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

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   The Bill is very much designed to complement and work alongside the measures in the Localism Act 2011. I am proud that the then coalition Government introduced the system of assets of community value in the Act; this Government then extended some of those provisions in their English devolution Act. The Bill will not replace or supplant any of those measures, but it will recognise that communities have that power—they have generally gone through what is still not an easy process to navigate only when they have been aware of a clear and direct threat, by which time, as we saw with the Crooked House, it can be far too late for that to matter. The Bill therefore extends some of the provisions to cover all the heritage pubs on the heritage pub register. Clause 8 includes a fair compensation mechanism for owners if listing is ultimately refused, ensuring proper balance and property safeguards—again, copying the system introduced in Wales. Finally, clause 11 would kill speculative development at source. It creates a strict presumption against planning permission for change of use of any registered pub. Clearly, the national planning policy framework has raised the bar for change of use for heritage buildings and many pubs, but having the protection in primary legislation—clearly in an Act of Parliament—will be more effective. We have all seen cases in which our own local councils and planning authorities have looked at some of the provisions of the NPPF that we thought were safeguards against inappropriate development and decided that those were not as strong as we had imagined or as we had thought they were intended to be when introduced. The Bill overcomes that by putting the presumption into primary legislation so that permission cannot be granted unless the owner can prove that the property has been marketed at an independent and fair price and no pub operator or community bid has emerged. If the buyers of the Crooked House had known that they could never convert the site into an alternative development or waste depot, I do not think they would have touched it, and it would have remained in hands dedicated to pulling pints.

   Hansard source
2. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   That is not directly part of the Bill, but it is an issue that affects a large number of tenanted pubs across the country, whether heritage or more modern, and is certainly something the Pubs Code Adjudicator needs to look at. The Government may wish to consider whether that needs to change at the next review of the pubs code. The hon. Gentleman may have been optimistic in suggesting that I was drawing to a close. Turning to the Treasury Bench and the Minister, let me say that I know how the machinery of Government works. I know that somewhere in the departmental briefcase today is a neatly typed briefing folder with the word “resist” stamped across the top. Civil servants and officials are famously ingenious at finding 27 procedural reasons why a sensible idea cannot possibly be enacted on a Friday from a private Member’s Bill that they did not think of. They will agonise over definitions and claim that existing powers are entirely sufficient, even when the rubble of our heritage proves that they are not. I say in all sincerity to the Minister, who I know cares deeply about this issue, that she does not need to resist the Bill. This issue should be above narrow party divides. I do not want to panic our Liberal Democrat colleagues, but I make an open, unreserved—one may even call it comprehensive—offer to the Government and colleagues on all sides of the House to support the Bill on Second Reading today and let us work collaboratively ahead of Committee stage. If hon. Members across the House agree on the central premise that our historic pubs are precious, that there are gaps in the current protections and that we should act to close those gaps before even more valued heritage pubs are lost forever, then the right and proper course today is to grant the Bill its Second Reading and work with me to make it the best Bill it can be. The Second Reading debate is when we discuss the principle of the Bill; the detailed scrutiny belongs in Committee. Let us be entirely realistic about the parliamentary arithmetic: under the Standing Orders, the Government will have a clear, 11 to six majority on the Public Bill Committee. They will have complete control. If Ministers feel that certain definitions in clause 12 need refinement, that the timelines in clause 9 need tweaking or that the council duties in clause 1 need streamlining, the Government have the votes to agree those amendments with ease. I stand ready to work with the Minister, line by line, clause by clause, to agree amendments that give the Government the comfort they need while giving our heritage pubs the protection the public demands. What we cannot do, and what our constituents will not forgive us for doing, is to walk away, hide behind procedural excuses and leave the door wide open for the next historic pub to be bulldozed on a Sunday night. Nothing we do today can undo the heartbreak felt across my constituency and the wider region when the Crooked House fell, but by passing this Bill we can ensure that its enduring legacy is a legal shield that protects every beloved historic pub across England for generations to come.

   Hansard source
3. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   I thank the hon. Lady for the point she is making. She will see in clause 12 that one of the criteria given for what makes up a heritage pub is it having been around for 150 years, but the other part of the definition is if “the local planning authority deems its building or interior to have a degree of heritage significance”. It has been well established that “heritage significance” includes links to events and famous people in the past, so it will cover the type of event she was speaking about earlier. If she thinks that that definition needs to be broadened, will she work with me to find the right amendment in Committee to improve the Bill, so that it does what she and I want it to do?

