What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The proposed route of the cross-border connection cuts a swathe across the north Cumbria section of my constituency and passes through, or close to, four sites of special scientific interest. I recognise the importance of the project, but will the Minister please urge National Grid to maximise undergrounding on this section of the project?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this very important debate and setting out so clearly, as he did, the issues that have brought so many north-east colleagues to this debate. I also thank those who serve in our north-east police forces for all they do to keep us safe every day. Everyone has a right to feel safe and secure in their communities, especially in local areas such as our high streets, parks and town centres, as well as in their homes. However, time and again constituents tell me how antisocial behaviour such as theft and off-road bikes have caused chaos in our local communities, leaving my constituents feeling intimidated and unsafe. I know the issue of illegal off-road and e-bikes is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I was very glad to attend a roundtable that he organised in his constituency just last month, held in the beautiful Beamish museum with partners from policing, local government and the community, where we discussed these very issues. The previous Government considered many acts of criminality as low-level behaviour and failed to act. However, I know how even small acts of antisocial behaviour can compound to severely damage how a community views itself. Many feel as if respect for law and order has simply disappeared, with bobbies on the beat becoming a rarer sight. I therefore support this Labour Government’s Crime and Policing Act 2026, which is about taking back our streets, restoring respect for law and order, giving police the powers they need to tackle crime and providing support for victims of antisocial behaviour. The Act takes stronger action against antisocial behaviour through the new respect orders, longer dispersal powers and tougher penalties for breaches of public spaces protection orders. The Government have also promised to rebuild neighbourhood policing through additional investment in officers and PCSOs, ensuring that every community has named, contactable officers focused on tackling local crime and antisocial behaviour. That is all good. I pay tribute to the Northumbria police and crime commissioner Susan Dungworth and her predecessor, the now Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, who have been excellent at tackling crime as well as identifying the root causes of crime—notwithstanding, as I said, the legacy of the previous Government. Despite our region including communities with some of the highest levels of deprivation and demand in England and Wales, police numbers in the north-east, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in his opening speech, have fallen by a shocking 8% since 2010, when the Conservatives and Lib Dems embarked on their damaging programme of austerity. That translates to 578 fewer police officers in the north-east, including a loss of 255 in Northumbria police, who serve my constituency. Forces in wealthier areas can raise substantially more, as we have heard, through the police precept. However, north-east forces cannot, due to lower property values and a far weaker tax base. That creates a greater reliance on central Government. Northumbria police in particular has the lowest police precept in England and Wales. That means that residents already contribute less through local taxation than in any other area, with Government grants making up 79% of the budget. Even where police and crime commissioners increase the precept by the maximum permitted amount, the financial yield generated is significantly lower than in forces with larger and more affluent tax bases. That contributes to Northumbria police force having a budget that spends below average per head in England and Wales. In 2026-27, Northumbria police spent £50 less per head than Merseyside police, and £147 per head less than the Metropolitan police in London. While I do not want to oversimplify the matter, and I understand that both of those other areas face their own unique challenges, how will our region ever gain economic parity without parity of security? Fundamentally, it is an issue of fairness. Communities should not receive less effective policing simply because they live in areas with lower property values. Future funding reforms should explicitly recognise deprivation, demand and limited local revenue raising capacity so as not to risk penalising the very areas with the greatest policing needs. Like many colleagues in this debate, I campaigned heavily at the last election on issues of antisocial behaviour, and I genuinely believe that the Government have shown that they are willing to act. I commend them for that, but we must make sure that no one region of the country is left behind, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider the funding issues raised today.
The Minister mentioned magistrates. Magistrates are the backbone of our court structure, and they are not legally qualified. Does she agree that there is a huge precedent there and that magistrates do a great job?
The issue is about consistency. The hon. Lady mentioned specifically the Home Office. Well, the Home Secretary appoints the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, the Migration Advisory Committee chair and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. Why is this different? Surely, the hon. Lady’s argument is fundamentally inconsistent, given what the Home Secretary already does.
I, too, would like to send my thoughts to the families of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. Matthew was a coach at my son’s football club. His loss and the loss of Tom have been felt very deeply across our region, but their tragic deaths did not come out of the blue. They were a result of systematic underfunding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the funding formula has become so perverse, so warped, so broken, that funding is now inverse to the levels of crime we are seeing in our communities, and that the north-east and Cleveland are losing out as a result?
