chance also to affirm the independent sector and the vital role that it plays. Optometry is not an add on to the NHS; it is an important part of the health ecosystem. I am happy to have further conversations with him.
The first nation status that we have with US pharma is an advance on the usual relationships—it comes with huge benefits—but I should be happy to take away more specific concerns that the hon. Gentleman may have following a conversation after today.
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Ensuring sustainable supply for so sensitive a medicine to address epilepsy is uppermost in my mind. It is a live situation, I am working at pace with officials, and I will update her accordingly.
I will, of course.
Medicine supply chains are complicated, global and highly regulated. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about price and prospective profiteering, I would be very happy to speak with him in more detail. The overwhelming majority of medicines are in good supply.
The Government remain committed to longer-term reform of the dental contract. We have to look much more at the outcomes that we are commissioning, and not simply concentrate on units of activity, which have not aged well and are part of the problem that we are trying to address.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing the debate. He and I have talked about this issue many times, but I never tire of it. As he rightly said in his speech, it is an incredibly exciting opportunity for the highlands and an important opportunity for the country. I always know that winter is coming when the hon. Gentleman’s jumpers make a reappearance. I am a big fan of them, and it is great to see him here today. He is a great champion of his constituency, which covers an enormous part of Scotland. However, having run the Arisaig to Mallaig half-marathon, I would say that he has a significant amount of very beautiful sand in his constituency. This has been an interesting debate. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points about long duration energy storage, but we have also heard about its cousins, such as pumped hydro and sand batteries, which is about storing energy through heat rather than in more conventional ways. It is important to be agnostic about the new technologies that are coming forward all the time and becoming ever more developed. We need a significant amount of flexibility in our system to be able to store and utilise the clean power that we are generating when we need it most. We should be open to a whole range of technologies, so I am very happy to have more conversations about all of them. The hon. Gentleman made a strong case for the importance of long duration electricity storage. Over decades we have built a significant amount of renewable energy generation across the UK, both offshore and onshore, but we have not kept pace with being able to store that electricity for when we need it most, which has meant that our electricity system cannot get the full benefit of the clean, cheap, secure power that is being generated every single day. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have to spend considerable amounts of money on constraining that renewable capacity, because we did not build the grid. We have not built the necessary storage, so our transition to being able to deploy clean power when we need it requires much more flexibility, which comes from long duration energy storage. I recently visited the pumped hydro project in Cruachan, which follows a well-trodden path of technology that we have deployed for a very long time. Pumped hydro lasts for a long time, is an important part of how we deliver long duration energy storage and will play a critical role in balancing supply and demand. In June, Ofgem published its minded-to list for window 1 of the cap and floor scheme. That was a significant milestone for the sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter)—there is a double act of Members with long constituency names——about the ambition on long duration energy storage, but I would also say that this is the first long duration energy storage we have built in Britain in 40 years, and it is a significant amount: 7.5 gigawatts of capacity is not nothing. We remain really ambitious. He is right to say that future scenarios require even more long duration energy storage, but this is a remarkable turnaround from a 40-year gap in building any of these projects anywhere in the country. Ofgem has provisionally selected 16 projects. It has made minded-to decisions, but a consultation process is running. Three projects are pumped storage hydropower in Scotland, representing over half the LDES capacity. Ofgem will announce its final decision on those projects by the end of the year. When they are delivered, they will reduce costs for consumers by maximising our renewable energy generation to make it available when we need it at peak times and reducing our reliance on natural gas, which is the part of the constraints that is often misunderstood in the press. The cost does not come from turning off wind; it comes from turning up gas somewhere else in the country. If we deploy LDES in the way we intend to, we will be able to reduce that dependency on costly gas generation. I understand that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire agrees with me on the need for long duration energy storage—we have had this conversation many times—but he also rightly wants to make sure that his community benefits from these projects. Their construction in itself creates a significant number of jobs over several years. That is expected to begin by next year and continue into the early 2030s. One project that he mentioned, Loch Earba, will create approximately 600 jobs over its five-year construction period, including at least 30 new apprenticeships. It is estimated that another project, Loch