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
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Malcolm Wilson OBE and the team at M-Sport in Dovenby on re-securing the Ford world rally car championship programme, creating new skilled jobs for Cumbria? Can he also tell us what support the Department can provide to help high-performance automotive firms such as M-Sport create skilled apprenticeships for our young people?
Is it not time we simply admitted that the SFI experiment has failed? The last Government could not get the money out the door, and we now have an IT system that is so bad that we may as well not have a door. Farmers do not believe that the SFI is fair. They do not believe that it is getting to those who need support, or that it is delivering the public goods intended. Perhaps we should start again and reconsider a universal baseline, with best practice conditions.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as has every Member who has spoken today. I represent about 8,000 unpaid carers in Leeds South West and Morley—that is about 9% of my constituents—and it is clear that I need to speak for them. Something that has been missing from the debate is those who criticise the offer of extra help to unpaid carers as a cost to the Treasury and to businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the greater cost is the fact that 1.1 million unpaid carers have left work in the last two years because many of them had no choice but to do so?
I represent a 15-year-old constituent with a serious heart condition that he is awaiting surgery for. He has been told not to overexert himself, because even walking puts his health at risk. Sadly, his family’s appeal for a blue badge has been turned down because they cannot demonstrate that he will have the problem in three years, post-surgery. Certain individuals on qualifying benefits can get a short-term blue badge, but my constituent does not qualify, despite his health condition. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the need to change the scheme, so that we can help people, especially children, avoid this needless trap?
I draw the House’s attention to my membership of Unison. I would also like to pay tribute to former Conservative county councillor David Westley, who I found out has recently passed away. He was the chair of Lancashire’s health and adult services scrutiny committee. I served as his deputy, and we worked together in Lancashire to try to address the problems that the Minister is trying to sort out now. My constituency has large rural areas. Can the Minister assure me that the problems in rural care will be addressed as part of her plans?
I declare my interest as co-chair of the Unison group of Labour MPs and as a unison member. I thank the Minister for the work that she is doing on workforce issues, but many unpaid carers struggle to balance their caring responsibilities with paid employment, with consequences for their household finances and future pensions; indeed, many have to give up work because they cannot balance them. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that carers get the support they need to stay in work if they wish to do so?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this very important debate. Today, we are recognising the nearly 6 million parents, partners, siblings, friends and neighbours in the UK who, day in, day out, provide support, love, care and safety to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The quiet and diligent contributions of unpaid carers is immeasurable and too often goes overlooked. The reality is that such care comes at a significant personal cost. The point of diagnosis is often as life-changing for the carer as it is for the patient, albeit in significantly different ways. I worry that our health and social care systems have become dependent on large sections of society providing care that the state would otherwise be expected to deliver, alongside full-time jobs and other commitments. I want to focus on the role of unpaid cares in dementia care—an area of the system of which I have personal experience. Figures suggest that unpaid carers provide about half the total economic contribution to dementia care in the UK, amounting to an estimated £21.1 billion every year, yet there is too little support for those who provide those services. My mum, brother and mother-in-law are all part of that statistic. Ten years ago, my father and father-in-law were diagnosed with dementia within a few months of each other. I know all too well the harsh reality that can follow such a diagnosis. Too often, families are handed a leaflet and are left to navigate the system. They are expected to become experts in dementia overnight. My family have become experts in spotting the signs of urinary tract infections and in understanding the risk of delirium. Every time delirium hits, my father’s dementia may accelerate, his condition may worsen and a new baseline becomes our new normal. We have learned the absolute imperative of keeping him out of hospital. As the Geller Commission has shown, dementia patients stay seven times longer in hospital than those with the same illness who do not have dementia. Every person’s dementia journey is different. My father-in-law is awake much of the night, whereas my dad is fast asleep throughout the night, and some of the day as well. Every person’s care journey needs to be individually tailored, and I know that important steps are being taken to support local carers on a regional level. In Amber Valley, a small but dedicated team of nurses and healthcare professionals is working with the ICB to deliver the Derbyshire dementia strategy, which focuses on training, awareness and support for unpaid carers. Dementia UK installs Admiral nurses across the country, who are there to support the whole family, but there are too few of them. Local commitments and initiatives such as the Admiral nurse scheme must be matched by national resources. As my own experience attests, accessing support remains one of the greatest challenges facing unpaid carers. One in seven are unaware of any sources of support, while 46% do not know who to contact to access social care. Given that bleak picture, is it any wonder that research suggests that 49% of carers report exhaustion or breakdown as the needs of the person they care for increase? It is often at that point that the consequences are felt across the NHS, with dementia patients needing to be admitted to hospital or A&E, or to have emergency GP appointments. This debate is timely, as the forthcoming modern service framework for frailty and dementia presents a unique opportunity to embed measures that can right the wrongs and establish a care pathway for both those with dementia and their carers. I urge the Minister to listen to calls within the sector for the framework to include national standards for identifying and supporting unpaid dementia carers, and to ensure that it is implemented consistently across every postcode. Part of that work will involve intervening to facilitate better awareness of the support that is already available, including carers’ assessments, and ensuring that the results are followed up on. Finally, will the Minister set out how his Department will ensure that the modern service framework enables health and social care to be joined up and share responsibility for proactive support for both patients and carers after a diagnosis of dementia?
