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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Navendu Mishra

   School Funding: Stockport

   I thank the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate. This is a very important issue. The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and I, although we are from two different political parties, work well together on issues like this. Does she recognise that Stockport council has had £2 million in the inclusive mainstream fund allocation under this Government? The council has also had just over £2 million for the Experts at Hand programme. Does she share my frustration that Stockport council has met the 20-week deadline for only 18% of education, health and care plans, in comparison with the English average, which is said to be 50%?

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Navendu Mishra

   School Funding: Stockport

   Hazel Grove.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Navendu Mishra

   School Funding: Stockport

   I appreciate the Minister’s points about the capital investment, but not a week goes by when a parent does not contact my office about their frustration with the local council not meeting the assessment deadline. I encourage the Minister and the Department to engage with Stockport council, because 18% is just not good enough. There is also a point to be made about parents from low-income backgrounds often just giving up, whereas people from other backgrounds perhaps continue the fight, contact their local councillors or pursue legal remedies.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Natasha Irons

   Engagements

   Q6. It is tough growing up in Britain today. With one in five young people now with a mental health condition, the wellbeing of our young people remains in crisis. In communities such as mine in Croydon East, where young people are waiting up to four years for support, families are desperate for help. Can the Prime Minister outline what his Government are doing to invest in early mental health support in communities across the country and how he will tackle the long wait for support that is robbing young people of their future?

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill and the amendment. The right hon. Member for New Forest West laid out clearly on Second Reading why the Bill is important. He spoke very well again this morning and made case for why the amendment is perhaps not needed. I hesitated to add my name to the amendment for the very reasons he laid out, and the last thing we want is to risk the Government withdrawing their support for the Bill or to make it a Christmas tree Bill. However, I came to the conclusion that the amendment was very much needed, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft in her excellent speech in support of her amendment and the Bill. Without amendment, the Bill will require reasonable steps to be taken to find out the views of current and prospective parents and carers in assessing the need for infant support services, but it does not currently require an assessment of outcomes. The right hon. Member for New Forest West said that that is already implicit in the Bill, but we need a strong focus on data and evidence to see how babies and their parents are faring and to understand where provision is working and where it is not, with the scope to hold future Governments to account. The right hon. Gentleman said that we cannot always future-proof everything, but we do have to have a view on how a future Government of whatever colour might feel about issues of equality or inequality. It is important to try to make the new legislation we are considering today as good as it can possibly be, including if that involves future-proofing it.

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

   Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

   I agree, and outcomes are mentioned in clause 4(2)(b). I pondered including the word “inequality” at length, for all the reasons we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, as well as in respect of what the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, said about breastfeeding. The survey she mentioned showed that only 41% of women in the north-east—my part of the world—are still breastfeeding at six to eight weeks, compared with 60% in the south-west, for example. Why is that? Is it inequality? Is it lack of support? Is it a postcode lottery of services? We need not just to measure outcomes but to know why, and whether inequality is behind that. That should therefore perhaps be the one and only amendment that we make to this important Bill, and it would be worth doing if the right hon. Member for New Forest West and the Minister support it. It is of course very welcome that parents and carers should have a say in shaping services, but we must also ensure that the outcomes and, more importantly, the inequality of those outcomes are considered when assessing need. I am very proud to support the Bill, to see it become law and to support the amendment.

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

   Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

   I thank the hon. Member for his dedication, and for his commitment to this issue. The Defence Committee last year published its report into the armed forces covenant. We looked at this issue in detail and heard harrowing testimony from many of our veterans and their families about the disadvantage they experienced as a result of their service—despite their sacrifices. Does he agree that at the next armed forces compensation scheme review, Ministers need to look into this issue in detail and take remedial action? Those who have made enormous sacrifices or have been willing to lay down their lives should be treated with the dignity and respect that we as a society owe them.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Jonathan Brash

   Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

   I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way, and the assiduous way in which he has gone about campaigning on this issue throughout his time in this place—it is to his enormous credit. In November 2023, when I was just a local councillor, I moved a motion so that in Hartlepool, all locally administered benefits would have military compensation disregarded. I am really proud that that is now the case in Hartlepool, but many councils across the country are not doing the same. In addition to the demands for national action that the hon. Gentleman is making of the Minister—which I support—is it not also incumbent on our local councils to do the exact same thing in order to honour our veterans who receive military compensation?