Kemp, will create 370 jobs in the highlands at peak construction. It has committed £7.5 million to a community fund, and to investing in projects such as the Caledonian canal and local roads. The hon. Gentleman also rightly made the point about local supply chains and making sure we are delivering as much of the economic benefit of those projects in local communities. The single most important thing my Department has been driving in two and a half years in relation to the construction of these projects is no longer to be agnostic about where we build things as a country, because we actually care about industrial strategy. I have been very clear with all developers that expect to receive public money that they should look at every single part of their procurement to ensure, even down to the smallest contracts, that they procure locally as much as possible. I recognise that that is a shift from where we have been for a long time as a country, but it is critical because that is where we get supply chain jobs right across the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Let me come to that point, because we have discussed that before. My starting point is that communities who host infrastructure should feel the benefits of it, and they should be meaningful benefits. We consulted on how we will deliver both community benefits and shared-ownership opportunities for communities. We have put £1 billion pounds into Great British Energy to make sure that there is the financial capacity for communities to take up that shared-ownership offer. We will continue to push that. I have spoken before about the need for us to balance that though; ultimately, all the costs of building these projects is borne by consumers across the country. The hon. Gentleman and I share the objective of bringing down bills as much as possible. There is a balance to be struck and I do not pretend that is easy because his community—he is right to champion them—will rightly want more and more community benefits. My job is to balance that against the cost of these projects. I need first to ensure that they are economical and will be built, because that is important for the national interest, and secondly that they are built as affordably as possible so that we can bring down bills for everyone. There is a balance to be struck, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before. I know that the hon. Gentleman will always want us to go further, but I would just say that the cap and floor scheme is designed to provide not huge public subsidy to make these projects happen, but just the right amount to make them viable. That is the key thing; the cap and floor scheme is designed to be a viability mechanism, so there is a risk that we end up using consumer bills to subsidise projects if we go too far. That does not mean that I do not share his ambition, and I have been very clear with developers that we should see genuine community benefits coming forward and that those should be meaningful for communities.
I thought the hon. Member was going to conclude by asking whether I would commit to putting some pressure on the Scottish Government, which would be unlike him. But I agree with him, actually. I have had a number of really productive conversations with Stephen Gethins, Scotland’s Energy Minister, on exactly that topic of how we can make these projects work for local communities. If we can bring that local investment into roads and other infrastructure, it leaves that legacy that I think we all want to see in communities. It is also of benefit to the projects, which will need some investment in road infrastructure anyway. In summing up, I want to pick out two issues. First, I really welcome the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire’s recognition of the importance of long duration energy storage for our system. The truth of the past few years has been a recognition that, for decades, we had a consensus on building renewables across Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, but we did not make the investment that we should have in building the grid to connect them. We are now paying the price for that. Equally, storage is absolutely central to how renewables can work in the system, giving us the flexibility to deploy that energy when we need it most and making sure that we are genuinely bringing cleaner, cheaper power to homes and businesses when we need it, which is how we bring down bills. It also has to be the foundation of delivering economic growth. The hon. Gentleman rightly recognised the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode. Energy policy does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of our industrial strategy. We are building these extraordinarily important projects that will last for more than a century. There has to be some legacy for communities from those projects, and we have to bring people with us on this journey. I frequently say in this place in particular, but in the main Chamber as well, that we do need to build infrastructure as a country—that is important—but we should try to bring communities with us wherever we possibly can. Community benefits and real investment are a critical part of that. The Scottish Government are clearly a key partner in this, given that planning decisions in Scotland are not for me but for the Scottish Government. I know that they share my ambition about the importance of both deploying long duration energy storage and community benefits. They have guidance on this matter, and we are working together on it. Whether it is through community benefit funds, the bill discounts that we have announced in terms of electricity infrastructure, or our ongoing work to make sure that there is an industrial benefit from these projects, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, while we might not get everything quite to the extent that he would like, these projects are an opportunity for communities to benefit from construction, from community benefits and from—I hope—a genuine lasting legacy. Importantly for us as a country, this is how we deliver the secure, home-grown clean power that we need in the system, bring down bills for people and continue the transition to net zero, which is so important. I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire again, and I look forward to what I am certain will be further conversations on this in due course. Question put and agreed to.