Politics is ultimately about confidence. Leaders cannot lead without the confidence of their party, a Government cannot govern without the confidence of this House, and legislation cannot work without the confidence of the people it affects. The legislation passed by the previous Government did not have the confidence of any party in Northern Ireland, victims groups or, ultimately, the courts, but it is entirely apparent that this legislation has never had the confidence of veterans, and I genuinely believe it unlikely that it can be recovered. I am talking about veterans like Mick Male, a member of the Hartlepool armed forces liaison group, who came to my office to express his lack of confidence in the Bill and who invited me to meet his veteran colleagues who said similar. I fully appreciate the efforts of our new Secretary of State and his attempts to rescue this Bill and restore that confidence, and also the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and his efforts to go further to restore confidence. On balance, I believe that these arguments deserve to be heard and debated, but veterans in my community of Hartlepool deserve to be able to debate them as well. I am deeply sceptical that in the next few days they will have the opportunity to make their views heard, in the way they should be allowed to, to their elected representatives. I say clearly to Mick and all the veterans in Hartlepool that if, ultimately, in just a few days’ time this Bill does not have their support, then it will not have mine.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) not just on bringing this debate on bone and joint health to the Floor of the House during Bone and Joint Week, but on sharing his personal insights and testimony. I thank him for his service and give him an assurance that I am very happy to talk about veterans, about the specifics and about his insights into how we can deliver on the armed forces covenant. I signed Bury’s first armed forces covenant when I was an armed forces champion, and although it was not the service level that he was accustomed to, I take very seriously our need as a country to pay our respects to the men and women who have put themselves in harm’s way or given the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country, so I thank the hon. Gentleman.
As ever, the hon. Member sees the upside—the glass half full—of all life’s experiences. I thank and pay tribute to the charities, clinicians, researchers, carers and campaigners who support patients and refuse to let these conditions be overlooked. Bone and joint conditions are too often overlooked or dismissed as an inevitable part of ageing or frailty, but they are not; nor should we accept them as such. Arthritis, osteoporosis, fragility fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions can mean relentless pain, lost mobility, lost confidence, lost work and lost independence. In 2024, almost one in five adults in England reported a long-term MSK condition. This is not a niche issue; it is a national challenge. Our task is clear: diagnose earlier, treat faster, prevent more illness, and help people remain active and independent. The Government’s 10-year health plan is built around three decisive shifts: hospital to community, analogue to digital and sickness to prevention. For people with MSK conditions, that means simpler access and the ability to refer themselves through the NHS app to services, including physiotherapy, pain management and orthopaedics. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East sought advice on how we educate sooner and inform sooner, but the work we are doing with the single patient record, the new iteration of the NHS app and the development of NHS online—or the digital doctor, as I am calling it internally—is about providing that useful information in a timely manner. It should be as accessible as we have become accustomed to for information we consume online, whether through retail or consumer habits. That is the level of expectation we should have for services such as this, which can give future patients the certainty and knowledge they need, when otherwise they may endure pain while waiting to access services at a later point. That is an important distinction. On osteoporosis, we are acting before the fracture, not merely after it. This March, the Government invested £2.6 million in 20 new DEXA scanners across England, following £1.9 million for 13 scanners last year. Earlier scans mean earlier treatment and fewer painful life-changing fractures, especially for older people and women. Patients must also benefit from effective medicines. Since 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended Eladynos and Evenity for osteoporosis in post-menopausal women—an important distinction within the debate—both of which strengthen bones and reduce fracture risk. The UK National Screening Committee is reviewing the case for screening women for osteoporosis. Its consultation closed last week, and we will consider its independent recommendation carefully when it reports. We must be frank: community waiting lists for MSK remain the longest of any community service. Every delay can mean more pain, less mobility and a greater risk that somebody leaves work or loses independence. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about having a cross-departmental approach to ensure that support is timely to prevent people going off work and losing their income, identity, self-esteem and worth, and everything that we understand comes with a forced departure from work. That is why the Getting It Right First Time MSK community delivery programme is backed by about £6 million in 2026-27. It is redesigning services, improving referrals and connecting patients to wider support. The first cohort saw waits of over 18 weeks fall by about 20% in participating systems. That is real progress and we must spread it. We are also expanding MSK physical activity hubs. They use the skills of the leisure and fitness workforce to improve mobility, reduce pain and fatigue, and help people stay in or return to work. The principle is simple: care should come to people, not force people to navigate the maze. Throughout neighbourhood health, community MSK services, physiotherapy and occupational therapy will support recovery, protect mobility and manage long-term conditions closer to home. We have set a clear national