   Hansard source
4. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   The whole point is that it really is not different—large parts of it are copied directly from what the Government introduced for assets of community value. As I said in my opening speech, though, in most cases community groups do not go through the quite complex process of getting the building facility registered as an asset of community value until there is a direct threat that they know about, as we saw with the Crooked House and as we may yet see with pubs such as the Macbeth in the hon. Lady’s constituency, which I do not think is currently an asset of community value. If those pubs came under threat, it would almost certainly be too late for the community to respond and get the community right to buy. This Bill would make sure that that right is available from day one for these really important historic pubs in the hon. Lady’s constituency and in mine.

   Hansard source
5. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   The hon. Lady is talking about some outstanding pubs in her constituency, but does she recognise that, because the Hurt Arms is neither listed as an asset of community value nor a registered listed building with statutory protection, it would have next to no protections without the provisions in the Bill, even after the improvements in the framework? Will she think again and support the Bill, so that pubs in her constituency such as the Hurt Arms can benefit from the community right to buy that she has spoken of?

   Hansard source
6. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   The hon. Lady is speaking about the local heritage listing, but does she recognise that it does not protect the interior of pubs? It does not stop anyone from going into any of those pubs tomorrow and ripping out historic beams, fittings or anything that is not physically part of the bricks and mortar of the building.

   Hansard source
7. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question. The answer is that the procedure and timelines in the Bill are exactly the same as those the Government introduced for assets of community value in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. Community groups will have eight weeks to register an expression of interest, and then up to 18 months to get the bid together and complete the negotiations. As I said, if they are not able to agree the price because of an unreasonable demand from the seller, then—just as with assets of community value—the independent valuer can set the price.

   Hansard source
8. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   The hon. Lady spoke about the Ferry Tavern in her constituency—an 18th century pub, like the Crooked House was—which is not an asset of community value. Does she think that is because her residents do not care about it, or is it because of a failure on the part of the council or a gap in the system?

   Hansard source
9. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

   Heritage Public Houses Bill

   The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of important and valuable pubs in his constituency, but none of them seems to be an asset of community value. That system has been in place for 15 years. If it is an effective protection, why does he think so few communities have registered their important pubs as assets of community value? What has prevented them from doing so?

   Hansard source
10. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Mike Wood

    Heritage Public Houses Bill

    claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

    Hansard source
11. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

    Heritage Public Houses Bill

    On the subject of custard pies, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
12. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

    Heritage Public Houses Bill

    The hon. Member is making a very long speech, which is ranging widely, and I have slightly lost the thread. If this private Member’s Bill went to a vote, would he vote for it, against it or abstain?

    Hansard source
13. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

    Drought Conditions: England

    I thank the Minister for her statement. Can I be helpful? I have half of London’s drinking water in my constituency. While some benefits of floating solar are well known—they are twice as efficient as land-based systems and have none of the opportunity costs of putting solar panels on agricultural land—one of the less well-known benefits is that it reduces evaporation by 70%. I did not notice the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in the list of ministries in her taskforce. Will she work further across Government to encourage water companies to install floating solar? Some farmers are doing that where they have planning permission for reservoirs.

    Hansard source
14. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

    Heritage Public Houses Bill

    On my way home last night, I popped in at the Three Horseshoes in Shepperton—because it is on the way. This morning, when I was driving into work with my wife, she said, “What are you doing in Parliament today?” I said, “I am supporting the British pub industry.” She said, deadpan, “Trust me, you’re doing your bit already.” The debate today has been quite long, and I would like to draw attention to the comments by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). I would be very happy to take an intervention from him, because the official figures are in and, having checked Hansard, it seems that he mentioned Spelthorne in his speech more frequently than he mentioned his own constituency. If he wants to stand up and intervene on me so he can say the name of his constituency a few more times to even up the scores, I will of course take that intervention.