On Tuesday, the head of MI5 warned that AI could help terrorists to develop bioweapons. In the Select Committee, OpenAI and Anthropic told us that statutory AI safety controls are now essential. We are blessed to have the AI Security Institute in this country, but it is no longer enough. Will Ministers confirm that we will have Government amendments on Report of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to ensure that we have statutory AI protections to keep this country safe?
It will surprise no one in this House to hear that I believe growth in every postcode should start in our towns. Will the Minister tell me what we are doing to support brilliant businesses such as Hill Helicopters in my constituency to grow, thrive and export?
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister spoke in this Chamber about the threat that misinformation and disinformation pose to our democracy. Trusted local media is vital to countering the false information that is out there, yet our local media outlets are struggling to stay afloat. That includes Bucks Radio in my constituency, which recently missed out on funding from the Government’s local news outlet fund. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of trusted local media and the Government’s role in supporting it?
Palestinian families have been denied family reunification, and that has been found to be unlawful in the courts. Those families include those of Obaida and Mahmoud, two boys who, last year, met the former Prime Minister, who promised to do everything that he could to ensure that their families were united with them. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on a Palestinian visa scheme, so that we can scrutinise these important issues?
My hon. Friend’s question addresses a key aspect of our recent consultations, which proposed a duty for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. The consultation package also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, and my intention is that future regulations will set out strong new duties on online marketplaces, backed by appropriate sanctions.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the House today, reflecting the changes in preferences of both his constituents and those across the country in how they buy products online and interact with online marketplaces. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Which? for the brilliant work it does in this space. Our recent consultations on modernising the product safety framework included proposals for clear duties on online marketplaces, including a clear duty to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. We also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, including civil monetary penalties to complement the existing criminal sanctions; fines would be set proportionally to risk and respond to an offence appropriately. We are also considering bespoke enforcement measures to ensure that online and international supply chain actors can be effectively addressed. We will respond to these consultations in due course, and I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement in this space.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I know that she and colleagues across the House have campaigned on this, and I share their concerns. In our recent consultation on reforming the product safety framework, we sought views on additional measures and responsibilities that are needed to improve the safety of products sold online, which included lithium-ion batteries and their use in consumer goods such as e-bikes. I would be happy to keep the hon. Lady updated on the progress on this work when we respond in due course.
I know all too well the devastating impact that rogue traders can have on constituents, having had similar discussions in my own constituency and with many colleagues across the House too. That is why my Department supported the independent furniture and home improvement ombudsman’s new approved code and payment protection scheme, backed by independent dispute resolution, to help hard-working families identify trusted traders and ensure that people can spend their money with greater confidence and security. We remain committed to supporting the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards in their ability to impose penalties via the courts. This Labour Government are delivering everyday fixes to protect families and give them room to breathe.
I am sorry about that incident with my hon. Friend’s constituent. The damaging impact that that can have, making people who have saved their entire lives for home improvements feel robbed and unsafe in their homes, is dreadful. That is why we are taking action, starting with the backing of the furniture and home improvement ombudsman scheme. I am not complacent in this space: we are determined to ensure that customers know what protections are available and that they can use them with confidence. I look forward to working further in this area.
Regrettably, trading standards has faced a real-terms funding cut of more than 50% since 2010, under the previous Government. The system is therefore under severe strain. I back the incredible work that it does across the country and know how much support it needs. That is why we are committed to backing it and those longer-terms plans to overhaul the wider consumer protection landscape and particularly trading standards to help it continue cracking on with its brilliant job.
