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

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

1. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jerome Mayhew

   International Law: UK Obligations

   I think I am in the slightly novel position of being fresh to the Dispatch Box myself, but also able to welcome both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to their new places, which I do with gusto. Last month, the Attorney General published her new “Attorney General’s Legal Guidance”, a direction to all Government lawyers on how to advise Ministers on lawfulness and legal risk, which replaced the advice of Lord Hermer. Across the board, she has removed references to international law. She has removed Lord Hermer’s demand that “the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”; she has removed Lord Hermer’s direction that the Government “should not invite Parliament to legislate contrary to international obligations”; and she has removed the whole paragraph in which Lord Hermer instructed Government lawyers that compliance and respect for international law must be a critical factor in legal advice. She served as Solicitor General under Lord Hermer for a year. What persuaded her that his guidance to Government lawyers was wrong, and that the Conservatives were right all along that his guidance needed to be replaced?

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jerome Mayhew

   International Law: UK Obligations

   Having removed Lord Hermer’s focus on the importance of international law, the Attorney General has in fact added a new consideration: whether an international court has jurisdiction. This could have Chagos written all over it. Without express United Kingdom consent, there is no international court with binding jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. Applying her own legal guidance, does the Attorney General now agree that the decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos islands has never been a legal imperative forced on the Government, but is instead a political decision, taken by Labour?

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jerome Mayhew

   Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

   Having spent many months arguing for the abolition of most jury trials, can the Attorney General explain to the House how she now thinks that they are indispensable? Does she accept that, while jury trials are indispensable, an Attorney General forced to perform such a spectacular U-turn may not be?

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jerome Mayhew

   Engagements

   Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 October.

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jerome Mayhew

   Engagements

   The Prime Minister sees himself as a man of candour, so will he tell the House whether anyone associated with the running of Manchester City football club raised the charges that they were facing, and have now been found guilty of, with either him or any member of his team?

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Jerome Mayhew

   Inheritance Tax

   I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have been involved in a family farm and have created a family business—[Interruption.] Thank you. One of the really odd aspects of this issue is that the Government seem to be confusing business assets with personal wealth. How can that possibly be fair?

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·James Wild

   Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

   I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing the debate. I represent the Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn trust, which serves 300,000 people across Norfolk, north Cambridgeshire and south Lincolnshire and was ranked 134th out of 134 trusts in the league table released in September last year. That very disappointing result was uncomfortable for the trust and its staff, but transparency can galvanise action. Performance is simply not good enough at the moment. Only 65% of cancer patients are treated within the 62-day timeframe, against the standard of 85%, and only 64% of patients at A&E are seen within four hours. The trust has also heard worrying reports from the Royal College of Surgeons about culture and management weaknesses, and in August the CQC rated emergency care as “requiring improvement”. When the league table was published, I was told by Health Ministers that intensive help would be made available to deliver better care, but it is not clear what extra support has actually been provided. Cancer and elective waiting times have improved slightly. A&E diagnostics have not. There have certainly been more reporting requirements, but they will not drive improved performance and productivity, nor will requiring a 10% budget saving or the current management instability. We had a temporary chief executive and then a supposedly permanent appointment, and there is currently no recruitment for a managing director, with the post being covered by the Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group deputy chief executive. We need visible, active, full-time leadership, on site, to deliver better care. What support is the national performance framework providing? A year on from the league table, how are Ministers holding the trust to account? Dedicated staff are working in a hospital that is not fit for purpose, which is why we secured a commitment, which this Government have honoured, to a new QEH. New facilities and improvements go hand in hand, but it should be about improving services, not removing them. That is why I am extremely concerned about leaked proposals showing that the Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group is considering downgrading A&E, maternity and intensive care unit services. The plans have been drawn up behind closed doors, with no transparency, by organisations that are seemingly unaccountable and that fail to recognise the needs of my constituents and those across the area. Clinicians have warned of the impact on patient safety. The proposals are completely unacceptable and should be ruled out now. Indeed, the group leadership has repeatedly said publicly that it wants more services closer to home. If that is the case, those services must include a proper 24/7, tier 1 A&E; maternity services; and an ICU in King’s Lynn. QEH is at the heart of my community, and we all want to see sustained improvements. I urge the Minister to give my constituents and the staff at the hospital the reassurance they want by ruling out any downgrading of services at QEH on this Government’s watch.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

   Inheritance Tax

   I know that, like me, my hon. Friend is a champion of his local pubs. I put on the record that one of my local pubs, the Crown in Arford, has just won my “best pub” competition. On my hon. Friend’s point about taxation, we tax cigarettes to stop people smoking. If we tax jobs, we have fewer jobs, and if we tax economic growth, we have less economic growth. Why does he think that Labour does not get this?