    Hansard source
15. 16 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Lincoln Jopp

    Heritage Public Houses Bill

    Madam Deputy Speaker, you may or may not be aware that there is a rumour at large in Parliament and alive in the Tea Room that hon. Members only have to mention the name of a pub in their constituency, then send to that pub the hard copy of Hansard where the name is mentioned, and the next time they go in there, they get a free pint! That is, of course, completely untrue—a point I have had to make to the landlords of the Happy Landing in Stanwell, the King’s Fairway in Ashford, the White Horse in Sunbury and the Wheatsheaf & Pigeon on the Staines-Laleham road, a pub where I will be going tomorrow to lodge my “Save Kempton Park” banner for a week as it tours my Spelthorne constituency. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on bringing this debate. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) is not in her place anymore, but there was a genuine exchange of ideas there on whether the protections envisaged in this private Member’s Bill are required. The story of the Crooked House is a salutary one. I have in my constituency a number of very historic pubs, including the Admiral Hawke, an 18th century pub named after the former First Sea Lord and Member of Parliament for Portsmouth, and the Bells in Staines. Imagine if they were to burn down under suspicious circumstances—they are not listed and nor are they listed as assets of community value. They would be further protected under this private Member’s Bill, so I think it has merit. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said that her sort of “so what?” was: “Well, we should all therefore be encouraging our communities to get together if they do value their pubs and to have them registered as assets of community value.” That clearly is not happening as much as the legislation envisaged, hence this private Member’s Bill. I want to make one observation: normally, when we call pubs “Assets of Community Value”, we do so to try to protect them when they are in trouble. Let us take away the capital letters and just say that those pubs are assets of community value, encouraging all our people to invest in them by going to them. Tragically, the British Beer and Pub Association reports that this year we are on track to lose a pub a day in Britain. Some 300 have closed in the first nine months of this year. We have not had much of a sense of the challenges that they face. I will not go too political on this, but the landlords I speak to are very aware of the additional challenges: business rates, the minimum wage and employers’ national insurance. The onus is on all of us. It is tragic that, when a pub closes, everyone is up in arms, but when I ask people how often they had been there, they might say, “Oh, I went there last year.” Pubs really need our help. If the Bill were to come to a vote, I would support it but I am delighted that we have had an opportunity raise some of the issues of the British pub industry, its challenges and the protections that it needs.

    Hansard source
16. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    Business of the House

    Many families who inherit retirement properties with age-restricted occupancy requirements are finding them increasingly difficult to sell, and bereaved relatives, many of whom are pensioners themselves, can face years of ongoing service charges, council tax liabilities, maintenance costs and significant loss in property value, which cause considerable financial and mental distress. Will the Leader of the House please facilitate a meeting with the Minister of State for Housing and Planning so we can discuss these issues with the retirement housing sector and see how bereaved families in this situation can be helped?

    Hansard source
17. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    Jagtar Singh Johal

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for his tireless work on behalf of Jagtar Singh Johal and his family. I know about that work, because I have had regular meetings with my hon. Friend about his constituent. I thank him for his efforts, and for the open and collaborative way in which he has always engaged with me. In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, some 15% of the population is Sikh—one of the highest percentages in the country. Sikh and non-Sikh constituents have contacted me, deeply concerned about Jagtar’s treatment and the way that his case has been handled, and urging the Government to do more to ensure the just resolution of his case. When I previously raised Jagtar’s case in the House, I mentioned the United Nations working group’s finding that his detention was arbitrary and his fair trial rights had been violated. The allegations of torture and the extraordinary delays in the proceedings remain deeply troubling. It appears that the rules of natural justice and the rule of law simply did not apply to Jagtar’s case. I warmly welcome Jagtar’s release on bail. For him and his family, who have had so many setbacks, this is an immensely important step, but the conditions of his bail are still unfair. His passport has been surrendered, his freedom remains severely restricted and he cannot come home to Scotland. He continues to face allegations that could result in the death penalty. His release from prison is certainly not the end of our efforts. Next month, it will be nine years since Jagtar was arrested on the streets of Punjab in India, but nine years later, there has not been a single conviction against Jagtar. Those are years that Jagtar and his family can never recover, and they have endured great suffering during that period. I urge the Government to use every diplomatic channel available, at the highest level, to secure a resolution of Jagtar’s case without any further delay, so that he can safely return home. Will the Minister explain what steps are being taken to achieve this? How many times have we heard in this House that justice delayed is justice denied? Jagtar Singh Johal has already had his justice delayed for far too long.

    Hansard source
18. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Valerie Vaz

    Smoke-free UK

    Order. We can get everyone in if everyone sticks to about five to six minutes. There is possibly a vote or two at 4 o’clock.