The Government are clear that Royal Mail’s quality of service has been unacceptable for too long. Royal Mail published a plan to improve reliability, and I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO that it now needs to increase the pace of improvement and deliver on that plan. I understand that there have been operational challenges in the Lark Lane and Liverpool North delivery offices, and I urge Royal Mail to improve its services for local people. It must do better.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House on behalf of her constituents and constituents across the country. Royal Mail’s service must improve quickly. Customers, particularly the most vulnerable, are being let down, and delayed letters, such as legal correspondence and hospital appointment letters, can have serious consequences. When people are paying more for postal services, they rightly expect reliable and timely delivery. The Government have been clear that Ofcom should carefully consider the role of bulk mail and whether additional regulatory measures are needed to secure high standards of reliability for all postal customers. Much of the correspondence that people rely on falls outside the current quality-of-service targets. We will continue to press for a reliable postal service that meets the needs of all users.
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I share his concerns; I know from my own inbox, as a constituency MP, the challenges that arise when people do not receive their post on time and there are significant delays. I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO of Royal Mail that its service has been unacceptable for too long and that the pace of improvement must improve. The public and his constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right to expect better. If he wants to share those data with me and with Royal Mail, and add to that pressure, I would welcome that.
The Government recognise the vital role that post offices play in communities across the UK. We have committed to maintaining the 11,500 national minimum branch requirement, and the Government’s set access criteria, including the requirement that for 90% of the population, their nearest post office should be within one mile of where they live. We are backing this with up to £180 million in network subsidy funding over the next three years to support the cost of meeting those policy requirements, protecting access to crucial services.
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about the availability of post office services in York city centre in the coming months. The Post Office has confirmed that it remains committed to providing a replacement branch, and it has received interest from several potential applicants. While these are operational matters for the Post Office, I will ask it to consider capacity concerns. I will keep my hon. Friend updated, and will ask officials to work with her and the Post Office on finding the temporary solution that she rightly mentions.
Hospitality businesses are at the heart of our high streets, communities and local economies, supporting jobs and growth across the UK, and we recognise the pressures that many continue to face. That is why we are providing targeted support for pubs, clubs and live music venues, including 15% business rates relief in 2026-27, and an additional 20% discount from April next year, while reviewing pub and hotel valuations to help ensure a fairer and more predictable business rates system. We are also investing £10 million through a new hospitality grant scheme to support growth, create jobs and strengthen local economies.
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this. Hospitality, as he mentioned, is an absolute key employer of young people in the economy, providing rewarding routes into work. It is a critical sector to help us resolve the NEETs—not in education, employment or training—crisis. That is a key priority for this Government, and we want to work closely with the sector on providing those solutions. I am sure that he will welcome the announcement today of our significant intervention and partnership with the hospitality sector; we are working closely with UKHospitality. We are working on providing job opportunities and new work experience programmes to turn this around, and hospitality is key to that.
My heart sank when I heard the news, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, not only for raising this today, but for all his work in the sector on behalf of his constituents since first coming to this House. I spoke with the chief executive of Carlsberg Britvic yesterday, and I know that the proposal to close the brewery has not been made lightly. He reassured me that the team at Burton have shown exceptional commitment, skill and professionalism, and have made an enormous contribution to Burton upon Trent’s proud brewing tradition. This proposal is not a reflection on them or the quality of their work. Consumer tastes are constantly evolving, and this proposal reflects the particular long-term challenges relating to cask ale, which I have spoken to my hon. Friend about, and on which I will continue to work with him closely. I know that this will be a concerning time for workers at Marston’s. We recognise the impact that these proposals may have on those workers, their families and the local community as the company begins consulting, and I look forward to discussing this further with him.
My first job was in hospitality; I remember it fondly. It has given me skills that I have used throughout my career and life, and it supported my family when we really needed it. I absolutely know the significance and importance of this sector to our economy, and the difference that it can make to people’s lives. It is a key employer of young people across the country—in the hon. Member’s constituency, in mine and in the constituencies of colleagues across the House. It provides a rewarding route into work and is a critical sector to resolving the NEETs crisis and many challenges that we face across the country. As we grow our economy, we want to grow the hospitality sector. I work really closely with the sector and the Hospitality Sector Council to ensure that we look at all the challenges, and at how we can work together to provide more opportunities and jobs and grow the sector in every constituency across this country. I am determined to deliver that.
