partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

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

1. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Rigby

   Draft Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026 Draft Over the Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026

   Although the three instruments before us concern distinct parts of the financial services regulatory system, they share a common purpose, which is to ensure that the UK regulatory framework remains clear, proportionate and able to support growth, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and financial stability. I will address each instrument in turn, beginning with the overseas prudential requirements regime regulations. Following EU exit, the UK retained a body of EU-derived financial services legislation, including the UK capital requirements regulation, which sets prudential requirements for banks, building societies and larger investment firms. The first instrument supports the Government’s programme of replacing that assimilated law with a framework tailored to the UK. It brings the existing UK capital requirements regulation equivalence regimes together in a single overseas prudential requirements regime. It also makes targeted changes so that the treatment of exposures to overseas exchanges better reflects the underlying risk; updates the definition of overseas investment firms without changing the overall scope of existing treatment; and enables eligible overseas covered bonds to be recognised in future, subject to a further statutory instrument. The second SI makes a targeted and important reform to the UK’s framework for regulating over-the-counter derivatives—those traded directly between buyer and seller—by addressing intragroup transactions. It replaces the temporary intragroup exemption regime, which everyone present will know as TIGER, with a permanent framework. In doing so, it provides firms with long-term certainty while preserving appropriate safeguards and regulatory oversight. The benefits of oversight of intragroup transactions are well recognised, so exemptions from certain clearing and margin requirements for certain transactions are a feature of regulatory regimes in the UK and other jurisdictions. TIGER was introduced following EU exit to provide a temporary regime for exempting certain transactions, but it was only ever intended to be temporary. Having been extended once already, it is due to expire at the end of this year, and the Government consider that a further time-limited extension would not provide the long-term framework and stability that firms need. The instrument therefore establishes a permanent framework for qualifying intragroup transactions. The third SI concerns the legislation governing building societies—specifically the Building Societies Act 1986. The order makes two specific changes. First, it removes the requirement placed on building societies to execute legal documents such as mortgage deeds using a common seal, enabling them to use authorised signatures instead. That is a practical and proportionate modernisation, reducing unnecessary administrative burdens. Secondly, the order makes specific and limited exemptions from the wholesale funding calculation that building societies are required to make, to ensure that they continue to be majority owned by their members. Taken together, these instruments modernise our financial services framework. They replace or update inherited arrangements, provide greater clarity and certainty, and support the effective functioning and competitiveness of the UK financial sector, while maintaining appropriate safeguards. I commend them to the Committee.

   Hansard source
2. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lucy Rigby

   Draft Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026 Draft Over the Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026

   I welcome those comments, and I suspect that this is a preview of the Budget debate.

   Hansard source
3. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for youth suicide prevention charities and mental health support for young people. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to have secured this debate on a subject that touches every single constituency represented in this House. Last month, I introduced a debate for World Suicide Prevention Day; many of the same hon. Members were present, and there was a strong focus on recognising that we all need to do more. Sadly, in the same week, Papyrus Prevention of Young Suicide, a charity that supported young people and their families for nearly 30 years, went into administration. We are just over one month on from that day, and following the news of this debate, many charities and third-sector organisations have been in touch to ask if they can contribute, not because they want recognition but because they all feel the strain of funding and fear what will happen if no one listens to their pleas.

   Hansard source
4. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   I most certainly agree that people coming together and working together can really make a difference. Well done to my hon. Friend’s community for doing that.

   Hansard source
5. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   I most certainly agree that we need to do all we can to support young people—in fact, all people—facing ideas of suicidality. I will touch on the issue of funding. As I was saying, we are just over a month on from that day, and so many organisations have been in touch wanting to contribute. I apologise to those who I cannot mention and whose specific points I cannot refer to. I know that they provide a lifeline to so many people, and I will do my best to do them justice. Papyrus had a national focus and offered hope to thousands of young people across the UK. It offered specialist support for young people, which I am sure the Minister will know was a vital support given that the biggest killer of young people is suicide.

   Hansard source
6. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   I most certainly agree with the points my hon. Friend made, and I thank her constituent for the work she does in raising awareness. With its sudden closure, we lost one of the most vital services that Papyrus provided: HopeLine 24/7, our nation’s only round-the-clock help line staffed by advisers trained to support young people experiencing suicidal thoughts. Over the years that that service existed, it helped save the lives of so many young people, and the staff provided an important service unlike any other. I want to take a moment now to thank all those 120 members of staff who worked for Papyrus, on the helpline and in its other suicide prevention services. For three decades, Papyrus saved lives. When a young person called HopeLine 24/7, they spoke with advisers who understood the pressures facing under-35s. Schools, colleges, universities and GPs relied on its work. Child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS, as we usually call it—and emergency departments routinely signposted young people in distress to Papyrus, knowing that they would receive safe, compassionate care. My own office and many places of work across the country displayed posters signposting people to the service, with its contact details clearly listed so that any young person or parent struggling with the subject knew exactly where to find immediate help. When Papyrus went into administration, callers were redirected to Samaritans or to the Shout text helpline—both excellent services, but not a dedicated helpline for young people. We all know that, just because the HopeLine 24/7 service no longer exists, the need to support young people does not disappear. Many young people are worried that there is nowhere to turn, as the option to talk to someone who understands them has gone.

   Hansard source
7. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   I certainly agree with the Children’s Commissioner and with my hon. Friend on the issues he has raised. The young people who would have reached out to HopeLine 24/7 are still struggling with severe emotional distress. Without that helpline, the pressure falls directly on to overstretched emergency services, NHS 111 handlers, GP surgeries and partner charities such as the Samaritans, Shout and Chasing the Stigma, which are already running at full capacity. I recently met with the administrators of Papyrus, and they tell me that there is real hope that another charity or service could recreate a helpline dedicated to young people so that they can still access specialist support. They are keen to speak with Government officials about what help can be given to ensure that the helpline, and maybe some other parts of Papyrus’ work, can continue. Will the Minister ask her officials to make that contact and be a part of a working solution for young people? As we have heard, the service is still vital. The 3 Dads Walking—Andy, Mike and Tim—have spoken forcefully about the loss of HopeLine 24/7. Having each suffered the unbearable loss of a daughter to suicide—Sophie, Beth and Emily—they have walked hundreds of miles across the country and raised more than £1.5 million for Papyrus. They told me that they will get behind whatever organisation is able to pick up Papyrus’s work. Following the closure, the 3 Dads asked why a national service relied upon by NHS trusts and CAMHS was left financially dependent on voluntary donations and charity work. That is a fair question that we in Parliament must answer.