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

   Inheritance Tax

   While I am following a vast number of extraordinarily excellent speeches from Opposition Members, unfortunately I am going to have to start with some of the really quite stunning comments from Government Members—comments that clearly demonstrate that the Government have absolutely no clue about what creates wealth in this country, what drives growth in our economy, and what real people who are working hard have to face in Britain every single day. There was no greater example of this than the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who I notice has just scuttled out of the Chamber. He had the audacity to misquote Churchill and to call the people who are working hard in this country—the people who are grafting hard—the “idle rich”. What a disgraceful thing to say to those people who are building a business! What a disgraceful thing to say to the farmers who are up at the crack of dawn trying to make their businesses work! He should come back to the Chamber and apologise to them, because they deserve an apology. I prefer another Churchill quote. He said: “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy”, and we have seen a lot of failure, ignorance and envy from Government Members today. The real people who are going to be hit by these taxes are not the idle rich who the hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned; they are the grafters who put in—people like my father’s family, who ran a business for over a century in Haslemere. They worked hard, took risks, saved, and stood on their own two feet. These are the sort of people who this Labour Government have decided they want to tax to the hilt—to tax out of existence. For decades, business property relief meant that a family firm could pass to the next generation without a bill. This Government ended that. Relief was capped at £1 million in 2024. Only after a backlash did it rise to £2.5 million of combined business and agricultural property relief. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said, though, businesses are not a bank account. Cash and capital are two different things. A business’s value is in its premises, its machinery, its stock and its good will, not necessarily in its cash, so the people who inherit it must find money from the very businesses that employ their staff and extend growth.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Inheritance Tax

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency—and, I am sure, in his constituency and across the country—small family businesses are having to make really tough decisions about what they are going to do. He is right that they will often go to foreign firms, because those firms will not be hit by this level of taxes. Hitting British businesses so that they will be sold to foreign ones is an odd focus for this Labour Government. It is extraordinary, and if the Government do not see that, they really must think again. Think of an owner in their 60s deciding whether to buy a new machine or take on another apprentice. Now they must first ask, “What will this do to my tax bill that my children will inherit?”—a tax that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, makes owners think twice before investing and building growth.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gregory Stafford

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she neatly brings me on to some comments about family farms. She is right: it is not just the people who are running these businesses or those people who might inherit them who will end up losing out, but the employees of those businesses too. That is why we are not getting the growth that Labour claims it wants. With family farms such as Luff’s in Headley, the land, tractors, buildings and a lifetime of labour are passed from generation to generation. The National Farmers Union has calculated that a typical cereals farm making roughly £34,000 a year would face 10 annual instalments of £53,000 a year at the original £1 million threshold. Even at the new threshold, payments of £33,000 a year would swallow nearly all the profit. Essentially, in order to pay, a farmer will have to sell the very fields that earn the living. The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution found that more than a third of farmers are probably or possibly depressed. The Farming Community Network, which supports more than 10,000 people, says that its helpline has been taking calls linked to the upcoming Budget for weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, this tax has led to suicides. That is a disgrace, and the Government should recognise that and do everything they can to repair the damage that they have done emotionally and economically to our farms. It was only when Ministers were challenged by the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), that they raised that threshold. If it was right to raise the threshold then, because it was the wrong threshold, can the Government not look at it again and remove it? Moving on briefly to the general inheritance tax points, the nil rate band has been at £325,000 since 2009. Labour has now said that it will freeze it until April 2031. Had that band risen with inflation, it would be at more than half a million pounds today. To dispel the myth that has been put forward by the Government that inheritance tax affects only a small number of people, the OBR expects one in 10 estates to pay by the end of the decade. The Institute for Fiscal Studies puts that figure at one in six. It will not hit just a small number of people. A married couple can pass on up to £1 million if their home goes to their children. That might sound generous, but once we add a family home in my constituency to a lifetime of savings and, from April 2027, their pension pots, it is not a significant amount of money in the grand scheme of things. That is especially important when that pension relief is what we on all sides of this House were telling people to do. We were telling people to save for their future, and the reward for their saving is the Government taking more of it in tax. Households that never thought of themselves as wealthy are being pulled in. Under Labour, aspirational families are hit on the way in and unfortunately they are hit on the way out. As Members have said, the shopkeeper will sell their business to fund retirement and the farmer will sell the fields to try to keep just a small measure of their farm. The Minister on the Treasury Bench must take this message back to the Chancellor: rule out these changes and make things better for our local areas. As the Conservative Opposition, we present an alternative. We will abolish tax on the family home, and we will do that by slashing the welfare bill by £7 billion. It is the first step, and the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have outlined their ambition to go further. It comes down to a fundamental point. On the one side, we have a Government who see a lifetime of savings and a business built over generations as just another tax opportunity. On the other, we have an Opposition who believe that those savings belong to the family who earned them—not the grifters, not the idle rich, but the grafters. They built this country, and unlike Labour, a Conservative Government will let them keep those savings.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this motion to the House and for opening this debate in her customarily powerful way. Piddington has the headlines, but it is not just about Piddington; it is also about the women in Oakley, in Marsh Gibbon, in Ludgershall, in Brill, in Boarstall, in Long Crendon and in many other villages just over the Buckinghamshire border that are within walking distance of MOD Bicester site A.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
14. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    On that point—