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

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

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.  It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The draft regulations were laid before both Houses on 14 July. This instrument concerns the governance arrangements for the Windsor framework and Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements, as well as the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. It reflects the Government’s commitments to the Windsor framework, the UK internal market and building a stronger relationship with our partners in the EU. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will have listened carefully to the statement from the Prime Minister on Monday, where he confirmed the good news that the next UK-EU summit will take place on 20 November. That summit, as the Prime Minister put it, presents an opportunity to make progress on the crucial issues of our economic growth and immigration. Its outcomes stand very much to benefit Northern Ireland, alongside the arrangements set down in the Windsor framework. They include an agrifood agreement to smooth flows of goods and reduce the unique processes and paperwork required to do so, which will save businesses time and money and increase consumer choice—real benefits felt in the real world and in the lives and livelihoods of people in Northern Ireland. I was pleased that that was acknowledged by a number of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber and in a Westminster Hall debate on Monday. This instrument takes forward and supports certain commitments that the Government have already made in relation to the Windsor framework. Specifically, these commitments came in response to the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor framework that was conducted by Lord Murphy and published last year. It does so by providing greater flexibility in the process for the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise regulations that are applicable under the Windsor framework. The instrument also clarifies the statutory obligations of Northern Ireland Departments to support the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee by providing it with responses to reasonable requests for information on relevant EU legislation. That similarly has the aim of supporting the Assembly’s scrutiny. The instrument helps facilitate the governance of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement as we look to the future of our relationship with the EU. It does so by enabling the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee to use written procedure to adopt decisions or recommendations, such as those in relation to the Windsor framework, which is, of course, a crucial element of the withdrawal agreement.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

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

    The decision to change followed the independent review conducted by Lord Murphy, which I referred to. It is intended to keep the governance arrangements working effectively, particularly where we need to keep rules that apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in step under the new and beneficial arrangements we are seeking with the EU.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

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

    I will make a little bit more progress.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

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

    I think I have to take turns, so I will take an intervention from the hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

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

    I do not have the full Murphy review to hand, but I am happy to respond in detail. I have tried to set out to the Committee why we think that this change does not in any way take away from the force of the arrangements in place, and why it is a reasonable change to better enable scrutiny of measures as they come through. Let me explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. First, it is in response to recommendations made by the independent review. I hear the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim to see exactly where in the review those recommendations are made. I hope he will excuse me for not having the papers to hand, but I am happy to write to him in further detail, with quotes, if he would like. We are committed as a Government to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in conducting its examination and consideration of EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland. We judge that the committee plays a very valuable role in scrutinising regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland, and its reports and engagement with affected stakeholders inform the work of the Government, just as they inform the work of many Members of the Assembly. The changes to schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly with greater latitude in conducting its work within the two-month window following the publication of a relevant EU Act, if it wishes to use it. A timeframe for the scrutiny of EU Acts under the Windsor framework is provided for in law so that everyone—Members of the Legislative Assembly, businesses and civil society—is clear about how the process works and the impacts of those enactments. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU Act. If an inquiry is held, a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period, which begins on the day the EU publishes the Act in its Official Journal. The instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to 10 working days, and it moves the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the scrutiny period. Those changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run any inquiries it conducts into relevant EU legislation, take evidence and report on them. Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing effective governance arrangements for the UK-EU withdrawal agreement that are also fit for the future. As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, that future includes the vital deals on the table for the upcoming summit in Brussels on 20 November, spanning agrifood trade, linking emissions trading systems and energy co-operation. This change, to support the governance of the withdrawal agreement and the future agreements we are seeking with the EU, is made by omitting section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It reflects our strengthening relationship with the European Union and will allow the UK to agree to decisions at the Joint Committee between meetings. This process will enable decisions to be made by written procedure, which cannot currently happen because of domestic law. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee typically meets only twice a year, so this change will enable the UK to take necessary and time-sensitive decisions as needed, which it currently cannot. The change will also allow the Government to ensure that, where relevant EU legislation is applicable in Great Britain under future agreements, Northern Ireland can keep pace. That will be an important factor both for the implementation of relevant rules and for allowing businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt. It is a relevant consideration as the Government take forward future agreements with the EU on agrifood, emissions trading and electricity. For instance, on electricity, the proposed arrangement could cut wholesale energy prices in Northern Ireland by 20%, including lower bills for households and businesses alike, while protecting the smooth operation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access and its place within the UK market.

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

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

    I am looking forward to the conversation about the electricity provisions and a future arrangement with the EU, but I am not sure that that is relevant to the changes before us.

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

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

    We hope that, in a future arrangement with the EU, on which we have not yet concluded negotiations, the changes that I am proposing will enable us to operate the existing arrangements more smoothly, so that we might be able to adopt new ones with speed. Conscious of the Committee’s time, I do not think it is wise at the moment to go through all three of those agreements in great detail.

    Hansard source
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Markus Campbell-Savours

    Inheritance Tax

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lillian Jones

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

    Hansard source
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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