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am really pleased to have secured this debate, and I am grateful to the colleagues who have come to participate in it. Statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers is an important and pressing matter, not only to those in the Chamber but to thousands of households, and it goes to the heart of the Government’s aim to support families and ensure that no child is left behind. When a child can no longer live with their parents, it is often grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or close family friends who step forward to offer them a loving home. Across the UK, more than 150,000 children are growing up in kinship care, and many have experienced trauma, loss or significant upheaval. At precisely the moment they need stability and reassurance, the people offering them that security can find themselves facing an impossible choice between caring for a child they love and keeping their job. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, I have heard numerous accounts from young people and carers of just how much of a difference a family safety net can make to a child’s life outcomes.
The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point on behalf of his constituents. Over 40% of those foster care placements are kinship arrangements. That is a significant number of families, and they should not be forced to decide between continuing to work or looking after a child. The decision is not a difficult one—their decision will always be to look after a child who comes to them in traumatic circumstances. We should not rely on kinship carers taking unpaid leave, which can put in jeopardy their career, their household finances and the security with which the child moves into their home. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
We are very popular! I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the Lady.
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The concern for kinship carers is that they either have to give up work voluntarily or fall foul of their employer’s terms and conditions merely by taking on the moral duty of caring for a child. Introducing statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers would send a signal in society that we recognise the importance of family arrangements and that those family arrangements extend not just to birth parents, adoptive parents or foster parents, but to kinship families as well.
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. She is right—as she so often is—that we should not expect these carers to rely on the good will of their employers. The Government have made good strides in having the term “kinship” recognised across Government. We now have the ambassador and pilots across the country, which I will come to later. Strides have been made, but to have this codified and recognised legislatively would spread the word. There have been good examples of private sector employers offering paid leave for kinship carers, which is incredibly welcome, but they need to be as aware as they can be. It is much easier to notify the public sector of changes through Government, but the private sector might not always be so aware. There is a big opportunity if the Government are prepared to consider this closely and bring forward the outcome of the review that they are undertaking. We celebrated Kinship Care Week earlier this month. I was pleased to welcome the Minister for children and families—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—to Blundell Park in Cleethorpes to meet some of our remarkable and dedicated local kinship carers and impressive council staff from the children’s services team. I am proud to have secured north-east Lincolnshire as one of the seven areas selected for the Government’s new kinship zones programme. We have already seen more than 450 children in north-east Lincolnshire benefit from a pilot of wraparound, integrated social services support and a financial package on a par with foster carers. The conversations I had that day remind us how much more there is to do. Kinship care arrangements often happen with little or no warning. Families can be given as little as an hour to decide whether they can take in a child—or several children—with whom they may not have the closest of relationships. They may have children of their own or other family responsibilities in the home. There is enormous emotional pressure and often a sense of guilt when the alternative may be sending a child formally to enter the care system.
My hon. Friend is right that this is a real opportunity—a pivotal moment, really—for the Government to put right a long-standing inequity in provision for different family arrangements. I look forward to the Minister setting out in more detail how far the Government have got with looking at that review, and when we can hope to see an outcome. Once a decision is made by the carer, children can arrive with little more than the clothes they are wearing. Carers may have no knowledge of their medical or dietary needs. Suddenly, they find themselves navigating school arrangements. It could be a grandmother navigating school arrangements, when the difference in systems is vast, and coping with new appointments and the needs of a traumatised child, often with little practical support.