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. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

   Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   I will not; I am going to make a bit more progress.

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

   Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   I hosted some of my constituents earlier and they asked me what parliamentary debates were like. I did not tell them that “He started it” was a regular feature, but now I will. Let me emphasise that, as with the modifications to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee’s procedures that I have already set out, the use of written procedure will be optional and not used for every decision at the Joint Committee. I emphasise that the instrument does not amend the process for scrutinising the decisions that the Government propose to take at the Joint Committee, where the Government maintain obligations to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The scrutiny process remains as it is today, including where it is provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government’s EU scrutiny arrangements with Parliament. By removing this restriction, the governance of the withdrawal agreement will be aligned with that of the trade and co-operation agreement, which has no similar restriction on the use of written procedure. As with the UK-EU partnership council established under the TCA, the Joint Committee will remain the default forum for UK-EU decision making in relation to the withdrawal agreement and will continue to meet, just as the partnership council does. Finally, the instrument provides for and clarifies the responsibilities that Northern Ireland Departments and Ministers are already under to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. This is aimed at supporting the work of the committee and the governance arrangements of which it forms part. The instrument clarifies the duty on those authorities to comply with a reasonable request for information from the committee and that it should not be regarded as unreasonable solely on the grounds that a Northern Ireland Department or Minister lacks primary responsibility for the EU Act in question. This change is made in response to recommendations in the independent review on how Northern Ireland Departments should be empowered to provide evidence and support to the committee. I also note for completeness that the instrument makes some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, it amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that they now refer to the Windsor framework. This minor change achieves greater clarity on the statute book. This instrument clearly shows that the Government are committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor framework. We are making every effort to ensure that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements work for its people and businesses to deliver growth in every postcode, and to facilitate a future relationship for the UK with the EU that takes the country forward. As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, building that future relationship with the EU is vital if we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, and upholding our values and our security. How we build that future is a conversation that we must have, and one that the Government will approach with care and transparency. Part of that is about ensuring that the arrangements we have in place for Northern Ireland work effectively, just as it is about preparing for the new agreements that are on the table at the UK-EU summit. For those reasons, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

   Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   I am surprised by the degree of emphasis on the point about letters or meetings. I will come back to that, but I emphasise to the Committee that I am a Minister in writing, in person, when I am sitting and when I am standing. In all those guises, I am fully accountable to Parliament for the decisions I make. I thought the tone of some of the interventions from Members earlier was suggesting that letters in my name—for I am the British co-chair on the Joint Committee—would be done by other people. I reiterate to the Committee that I take my responsibilities both as co-chair and as a Minister in this House very seriously. I reject any suggestion that, whether in writing or in person, I would not take my responsibilities with the seriousness that the Committee would expect. Let me turn to the question about the purpose of the review, and therefore the purpose of the regulations. The purpose of the review was to provide for the streamlining of these arrangements. The purpose of the regulations is to see that effected. For the reasons I set out in my introductory remarks, I do not think that my accountability is reduced by writing letters. I have justified the change with reference to the larger streamlining of governance. I had two different flavours of objections from the Opposition Benches: one flavour of objections, from the Traditional Unionist Voice Benches, was about adding insult to an injury introduced by those on the Conservatives Benches in the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol while they were in government. The Government of which I am a part have inherited those arrangements, and we are seeking to improve them in the way I set out in my opening remarks. I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that this instrument is not the only action that this Government are taking at home to build a strong future relationship with the European Union. We have announced £16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal market and help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain. That includes a comprehensive one-stop shop regulatory support service beyond what is available on gov.uk currently. We will be helping businesses to trade across the UK and EU markets and to benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual-market access. We have improved the duty reimbursement scheme so that businesses whose goods are determined to be at risk when entering the UK can easily secure a reimbursement of duty. We have continued to ensure the smooth supply of veterinary medicines. And we have been working concertedly to ensure that the impacts of changes to the rules that apply in Northern Ireland account for its specific circumstances. However, there is more to do. Right hon. and hon. Members have already touched on the approach to the future relationship with the EU and the important role of scrutiny in that. This Government are very clear that we see the interests of Northern Ireland at the heart of the UK-EU relationship looking ahead. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are overwhelmingly tangible benefits in our pragmatic approach for Northern Ireland, particularly in easing burdens for our traders and our agrifood sector. Getting the right outcomes for Northern Ireland and the rest of the country rests on a relationship of trust and co-operation. I have been pleased to hear that recognised, including in some of the responses to the Prime Minister’s words on Monday afternoon. I emphasise that we can build that trust and co-operation only if we work on the basis of agreed arrangements, which are the best way of delivering certainty and stability for businesses and people. For the Government’s part, we will only accept arrangements that protect Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and its internal market, prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and deliver certainty to businesses on the basis of agreement with the European Union. I invite those in this Committee Room and beyond who may be instinctively more sceptical towards an SPS agreement to consider what that means for businesses: no practical solutions for the businesses moving their goods, no lifting of paperwork burdens and no reduction of costs. That, to my mind, seems to be the exact opposite of protecting the UK internal market. It simply holds our traders back. As the Prime Minister rightly asked, why would we not do everything we can to deliver those savings for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland? For those reasons, we look forward to the UK-EU summit in November, where we hope to build on the progress since last year’s summit and secure deals that make a real difference to people’s lives, and around which we will set out the different options for our long-term relationship with our European partners, helping us find a path forward. We must continue to build on these foundations and bring real benefits to all parts of the UK. As we do so, I assure the Committee that we will also remain focused on smoothing flows of goods to Northern Ireland where we can, within the arrangements that apply now, with an eye to a better future. Question put.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Ward

   Nuclear Energy: Scotland

   Thank you, Mr Stuart. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this important debate on the future of nuclear energy in Scotland, and thanking her for her kind words. I agree with many of the points that she made. This debate comes at an opportune time. I am pleased to be responding to it, and to have heard from so many who share this Government’s desire to see Scotland harness the opportunities that civil nuclear power offers to Scotland: the opportunity to create high-quality jobs in communities across our country, and the opportunity to deliver clean, secure and more affordable energy for our people as part of the energy mix of the future, but also the opportunity to deliver on our Prime Minister’s mission to reindustrialise our country and to ensure that conversations about Scotland’s industrial prowess are not just about looking backwards at our heritage, but about building our future, with prosperous, secure and proud communities sustained by skilled jobs. Scotland is indeed an energy powerhouse. Since taking up my position at the Scotland Office, I have had the privilege of witnessing at first hand a vast array of Scottish energy generation—wind, wave, tidal and nuclear—and, above all, of meeting the skilled and dedicated workforces that keep our nation powered. Just last month, the Secretary of State was in Aberdeen meeting representatives from the oil and gas sector and visiting Great British Energy’s newly opened headquarters. This week, I went to the power station at Torness, which is one of the great Scottish nuclear power success stories. It provides hundreds of quality jobs in East Lothian and beyond, and it will generate enough electricity over its lifetime to power every home in Scotland for 36 years. Torness is due to stop generating power by 2030. The reason that the site’s days are numbered is the SNP’s outdated ideological planning ban on civil nuclear energy. As we have heard, it is time that that changed.