I thank my hon. Friend and Labour colleagues for their work on this. I agree that the Royal Mail service has been unacceptable for too long, and that the pace of improvement must increase, and my constituents share exactly the same frustrations. The Government expect Ofcom to use its full range of existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal users, and I will continue to work closely with it and with colleagues in the House to deliver that.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter on behalf of his constituents. I know that he shares their frustrations. I have been clear with Royal Mail that the quality of its service has been unacceptable for too long. I understand that the concerns in his constituency relate to the Bexleyheath delivery office and I know that he met Royal Mail representatives this summer. I encourage all Members to raise their concerns directly with Royal Mail management and similarly hold the company to account, as I will continue to do. His constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right that they deserve better.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention, and I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss it further.
I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations and concerns. Whether it is the biggest issue in my inbox and my constituency or from what I have heard from colleagues across the House, it is clear that Royal Mail has to do better, and I have been frank in my discussions with Royal Mail’s chief executive officer that it must deliver improvements at a much quicker pace. I will continue working with my hon. Friend to ensure that we can deliver for his constituents and those across the country who need a reliable postal service.
We work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Departments across Government to ensure that critical infrastructure developments are sustainable for local resource capacity. The planning system takes into account a number of those questions and ought to account for the long-term implications for water and wider resource supply. We have specifically designed our AI growth zones to be investments in areas where there is sufficient energy capacity and where infrastructure can be enhanced.
Let me say three things. First, it is important to be clear on the data. The estimates that we have at the moment suggest data centres account for approximately 0.2% of non-household water usage in England. Secondly, when people build data centres here, we want them to build in the light of our values and what local communities need. That, in turn, means investing, alongside technology infrastructure, in clean energy infrastructure and in wider resourcing locally. Thirdly, I am always keen on ideas for how further improvements and demand flexibility for both energy and water resources can be supported by data centres. I will continue to look at the ideas the hon. Lady has proposed.
I thank my hon. Friend, whose question is one we have discussed at length. The central point is that in the last wave of technology, we built neither public trust nor British technology. In this wave of AI, we are focused on building both trust and technology so we can have sovereign control over what we are building here.
We already have a series of areas of regulatory focus for artificial intelligence—data protection, competition policy, equality legislation and online safety. I was particularly proud that we were one of the first countries to ensure that the egregious impacts of AI chatbots on our children were mitigated. As I mentioned earlier in the week, I am looking forward to working right across the House on any further regulatory measures required to tackle any harms from artificial intelligence.
I thank the hon. Member for raising the advances of Culham in particular. I visited the site; I take great pride in it, as a national asset when it comes to nuclear fusion and the combination of AI and energy innovation. On his point about the G20, I am proud that the Prime Minister has set out that AI will be top of the agenda. We will look to play a leadership role in ensuring that we arrive at a global code and principles for safe AI.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his advocacy and leadership on this matter over the course of the last many weeks. I have mentioned already this week that I want to work with parliamentarians across the House, including him and members of his Committee, on ideas for the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, looking in particular at AI security protections.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I realise that the Bill may seem rather dry at first glance, as it primarily covers how we finance major road building. Financial frameworks, licences and regulators might not get the hearts of the public—or, dare I say, even of hon. Members—racing, so I hope the House will allow me to start with why all this matters, not just for the future of this Government’s second largest infrastructure asset, but for the future of the country. Members from across the House will, I am sure, know the importance of the strategic road network—4,500 miles of highways that frankly punch above their weight. It represents less than 3% of our road network by length, and carries a third of motor vehicle miles and two thirds of lorry miles. If trade is the lifeblood of our economy, the strategic network represents our national arteries, transporting almost all the goods that we rely on for our way of life. Indeed, it does even more, by unlocking house building, connecting people with opportunity, and underpinning the integrated transport network that we want to build.
I will happily address why certain schemes have been cancelled. It is because the Conservative party put far more schemes into the programme than it put in funding for, so any understandable frustration ought to be directed at the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. Much of the strategic network is over 45 years old.
The bottom line is that the previous Government committed to far more schemes than there was funding for, so we had to evaluate which were the least value for money and the least advanced. It is nothing more than that. The right hon. Member may be frustrated, but perhaps the previous Government should not have made promises that could not be delivered. Demand will only go in one direction. Road vehicle mileage is set to rise on the strategic road network by 12% over the nine years to 2035. Climate change continues to bare its teeth across our transport infrastructure, and our strategic roads are no exception. All those challenges bear down on a network that holds up our economy every day. That is why I am proud that the Government published the third road investment strategy earlier this year. It committed not only £27 billion to future-proofing our roads, and to resurfacing a quarter of our entire network, but to three major enhancement schemes in the north of England, on which it will work even closer with local leaders. It proved to MPs like me that road investment can address regional inequalities, and is compatible with our promise of greater devolution. When we talk about growth and power in every postcode, that is exactly what we mean. That is the context in which I present the Bill. I have mentioned what we have already delivered, but in truth, much more needs to be done. Delivering the roads this country needs to connect our ports, our major cities and our communities requires substantial investment over many years, and across several Parliaments. Public investment will, of course, continue to play a vital role, but we can go further when private investment is harnessed to meet public goals. When Government and the private sector come together in partnership, and when we balance certainty for private investors with safeguards for the public interest, we give ourselves more tools to build the modern infrastructure that Britain needs. The Bill creates such a tool, and does so in two ways.