ambition that by 2028-29, at least 80% of community health services activity should take place within 18 weeks. National guidance will define a consistent core offer and bear down on unacceptable variation or postcode lottery. General practice is often the front door. We are increasing capacity so that patients are seen sooner and urgent cases are directed to the right care on the same day. Elective recovery matters. We remain committed to meeting the constitutional standard by March 2029: 92% of patients treated within 18 weeks. For bone and joint conditions, that means stronger links between primary, community and hospital care, and faster access to specialist advice. Women’s health must be central to this argument as well, not peripheral. Menopause-related hormonal changes raise the risk of osteoporosis and frailty. The renewed women’s health strategy therefore focuses on earlier recognition, easier access, better treatment and practical support at work. Bone and joint health is an inequalities issue as well. Chronic MSK conditions are a major cause of poor health and work limitation, often occurring alongside mental ill health—as the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East described—and obesity, which is often concentrated in poorer communities. A postcode must not determine whether pain is relieved, mobility restored or independence protected. Reducing delays and unwarranted variation is not an optional extra; it is a matter of principle and fairness. In conclusion, let us reject the idea that these conditions are simply to be endured. Pain is not inevitable. Disability is not inevitable. A life-changing fracture is not always inevitable. Earlier identification, effective treatment, rehabilitation and prevention all change lives and save the NHS the greater cost of acting too late. I again thank the hon. Member for his service and for securing this debate, and all those working through Bone and Joint Week. The Government will work with the NHS, local government, clinicians, charities and patients to turn ambition into action: fewer fractures, shorter waits, better mobility and more people living independently for longer. Question put and agreed to.
I particularly welcome the element of the Secretary of State’s statement about improvements to social care, which some of us have been campaigning for in this House for more years than we care to remember. Could he confirm that this is intended to make sure that individuals do not have to pay for their own care directly and that the burden will be lifted from council tax payers, many of whom now have to pay for social care for those who cannot afford to pay directly themselves? That is really important. We should make sure that council tax goes to other services and not massively towards social care.
I just want some clarification on whether the problem that you state is access to the Supreme Court.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for securing this debate, and to the Minister for giving way. I visited Ely fire station in my constituency and congratulated the firefighters there for their hard work. They asked me whether the summit will look at deterrents as well as prevention—they were in attendance at a fire, but arsonists then restarted the fire, so the firefighters do not feel that the sentencing laws are strong enough. Will the Minister look at that as part of the summit? Prevention is very important, but deterrents for arsonists are also important.
The Secretary of State is right that gas sets the price for power most of the time. Every wind farm and solar array built in our country weakens that link, but Reform and the Conservatives repeatedly object to developments in Northamptonshire. Does the Secretary of State agree that the route to cheaper bills is to build and invest, not to retreat from green power?
National Grid Electricity Transmission has concluded its first consultation on the English section of the cross-border connection, with further consultation expected next year. The Scottish section is being developed by SP Energy Networks; consenting decisions on that portion are the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. It is for the developers to progress their proposals and to seek the necessary consents.
I have met the hon. Gentleman in the past, and I am very happy to meet again to discuss these issues, but I reiterate that it is not for me to make decisions on those applications; they are made by the Scottish Government, as are decisions on all planning matters in Scotland. He can shake his head, but it is true. It is important that we bring communities with us on this; that is critical in the planning process. It is why we announced that the communities across the UK who host such infrastructure UK should benefit from bill discounts directly, but there should also be community benefits in communities like his.
As I said, individual projects have to go through the planning process and develop their proposals, but the Government have a preference for pylons, rather than undergrounding—the previous Government had exactly the same position—not least because undergrounding is four or five times more expensive, and it is consumers across the country who pay that additional cost. We are very clear that building the grid is absolutely critical to getting clean, cheaper power to people’s homes and businesses. It is a job that the previous Government never did, and that upgrade is now absolutely critical.
Given that a regulatory process is under way, I cannot comment on particular projects. However, we have been very clear that any consenting decisions for new oil and gas must be compatible with our climate obligations. We have set that out at every stage of the process, since we inherited the court judgments on the previous Government’s handling of those consent decisions.
Let me reiterate that I cannot comment on particular projects that are being considered for decisions. On the more general point that my hon. Friend rightly raises, it is imperative that we look at the impact that climate change is having. We all lived through this summer, and have seen the evidence of climate change up close. It is important that any decisions we make are compatible with our climate obligations. As even the Conservatives have now accepted, it is worth remembering that any new projects in the North sea will not take a penny off bills.