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Ward

   Nuclear Energy: Scotland

   We have had a strong showing from Ayrshire colleagues in this debate because of the impact that the closure of Hunterston has had on their communities, as my hon. Friend points out. The SNP will need to answer to the people of Ayrshire about why it has taken away the possibility of thousands of new jobs in their communities. There is no logical reason for it. Visiting the station at Torness brought home to me that what is at stake in this debate is families’ futures. Highly skilled workers at Torness told me that they will likely have no option but to leave their homes in Scotland when the station closes, taking those specialist skills elsewhere—to England and Wales, or even overseas. Some of those men and women are part of generations of the same family that have worked at that site, and their rightful pride in that heritage was clear to see. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire asked if Torness could theoretically go beyond 2030. The answer is that if EDF wishes to do that and makes a successful case to the regulator, indeed it is possible that that could happen. In this debate, we need to focus on the facts about civil nuclear power. There is too much myth and fallacy around this topic. The British nuclear sector continues to operate safely and securely, and that is not simply the industry’s assertion; it is the evidence-based conclusion of the independent chief nuclear inspector in his recent annual report. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency calls nuclear “one of the safest forms of energy generation there is”. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) helpfully trailed his speech in the media at the weekend, so I asked the Unite shop steward at Torness what he thought of the suggestion that we should make decisions about what is best for the future of our country based on the potential likes and dislikes of Vladimir Putin. His answer was: “This is clutching at straws.” My hon. Friend also mentioned construction. I refer him to the 26,000 new jobs created by construction at Hinkley Point C. The reality is that countries such as Denmark, Poland and Japan are actively stepping up their plans on nuclear energy, while others, such as Sweden, Belgium and Italy, are reversing their previous anti-nuclear stances. In France, 70% of electricity is supplied by nuclear power, as we have heard. To be anti-nuclear power in Europe today is increasingly to be an outlier. I say to the SNP that Scotland deserves better than that.

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Ward

   Nuclear Energy: Scotland

   I certainly did not say that we were anti-baseload, which would be a ridiculous argument. In fact, I am proud that this Government are making record investment in renewable energy; I mentioned at the start of my speech that I have seen some of it myself since I was appointed. The point I am making is that the SNP Scottish Government are leaving Scotland behind in jobs and opportunities. Speaking of jobs and opportunities, we know that the UK and Scotland used to lead the world in nuclear power. On that note, it has been interesting to hear the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), and the Conservative party in recent days. They may need this Labour Government to remind them that, in 14 years of Tory rule, their record on investment in new nuclear energy was zero, so their new-found enthusiasm rings a little hollow. We also reject the proposals made by his party’s spokespeople to rip up the Scotland Act 1998 and override Holyrood’s planning powers to force nuclear projects through. This Government will not take that path; we believe in the decentralisation of power, and we respect devolution.

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Ward

   Nuclear Energy: Scotland

   I would have more time for that argument if the Conservative Government had themselves invested in nuclear anywhere in the UK during their 14 years in power. The fact is that the arguments made against the Scottish Government’s position are strong. The UK Government are committed to supporting this industry. We have heard throughout the debate about the 5,000 jobs that Scotland has already missed out on because of the de facto ban. We have heard about the investment taking place in England and Wales; Scotland could have that, too. We in Scotland know the story of deindustrialisation of our communities. The Clyde, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire know that story, as we heard from colleagues today, and my area of Fife also knows it. These are lessons that the Scottish Government should learn. We have heard so much about the disparity that exists with the rest of the UK. I simply point out again that many Scots say they will be forced to take their skills elsewhere—indeed, many of them already are. For example, 184 Scottish businesses have supported Hinkley Point C during its construction, and 10% of the 12,000 workers on that construction site are Scottish and being forced to travel elsewhere to do those jobs. I need to wrap up, so let me simply say the following. Companies across Scotland have expressed great interest in supporting the development of our nuclear industry. We heard about the potential at Dounreay, and we know that there is further potential across Scotland, including at Torness. It is also worth noting that 57% of SNP voters support new nuclear energy in Scotland. Trade unions, such as the GMB, Prospect and Unite, tell us that they want to grasp these opportunities, and the SNP should back them. Scotland stands at a critical juncture. The Scottish Government can stand by and watch jobs, opportunities and Scottish workers go elsewhere, or they can change course and work together with the UK Government, embrace civil nuclear power as part of our energy mix and ensure that Scotland remains an energy leader for generations to come.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maureen Burke

   Engagements

   Q11. A recent BBC “Disclosure” documentary exposed violence, open drug dealing, child exploitation, and a staggering 1,200 sexual offences recorded in Glasgow city centre in the year to March 2026. We must have an honest discussion about the city’s pressures, including addiction, deprivation, immigration and community cohesion. While SNP underfunding has crippled local public services, and Glasgow city council’s response has fallen short, Reform is exploiting public safety fears to stoke racial division in our welcoming city. Will the Prime Minister hear this call for help and support a co-ordinated response to make Glasgow safer?