   Hansard source
8. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   Certainly, we need to learn from best practice wherever it occurs to make sure that we can look after our young people and keep them safe. We need to urgently take steps to close the gap in support for young people. There are organisations that are willing to provide a helpline and that have the skills and ability to support young people. The administrators are working with those organisations, but they are keen to speak to the Government about what help might be available to make those plans a reality. The Government have an opportunity to come to the table, create dependable support for people under 35 and set a precedent of care for those who need this vital service.

   Hansard source
9. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   The hon. Member makes an important point that could certainly be developed further in another debate. The closure of Papyrus has highlighted the wider financial pressures among suicide prevention and mental health charities across the voluntary sector. That is not new, but Papyrus is an example that has hit hard. Across the country, non-profit organisations are supporting statutory health services without the predictable long-term funding required to keep their doors open. Over recent years, major Government grant programmes for suicide prevention have reached the end of their funding period. The £10 million suicide prevention grant fund for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations, which supported 79 charities across England, ended in March 2025. It was a one-off fund and the official evaluation of the scheme showed that, while short-term grants funded helpful community projects, the lack of ongoing funding left charities facing sudden financial cliff edges once the grants ended. In addition, the £57 million allocated to local areas through NHS England for suicide prevention came to an end in April 2024. The London-based charity Body and Soul surveyed its young service users. It told me that the short funding cycles threatened specialist staffing, the stable referral routes that they have on offer, and the continuity needed to build trust. Short-term funding incentivises short projects and countable contacts over creating the sustained capacity needed by young people whose difficulties do not resolve to a grant timetable. The north-east based charity If U Care Share, which Members will have heard me speak about before, has raised the precarious nature that short-term funding means for charities trying to create long-term programmes for their communities. I have certainly helped them try to achieve funding in the past.

   Hansard source
10. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

    Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

    I agree with the hon. Member because we hear that from charities time and again, particularly in this area of work. I mentioned two charities, but the story is repeated right across the country. It is vital that we tackle the funding issues facing charities that provide preventative work. To prevent suicide among young people we must address the pressures they face. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for individuals under 35 in the UK and the Samaritans report that about 200 school-aged children take their own lives every year. There are so many statistics we could quote about why young people consider suicide, but we already know them too well. Statutory services, such as the mental health support teams in schools, CAMHS and other NHS statutory services, play an important part in supporting the most vulnerable in our system. The Government must be congratulated on focusing on those areas. However, we must not forget that it is third sector organisations that are able to be adaptable and present in young people’s everyday lives. They can offer a safe, external space where young people can go to feel supported, and they open the doors that young people need to build the foundations of a better life. The Government have taken positive steps, including the announcement of £343 million in capital funding for new community mental health hubs and emergency centres. That capital investment is welcome, but without people—both NHS staff and, crucially, the voluntary sector—it will not be effective. Hope Haven in Whitehaven, where the NHS and the voluntary sector work together to maximise the quality of care and support for the community, is a good example of where that happens. It is essential that our various strategies work together.

    Hansard source
11. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Liz Twist

    Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

    Yes. I am going to skip some things, important though they are, because I know other hon. Members want to come in. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for his comment, and I agree that we need to take note of that report. As we develop the mental health strategy, we must take account of young people’s needs and make sure they do not fall through the gaps between strategies, such as the men’s health strategy. I will go straight to my asks of the Government. Right now, there is growing demand due to the closure of Papyrus’s HopeLine 24/7. That can be remedied at pace, with other charities seeking to fill the gap, but they need support from the Minister. Will she work with the administrators to ensure that can happen as quickly as possible, to prevent a gap in that vital service? Will the Minister ask her officials to contact the administrators of Papyrus and their specialist adviser to discuss what financial and other support can be offered, to make sure that a properly skilled and specialist young persons’ helpline can be retrieved from the collapse of Papyrus? In the longer term, will she consider the funding needed for our third sector organisations in suicide prevention and mental health to continue to provide open-access support that must be the bedrock of work in mental health? Finally, will she confirm that youth suicide prevention and children’s mental health will explicitly form part of the forthcoming mental health strategy? Every statistic we discuss represents a young person whose life was cut short, leaving behind a family and a community reshaped by grief. The closure of Papyrus must not be seen as a single charity going under; all our third sector partners are struggling. It is impossible to build a strong mental health system, in which third sector organisations play a crucial part, if we allow the charities keeping our young people alive to close due to financial strain. Suicide is preventable. By supporting our voluntary sector, funding frontline services and acting early when a young person reaches out, we can save lives and give every person in distress a reason to stay.