As I have said on a number of occasions, we are considering the evidence that has been submitted on these projects. We have had to pick up a process that was left behind by the previous Government, and we have done that as quickly as possible. We will make decisions in due course. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman speaks about common sense, but thousands of his constituents are reliant on jobs in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, yet he stands here, time after time, opposing investment in those things. If he is in favour of jobs in his constituency, he should be in favour of all of them.
It is always useful to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee; I will look into the example he gave. On pragmatism, we have been clear that we want a pragmatic future for the North sea. That means continued oil and gas for many decades, but also investing in what comes next in the North sea, so that there is a fair and prosperous transition. The North sea remains a vital asset for the country, supporting jobs, growth and our energy security. We are determined to make sure that there is a strong pathway for the communities involved, and for jobs. Oil and gas will be important, but it is critical that we build up the industries that come next.
It is pragmatic to say that oil and gas will continue to be a critical part of our energy mix for decades to come, and the North sea remains an important part of that. We are not about switching off the taps in the North sea—we said that in our manifesto, and we will deliver on it—but we are about building clean energy in the future. The Green party comes here and pontificates on a lot of these issues, but it opposes the very infrastructure that would get us off fossil fuels. It cannot have it both ways.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as on staying in the energy brief. She eloquently outlines the exact problem at the heart of the Conservative party’s policy. She said clearly that the issues in the middle east leave us exposed to an energy crisis, but her party’s plan is to increase that exposure by having even more gas in our energy mix—it is simply not credible. The Conservatives’ plan has already been ridiculed because the figures were wrong when they published it; it had a gas price not based in reality, given everything going on in the middle east. We will make pragmatic decisions on the future of the North sea, but we are also all about our energy security long into the future. They remain stuck on the very exposure that is driving up everyone’s bills.
Our electricity grid is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the country, but it was allowed to get into a complete mess through under-investment and a failure to tackle the grid connection queue, which got to over 700 GW under the previous Government. We have grappled with that legacy head-on, reducing the queue by 300 GW and ensuring that accurate connection offers are issued. We have made progress on that, but there is much more to do to make sure that the grid works for the people of this country. That is why we are injecting public control back into the system by launching Great British Grid.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the point that the Prime Minister made about how critical it is to fix the fundamental problems with connecting to the grid. That is why we have announced that we have set up Great British Grid as part of Great British Energy. We have made substantial progress on reforming the queue, but we do have to build the grid after decades of under-investment. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue, and I am fairly confident that we can make sure that National Grid is part of that conversation as well.
I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue, as I am always happy to meet Members from across the House. It is not for me as a Minister to decide the exact locations of substations, but I am happy to engage with her and to raise the issue with the relevant transmission owner.
I congratulate St Ann’s, Grove House and North primary school on getting solar panels on their rooftops. I have visited schools that have had solar installed; it is fantastic to see the young people learning about renewable energy at the same time as bills go down in the school and more money is invested in frontline teaching. That is exactly what we want Great British Energy to deliver.
When we came into government, we set this incredibly ambitious target to decarbonise the power system, which meant 95% of our electricity coming from clean sources. We have done everything possible to move towards that, and we are closer than we have ever been. It is worth saying that every single solar farm and wind farm that we switch on helps us to get off gas. In just the past few months since what has been happening in the middle east has taken course, we have been saving £5 million a day in displacing gas from the system because of the clean power mission. We are making huge progress and will continue pushing towards it.
I recognise, as I always do, the hon. Lady’s championing of the sector. We on the Government Benches agree with her about the importance of community energy. She will not have to wait very long.
I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about carbon capture more generally. We are absolutely looking at alternatives for decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors. The Peak Cluster is not a Government-backed project; it is for the scheme to do all the community engagement. I have heard from many Members across the House that engagement has not been as good as it should be. I would encourage those at the cluster to ensure that it is as strong as it can be, and the project will obviously be subject to a planning application when it comes forward.
As I have said in a number of answers, I cannot comment on the particular projects. On the general point, the very reason we are in this situation with these consents is that, because of the court judgment, we have to take into account the scope 3 emissions of these projects, which means there will be a full environmental assessment, and we have been very clear that that environmental assessment is critical in the consenting decisions that we will make in due course.
This is quite a change to the Conservatives’ foreign policy if their position is now that we should interfere in the day-to-day decisions of the Falkland Islands Government. That was not their position when they were in government, and it is not the position of this Government.