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Rodda

   Nepal: UK Government Support

   I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the situation in Nepal. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Government’s response to the recent terrible floods in Nepal. I hope that the debate will be an important opportunity to demonstrate the strong links between Britain and Nepal and to understand more about the response to those dreadful floods. I also want to ask the Minister for an update on the response and on Britain’s continuing support for the longer-term reconstruction of the affected area and the development of Nepal more broadly. I will start, however, by echoing the Prime Minister’s words on the disaster by saying that Nepal has always been there for Britain, and now Britain needs to be there for Nepal. As everybody here will know, we have a very strong—some would say special—relationship with Nepal that goes back over 200 years. The Gurkhas served in the British Army throughout the 19th century and in world war one, world war two and numerous other conflicts since, including Malaysia, Brunei, the Falklands and Afghanistan. More recently, Gurkha soldiers were deployed to deal with the civil emergency in south Wales when they helped to tackle the very serious wildfires this summer. I also want to acknowledge and celebrate the significant civil contribution of the British Nepalese community, most notably in my own community and others around the country where British Nepalese residents work in the NHS, our local transport system, small businesses, IT and many other walks of life. There is enormous pride in that connection in Reading and the areas across the country with significant Gurkha and Nepalese communities, and there is also a great deal of support for and concern about the situation in Nepal. I offer my deepest condolences to all those affected by the floods, both the families who lost loved ones and those whose loved ones are still missing. It was a truly awful disaster that affected thousands and thousands of people. I understand the latest estimates are that around 1,400 people lost their lives and that 5,000 are still missing. The images are very difficult to describe. As my colleague Pratikshya Gurung, a local councillor on Reading borough council who is originally from Nepal, said to me at the time, it was so awful that people simply could not watch the news. They could not watch their television because of the horrors that were unfolding. We can all remember the images. Our hearts go out to all of those involved, both families who lost loved ones and families whose loved ones are still missing. The floods have left grieving families, orphans and lost family members. Sadly, several families in my community in Reading, both in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies, lost loved ones. There has also been a terrible effect on the very large British Nepalese community in Aldershot. I offer my condolences to all the communities around the country. I understand many colleagues will want to speak about their own communities or just offer their support more generally. I pay tribute to the work of other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), for Aldershot (Alex Baker), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and many others. Many were not able to attend today, but they wanted to offer their support. I also thank the Nepalese armed forces, emergency services, medical staff and many others who led the rescue operation in August and early September, and also their international colleagues, including British personnel. They serve with distinction, and many of them continue to serve in the difficult aftermath of the disaster. I am very proud of the links between Britain and Nepal and the support offered by the British Government, charities in Britain and local communities. I look forward to the Minister updating us on that later. I pay particular tribute to the help offered by our armed services and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in the immediate aftermath. I understand from briefings I have had with Ministers that there was incredibly close working between British and Nepalese forces, and that a range of technical help, as well as financial support, was offered to deal with some very specific issues. The FCDO offered a £5 million fund for immediate support, and it increased consular assistance, bringing extra staff into the embassy in Kathmandu. I thank the Government for that prompt response and for the continuing support Britain is offering to Nepal, as the second biggest bilateral donor to the country. I also thank Ministers for the support they have given me and other members of the Nepal all-party parliamentary group. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and Baroness Winterton provided vital assistance with casework and with briefings on the fast-moving situation. I turn now to the support provided by charities. The Disasters Emergency Committee has played an important role, and I am pleased to see the continuing work it is undertaking in Nepal. UNICEF provided me with a briefing and support, and the United Nations has done important work in this situation. More locally, I pay tribute to the community groups, including the Greater Reading Nepalese Community Association and others around the country, who provided such heartfelt and important support. I would like to mention a number of local residents, particularly Bhimsen Khadka, who is the chair of the association in Reading; Dev Bahadur and his wife Aruna Gurung; Chandra Budhathoki, who is the head of the Forgotten British Gurkha charity, which provides important support to retired Gurkhas in our area; Pratikshya and Deepak Gurung—Pratikshya is a local councillor; Ram Galami, a retired serviceman who works to support service personnel; and Bipin Duwadi, the chargé d’affaires at the Nepalese embassy, who has been extremely helpful in providing briefings and encouraging ongoing links between Britain and Nepal and those of us who have Nepalese communities in our constituencies. I will offer an indication of what it felt like at the time, because it is worth understanding the sense of feeling—I am sure colleagues will deal with this as well. We had a spontaneous vigil in Reading town centre outside our large Marks & Spencer store on Broad Street, which is the main shopping street in the town. It was on a Sunday evening, and hundreds of people showed up. It was organised by the Greater Reading Nepalese Community Association. However, there was huge support from people who are not from Nepal—people from all walks of life across the town—and that was echoed across the country, from what I understand. The sense of support was incredible. The sense of patriotism—both Nepalese and British patriotism—the deep connection with the armed forces and the sense of solidarity between people was quite overwhelming and powerful. For example, Pratikshya, who is a local councillor, had a resident turn up at her house randomly and say, “I would like to give you 50 quid towards this campaign, because it’s so important to me.” We had other people coming up to us in the street when we had the vigil and asking if they could light a candle to show their support. The level of support was very impressive and, indeed, overwhelming. I would like to thank all those who helped, and that help is continuing and developing. My office and other MPs’ offices have been active in working with local campaigners. I pay particular tribute to English Martyrs school in Reading, and English Martyrs church, which are some of the many organisations that have offered their support—they are offering to do some fundraising through a sponsored walk. That is typical of the kind of community-based activity that is under way, which will support the help for victims and the much-needed long-term reconstruction of the country. I would like to thank everyone for that. I appreciate that other colleagues need to address the issues in their communities, but I would like to ask the Minister a series of specific questions, and I look forward to hearing his answers. One of the biggest impacts has been on families both in Britain and Nepal, and some of the casework is very difficult for us to deal with as local MPs. I cannot go into individual cases, but what has happened to so many families—those in Britain with relatives there, and those in Nepal—is really awful. People who were on pilgrimages to the lakes where the water came from are still missing, and in some cases they are older people. One gentleman from Reading, a retired Gurkha who was on a pilgrimage, is still missing, and there are many others, including from other British communities. Many Hindus make pilgrimages to those sacred lakes. It is worth considering the serious impact on families in the short term and the longer term, and I look forward to the Minister saying a bit more about that. A very large number of people have been affected—something like 84,000, including about 32,000 children, some of whom are orphans. I was speaking to someone about that earlier this week. Some orphans are being cared for in Buddhist monasteries in the area, and some are being cared for and put up in schools. What happened is still having very real practical implications. This is a terrible human tragedy, and there is an ongoing need for practical development and assistance in the area. Nepal is a developing country—it is one of the world’s lower-income countries. Will the Minister provide an update on the humanitarian response and the ongoing work in the area, including within the affected river system? There is a need to rebuild bridges, schools and homes, and to provide greater resilience if climate change is increasing the risk of such threats. In particular, will the Minister address the environmental issues and the long-term concerns? There was a smaller flood this week in the Gorkha district. The Budhi Gandaki river flooded, and a number of people are now missing. It was a mudslide—a large amount of mud and rocks went into the river—so it is not quite the same, although it is happening in the same geographical location. There are great concerns in the British Nepalese community that this type of disaster may occur again. I declare an interest: several members of my family are environmental scientists. My dad visited Nepal for a programme in the 1990s, through which a number of countries provided assistance to developing countries to provide greater resilience against natural disasters of this kind. Separately, I visited Nepal as a walker with my wife some years ago. Will the Minister address the particular risks in mountainous regions such as Nepal with very steep river valleys, high levels of rainfall, glacial lakes and glaciers that may sadly now be melting because of the climate emergency? What are the practical implications? How can the UK and other advanced countries provide greater resources, including monitoring and early warning? What measures can be taken to provide greater resilience to the communities involved, which now appear to be far more at risk of threats from this type of disaster, even on a smaller scale? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions. More generally, will he talk about the ongoing work that Britain is doing with Nepal to encourage its development? Nepal hoped to move out of a certain category of developing countries. It did not quite make it, but it is developing and there is incredible potential. Its new Government are working closely with our Government. The first official visit to the new Government was made by a British Minister, which is an important indication of the special relationship between our two countries. There is scope for greater trade and support, and the British Nepalese community is very active in our country. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I realise that this is not his brief, but will he contact his colleague in the Ministry of Defence and ask for an update for the community on the unrelated issue of pensions for a certain group of Gurkha soldiers—those who retired before 1997 and have a different pension arrangement from that of more recent retirees? Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak, Ms McVey. I am really grateful to Mr Speaker and the House authorities for granting me the opportunity to have this debate. I look forward to hearing more from colleagues and the Minister.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Rodda

    Nepal: UK Government Support

    It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, the House and the Members who have spoken today, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the spokeswoman for the Liberal Democrats. Today’s debate has raised some important issues, and like the Prime Minister, I believe that Nepal has always been there for Britain, so now Britain has to be there for Nepal. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s response, and, in particular, about the work under way this week at the UN and the World Bank, where the Foreign Secretary is working closely with the Nepalese Finance Minister. I look forward to hearing more details about that and the vital consular and reconstruction work. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the situation in Nepal.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Martin McCluskey

    Draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 July. The boiler upgrade scheme is the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heating in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales. Through the scheme, households can receive grants towards the installation of eligible low-carbon heating technologies, primarily heat pumps, helping them to overcome the up-front costs of moving away from fossil fuel heating systems. The draft regulations are an important enabling step towards the future inclusion of heat batteries within the scheme, helping to ensure that consumers can benefit from a wider range of low-carbon heating technologies. In 2025, the Government consulted on expanding the range of technologies supported through the boiler upgrade scheme, including the potential introduction of heat batteries. For members of the Committee who may be unaware, heat batteries are a type of thermal energy storage system that can use low-carbon electricity to generate and store heat for use when it is needed. Following the consideration of consultation responses, the Government confirmed our intention to support heat batteries through the scheme, once appropriate standards and consumer protections are in place. The draft regulations amend section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, which provides powers for the Secretary of State to establish “a scheme to facilitate and encourage renewable generation of heat” in England and Wales. At present, those powers apply only in relation to specified technologies and energy sources. The draft regulations add thermal energy storage systems to that list, providing the necessary legislative foundation for thermal energy storage systems, including eligible heat batteries, to be supported through Government schemes made under those powers, such as the boiler upgrade scheme. It is important to be clear that the draft regulations will not themselves introduce grants for heat batteries into the boiler upgrade scheme. Instead, subject to Parliament approving the regulations, the Government intend to introduce a further statutory instrument to amend the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 and enable support for eligible heat batteries through the scheme. The Government are supporting the future inclusion of heat batteries to increase consumer choice, recognising the potential to provide an alternative low-carbon heating solution in properties where heat pump installation may not be suitable. The draft regulations also make a technical amendment to the 2022 regulations to clarify the powers available to the scheme administrator, Ofgem, where an installer has received an ineligible payment. The amendment will allow amounts owed to be recovered through a combination of repayment and offsetting against future grant payments, helping to strengthen scheme administration and safeguard public money. In conclusion, the draft regulations ensure that the legislative framework underpinning the boiler upgrade scheme can accommodate thermal energy storage systems. They represent an important enabling step towards the future inclusion of heat batteries within the scheme, supporting greater consumer choice and helping more households across England and Wales to transition to low-carbon heating. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Martin McCluskey

    Draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026

    I welcome the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth to his new role. I am sure this will be the first of many Committees in which we will face each other. Turning to the hon. Member’s points, he obviously heard what I had to say yesterday about departmental budgets. What is in the explanatory memorandum is still dependent on future departmental budgets. They are obviously ultimately decisions for the Treasury, in Budgets and spending reviews, so they will be decisions for the Chancellor at the end of this month. On the shadow Minister’s broader point about the cost of electricity versus the cost of gas, the previous Government and this Government have both prioritised the delinking of electricity and gas, which is important to encourage the uptake of these technologies. I gently say to him that his party had 14 years in Government in which to reduce the spark gap and did not make much progress. Since we have been in Government, we have made sure that the reduction in levies has fallen heavily on the electricity bill rather than just on gas, and also adopted contracts for difference and encouraged companies on to CfDs so that there are fixed costs rather than the high costs linked to gas for certain generation. We have already taken significant action in the last couple of years on delinking, and we will take further action down the line. On the question of standards, the Government have been clear that support for heat batteries will be introduced only once the appropriate product and installation standards are in place. They will need to be certified under the microgeneration certification scheme, just as heat pumps are now, and comply with the MCS design and installation standards. There is good reason to introduce this statutory instrument now, to make sure we are in a position to move quickly once those standards are in place. The hon. Member may already know that the standard for air-to-air heat pumps, which have been in legislation for some time, is still being worked on by MCS and the accreditation bodies. Passing this legislation will enable us to get the technology in place, so that we are ready to support heat batteries as soon as possible once the standards are in place. On the hon. Member’s questions about the methodology and why we are, in his words, supporting heat batteries ahead of other forms of electric heating, the responses to the consultation we ran in 2025 showed broad support for expanding the scheme to additional electric technologies. Heat batteries were the technology most frequently highlighted by respondents. In answer to the questions about value for money and minimising running costs, they pointed to the potential benefits associated with heat batteries, including the ability to take advantage of charging at off-peak times and to be installed as a like-for-like solution for many gas or electric boilers, unlike some other solutions. I am sure the shadow Minister has read the Government response to the consultation, which includes the many of the answers to the questions he has asked today. It was only after that deliberation that we decided to include heat batteries in the boiler upgrade scheme. On his final question around the value of the £2,500 grant, we arrived at that number largely because it was judged to be the best amount, given the lower cost of heat batteries versus heat pumps. We think the £2,500 grant will bring the cost of installation of a heat battery to around £6,000, about the same level for heat pumps, once the £7,500 grant is taken into account. Part of the reasoning is to avoid distorting the market by creating an uneven playing field for heat batteries versus heat pumps. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for his support for the SI. There is much common ground between our parties on these issues. He has talked about the ambition behind his party’s 10-year plan. I would say that the warm homes plan is indeed an ambitious programme for retrofitting homes across the country, with billions of pounds behind it. I welcome and agree with what the hon. Member said about data. The Department is making moves around the comprehensive environmental data archive, using and enhancing smart meter vectors, to ensure that data is used to inform proper assessments of homes. That might in future take us beyond what is available through energy performance certificates, which is really valuable. There is work going on in that area, which I would be happy to discuss with the hon. Member, if that is useful. The regulations are an enabling measure. They do not by themselves introduce support for heat batteries through the boiler upgrade scheme, but they do provide the necessary legislative foundation to do so through future secondary legislation. They also support the effective administration of the boiler upgrade scheme by clarifying Ofgem’s powers to recover ineligible payments, strengthening the protection of public money. These regulations are an important step forward in delivering the Government’s commitment to support heat batteries through the scheme. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Markus Campbell-Savours

    Victims of Crime: Access to Justice

    With Cumbria experiencing rates of domestic abuse significantly higher than the England average, and with victims often feeling traumatised by the process of securing justice, how is the Attorney General working with the CPS to ensure victims’ voices are not ignored by the justice system?

    Hansard source
14. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Markus Campbell-Savours

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    The Minister spoke fondly before of working for a former Home Secretary who, on one occasion after 9/11, disapplied part of the European convention on human rights using article 15. Does the hon. Member recognise that there is a difference, perhaps, between leaving the European convention and suspending elements of it while we deal with a crisis?

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Markus Campbell-Savours

    Inheritance Tax

    I wonder—I have not read this anywhere—is there a cap on the value of the family home that will be exempt? For example, would the penthouse at One Hyde Park, which sold for about £175 million, be completely exempt?

    Hansard source
16. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Markus Campbell-Savours

    Inheritance Tax

    The motion says “family homes”; it does not specifically say “family farms or businesses”. The hon. Gentleman raises family businesses, so how would someone define a family business for the purposes of legislation?

    Hansard source
17. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Markus Campbell-Savours

    Inheritance Tax

    I ask the Minister to please not let the Opposition distract us from what can be done. The SFI debacle the other day demonstrated that farmers are struggling. There is an opportunity to do the right thing at the Budget. He must not let the party that wants to give tax benefits to the owners of £175 million penthouses distract us. There is something in what the Conservatives have written about farm taxes, but it is very different from the wider issue they have raised in this daft motion.

    Hansard source
18. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

    The Minister has given an incredibly detailed answer, and I agree that it is a straight answer to the arguments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). Does he think that the system he has described will fall foul of the armed forces covenant?

    Hansard source
19. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Murphy

    Nepal: UK Government Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am particularly grateful for your latitude given my slightly tardy arrival. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing the debate. As many hon. Members have said, the floods have caused catastrophic damage and loss of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) mentioned, Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority has highlighted that 1,455 people have been confirmed dead and over 5,000 are missing. Few of us will forget the devastating scenes that we saw on our television screens as whole places were swept away as a result of the floods. Sadly, given the number of people missing, the death toll is likely to continue to rise and the flooding is likely to continue to affect many other lives. With homes, schools and health services ruined, and whole communities devastated, it will take a long time to rebuild. As hon. Members have said, that is why the long-term commitment and support of the UK Government, in partnership with the Nepalese Government, is so important. This horrifying event has impacted not just Nepal and those in Tibet, but the Nepalese community around the world, including those in the strong Nepalese community who have proudly made the UK their home. I am proud to represent one of the largest Nepalese communities in the UK, including many Gurkha veterans, and I know how much of an impact the incident has had on our local community. I was pleased to join a local vigil organised by the Basingstoke Nepalese community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central mentioned, it was incredibly well attended by people of all backgrounds. We reflected on not just the profound loss and impact of the floods, but the acts of heroism, small and large, that have been carried out by many people in Nepal. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the school principal, Rajendra Dawadi, whose quick thinking saved the lives of 900 children. There is also Chhiring Tamang, the school bus driver whose quick thinking to drive 50 children across a bridge before it was swept away saved their lives, and Priya Adhikari, Nepal’s first female helicopter pilot, who flew more than 100 rescue missions during the crisis. Those acts of heroism came alongside small acts of support, including by those in the Basingstoke Nepalese community who have been leading fundraising efforts to support those affected by the floods back home. I pay tribute to the chair, Bijay, the general secretary, Jagadish, and the whole committee in Basingstoke for its work in leading that support. I also welcome the support that the UK Government have given to Nepal and the British nationals affected by the floods. As others have mentioned, that includes £5 million in humanitarian assistance for emergency shelter, healthcare, food, clean water and sanitation; the longer-term partnership, which has existed for a long time, of £100 million for Nepal’s disaster resilience, humanitarian assistance and climate adaptation; and the wider financial support that others have mentioned through institutions such as the World Bank. Other acts include consular support, staffing and deployment, diplomatic engagement, ministerial visits and engagement with affected communities in the UK. The support was incredibly well received by the local community in Basingstoke and again emphasises the long-standing partnership and friendship between our two countries. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned, the disaster highlights once again the disastrous impacts of climate change. It shows the important leadership role that the UK can play, must play and is playing to combat what is the greatest threat to our economy, society and security here in the UK and around the world. I welcome the fact that the Government remain committed to meeting our climate targets here at home, and that the new Foreign Secretary has rightly placed climate and nature security at the heart of our national security and foreign policy decision making. As the floods have shown, and as the Foreign Secretary has said, climate change and nature loss are not just issues for climate and environment Ministers alone; they are defining challenges for our economy, foreign policy and national security. No one recognises that more than the people of Nepal, and it was a big theme of the vigil event that we hosted in Basingstoke. I conclude by asking the Minister what further action the Government will take to support Nepal in recovering from the floods, seeking reassurance that the Government will remain engaged in helping the recovery in the medium to long term. To echo my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, because it will be such a long recovery, that long-term support will be so important. Long after the floods have been forgotten and are no longer being played on the news, we must remain a steadfast partner. I also seek reassurance that support will remain available for affected British nationals, including those who may have loved ones among the missing. I also echo the urging of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central for the Government to finally resolve the pensions issue, which I have been working on with the local Gurkha community in Basingstoke. Finally, I again pay tribute to the local Nepalese community that I am so proud to represent.