    Hansard source
12. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lewis Atkinson

    Police Funding: North-east England

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate. We have heard from colleagues representing constituencies covered by the Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland forces about what a huge issue this is for the north-east. That is because our forces, collectively and individually, have been asked to do more with less for longer than anywhere else in the country. There is a clear case for the north-east to be prioritised in responding to this challenge, for example, in the same way that Mission North East has prioritised schools in the north-east. For my own force, Northumbria, between 2010 and 2019, central Government funding fell by more than 31% in real terms. No force was hit harder. It lost a quarter of its officers and we know that when budgets are cut, it is unfortunately the neighbourhood teams that often go first. Today, Northumbria has 255 fewer officers than in 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said, that was a political choice by the previous Government which skewed funding formulas and completely ignored deprivation and the need for places like the north-east to be policed appropriately. We know that demand is higher than elsewhere. In the Office for National Statistics’ figures, the north-east records 98 crimes per 1,000 against 85 per 1,000 nationally—the highest of any region. In Sunderland we saw 27,000 recorded crimes last year, which is down 3%, but still above the national rate. However, recorded crime only tells us a small amount. Recorded crime is not all crime; it only shows what is reported. The ONS survey suggests that about a third of crimes people experience are reported to the police. The gap between what people live with and what they report itself tells us about the confidence in policing. Of course, police deal with much more than crime. Mental health incidents in Northumbria have risen by 152% since 2017—demand that never shows up in any crime figures. As other hon. Members have already done, I want to also express my thanks to our officers. The range of what we ask them to do is extraordinary. I was three weeks into being elected when officers placed themselves in harm’s way in Sunderland city centre as thugs threw bricks and stones at them. They stood protecting our community and places of worship. Just two weeks ago, we had a terrible tragedy on the River Wear in Sunderland. Again it was police officers along with other emergency services responding and not just doing the search and rescue and the investigation of the incident, but liaising in the most difficult circumstances with the bereaved families. Every day, officers are on our streets, with people in crisis, tackling crime. Our constituents tell us that police visibility is crucial, and it is probably what constituents raise with me more than anything else. When I am out on walkabouts with officers in Hendon, Pallion and the city centre, I see the response of the public to visible policing. I can sense that residents and shop workers feel safer, and that potential troublemakers are thinking twice. People stop to talk and share intelligence with the police about what is going on. Too often, of course, residents do not see the police. When they do not see an officer and when they wait too long for a response to a call or an online report, they stop reporting and their trust and sense of security reduce. We need to boost visibility as a way of boosting confidence and reporting. Nowhere is that clearer than with antisocial behaviour, which is absolutely not low level. It is drunken, intoxicated behaviour; e-bikes and off-road bikes around estates or parks; yobbish behaviour. It wears down our communities night after night, and it is not good enough. Visible policing matters. That is why I welcome the Government’s decision to replace the previous headcount target with a neighbourhood policing target, because Northumbria could hit the previous Government’s headcount target and still not have on-the-ground policing in Fulwell in my constituency. Northumbria is adding 54 neighbourhood posts by next March, which is a good first step, but those posts must be protected. We must have more and they must reach the estates and villages, not just city centres. The Government have talked about structural reform of the police alongside funding formula reform. I will not speak for colleagues, but I am open to regional reorganisation. We already have a north-east regional organised crime unit, which does effective work across our forces. Where there are capabilities such as firearms, or potentially drones, we have seen a significant amount of mutual aid, particularly in recent months following events in Cleveland. There is a reasonable case that moving to a north-east-wide regional force, if that is what the Hogan-Howe review recommends, would strengthen resilience and potentially produce some efficiencies in those areas, but people will only accept a bigger force with two guarantees. The first is to ensure that local policing areas are strong and protected, and that local officers still know Sunderland and have a local commander who we can hold to account. The second, crucially, is funding reform. Merging three underfunded forces would give us one large, underfunded force. We have to move on both together. I will finish by asking the Minister a couple of questions. As she considers police force reorganisation, and if a north-east force is proposed, can we move faster than others? Others have also mentioned the funding formula, and there could be transformation funding as part of a move to a regional force, if that is helpful to the Home Office and considered necessary. There is clearly a case for the north-east to be treated differently—

    Hansard source
13. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Barron

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I want to raise three issues. Having been a magistrate for 20 years, I think that one of the things that has led to the problems has been the closure of so many courts across the estate. The potential to reopen some of those sites should be in the mix to get the magistrates courts up and running. On the right to elect a court, I was opposed to clause 3, as the Minister will know, but the right to elect a court was not a red line for me, because it does not happen in Scotland, and I do not see its constitutional skies falling in upon its system. I would like to see some changes in the victim contact scheme. At the moment, the scheme does not allow victims to be advised of whether an offender has changed their name or their appearance. That information is not routinely shared with victims because it is considered to be sensitive personal data, and there is a presumption that it will not be disclosed unless there is lawful reason to do so. Let us take the example of the Haselip family. In 2003, Mick Haselip was violently murdered in his home in Corby. Rikki Stewart was convicted of the murder and received a mandatory life sentence. When he was released in July 2024, he changed his name to Rory Wilson. Nobody informed the family of that, and they were absolutely unaware that he had changed his name. They say: “This omission has undermined our ability to understand his movements, monitor our own safety and engage meaningfully with the Victim Contact Scheme.” In 1986, Adam Stein murdered six-year-old Collette Gallacher. He has changed his appearance and name multiple times, and Collette’s younger sisters, Lauren and Claire, fear for their own safety if he is ever granted parole again. They do not know what he looks like. They do not know what his name is. The family are not aware. These people are living in plain sight, and this is a loophole that we need to close. We need to change the presumption that this information will not be disclosed to a presumption that it will be, so that families know what is happening. To put the shoe on the other foot, Izzy was murdered by her husband as their two young daughters slept in the room next door. Izzy’s mum, Helena Sharrott, was granted a special guardianship order and there is a request to change the children’s names, but they have been told no because the father, who murdered their mother, has a say in it. That is wrong; it is unjust, and we need to change it.