    Hansard source
19. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Valerie Vaz

    Smoke-free UK

    I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 4 pm. It looks like the votes are coming at 4.30 pm, so we could well be finished before then.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Valerie Vaz

    Smoke-free UK

    I thank Members: we got everyone in, and we did not have to suspend for the vote. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered progress towards a smokefree UK.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tulip Siddiq

    Business of the House

    Vincent Chan abused baby girls at a Bright Horizons nursery in my constituency for seven years. The Guardian has now revealed that three years before he was arrested, a complaint was made about him. It was investigated by Bright Horizons, overseen by Camden council, who cleared him and allowed him to return to work, where he continued to abuse little children until he was arrested. I have asked Camden council and Bright Horizons for the full documentation relating to the investigation that took place in 2021. Can we have a debate in Government time about strengthening the safeguarding practices in nurseries, particularly in the Bright Horizons chain? Ofsted has taken the unprecedented step of issuing two welfare requirement notices to the nurseries in that chain.

    Hansard source
22. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tristan Osborne

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    It is a real pleasure to speak alongside Kent colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), to see my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) in her place, and to hear from Members from across south Essex, whose constituents will directly benefit from the lower Thames crossing. Anyone who has travelled down that stretch will know that the lower Thames crossing will be a vital part of the north Kent infrastructure. When there are problems with the Dartford bridge, disruption can spread all the way down into south-east London and Kent, including into Medway, which I represent. I want to speak to four elements of the Bill: first, the benefits of the new crossing, including the direct investment it could bring to Essex and Medway, in my local area, and why that is so critical; secondly, the vehicle that will be used by the Government to deliver the project, learning from the National Audit Office review of the Sizewell programme and others about some of the cost considerations of which we need to be mindful; thirdly, the Opposition amendment; and, lastly, the importance and necessity of delivering the project on time. As many hon. Members will be aware, the Dartford crossing was originally conceived to cater for 136,000 vehicle movements, but it is currently catering for over 150,000. We know from projections that freight movements are due to increase over the next 15 years. As has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), we are due to see an expansion in population across all of the south Essex and north Kent corridor over the next 15 years as part of the urban sprawl that is moving east of London. He mentioned capacity issues on many road networks. In my area, there are issues on the A229, which crosses from Maidstone into Medway, and with the Medway tunnel—a particular focus that I will come to. We know that there are also constraints on some of the roads connecting Gravesham and Dartford, particularly around Galley Hill.

    Hansard source
23. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tristan Osborne

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    Housing targets are not unique to this Government—indeed, they have existed in previous iterations throughout the last several decades. Housing has been built in south Essex under the previous Government, and I am sure that permissions were given under Conservative-controlled councils. Similarly, in my area, the then Conservative-led Medway council delivered housing projects. We have to be realistic, because infrastructure is needed to cater for these future developments. The crossing is necessary because of the capacity issues that have just been raised. The impacts of a blocked crossing have profound implications, including for people trying to get to health appointments and inconvenienced residents. Town centres are blocked, in the case of Dartford and Thurrock. There are also implications for the freight and logistics industry, which have been so eloquently expressed by colleagues from around the country, because the south-east is the key link to European trade. I am very proud that this Department, led by the current Secretary of State, sought on day one of taking office to give the consent order for this programme. That clearly shows the direction of travel and the focus of a Government to deliver some of these really big infrastructure projects. Alongside Sizewell C and other Government programmes, we know that private investment, working with the Government, can deliver significant projects going forward. We know that projects that cost around £10 billion are Government mega-project schemes, so I ask that this scheme be considered on the Government programme of mega-projects. There has been deliberation about whether HS2 is a mega-project, which has caused some delays, especially around the Euston development site; that was covered in the NAO report. I know that tolls are a sensitive topic. I agree with my colleagues that there needs to be some consideration of whether those who live in the direct surrounds of not only Dartford and Thurrock, but around the new site in Gravesham and Medway, and on the other side in south Essex, should be considered for toll relief to ensure that they get a fair discount.