    Hansard source
20. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lola McEvoy

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate, which is about—politely—underperforming trusts. This is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and I will be talking about the breast cancer failings at my local trust, County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust. In April 2025, the trust began going through the case files of women who had been patients of its breast services between 2023 and 2025. Of the 538 women whose cases have been reviewed, 321 experienced some form of harm: 77 suffered significant harm, 20 underwent unnecessary mastectomies, and the trust has confirmed that one woman has died, and it is currently investigating the situation. Let me take a moment to reflect on that. The women in this room know how much pain we are deemed to have to endure and put up with. But to hear that women put their trust in our NHS at a time of great stress and anxiety and had their breasts removed unnecessarily is truly abhorrent. The trust has rightly changed leadership and is now undertaking a further review of the treatment given to women by the breast services from 2015 onwards. The cases of a further 4,500 women need to be reviewed by specialists. The current rate of review—538 cases a year—means that, without further resource to fund more specialists to review the cases, the process could go well into the 2030s. Recent Health Service Journal modelling estimates that the work could cost the trust £4.5 million. The trust does not get any financial support for that work, which I find counterintuitive, as the victims need answers and justice, and the trust must learn the lessons from what went wrong while also carrying on its vital duties. Campaigners are calling for a public inquiry—I support them and understand why—but I fear that it will take years and years for answers to be found and lessons to be learned. The Prime Minister recently agreed and said in a BBC interview: “Of course there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry…we will ensure that those affected have all of the answers that they need”. He said that there are different routes to the truth but, without additional resources, how can the trust be expected to keep other services running effectively while conducting the inquiry? It will inevitably go into debt and probably be bailed out by the Department of Health and Social Care—that is, the taxpayer. Given that the Health Bill, which is focused on abolishing NHS England and giving direct powers back to the Secretary of State, is going through the House, we have the legislative opportunity to change the culture from fearing and fighting for scrutiny to funding and facilitating it. Our trust needs to provide the answers and support the affected patients in a timely and compassionate manner, and to improve and change services to gather the information necessary to do that. We all in this House agree that patients across the country deserve better.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lillian Jones

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing this important debate. Scotland has a proud heritage, skilled workers, vast renewable resources and the North sea, but to make the most of those strengths we need an energy policy that is ambitious, practical and focused on the future. Can we really believe that Hunterston B has now ended generation, with no plan to build the next generation of new nuclear? For almost 46 years, that nuclear power station provided reliable, low-carbon electricity to Scotland. At its peak, Hunterston B generated enough electricity to power almost 2 million homes a year. Over its lifetime, it produced just under 300 terawatt-hours of electricity—enough to power every home in Scotland for more than 30 years—while avoiding more than 100 million tonnes of carbon emissions. It supported around 500 jobs and 250 contractors and made a major contribution to Ayrshire’s economy. That is a remarkable legacy, as is that of Torness, which is now the most productive clean power asset in Scotland’s history. Since coming online in 1988, it has generated more than 300 terawatt-hours of clean electricity—enough power for every home in Scotland for around 36 years. It also helped to avoid more than 100 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. Those are not just statistics; they demonstrate what nuclear power has delivered, and can continue to deliver, for Scotland. Yet Scotland has no new nuclear power station under construction and no future plan. That matters, because nuclear and renewables should not be presented as alternatives—Scotland needs both. Wind power is one of our greatest strengths, but wind does not blow every hour of every day. Nuclear provides dependable, low-carbon electricity alongside renewables. For families and businesses in my constituency and right across Scotland, energy security matters. We have all seen how global events can send our energy prices soaring. More secure domestic generation can reduce our exposure to those shocks and give families and businesses greater certainty. It is about jobs, too. Hunterston and Torness demonstrated that nuclear investment can deliver highly skilled, unionised jobs, apprenticeships, engineering expertise and opportunities for local supply chains. We should build on that, not turn our backs on it. We should back offshore wind and invest in new technologies, and look seriously at a new generation of nuclear power. That is the balanced approach that Scotland needs, but the Scottish Government’s energy strategy is nearly three years late. Families and businesses across Ayrshire need certainty now. They want to see new investment in new nuclear energy. Plainly speaking, they want to see the creation of Hunterston C. Hunterston showed us what is possible. Torness is showing us that it is still possible. Scotland needs the ambition to build the next generation of new nuclear. The Scottish Labour party and the UK Labour Government are ready to work with the SNP Government to deliver energy certainty, investment and ambition for our communities and young people. Will the SNP Government drop their ideology on nuclear to help Scotland’s energy future? That is the question.

    Hansard source
22. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Pitcher

    Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

    The hon. Member has mentioned inconsistency quite a bit, and I hope he will not mind me echoing what other Members have already said tonight. Alongside the issue he has raised is the related issue of how local authorities treat compensation. The Royal British Legion’s “Credit their Service” campaign highlights significant inconsistencies with local authorities’ policies in determining how military compensation is treated under different circumstances. Does he agree that there should not be a postcode lottery? It should not be about where someone lives; everybody should be treated fairly and equitably across the country.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Barron

    Violence against Women and Girls

    6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help improve prosecution rates for crimes of violence against women and girls.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Barron

    Violence against Women and Girls

    It is almost two years since Harshita Brella was murdered in Corby, her body dumped in the boot of a car. An arrest warrant was issued for Harshita’s husband, who fled the country. Will the Minister raise Harshita’s case with other relevant Departments, and give her family the reassurance that all is being done to bring Harshita the justice that she and her family so desperately deserve?