    Hansard source
14. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Laura Kyrke-Smith

    UK Coach Industry

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for securing this important debate. In Aylesbury and across the country, transport is not just about moving people from one place to another; it is central to our economy, future growth and the wellbeing and opportunities in our communities today. Coaches have a particularly important role to play, and I pay tribute to all the operators in my area, including Masons coaches, Motts Travel, Redline and Star Travel. They connect Aylesbury with the surrounding rural communities and vice versa; support schools and colleges, as we have heard; provide transport for community groups; and help residents access leisure, cultural, sporting and tourism opportunities. Alongside our rail and bus networks, these coaches are vital in so many ways. Last week, I caught up with the brilliant Candice Mason from Masons coaches in my constituency to discuss the challenges facing the business and the sector. Sadly, the picture is not looking great. Masons is planning to reduce its fleet from 28 coaches to fewer than 20, because the costs on the business have skyrocketed. Workshop costs are up from £50,000 to £90,000 per year before covid to £330,000 now. Insurance has risen sharply, and the business is spending £8,000 per week on diesel. That is on top of rising energy costs and national insurance, minimum wage and business rates. Those pressures are felt not just by Masons but by small and medium-sized enterprises across Buckinghamshire, which are the backbone of our economy. What does better engagement and support from Government for the coach industry look like? I want to share three suggestions. The first point is about transport and planning policy, because that is where it all starts. Too often, local planning decisions overlook the practical needs of coaches. The result is poor parking, poor drop-off and pick-up facilities, a lack of suitable rest areas for drivers and so on. If we want coaches to support our local communities, planning guidance has to recognise them as a distinct mode of transport, while local authorities and visitor destinations have to be encouraged to provide appropriate facilities for coach operators and their passengers. That could help to tackle the increased congestion on our roads, but it could also have a beneficial impact on the environment, given that a single coach can remove dozens of cars from the road and significantly reduce emissions per passenger. Within transport planning, accessibility must also be front and centre. I know that the coach sector strongly supports making travel more accessible for disabled passengers and older people, but it must not just be about the coaches themselves; it must also be about the wider adaptations across the whole journey, including suitable boarding areas, kerbside spaces, level access points and so on. The second issue is the skills shortage in the coach sector. Around 14% of posts remain vacant, and nearly a quarter of drivers are thought to be over the age of 60 and close to retirement. Masons has highlighted that it is hard to attract new drivers, particularly because of insurance restrictions that mean it can no longer teach and train newly qualified drivers, but also because of wider issues with the industry and struggles to attract women. I would like to know what the Minister thinks about that. The third suggestion is about costs. So many of our coach operators are local, family-run SMEs. They play a vital role in employing and training up local people, purchasing from other businesses and paying taxes and national insurance, and yet they are having to absorb increasing costs. I ask the Minister what he can do to address that, whether through targeted support when SMEs experience fast-rising costs beyond their control or through grants or transitional funding when Government regulation—for example, on accessibility—requires new investment. As we have heard, the coach industry would particularly welcome support with fuel costs, through similar mechanisms to those available elsewhere in passenger transport. Coaches are too often the forgotten part of our transport network, and yet they are vital. A thriving coach sector is not just a luxury but a necessity in Aylesbury, the villages and across the country, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.

    Hansard source
15. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Laura Kyrke-Smith

    Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate. She is right to highlight the vital work of youth suicide prevention charities and the need for sustainable funding. I pay tribute to Hector’s House, a brilliant charity in my constituency that supports young people at risk of suicide in Hector’s memory. In Aylesbury, I run a programme for young people on politics, government and leadership called “Your Voice, Your Future”. The young people share their campaign ideas with me, and they often focus on mental health. One group made it their focus project—“Be You, Not Blue” was the name of their campaign. Their point was that, while awareness of mental health matters and is improving, awareness is not the same as understanding, and understanding does not yet translate into the support that young people need nationally or in their communities. Therefore, while it is so important that we get the support right for people in crisis, and the mental health strategy presents a real opportunity to do that, I reflect the point that young people make to me, which is that we should not be waiting until people are at crisis point to offer support. It is vital that support kicks in early, that mental health is woven through everything that schools do, that brilliant youth mental health charities such as Aylesbury Youth Action and Action4Youth in my constituency are known and accessible to people, and that mental health support is mainstreamed through the Government’s youth services. Today’s debate presents a real opportunity to get youth mental health support right more broadly. I know the Minister is working hard on that to make sure that we provide support early, as well as for those who get to that crisis point.

    Hansard source
16. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kirith Entwistle

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is staggering that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), did not even mention amendment 67, tabled in his name, in his remarks?

    Hansard source
17. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kirith Entwistle

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I speak today as a victim of domestic abuse who has found going through the court system especially triggering and on behalf of constituents who have shared their harrowing experiences with me. One wrote to me and said that “the system still allows a father to weaponise the child, to throw accusations whilst protecting his position, while none of the issues I raised got any acknowledgement.” Another felt that “the process itself has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of our justice and child protection systems.” I start with new clause 6, on victim-led intensive case management, which I stress is an issue across all courts. Recent experience of the courts shows that special measures are still not being properly implemented. The lack of a common-sense approach to communication is still a problem in 2026, when great technological advances have been made. I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on her many amendments that seek to improve experiences for victims, such as new clauses 7 to 9 on judicial training. I stress that all members of the judiciary should always have access to training. In fact, they should have to hear at first hand from victim-survivors about their experiences as part of that training. It does not matter how many times somebody tells me that they understand what I am going through or acknowledge what I have been through—they really cannot unless they have lived it themselves or they know somebody who has. The phrase “trauma-informed” is incredibly powerful and crucial. Such training should always be trauma-informed. That brings me to new clause 13 and the duty to provide trauma-informed training, which needs to include looking at how we communicate what will happen in court with victims, as well as the impact those proceedings will have on victims. There are severe issues with diversity and representation across all levels of the judiciary. I would be interested to hear more about what our Government are doing to ensure better representation. New clause 16 is about remote participation. As someone who has recently been through that as a victim, I believe that we must include an assessment of the special measures involved and whether they are adequately communicated to victims. In my case, they were not. I recently experienced an online hearing in which I had my perpetrator staring at me the entire time. I was not able to blur the background on my screen and I was not able to hide his face. The hearing was adjourned because the relevant documents did not reach the right parties on time, despite the fact that email exists and has done for some time.