    Hansard source
24. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tristan Osborne

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    I absolutely agree. I know that a number of points have been made to the Minister today about what the tolls might look like, the duration of the programme and the finance involved. Ensuring that there is parity with the Dartford crossing so that people can make a market choice will have to be considered in the round, and I look forward to future representations on that matter. My residents can see the massive investment benefits of a new crossing: new businesses opening, new residents having potential connections with HS1 through Essex, and the creation of some form of corridor between the Medway towns and Southend. Previously, we overlooked each other on different sides of the river, but the connection will allow us potentially to get to each other’s conurbations in 10 to 15 minutes—those journeys would previously have taken 45 minutes to an hour. The relationship between businesses, including small businesses, has not been discussed today, but this connection has the potential to be a significant multiplier for a lot of businesses across south Essex and north Kent. I accept that the Bill protects those who will use the road. The Office of Rail and Road will become the independent regulator, and I understand that it needs to be given robust powers around licence conditions. From HS2, we know that previous regulatory regimes have not necessarily been that efficient, so I ask that the Minister learn from some of the NAO reports, which have highlighted where some regimes have failed in the past. The licence holder must share information with the regulator and the Secretary of State. If the company behind the road ever gets into financial trouble, a special administration regime should and must keep the highway running. That means investors would get the certainty they need to commit the capital, and drivers would get a regulator watching over what is built and what is charged. Given some of the high-profile issues with major Government programmes previously, I believe that transparency is absolutely necessary. There are practical measures in this Bill too. For example, it allows barrierless charging on toll roads. Remote payments mean smoother journeys—I can testify to that for many roads around the country—as well as less congestion at Dartford. However, we need to see continued improvements to the M2, including at junctions around the A229, particularly at Blue Bell Hill; I know that Kent county council has made that representation. I turn to the reasoned amendment. It starts by recognising the “urgent need” to deliver the crossing after 14 years of numerous development consent orders and court appeals, dither and delay. It has taken this Government to make progress and get the spades in the ground. However, the reasoned amendment asks the House to deny a Second Reading to the one piece of legislation that provides a funding route, questioning whether the project can be delivered “on time and on budget”. Many Opposition Members have raised that question this afternoon. I point Members to the structure of the Bill, which puts the independent regulator in charge of scrutinising the costs, and I encourage them to pick up some of these issues in Committee if they do not believe that the Government have a robust understanding. However, rejecting the Bill on the basis set out in the reasoned amendment would cause the delays that Opposition Members are complaining might occur. It would be remiss of me to not mention that there are other crossings nearby that could be subject to considerable congestion as a result of this project. The Medway tunnel, a key crossing in the Medway conurbation, is putting in a bid to the structures fund to ensure support for its 150,000 crossings per day through increased investment. It was constructed privately through KCC and the Rochester Bridge Trust—an historical anomaly; ownership was transferred to the council some 15 years ago. I encourage Ministers to look closely at the Medway tunnel’s bid, because any impact on the second crossing will have profound consequences for other crossings in Medway. If we do not get Department for Transport funding for improvements to the Medway tunnel, that could cause significant problems for the three MPs who represent that area. Lastly, the lower Thames crossing has a long and chequered history. As has been said, previous Conservative Governments opened parts of it, and Labour Governments are now progressing with the next stage of it. However, we should all be proud that this is a great British project that could deliver jobs and opportunities for many thousands of my residents, and there could be knock-on benefits for tens of thousands of people across the rest of the country. Every delay to this legislation moves the date of those benefits back for families who have already waited too long, and for people who own homes and businesses in the area and are looking forward to this infrastructure project getting started. I urge the House to reject the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition, and give the Bill its Second Reading. Let’s get on with building this crossing.

    Hansard source
25. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tracy Gilbert

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House may be aware of the recent coverage of the industry’s concerns about the future deployment of floating offshore wind technology in the North sea. Significant investment has already been made, including in my constituency, to service floating offshore wind deployment and the Government’s clean power 2030 action plan, which details the energy and economic opportunities for floating offshore wind technology. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will support all emerging renewable technology going forward, and will he schedule an oral statement on the future energy generation mix in the North sea?

    Hansard source
26. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    Business of the House

    The Western Isles have been struck this week by maritime tragedy with the sinking of the fishing vessel Kilda in a Tuesday night storm off the coast of Lewis, with what we fear is the subsequent loss of the three souls aboard. I pay tribute and express thanks to the coastguard officers, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, helicopter crews and police officers who are still involved in the search for two of the missing men. Events like this cut deeply into our communities and leave salted wounds of grief; I think of Ness, Barvas and Carloway, and the homes and villages there that this crew left from. That pain of grief will be echoed in other coastal communities across the country. All those who fish will mourn, and they that spread their nets on the ocean will languish. For that reason, can the Leader of the House join me in expressing deep condolences to the families and communities affected and to all the other families and fishers who touch that razor’s edge of the deep every day and, for our good, go down to the sea in ships?