    Hansard source
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice: Access and Unfair Practices during the Recognition and Derecognition Process. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The code of practice was laid before the House in draft on 6 July. I will explain to the Committee why we are bringing the code for consideration. In our plan to make work pay, we made a commitment to simplify the trade union recognition process. The Employment Rights Act 2025 updates the legal framework on statutory trade union recognition, so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. That includes having removed, last April, the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that a majority for union recognition is likely, and having removed the requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit in support of union recognition. The 2025 Act also makes changes to provide better access arrangements for unions and it aims to deal more effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition processes. The Government are therefore updating the 2005 version of this code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how the legislative changes on access and unfair practices affect them. We consulted on the revised code between 4 February and 1 April. The consultation sought views on the clarity of changes made to reflect the updated legal framework, structural amendments to reflect the legislative changes made under the 2025 Act, and other changes made to the code, including updating the guidance within it so that it accurately reflects modern working practices and language. A number of revisions were made to the existing 2005 code following the consultation. Previously, the code applied only to the recognition or derecognition ballot phase. Now, the draft code reflects the changes made by the 2025 Act to access and unfair practices and it applies from the point where the Central Arbitration Committee accepts an application for recognition or derecognition. The code also reflects a clear timetable for negotiations on access: 20 working days from the point that the CAC accepts a trade union recognition application. If no agreement is reached, the CAC will have 10 working days to determine a reasonable access agreement. The code has been revised to reflect the fact that the 2025 Act allows five working days after the close of the recognition ballot for complaints to be submitted to the CAC where an unfair practice is alleged. Where such a practice is alleged, the Act makes it easier to determine the complaints by only requiring the CAC to consider whether an unfair practice has occurred, without considering the effect that it may have had. The updated code also increases the suggested access meeting frequency and minimum length of meetings to once every five working days and 45 minutes, respectively, during the access period. The changes will provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement between the union seeking recognition and the workers within the bargaining unit. That will allow union representatives to answer any questions that the workers may have, before the balloted workforce decides whether to agree to statutory union recognition. Employers will of course have similar opportunities for engagement with their workers throughout the duration of period. In addition, we have sought to reassure employers, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, for example by clarifying that the statutory recognition process does not apply to employers that have fewer than 21 workers and that nothing in the revised code will require employers to breach general data protection requirements. The draft code also provides guidance on what constitutes a good access agreement. It establishes a structured framework covering key areas, such as who may be granted access, how and where access should take place—including digital options—and arrangements relating to timing, frequency, privacy and communication. Finally, the Government have taken the opportunity to bring the code up to date with changes in digital communications. The code now provides significantly more detailed guidance in this area, including guidance on digital access. The draft code in Committee reflects the updated legal framework for statutory trade union recognition. Together with the 2025 Act, the changes strengthen the collective voice in the workplace, enhance worker representation and help to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers. I therefore commend the code of practice to the Committee.

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

    Draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process

    I welcome the shadow Minister and thank him for his speech and questions. The Government are committed to simplifying and improving the recognition process so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. I am not going to spend this time going back and forth over ideology and principles, why the Employment Rights Act is the right thing to do to drive up the quality of work across every area of this country so that people have the rights that they should expect in the workplace, and that we are updating employment rights legislation so that it is fit for the 21st century. We have spent a lot of time doing that, so I will bring my remarks back to the code that we are discussing today. The revised code supports part of our wider ambition. It supports the Employment Rights Act to deliver better access arrangements for unions and deals effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. As I said in my opening remarks, we listened carefully to views that were expressed during the consultation earlier this year, and I am happy to respond to the particular questions that the shadow Minister raised today. The Government carefully considered the consultation responses and recognised the concerns that were raised about operational impact. However, we believe that workers should have a meaningful opportunity to hear from union representatives and ask questions before making a decision about recognition. That is why we have retained the proposed frequency and duration of meetings alongside guidance intended to minimise disruption and support those practical arrangements, and amended the code to try to aid clarity and support practical use as far as possible. We think it is right that we provide a level playing field. Employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. Granting the union access to the workplace from the point where the CAC accepts the recognition claim enables the union to also have access to the workplace from the start of the recognition process, at least once the terms of the access are agreed or determined. We think that that is a fair approach. The costs and benefits in the recognition process and the changes that the shadow Minister referenced in his speech were laid out in the impact assessment; the Government expect the cost to be very low, estimating the annual net cost to business at £0.3 million. The code is statutory guidance; it does not impose further costs on employers beyond what we discussed at length during the passage of the Employment Rights Act. Turning to the shadow Minister’s questions around unfair practices, the legal definition as to what constitutes an unfair practice has not changed, as he referenced, in the Employment Rights Act: “Unfair practices are actions by an employer, union, or worker intended to influence the outcome of a recognition ballot. These include bribery, coercion, threats, or actively interfering in union management to sway worker decisions.” We have clarified in the code some issues to consider around some actions during the recognition process. As he referenced, amending the definition of an unfair practice would require separate legislation, and our priority has been to implement the reforms to the recognition process as soon as possible and on the October timeline, as we promised throughout our road map since the introduction of this legislation. We want to give time for the reforms to bed in and, should it be necessary in the future, we will bring forward further proposals to amend the definition of an unfair practice in addition to our planned additional unfair practice in relation to e-balloting in recognition and derecognition ballots. This code is a key part of our approach of providing increased worker voices in the workplace, improving pay, conditions and productivity, which enables us to protect workers from the unfair practices that we are discussing today, and improving employer-employee relations in the kind of country and workplaces that we are fighting for and want to build. It makes sure that recognition is fair in terms of the access period. It needed to be updated since that 2005 legislation in line with the ambitions that we have for legislation and the Employment Rights Act. This is a key part of that agenda, and I believe that the code before colleagues on the Committee today will assist unions and employers in complying with the new statutory requirements on access and unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. That is why this code is necessary, and I hope that colleagues can support it today to enable that vision and for this to work practically in workplaces. Question put.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    That is very kind of you to encourage me, Mr Stuart. What are the timings now?