    Hansard source
18. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kirith Entwistle

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that we should look for that to be the standard measure. I did ask for special measures, but when I turned up at court they were not implemented, so I had to walk past my perpetrator before going into the courtroom. That is what I experienced as a Member of Parliament. I dread to think—although I do know—what some of my constituents are experiencing. On new clause 24, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for ensuring that children’s voices and views are enshrined in the family courts. I know that representatives of Women’s Aid are here, as is the formidable Claire Throssell. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) on her tireless efforts in making that happen; she is incredible. The pro-contact culture embedded in the court system puts too many children at unnecessary risk. I am really pleased to see that the Government are removing that. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) addressing, in the form of amendment 22, the issue of post-separation abuse, which the courts have facilitated. I thank him for being a strong ally and for standing up for his constituents. He and I have both experienced a deluge of constituents contacting us about the abuse that they face and their experiences of the court system. It is always good to have his support. I am grateful that the Government are taking steps to go further for victims by introducing the victims helpline, addressing the issue of the automatic right to appeal so that victims are not retraumatised, and establishing specialist RASSO courts. However, I want to put on record my experiences as a victim and those of my constituents to ensure that the system truly supports all victims and ensures that they are genuinely heard and properly communicated with, that they know what their rights are and what is available to them, and that we are all shielded from further triggering and traumatic experiences involving our abusers. I am fed up of people and institutions telling me that they understand and then taking action that tells me they do not. I am fed up of being told that they are familiar with domestic abuse or coercive control and then telling me that it does not matter. I am fed up of feeling ignored and dismissed, and so are my constituents. Our justice system exists to protect victims, not to enable perpetrators. We should always remember that. We still allow our perceptions about how good a person looks on paper to cloud our judgments. Perpetrators walk among us: they are police officers; they are teachers; they are fathers; they are mothers. They are here in every aspect of our daily lives, and we cannot judge somebody because of how good they look on paper and give them the benefit of the doubt because of that. We have to look at the facts, we have to ensure that victims are heard and, crucially, we need to make sure that their voices are put at the heart of every decision that we make and that they are properly and adequately supported at every single step of the way.

    Hansard source
19. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kerry McCarthy

    Topical Questions

    Ahead of the Budget, I have been talking to many small businesses in my constituency. The Minister might be particularly interested to know that that includes 12 independent breweries, which are really struggling with their energy bills. What representations have been made to the Chancellor about the need to support them?

    Hansard source
20. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The regulations implement the United Kingdom’s rail interoperability obligations under the Windsor framework and update domestic legislation, implementing the convention concerning international carriage by rail, commonly known as COTIF. The regulations establish the technical requirements that railway vehicles, infrastructure and component products must meet before being marketed or brought into service in Northern Ireland. Interoperability ensures that trains, rail infrastructure and equipment can operate safely and effectively across connected rail networks. Northern Ireland’s railway is unique in the United Kingdom because it connects directly to the Republic of Ireland’s network. Regular Belfast to Dublin passenger services mean that technical compatibility is essential for safe, effective cross-border rail. The interoperability framework in Great Britain is set through the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011. Under the Windsor framework, the UK must apply directive 2016/797 in Northern Ireland where it concerns placing on the market, putting into service and the free movement of railway products. These regulations create a dedicated Northern Ireland framework, supporting interoperability between the Northern Irish and Irish networks and giving industry legal certainty. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not draw the regulations to either House’s special attention. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised several questions, and I shall briefly address each directly. The Committee questioned the time between the UK’s obligation to implement the Windsor framework requirements and the laying of these regulations. The UK had not implemented the directive before leaving the European Union. Introducing these arrangements therefore required careful work to ensure that the distinct rail framework to Northern Ireland and Great Britain could continue to operate effectively. Developing the regulations involved substantial technical and legal work across areas including vehicle authorisation, rail interoperability and safety. It also required close engagement with the Department for Infrastructure and the European Union Agency for Railways to ensure that the new arrangements operate effectively from day one. Substantial implementation work was also required to make the regime operational, including the development of Northern Ireland national technical rules to supplement the EU specifications. The Committee also questioned the Department’s understanding that domestic legislation was required to implement this directive in Northern Ireland. We have been clear that legislation is necessary and have worked to put the framework in place as soon as is practicable. While the legislative framework was being finalised, the Department introduced interim administrative arrangements to enable the new interoperability regime to operate in practice. We also informed the European Commission of this work while legislation was in preparation. Therefore, many of the requirements in the directive already reflect practices and standards in operation in Northern Ireland. The Committee also asked why COTIF-related updates are being brought forward only now. The amendment reflects the UK’s position following EU exit. While the UK was an EU member state, the issue was addressed through EU arrangements. Following EU exit, it became necessary to reflect the UK’s position directly in domestic legislation. The Committee questioned why the Government did not undertake a formal public consultation. The Government carefully considered this issue. The regulations implement obligations that the UK has already entered into under the Windsor framework and COTIF. As the policy approach was shaped by international obligations, the Department therefore undertook targeted engagement with organisations most affected, including the Department for Infrastructure, Translink, the Office of Rail and Road, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and conformity assessments bodies. The Government consider that targeted engagement was proportionate, given the nature of the regulations and the limited scope for alternative policy options. During scrutiny, concerns were raised about the differing regulatory arrangements in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, including in a submission from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I recognise those concerns, but it is important to be clear about the purpose of these regulations specifically. They do not create the UK’s obligations under the Windsor framework; those obligations are set out in the withdrawal agreement. Their purpose is to implement those obligations through a clear and legally operable framework for industry and regulators. The Government continue to work closely with the Department for Infrastructure to manage any future impacts arising from divergence between the regulatory frameworks in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In conclusion, these regulations provide legal certainty and a clear, workable framework for the railway industry in Northern Ireland. They implement obligations that the UK has already entered into, support the continued safe and effective operation of cross-border rail services on the island of Ireland and update domestic legislation to reflect the UK’s international rail commitments. Although technical in nature, the regulations perform an important function by providing clarity for industry and regulators. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
21. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    Draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I shall do my level best to address the points that they have raised, although the broader constitutional questions and sentiments that were espoused in some of the speeches might not pertain directly to my responsibilities or be for the Department for Transport to address. From a personal perspective, I am incredibly proud to be British and a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and part of that is about meeting the obligations to which we as a UK Parliament assent. This Committee is a part of that process, and that is why I am glad that we have had such a robust debate on the regulations. Let me respond to a few of the issues raised by hon. Members. As I outlined in my opening remarks, substantial technical and legal work has been undertaken to ensure that the framework can operate effectively alongside existing domestic rail legislation, and provide a workable, durable and legally robust regime for industry and regulators. That is what will ultimately provide the certainty that rail infrastructure investors need to be able to invest in the UK-wide market—in Northern Ireland, and in Great Britain. On the concerns that the shadow Minister raised on supply chain coherence—a very fair point—I bring to his attention that we have of course already been working under interim arrangements, which closely mirror the system that we presently have. In that regard, businesses have been working to the tune of what this framework institutes. I wonder whether there is a challenge for the viability of projects in the longer term if the arrangements that we have are discordant with our obligations under the Windsor framework. De minimis assessment was provided in relation to this legislation, as it is for all legislation, and it concluded that the impact on business was not sufficiently great to raise the merits of the shadow Minister’s concern, but it is of course something that we keep a very close watch on within the Department for Transport, given our obligations to look out for the entirety of the UK rail industry, as well as to ensure growth in rail freight and the maintenance of our railway network. I turn to the questions on the consultation. As I already mentioned, the Department worked with those organisations that are most directly affected by what is an incredibly technical piece of legislation. That engagement informed the practical approach to implementation that was adopted in these regulations. I fully take on board the view of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim on the constitutional question, which underlies why this decision has been taken, but the purpose of these regulations is not to reopen the overall question of the Windsor framework. The arrangements under the Windsor framework represent the international obligations that exist on the United Kingdom. These regulations do not create those obligations; they implement them. They are legally binding, are already entered into in good faith and provide legal certainty regarding how those obligations operate in practice for the railway sector in Northern Ireland. On the broader question of divergence, the Government recognise the importance of protecting the integrity of the UK’s internal markets. These regulations do not introduce a new policy of divergence. Rather, they establish a clear statutory framework to implement obligations that already apply under the framework. The Department continues to work closely with the Department for Infrastructure to understand and manage any future impacts arising from regulatory divergence and to ensure that businesses and regulators have clarity regarding the applicable framework. If Members have concerns, particularly as pertains to industries that exist in their constituencies, I encourage them to raise those matters with either me or the Rail Minister. These regulations provide the legislative framework necessary to implement the UK’s obligations relating to rail interoperability in Northern Ireland and to update domestic legislation implementing the convention concerning international carriage by rail. They provide clarity and certainty to regulators, infrastructure managers, operators and manufacturers; support the continued operation of cross-border rail services on the island of Ireland; and ensure that domestic legislation accurately reflects the United Kingdom’s already existing international obligations. These are technical regulations, but they perform an important function in providing a clear, stable and legally operable framework for the rail industry in Northern Ireland. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put.