We are working on projections and what we know about the road network now, and overcapacity at Dartford in particular needs to be addressed. On whether automated vehicles reduce congestion, we need to see what happens in practice. The regulated asset base model will be applied to trunk roads in England. That model is not new—it was used to fund the Thames tideway tunnel and Sizewell C—but this is the first time it will be used on a road network. For our roads, it starts by granting a licence for a specific highway project to a private investor. The framework for that licence is set in this Parliament. The framework starts with construction and goes through to operation and maintenance. Any infrastructure project under this model will therefore start as it should, with a sound legal and regulatory foundation. The Office of Rail and Road will then act as the independent economic regulator. It will have a wide range of powers in the public interest, including monitoring performance, obtaining information, issuing penalties and, if necessary, taking enforcement action and revoking a licence. These public interest safeguards are vital and will never be compromised. There can also be no disparity between the operation of a privately funded highway and one managed by National Highways, so I can assure the House that the Bill means that roads operated under the new licensing regime can be held to the same standards as the rest of the strategic road network. Even when difficulties arise, the framework ensures that road users are protected and there is continuity of service on the network. Finally, the Bill allows a private operator to make a regulated return on their investment. Any charges or tolls will be levied under strict conditions set out by the Office of Rail and Road, which will be required to consider the interests of road users. Let me be crystal clear: the Bill is not and will never be national road pricing by the back door, and it is not and will never be a way to charge motorists across the wider network. The provisions in the Bill apply only to roads brought in under the financial and legal framework that we are debating today. Let me be clear: that framework is not open ended. Licences may only be issued for new road projects, capacity enhancing improvements or the continued operation of a previously licensed road, and any road specified in a licence must be a trunk road in England. This is about strategically important routes, not minor improvements to the road network. Government policy is that tolling will normally be used only for costly river and estuarial crossings, and nothing in the Bill is set to change that. I will now turn to the second major feature of the Bill. Some of the legislation governing toll collection dates back to the 18th century. It is high time that was updated, so that we can unleash the benefits of modern technology on our roads. Many of us have at some point experienced long queues at toll booths. It adds unnecessary delay to journeys, and drivers will rightly wonder when regulations will catch up with technology. Free-flowing tolling systems do not require vehicles to stop at traditional booths, and by allowing payment after use, they ease congestion and shorten journey times. The Bill does not mandate a certain approach to toll collection, but simply allows new technologies to be adopted and creates a modern statutory framework for enforcement practices. I have little doubt that drivers will welcome measures that can remove friction from their journeys. It is no secret that our desire to push forward with this legislation stems from the lower Thames crossing. That crossing will almost double road capacity across the Thames to the east of London. It will improve journey times and it will tackle chronic congestion at Dartford, which is bursting at the seams. Its 2.6-mile dual tunnels under the Thames will be the longest road tunnels in the country, and the largest in Europe by diameter, and it will set the standard for carbon-neutral construction. In short, it is exactly the sort of ambitious and world-leading infrastructure project that Britain should be building. We have been clear that the regulated asset base model is our preferred financial approach for the lower Thames crossing, but the Bill is not about the lower Thames crossing’s design, nor does it grant development consent. That work has already been done. It simply creates the financial framework that can deliver the lower Thames crossing, as well as appropriate future road projects. I finish by reminding colleagues what lies at the heart of the Bill: recognition that too many people, in too many places, remain held back by poor connectivity, and a recognition that each congested road and every delayed journey stifle productivity. The Bill does not ask the House to choose between public and private finance as a matter of ideology, but it puts another tool at our disposal for delivering the infrastructure that Britain needs. This financial model will not be used in every case, but it does set out one practical approach, guided by a financial framework set by Government. There will be a compliance regime enforced by an independent regulator. Private capital is provided by investors, and public safeguards are protected at every stage. That is the balanced model that this Bill will deliver, and I commend it to the House.