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I want to try to get back to most colleagues. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate, and all Members who have spoken about the experiences of patients, because this is absolutely about the experiences of patients, families and the NHS staff in all our constituencies. When an NHS trust underperforms, however we define it, the effects are very real. Patients wait longer, staff work without the stability and support they need, and public money is not used as effectively as it should be. Since becoming a Minister, I have made it clear that I think Members of Parliament should be part of conversations with local trusts. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for hosting his trust in the way he has and seeing an improvement in his constituency, as he outlined, with mental health being considered as well as acute services. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), spoke about her work in supporting her local trust and seeing those improvements. It can and does happen. Many of the trusts that have been discussed today have faced problems built up over many years. In fact, I remember some of them from being a manager in the health service over the past 20 years or so. There is rarely one cause or a quick fix. There are varying problems, whether they be workforce shortages, poor estates, weak leadership, organisational change or rising demand, and some of those can reinforce one another. Let us be clear for patients and members of the public who are paying attention and for all our constituents: this Government will not accept poor performance, and we are determined to accelerate the recovery, particularly in the most challenged trusts. I will just clarify some of the rules. Everyone knows that NHS England is an arm’s length body. That was a decision taken a number of years ago by my good friends the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when we were in opposition. The Health Bill, which is progressing through the House of Lords, changes that arrangement to put the NHS together with the Department of Health and Social Care. The Bill was not opposed in principle by any political party, because we all know that the arrangement has not worked. As we bring the two bodies together, it is important to maintain the distinction between running large trusts and running the system as a whole, with operational performance oversight. It is a skilled job. It is hard to run a big trust. It requires good clinical and operational managers, and good leadership and knowledge. The complete separation of the Department and Ministers from NHS England meant that the oversight and what we could see in our constituencies as Members of Parliament was not linked up under the previous Government. That is one thing that will improve. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) just said, of course Ministers will not be micromanaging. It is a skilled job. The complete separation that removed oversight from local trusts has been a dysfunction of the system over the last decade. To be clear, I regularly meet teams and Members of Parliament in my role. I want to share how some of that operational oversight works. I will highlight two major areas. One is the oversight framework, which provides a clear and consistent assessment of every NHS organisation. In her expertise, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham recognised that there are many ways to judge performance, but the new framework looks at what matters most to patients and taxpayers: waiting times, quality of care, use of staff and money, and leadership capability in order to have good-quality patient care. They cannot be separated in my view. I have made sure that it is transparent for the public and Members of Parliament. That is quite controversial; some people do not like what they call league tables, but I think it is important that people can see that.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    I will move through some of these points for the moment. For providers with the most entrenched financial, operational, leadership and structural challenges that impact patient care—that is what these trusts are about—we are taking a more holistic approach to that enhanced support because, as the shadow Minister asked, how do we choose? They are the most challenged long-term systems. At a national level, the intensive recovery programme is providing short-term, intensive support for organisations to help strengthen their immediate operational and financial stability while developing an organisation-owned plan for long-term sustainability. We cannot keep going round in this circle; at the end of the day, these organisations need to be well run and well led, and local systems need to own that problem. That is also part of our wider devolution agenda. I think I outlined that in my letter to the hon. Member for Chelmsford in September, but I am very happy to meet again and go through that in more detail if that is helpful. The first IRP cohort includes Hull, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, East Kent, North Cumbria and Mid and South Essex. Each faces very different circumstances, so there is not a one-size-fits-all response. I will touch on some of them, for hon. Members have raised their own issues with them. There is interest in Hull and Northern Lincolnshire and Goole. Following an independent review, the decision has been taken to dissolve the Humber health partnership arrangements. In Hull, the focus is on strengthening core hospital services, making the best use of specialist services, improving productivity and reinforcing clinical leadership and accountability. For Northern Lincolnshire and Goole, the priority is to move more care into neighbourhood and community settings, reflecting the demands in those areas. There are good signs of progress. The hon. Member for Chelmsford and others who intervened highlighted Mid and South Essex. The 2020 merger of those three trusts has not delivered the planned benefits for 1.2 million people. Staff culture and morale remain a serious concern, with little improvement, as was highlighted in those terrible survey results over the past five years. We have heard those. The trust has long-standing performance problems linked to how demand is managed across the wider health system in that part of Essex. Work is under way to improve the long waits, improve patient flow, strengthen governance and make better use of the estate. I shared the analysis in productivity packs with everybody earlier in the year, and I am sure that everybody looked at them in detail, but I am very happy to go through them again. It identified more than £122 million of productivity opportunities. It is not simply about saving money. Better organisation across sites and stronger clinical integration should improve patient experience, reduce delays and raise quality for patients. The clinical strategy will make greater use of neighbourhood and community care in line with our 10-year plan and focus on maternity and planned care treatment. This is backed by £80 million for Southend hospital’s long-standing structural estate problems and support for a neighbourhood health centre in Maldon.[Official Report, 20 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 9WC.] (Correction) I will touch on North Cumbria because, for the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and for Yeovil (Adam Dance), the work going on there really highlights what can and needs to be done in rural healthcare. I remind hon. Members that hospitals in some of those areas are additionally funded to cope with some of those rurality issues. We highlighted that in our 10-year health plan. We absolutely understand that across the country, there are different issues with regard to rurality. I will not talk about Kent, because it has not been raised, but again, it has very different issues. That is why those areas have been chosen. They have long-standing and deeply entrenched problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised ambulance handover delays. I did not know she was going to raise that today, but to assure her, the continued problem with the ambulances was raised with me in my oversight meeting with the team yesterday. Those issues are flagged by NHS England and its operational management across the country. They are long-standing issues, as she knows, but I gently disagree with her. She is absolutely right in her assessments of history, but this issue is not a failure of oversight and accountability. Good co-operation, collaboration and management are the responsibility of the services locally. The oversight has worked. We know that this is a problem. We and her constituents can see that. We very much want the services to work together to resolve that flow so that the ambulance handover works much better. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) highlights, sadly, her constituency’s downward improvement trajectory. She asked to meet me, and I am very happy to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) did the incredibly difficult job of raising the terrible distress for women in her constituency. She highlighted a terrible case, and I will make sure that she has a meeting with the Minister to go through how that can be supported on behalf of her constituents. I know that she will work closely to make sure that they are served better. We are seeing early improvements through the IRP, but we need to demonstrate progress through safer care, better operation and financial performance. We have clear milestones and credible plans for stronger organisations. Support nationally is time-limited but proportionate, because trusts ultimately have to stand on their feet. Intensive oversight is not about naming and shaming. Staff in challenged trusts are working in exceptionally difficult circumstances. As we need to encourage people to work there, we must show them that it can be better. The purpose is to remove barriers to improvement, provide the right expertise and hold boards and NHS leaders to account for results. The Government will continue to work with NHS England. I am committed to keeping Parliament informed of significant developments. We will judge our approach by its effect on patients and staff, not by the creation of more processes. The oversight framework and the intensive recovery programme provide a clear route from identifying the risk to taking targeted action. There is much more to do. It can only be done in local circumstances with co-operation and transparency, including working with Members of Parliament. Where we hear examples of trust chief executives not doing that, I am prepared to call it out. It is not acceptable. There is more to do, but we want practical, safer and more timely care, and stronger organisations. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to debate this issue today. It is important for MPs to be part of the discussion. We want to improve all trusts, but we are focusing on those with long-term issues, sometimes having been affected for decades. The people in those areas deserve better, and we are determined to make sure they get it.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Judith Cummins

    Business without Debate

    I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He has successfully put his point on the record, and I am sure it will have been noted by Members on the Treasury Bench, who can make the relevant Ministers aware.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Powell

    Engagements

    Q13. It is now nearly 10 years since the Grenfell Tower fire. I welcome the recent progress on criminal accountability, but from Hillsborough to infected blood to the Countess of Chester hospital, too often inquiries and inquests make recommendations that sit on a shelf, leaving victims chasing answers and avoidable harms continuing. Will the Prime Minister give his support to an independent national oversight mechanism to sit alongside the Hillsborough law, and ensure that when tragedies like Grenfell do occur, the state is held properly accountable for change?

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo White

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    This has been an important debate on one of the defining challenges of our time. Our constituents rightly expect immigration to be fair, controlled and free from abuse. For too long, it has been none of those. When this Government entered office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos, with criminal gangs deciding who could come to this country and hundreds of hotels being used to house vast numbers of illegal immigrants at immense cost to the public. It was unfair to the genuine refugees left waiting more than a year to have their case heard and unfair to the British people being asked to shoulder an ever-increasing burden in their taxes and their communities. From day one, we began the hard work of fixing our asylum system and restoring order and control to our borders. The statistics show that we are making progress. Asylum decision making is up and returns are up, while small boat arrivals are down, and we remain on track to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, although we know there is a long way to go. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to tackle the people smugglers who value profit above human life and to remove those who have no right to be here. At the same time, we are ensuring that asylum seekers are housed in the fairest, most cost-effective way. We have seen the stress and strains of hotel usage. We are ending that scandal and we are moving asylum seekers to more appropriate accommodation. Former military bases, which are secure and contained, provide one of the best solutions. They allow us to minimise the impact on the local community with services brought on-site, 24/7 security and CCTV. We will always listen to concerns and work with the community, but existing sites, including Wethersfield, have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributed to their operation. We do not need to leave the ECHR to restore order to our immigration system.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo White

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    No, I will not give way. Winston Churchill proposed the establishment of the European convention on human rights at the 1948 Congress of Europe, and the UK was the first country to ratify it in 1951. It came from Churchill’s experience of dealing with the Nazis before and during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, unprotected. The European convention on human rights defines what we mean by never again. How those rights are interpreted and applied is important, and that is why the Home Secretary committed last year to oversee reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age. The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in your own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. These principles remain essential. Which two countries have chosen to stay out? Russia and Belarus. Perhaps we should ask opposition leaders in Russia and Belarus about that. They have been falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the state. That is what we are talking about. By leaving the ECHR, we would throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo White