    Hansard source
22. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    UK Coach Industry

    It is a pleasure, Mr Turner, to serve under your chairship. I join colleagues in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this critically important debate, for her continued interest in the area and for holding the feet of Ministers in the Department for Transport to the fire on an important issue. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond and participate on behalf of the Government. I wish everyone a happy National Coach Week. I will turn later to some of the topics raised by my hon. Friend, particularly decarbonisation and the recruitment and retention of younger drivers. First, I want to touch on the point she raised about coach data, which is critical. She is right to say that the coach sector is relatively unevidenced compared with other major modes of transport. However, the available coach industry evidence suggests that there are about 2,500 coach operators in the United Kingdom, most of them small and family-owned, although she is right to say that no definitive national estimate currently exists. We must work tirelessly within the Department for Transport to remedy that. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured about the Government’s commitment to supporting the UK coach sector, as well as the coach manufacturing sector, which has been raised by Members, in every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

    Hansard source
23. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    UK Coach Industry

    I thank my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for their remarks. Manufacturing and sovereign capability in our bus and coach sector is critical irrespective of where someone lives in the United Kingdom: it is a matter for both the UK Government and the Government in Holyrood. Irrespective of who is holding the pen, the Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to facilitate reindustrialisation and growth in every postcode of the United Kingdom. We want colleagues in the SNP and across the United Kingdom to help us in that work and to work collaboratively with us to ensure that UK domestic manufacturers have the support needed to carry out their vital work. Coaches are an essential, if sometimes under-recognised, part of our transport system. They connect people with education, employment, family, leisure and major events. They support rail passengers during disruption and give communities an affordable way to reach destinations across the country. They are a very democratic form of transport.

    Hansard source
24. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    UK Coach Industry

    I thank my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on the impact that the coach sector has in his constituency, putting greater focus on our incredible British heritage sites; the point is incredibly well made. However, there is also a macro point here: the sector itself estimates that coaches provide around 450 million passenger journeys each year. It directly employs around 54,000 people and supports a further 27,000 jobs through its supply chain. It contributes an estimated £6.4 billion to the economy. As has been said, coach passengers are also estimated to spend £8.3 billion each year in local economies.