I know the hon. Lady will be leading a debate on this subject. I completely agree with her: Torness nuclear power station has been keeping the lights on in Scotland every single day of the week, and it is a disgrace that the Scottish Government are refusing to accept the critical role that that firm power plays in Scotland’s system. There is absolute potential for new nuclear and for good jobs in every part of Scotland. It is missing out on thousands of jobs because of the anti-science, ideological position of the Scottish Government. I take every opportunity that I can to persuade SNP Members of the error of their ways, but since they do not even bother to turn up in this House, I am afraid I will have to continue that debate with Scottish Ministers.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s engagement as we went through that process. As the House will remember, the insolvency was driven by decisions that the directors of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery had made at the time. The investigation into their actions continues. We tried everything we could to find a buyer. I am glad that Phillips 66, next door, has taken over the assets so that we can continue to make use of the site and to do everything we can to support the workers, who do an incredibly important job.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work with the community in Coalsnaughton. I visited recently and met with householders, and they are going through a hellish situation that is not of their own making. The Mining Remediation Authority is working on a case-by-case basis with individual households to ensure a process is in place that works for individual households. We are limited by the legislation, but the UK Government have been clear that we will meet all the costs for those householders. I am happy to meet with him to discuss the issue further.
We know that energy is simply unaffordable for too many people, and we are clear that we need to get bills down for good. One of the ways that we can do that is by decoupling the price of gas and electricity, and we are already making progress by bringing on more clean power than ever before, so that gas sets the price less of the time. Gas is currently setting the price 60% of the time, compared with 90% in 2020. We need to go further, but we are taking action to do that. We are also expanding contracts for difference that fix the price of renewables. We will take the action necessary over the coming months so that we can break the link between gas and electricity and so that consumers can benefit from cheaper renewables.
The answer to that is simple: yes, absolutely. Everyone can see with their eyes what is driving up energy bills: our acute exposure to global fossil fuel markets that we do not control. We on the Labour Benches are clear that our pathway out of this is by investing in renewables and clean power, so that we have home-grown energy that we control. Candidly, it is an absolute shame and a travesty that the Conservatives, who agreed with us for a very long time, are reneging on that cross-party consensus. They would renege on our ability to control our energy system and its impact on our consumers.
My hon. Friend is completely right. We are clear that the route to getting bills down is through clean power. We are proud that over the past two years we have unlocked £100 billion of investment in clean power. We will do what is required. It is just a shame that the Conservatives have lost the plot.
The hon. Member is completely right that our route out of this is through clean power, and we need to ensure that consumers and businesses feel the benefit through electrification. I reassure her that we have a strategy, and we are getting on with it. Through our warm homes plan, we are ensuring that homes and businesses across the country have access to solar and to clean heat. That will ensure that they benefit. We are clear that electrification is the way forward. Countries across Europe are watching the UK and seeing our progress, and we will run with it.
We know that people are worried about rising energy bills when the cost of living is biting, and we know that we need to provide breathing space. That is why one of the first things that the Prime Minister did in the job was to scrap VAT on electricity bills. That is on top of the £150 that we took off the cost of energy. We are clear that the scale of what we are seeing requires us to make a concerted effort to get bills down. That is why we are running up clean energy to reduce our exposure to global fossil fuel markets and rolling out the warm homes plan so that we can upgrade our homes. Solar, batteries and clean heat can reduce bills by £600 to £800. Critically, we are determined to put the public back in control of an energy system that the Conservatives lost control of, so that it can work in the interest of consumers.
My hon. Friend is right to give the example of Octopus Energy in his constituency. Through the warm homes plan, we are investing record amounts—billions—in upgrading our homes, because we know that is a key route towards reducing bills. Solar batteries and clean heat insulation can save households between £600 and £800, and we are committed to devolving that to bring about a huge acceleration, street by street, area by area, and estate by estate. That is how we can drive down energy bills for good.
My hon. Friend asks an important question. We are acutely aware that low-income families will be hit hardest by rising prices. We are working with others across Government, including our colleagues in the Treasury, on how we can give people some breathing room. But it is important to emphasise that we have already acted. We have removed VAT from domestic electricity bills, and that comes into force straightaway. We are taking £150 off the cost of bills, and we are also delivering the warm home discount. That means £150 for 6 million of our lowest-earning households. We understand the pressure that households are under, and we will act and stand by people to support them.