    Hansard source
27. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Business of the House

    SOBO Beach is a brilliant business and a thriving community, but it is set to close. An 11th-hour U-turn this week saw Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council give SOBO Beach an 11-month delay to its inevitable closure, despite saying that such a move was impossible. There are concerns that the council leadership may have made incorrect statements to the council meeting that decided on that closure. Will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting for me with the relevant Minister so that I can raise my concerns on behalf of my constituents—nearly 10,000 people signed a petition to save SOBO Beach.

    Hansard source
28. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Steve Yemm

    Business of the House

    Following on from the Labour Government’s £4 billion transfer of reserves to the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, both sets of trustees have set out proposals for how future surpluses could benefit the thousands of scheme members, both in Mansfield and across the country. Will the Leader of the House press the Government to address those trustee proposals in the October Budget, so that former mineworkers and their families can receive the fair and sustainable settlement that they fought for over many decades?

    Hansard source
29. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    In summer 2024, we inherited a sustainable farming incentive scheme from the previous Conservative Government that had no budget control and no proper alignment of SFI actions to environmental sustainability targets. The farming schemes were underspent, meaning that millions of pounds were not going to farming businesses. This Government implemented many improvements to the sustainable farming incentive 2026 to make it more focused, more transparent and fairer, so that as many farmers as possible could benefit from agreements. For example, we introduced the new rule that each farm business could have only one SFI26 agreement, which cannot exceed £100,000 per year. We also streamlined the number of SFI actions to remove complexity while still having plenty of actions available for all farm types. We held the first application window earlier in the summer, which was open only to two groups: small farms and farms without existing environmental land management revenue agreements. Window 2 of the sustainable farming incentive 2026 opened on the morning of Tuesday 22 September 2026 and closed at 3.48 pm on the same day. It was open to all farmers and land managers with at least three hectares of agricultural land. I recognise that some farmers who wanted to join SFI26 will be disappointed not to have secured an agreement this year. There was exceptional demand for SFI26, which demonstrates farmers’ desire to invest in the environment, because healthy soils and thriving habitats are fundamental to farm profitability, productivity, sustainability and resilience. In anticipation of high demand, we allocated an additional £20 million to window 2 on top of the £50 million announced by the Prime Minister in August so that we could fund as many agreements as possible. We have therefore allocated a total of £310 million to nearly 19,000 new agreements across both application windows in SFI26, including £253 million and 12,200 new agreements through window 2. We now have 70,000 multi-year environmental land management scheme agreements in place. Those agreements will invest a total of £930 million in environmentally sustainable farming over the next three years. That is nearly £1 billion of investment in nature-friendly farming as part of £11.8 billion in funding for sustainable farming in this Parliament. We plan to offer an SFI scheme in 2027, and we will look to open the 2027 offer as early as possible to ensure that farmers can access funding. We are already looking to make changes to improve the SFI for next year, continuing our close work with farmers and stakeholders by listening to experiences and learning lessons from this window. In keeping with the commitments made in “Farming Roadmap 2050”, we plan to offer an SFI scheme in 2027. As part of that, we will scrap the first come, first served application process. We will look to open the 2027 window as early as possible to ensure that farmers can access funding and we will work with farming representative organisations including the National Farmers Union to consider how we refine the scheme for SFI27. As set out in the farming road map published earlier this year, the Government are committed to a farming sector that is productive, profitable and resilient.

    Hansard source
30. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    I am not going to claim that this scheme is perfect or working as we want it to work, but we inherited this scheme from the previous Government, and we are fixing it. Under them, just a quarter of the funding went to 4% of farms, often large ones, with no targeting. We have already made changes to address that; there was a window earlier this year specifically for small farms and those that had not participated in the scheme before. If the Conservatives thought the scheme was not working, why did they not do anything to fix it in their years in power? If they did not think that it should be a first come, first served approach, why did they not change it? I noticed that the shadow Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said at party conference: “After 18 months of inaction, Labour chose to design this scheme, for the first time ever, on a first-come, first-served basis.” That simply is not true, and I encourage the shadow Minister to correct the record. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to come here today with all these different things. He could have changed things when he had the opportunity to do so. The Conservatives could not even get all the funding out the door. They left money on the table when it should have been going into farmers’ pockets. I will not accept the criticism. This scheme was designed by them, but we are fixing it, and that is what I will continue doing.