    Hansard source
25. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    UK Coach Industry

    The right hon. Gentleman points to an important fact: the coach sector is used by those who may not otherwise be able to book public transport to get where they need to. Although those people can also benefit from the package of measures brought forward by this Government to give them much needed breathing space, including the £2 bus cap, he is right to encourage me to always go further to improve on that. Unfortunately, he will be momentarily disappointed as I cannot provide him with advance notice of what may or may not be in the Budget. However, his general point—that support is important—is well made. That is why the fuel duty freeze is currently in place. The figures that I raised underline the sector’s importance to tourism, high streets and destinations throughout Great Britain. However, the industry is also rooted in local communities. Many of those operators are small and family-run businesses that have served their areas for generations, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) pointed out from his own personal experience. We want those businesses to grow, invest and continue providing the flexible services on which passengers, schools and businesses depend. I turn first to driver recruitment. We must continue to have an open dialogue with the coach sector about its challenges to doing business and what the Government can do to help. Driver recruitment is central. I recognise the sector’s concerns about recruiting and retaining drivers, in particular about the restrictions affecting younger drivers, which multiple hon. Members have raised today. At present, 18 and 19-year-olds may drive buses and coaches only on regular services of up to 50 km. That can severely limit the work available in a sector where journeys are often of longer distance or not part of regular services. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) also raised the issue of when young drivers can begin their qualifications and theory tests. I will certainly take that away and raise it within the Department. The Department has been engaging with the bus and coach industry, alongside road safety groups, to understand the potential impacts of amending the restrictions that apply to young drivers. However, I want hon. Members to be assured that we are working hard and at pace to get the next generation of drivers into the coach sector. We are considering the evidence carefully and will set out our next steps in due course. However, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), the Minister with direct responsibility for this matter, to set out more detail on the timings in writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I turn now to cost pressures, which have been a consistent theme of this debate; they were particularly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I recognise that operators face pressures at the pump. That is why the Government have extended the 5p fuel duty cut until the end of the year, which provides important support to businesses, including coach operators. We will continue to work closely with the sector, listening to its concerns and ensuring that the challenges facing coach operators are understood across Government. There is also a continued role for international advocacy, which sits within my role at the Department for Transport: working with colleagues both across Government and with the UK delegations at the International Energy Agency, to ensure that we continue to maintain a robust supply of diesel into the United Kingdom.

    Hansard source
26. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    UK Coach Industry

    Later in my speech, I will reflect more on the steps that we are taking to support the coach sector, especially in building the longer-term resilience that we believe can be achieved through the benefits that can be accrued from decarbonisation. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of rising fuel prices, which concerns the Government and on which we work on in close collaboration with the sector. He will, of course, understand that ahead of the Budget I cannot say much more about the exact issue that he raised. I turn next to the issue of transport connectivity and the indispensable role of coaches as part of an integrated transport network. Earlier this year, the Department published “Better Connected”, the Government’s strategy for integrated transport in England. It sets out a clear national vision for all partners across the transport system to create integrated networks that work well for people and are safe, reliable, affordable and accessible, so that people can make their journeys easily. Its principles of putting people first, creating well-connected places and working in partnership apply across all forms of transport, but perhaps no more than in relation to coaches, which have a critical role to play as part of an integrated picture, particularly in connecting people to education and visitor destinations, but also in connecting rural communities and supporting elderly residents, as was raised by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Better information, well-designed interchanges and closer co-ordination with rail, bus and local transport can make journeys easier, and we will continue working with local leaders to ensure that coach travel is properly considered in local transport plans. I will also just touch briefly on an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) about working more closely with local authorities to break through planning challenges. Currently, there are obligations for local authorities to have regard to land use and land need for myriad factors that do not pertain to driver welfare stops as they relate to critical national infrastructure on the strategic road network. There is more work for the Department of Transport to do in order to work more closely with local authorities to make them more aware of just how critical it is to have proper freight and coach connectivity to every part of the United Kingdom. I turn next to zero emission coaches. Coaches already provide an efficient form of mass transport, but we recognise the need to support the sector to go further in a way that makes good business sense. The transition to zero emission coaches presents particular challenges that I am very cognisant of: journeys can be long and variable, vehicles may spend extended periods away from their depot and operators need confidence that suitable charging will be available. The Government’s £170 million multi-year depot charging scheme supports zero emission HGVs, vans and coaches by part-funding charging infrastructure at fleet depots. Its first 2026 funding window offered support for up to 70% of eligible charge points and civil engineering costs of up to £1 million per organisation.

    Hansard source
27. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

    UK Coach Industry

    The hon. Member raises a really important point about ensuring that where the Government are encouraging decarbonisation and the resilience benefits that that can bring for the long term, it has to be done in a sustainable way, recognising the particular challenges faced by the coach sector in meeting that challenge. That applies in every part of the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland and the sort of area that he represents, where the tourist economy is so essential. Coach connectivity is critical to ensuring that his local economy continues to thrive, so that is an important point well made. Depot charging will meet many operating needs, but as Members have raised today, longer-distance journeys will also require appropriate charging facilities at destinations and strategic locations. The Government’s forthcoming zero emission HGV and coach infrastructure strategy will provide clearer national direction—a road map, some might say—for how that infrastructure will develop, and we will continue engaging coach operators, charge point providers and motorway service area operators as the network expands. We understand that ultimately the transition must be practical, commercially viable and shaped by real operating patterns. To touch briefly on accessibility, coaches provide vital connectivity for many people with disabilities. It is essential that they are able to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. That is just as important when they travel on leisure, rail replacement and home-to-school services as it is when they make long-distance journeys. Accessibility should be considered at all stages of the passenger journey, from finding information and planning trips though accessing coach stations and stops, and boarding, alighting and travelling on the vehicle. Accessible information is vital for giving disabled passengers the confidence to use services, and from 1 October, all coaches operating services that are subject to the accessible information regulations, which are largely rail replacement, must be compliant unless they are covered by an exemption. That is part of the broader work we are doing to ensure a more accessible transport network. I will draw my remarks to a close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard again for securing this critically important debate, and all the Members who have contributed and shared their personal and constituency-level experiences of the phenomenal contribution that the coach sector makes to our economy. I hope I have demonstrated that the Government recognise coaches as a vital part of the transport system—not just something that is lumped in with HGVs and other modes, but that deserves cognisance of the challenges coaches face and the enormous opportunities and benefits that they bring to communities across the United Kingdom in supporting growth, widening opportunity, strengthening tourism and connecting communities. We will continue working with the sector to support its progress and tackle some of those barriers together, including on growth and integration with the wider transport network, strengthening the workforce, increasing investment and progressing towards decarbonisation. Our aim is clear: we want a thriving, inclusive and sustainable coach industry that passengers can rely on for years to come, and I think that hon. Members from across the House have pushed us further in that direction today.