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    No, I will not. Sit down. Instead, we stand with Churchill. We will build a fair, controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. We will focus on matters abut which people are rightly concerned. The issue is not the existence of the convention, but the way in which it has been applied over time. We do not fix a fault by walking away; we sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended. That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chiinău political declaration in May, creating solid foundations for reform. The Government are now translating that into practical change, and we will see reform of the domestic application of article 8, restoring the proper balance between maintaining individual rights and protecting the public interest. This is a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants or foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protects all our individual rights and freedoms. It also provides us with responsibilities, and when people have been subjected to torture or the risk of torture, we have rightly provided them with a place of security and safety. I now come to some of the points made by hon. Members. [Interruption.] I respond appropriately to Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) wanted a timeline for the closing down of hotels in places such as Falkirk which were approved by the Tories when they were in power. The ambition is to end hotel use by the end of this parliamentary term. The number has fallen from 400 when we came into power to fewer than 160, and I will celebrate with my hon. Friend when we are in a position to close down the remaining hotel in his constituency. In response to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the introduction of electronic travel authorisations at the borders and ports and the use of visa penalties have given us much greater control over our borders. Disincentivising crossings through the introduction of new, strong control methods, including those employed by Border Security Command, cracking down on illegal working and introducing safe and legal routes for genuine asylum cases from some of the most dangerous countries in the world has also given us more power over our borders. The change in the way in which the ECHR is applied is critical to bringing back order and control. This Government share the concern on women’s safety, and I acknowledge the concerns of the women who are here today. No woman should live a smaller life, and this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within this decade. Ours is a cross-Government response, and we will work as hard as we can to achieve that aim. Home Office representatives have met the chief executive and the leader of Cherwell district council to discuss cohesion challenges linked to people’s concerns about the site, and they are listening to the concerns raised by women.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo White

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    This is an imperative for the Home Office. The proposal contained in the planning application includes on-site 24/7 security and CCTV. We have already introduced those measures on other large sites such as Wethersfield, which has operated in that way for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) identified, safeguarding for the local community is an imperative. It is important and drives the management of the site. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised concerns about the planning process. It already includes an environmental impact assessment.

    Hansard source
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo White

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in. There were no objections from Natural England. The final cost of the site will only be known following the outcome of the procurement process. Concerns were raised about article 3. The Government accept that there will be genuinely exceptional medical healthcare cases in which article 3 prevents removal, but they must be exceptional. Article 3 was never intended to guarantee—

    Hansard source
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo White

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Cases are inherently fact-sensitive and must always be assessed on their individual circumstances. It is absolutely not for me to say in this House. Following the recent political declaration on article 3, we are working to secure stronger instant decisions, better prepared litigation and more consistent application of article 3. Further operational policy or legislative reform remain available where persistent barriers are identified. I say in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that she was in the Home Office when she approved large sites, including the one that was proposed for RAF Scampton. She knows that in-house services, 24/7 CCTV and security provide a greater level of protection for communities. This country is proud to offer sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It is the right thing to do, and it is a fundamental part of who we are, but that generosity depends on the support of the British public. They must believe that our asylum system is fair. For that, it must be capped and controlled, with decisions and appeals that are fast and fair, and those with no right to be here must be promptly removed. That is the imperative behind every decision this Government take. We are restoring order to our borders. We are making our asylum system faster and fairer, and in doing so, we will ensure that this country can continue to provide protection to those in need—today and for generations to come. Question put.

    Hansard source
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jess Asato

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am incredibly grateful to be sitting on this Committee. Reforging cross-party consensus on the value of investing in the early years is essential, and the Bill helps us to get back to where we ought to be. It focuses on improving support for children and their families so that everyone can get the best possible start in life. I reiterate my thanks to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for introducing this important piece of legislation. I tabled an amendment to the Bill to make what is implicit in its intention explicit, and will describe why I have done so. To address the right hon. Member’s concerns about further amendments, it is always the case that where campaigners see an opportunity for further reform within the law, they seek to influence it. Many of us would like to see this legislation proceed and become law swiftly. I am sure that those campaigners will understand the need to make sure of the outcomes on inequalities, which speak to many of their aims with the legislation, and will want to see the amendment succeed. If we want to improve experiences at the beginning of life—recognising how determinative that period is for life chances—it stands to reason that this legislation should make explicit the inequalities of outcomes for babies and infants. This was a key requirement of the Childcare Act 2006, and it was part of the governing philosophy behind Sure Start, which, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found, had the biggest impact on improving outcomes for children in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. As it stands, the Bill relies on the Government reporting on the views of parents and carers and their prospective counterparts. Although that insight is incredibly valuable, it ignores those who cannot speak for themselves.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jess Asato

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    Indeed I have, and I will come to that in a moment. As I was saying, the Bill does not give sufficient voice to those who cannot speak for themselves—babies and infants. My amendment seeks to ensure that the Government will assess how successful services are in improving the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of infants, parents and carers and, crucially, will assess our progress in tackling inequalities in the early years. Although there is other legislation, such as the Equality Act, to guide secondary legislation, we know from bitter experience that future Governments could repeal legislation that has equality as its goal. Indeed, we are in difficult and divisive times in our country at the moment. There are those who would seek to repeal the Equality Act, thereby undoing any of the protective features that that Act would bring to this important Bill. To anticipate future Government policies, the Bill must make reporting on inequality of outcomes paramount, because significant inequalities exist in many of the most fundamental measures of babies’ health and development. Black babies, for example, are more than twice as likely as white babies to be stillborn. Babies in the 10% most-deprived areas are more than twice as likely to die as babies in the 10% least-deprived areas. Babies growing up in poverty are more likely to experience domestic abuse in their family and are less likely to be breastfed. At the moment, these inequalities, which are reported on by Government through auspices such as the Equality Act, might be identified, but in future there may be no requirement for that to be the case as part of the Bill. Simply showing that there is provision for babies, infants and their parents and carers could ensure that the Secretary of State is able to discharge their duty under the Bill, whether it actually operates to reduce inequalities or not. Under our current legislation, we still have deep inequalities, in part because the focus on reducing inequalities between areas has been lost—and lost deliberately. I think we ought to see whether we can return to making sure that that is the focus. As it stands, the Bill does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to look at outcomes for babies and their parents, or at what those outcomes may indicate about the quality and availability of services. Although the views and experiences of parents and carers are incredibly important in understanding need, they do not paint the full picture and we cannot rely solely on them to analyse successes and failures of services. The public deserve to know the realities of inequalities in early childhood, and Governments must welcome robust scrutiny of their policies to help support babies. The amendment also requires the Government to look at the wellbeing of parents. That is particularly important given the Maternal Mental Health Alliance report that said that one in four mothers experiences a mental health condition during pregnancy or after birth. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for women between six weeks and a year after giving birth. The amendment keeps the Bill flexible and streamlined, and I understand that it would not increase any financial cost of the Bill. It also clarifies the role of the Government in measuring success. The Bill needs to be future-proof—indeed, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure, on a cross-party basis, that our services genuinely lead to a change in outcomes for babies, infants and children throughout their lives. It must stand the test of time, regardless of the colour, priorities or whims of future Governments. I have absolute faith in this Government and their commitment to early years investment, including the wonderful growth of Best Start family hubs, but we all saw how quickly the consensus behind Sure Start fell apart with a change in Government and how a generation of children and their parents were disadvantaged by its collapse.

    Hansard source
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jess Asato

    Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

    When developing legislation, the core purpose that we want to achieve needs to be explicit within it, because otherwise it could get watered down. The right hon. Member is right that any future Government can overturn any previous Government’s legislation, unless bound by international law and so forth. Making the intention explicit makes it more difficult for future Governments to undo what has come before, because it allows the brilliant light of transparency to be shone where we might need it most in the future. To make the issue of equality explicit in the Bill, and for the Government to recognise its importance, would be a small but, perhaps in the future, important way of maintaining the integrity of the legislation. I am delighted that the amendment has the support of a number of children’s charities working in this space, including Start Strong, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children’s Bureau, Barnardo’s, the first 1,001 days movement, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Tessa Jowell Foundation.

    Hansard source