    Hansard source
31. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    I place on record the hard work that my hon. Friend undertook as Minister of State in the Department. He was a tremendous contributor to many of the things that I have now inherited to deliver for our country. He is absolutely right to point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives on the SFI scheme. I remind him that it was Michael Gove who I think first introduced the first come, first served approach. I also pay tribute to those at the RPA. They have worked incredibly hard with the level of applications and demand we have seen with this scheme. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend as we make further improvements to ensure the success of the scheme next year.

    Hansard source
32. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her contribution, and for the constructive way that she has engaged with me and my Department on these issues. I absolutely recognise that it has been an incredibly challenging time for farmers, and I mentioned some of the funding that we have put into sustainable funding—£11.8 billion over this Parliament. I also mentioned the significant figure that has been provided via various schemes: £2.3 billion has been made available for the farming budget this year. I will certainly take on board the points that the hon. Lady has made, and reflect on them as we design the scheme for next year. I look forward to working closely with her on the next steps.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    My hon. Friend has yet to write to me on any issues that his farmers have raised about SFI26, and I encourage him to do so. I meant it when I said in my opening remarks that I am really keen to work in partnership with others to design a scheme that works for all farmers next year. I look forward to his proactive engagement with me in order to get the scheme right next year.

    Hansard source
34. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for his measured intervention, and look forward to being before his Committee later this month. We obviously anticipated that there would be high demand for the scheme this year, which is why we had two windows and increased funding for the overall pot to £310 million—I have already mentioned the window 2 process. DEFRA expected strong initial demand, and made it clear before the window opened that its duration would depend on the rate of applications. Ministers obviously allocated the £50 million, and then the additional £20 million. We are really keen to learn from all in the sector what we can do to improve the scheme going forward, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s contributions in due course.

    Hansard source
35. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    I thank my hon. Friend for the way he has engaged with me on thinking through the design for the scheme next year. He is right to say that some farmers reported technical issues with the application service, which prevented them from applying. It is normal to receive such reports after the application windows close. Some of the applications will be valid, and the RPA is currently working through them as we speak. If my hon. Friend has any particular examples that he wants to share with me, I can certainly take them away and raise questions with the relevant officials in my Department.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    We are publishing the figures for applications across counties and constituencies, so I can certainly make that information available to the right hon. Member. More broadly, he makes a point about the demands that farmers are facing, and our farming road map, published earlier this year, is a 25-year plan to commit to a more profitable, productive sector and to building resilience in the farming community. I am very keen to work in partnership with the farmers in his constituency and area to make sure that is delivered.

    Hansard source
37. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    My hon. Friend is a real champion for farmers in his constituency, as is very evident from the contributions that he makes in this House, which are so informed. He is absolutely right to call out the Opposition for the action or inaction that they took when they had the opportunity to work to improve the lives of farmers across our country. I am very happy to meet him on the specific points he raises to make sure I have his insight as we design the scheme for next year.

    Hansard source
38. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    I thank the right hon. Member for the way he is engaging on these issues. Obviously, our annual report sets out how we spend the farming budget, and if he has not yet had a chance to see that, I encourage him to do so. I will certainly take back to the Department the specific points about the RPA and the frustrations of farmers in his constituency, and we will look into the issues he has raised.

    Hansard source
39. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    It was a real pleasure to meet my hon. Friend recently to discuss some of the particular challenges her constituency is facing, and wider issues including bluetongue. I will certainly bear in mind the constructive points that she has raised as we design the scheme for next year.

    Hansard source
40. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Morgan

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    I absolutely recognise the difficult year that farmers have faced across the country, and indeed in the hon. Member’s own constituency. That is why I am keen to open SFI27 as early as possible, and I gave that assurance from the Dispatch Box earlier. It is worth noting that this year, through all the schemes, £2.3 billion is going into the farming budget, as is £11.8 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament, but I am certainly keen to hear any further thoughts as we design the scheme for next year.

    Hansard source