    Hansard source
28. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katrina Murray

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about veterans and the roles of those veterans. My concern is for my constituents who served but never got to be veterans because they did not survive their service in Northern Ireland. What those families want is the truth, and they want a truth that is undebatable. Does he not recognise that we should be talking about the victims and the survivors, rather than trying to make this a false dichotomy? There is more than one level or tier of victim.

    Hansard source
29. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Climate Change Resilience

    My hon. Friends raise an excellent point. In June this year, I, alongside the Cabinet Office, launched a climate and nature security taskforce to assess our resilience. Its first meeting will take place next week, with external experts to challenge our preparedness. Sadly, this taskforce became even more relevant when this summer’s extremes enabled us to feel what scientists have been telling us for many years. The Prime Minister has also confirmed that he will host a wildfire summit this month.

    Hansard source
30. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Climate Change Resilience

    We are indeed living through extremes of climate change, and we felt that so intensely this summer. This should encourage us all to accelerate our efforts to mitigate, but also to expand opportunities to adapt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) has just said, the boiler upgrade scheme already provides for air-to-air heat pumps that can both heat and cool our homes at the same time. However, we want to go further, which is why the warm homes plan set out our intention to introduce passive cooling measures in our capital funded schemes, including solar shading, shutters, reflective window-cooling coatings and cooler building materials.

    Hansard source
31. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Climate Change Resilience

    My hon. Friend is a long-standing champion of retrofitting and of new build. We on this side of the House are proud of the future building standards, which require all new homes to be zero carbon-ready to ensure they are adapted to and can mitigate the impacts of climate change. The building regulations state that new homes must be designed to reduce overheating risk and prioritise passive measures such as limiting exposure to heat from the sun and openable windows to remove excess heat, but a full technical review is under way to ensure that those regulations remain effective and fit for the future.

    Hansard source
32. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Climate Change Resilience

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question; I am a little unsure how it relates to this question grouping. We are looking at how to ensure we align the—[Interruption.] I am speaking from the Dispatch Box, but thank you. On environmental assessments of solar farms, we want to ensure that our policies are in line with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs policies. We have worked very closely with DEFRA, and continue to do so, on the land use framework to make sure that we are delivering clean power while improving nature restoration. It was great over the recess to talk to solar providers who looked at biodiversity increase from solar farms.

    Hansard source
33. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Climate Change Resilience

    I thank the hon. Lady for her very important question. This is one of the reasons why, before this summer, we launched the climate and nature security taskforce. As I said, sadly it has become even more relevant after the summer and its impacts on farming and food security. We are working hand in glove with DEFRA to ensure that these matters are considered at the same time, and that cascading climate and nature impacts on food security are considered. That will be a core part of our climate and nature security taskforce.

    Hansard source
34. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Peatland: Energy Infrastructure

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion for Yorkshire and for climate change mitigation and adaptation. We recognise that our peatlands are vital habitats for biodiversity, storing carbon and water. We have strong protections in national planning policy that guide developers to avoid peatland and, where that is not possible, to mitigate. We are working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to strengthen and collaborate on both climate and nature policies.

    Hansard source
35. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Peatland: Energy Infrastructure

    My hon. Friend is right to highlight the hugely valuable role of peat in storing carbon and water, and in ensuring biodiversity. That is why the Government announced £47 million to restore our peatlands in June. As I said, there is national policy guidance, but we are working with DEFRA and Natural England to improve the interaction that he mentions. I will follow up with the Department to ensure that we are reviewing policy options, so that we deliver clean energy while protecting our natural environment. I am happy to keep him in the loop on that.

    Hansard source
36. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Peatland: Energy Infrastructure

    Thank you for the clarification, Mr Speaker, and I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Everything we do has an environmental impact, but clearly we want to make sure that we minimise the environmental impact of any infrastructure that we build. I cannot comment on any individual planning application, as the right hon. Member will well know, but I take his wider point on looking to minimise, in all places, the environmental impacts of any of our clean energy infrastructure.

    Hansard source
37. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Cold Homes Plan

    We all felt the impacts of climate change this summer, whether in our schools and classrooms or in our homes. The warm homes plan and the measures within it to ensure cooling as well as heating are available for the most vulnerable homes. In England and Wales, all eligible households can benefit from the expanded boiler upgrade scheme, which now includes air-to-air heat pumps that can heat and cool our homes.

    Hansard source
38. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Cold Homes Plan

    I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. As we have mentioned a few times today, the intention to introduce some passive cooling measures, whether that be shading, shutters, reflective windows or cooler building materials, in the warm homes plan has already been announced. The delivery of the warm homes plan, which has been devolved to mayors, local government and communities, presents an opportunity to shape that in the most appropriate ways locally. We want to go faster to make sure that new homes are built to resilient standards. That is why we have committed to the net zero standards and why we are reviewing the overheating building regulations to ensure that our homes are fit for the future. I want to make sure that we build together heating and cooling options, so that we are thinking about the integration of climate mitigation and adaptation at the same time.

    Hansard source
39. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Cold Homes Plan

    The hon. Member is right that some properties are more challenging to retrofit. That is why we are working with many heritage organisations to determine the best way to do that. We are constantly learning to make sure that there is mitigation and adaptation at the same time. I am happy to keep the hon. Member in the loop on the progress on that.

    Hansard source
40. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katie White

    Topical Questions

    The science has been very clear for years, but this summer allowed many people in the UK to really felt it for the first time. He is absolutely correct that net zero remains the goal of this Government. I understand that some people want to weaponise this issue, but ultimately if we want to tackle the climate crisis and to protect the people and places we love, at some point we have to stop releasing polluting gases into the atmosphere.

    Hansard source