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    MOD Bicester site A is but a stone’s throw over the Buckinghamshire border into Oxfordshire. While Piddington has captured the headlines, the communities that are concerned and that feel threatened by this proposal, many of which sit in my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire—small villages and hamlets such as Boarstall, Oakley, Brill, Ludgershall, Marsh Gibbon, Long Crendon, Twyford, Charndon, Poundon, Worminghall, Honeyburge and many others—are all walking distance from MOD Bicester site A. While I have absolute confidence that the real answer to this challenge is the Conservatives’ borders plan, where those who illegally enter the United Kingdom by small boat would be deported within a week, I want to use my time to focus on why the use of MOD Bicester site A simply does not stack up. It is the wrong plan.. It is the wrong site. That goes straight to some of the arguments that the Minister made about cost and location, none of which stack up in reality. This site has to be built entirely from scratch. There is no accommodation there at the moment. This is an entirely modular build on a site where there is no fresh water supply. There is no ability to take the sewage away by anything other than road. If the Government want to look at environmental concerns, we hear that generators will have to burn some 6,000 litres of diesel a day to provide electricity to this site. There is no grid connection to MOD Bicester site A. It is situated along a busy, fast-moving road but we are told, “It’s okay. Those who are housed there will wear high-vis jackets as the HGVs zoom past them.” It is just not a credible site.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Indeed, we heard the Minister and Labour Back Benchers trying to say that this will be cheaper than hotels. Let me tell my hon. Friend and the House what the modelling actually says on the cost of MOD Bicester site A as an asylum camp. If that site persists for five years, the cost will work out at £235.34 per night. If it goes for 10 years, it will be £185.17 per night. The comparator for asylum hotels is £144 a night. The use of MOD Bicester site A is intrinsically incredibly more expensive than using hotels, so this does not offer value to the taxpayer as the Government and the Labour party want us to believe. That is an absolute nonsense that we cannot allow to persist. Of course, from a Government that like to talk about wanting to follow all the rules all the time and so on, they ruled out doing an environmental impact assessment, saying that it was not going to have much of an environmental impact. That is a statutory requirement that anyone wanting to build something should go through. They cannot argue that it will have a minimal environmental impact. There were munition stores on this site, and it is absolutely riddled with asbestos which will be released into the local environment. The wonderful campaign groups—not least “Wrong Plan. Wrong Site.”—have done an incredible amount of work, where they have found rare breeds of bats and newts. I know the Government like to pooh-pooh this, but in reality, the need to pay attention to and do these environmental impact assessments is set down in statute. It is the rules and the law we have, and for the Government to ride roughshod over that is purely unacceptable. I urge the Government to stop, to look at the cost, the environmental impact and the unsuitability of this site on practical grounds, and to withdraw it immediately so that the communities in my constituency, as well as those of our neighbours in Oxfordshire, can breathe once more and live in the peace that they deserve to live in, free from the fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) set out in her opening speech, and that we can move on and stop this nonsense.

    Hansard source
17. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    Very brief.

    Hansard source
18. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    Order. I need to introduce a time limit of three minutes.

    Hansard source
19. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    Last but not least from the Back Benches, I call Adam Dance.

    Hansard source
20. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    I call the spokesman for His Majesty’s Opposition, Dr Caroline Johnson.

    Hansard source
22. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    Thanks to the discipline of the speakers so far, there are some extra minutes for the Minister to take interventions if she so chooses.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    We will finish at 4.15 pm, so ideally we will allow the wind-up at 4.13 pm.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    Order. His intervention.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    We will begin with speeches of four minutes. If everyone is disciplined, everyone will get four minutes.

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    Sorry to interrupt, but I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so if you wish to share your time with your colleague, that would be helpful.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    I call the final Back-Bench speaker, Elaine Stewart, with a two-minute time limit, I am afraid.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Jamie Stone.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Nuclear Energy: Scotland

    If the Minister wishes to finish at 5.43 pm, she will be able to give the proposer of the debate two minutes to wind up.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend will remember that the centre-left Social Democratic party in Sweden abolished inheritance tax years ago, because it had gone down the route of this envy-filled, left-wing, socialist approach, and found that it was counterproductive, led to complexity and reduced wealth in the country. Afterwards, business thrived, and even the Communist party in Sweden, in the face of the facts 20 years ago, could see how wrong it was. It is a shame that the modern Labour party does not understand that.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Esther McVey

    Chetwynd Bridge

    A date for the diary.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Inheritance Tax

    One of the liberating elements of speaking at this stage of the debate is that many excellent and eminently sensible points have already been made, so I can do an assorted highlights of the best bits that have come out of it. But it has made me reflect that perhaps if we all took a stroll down to Clapham, got on the omnibus, and spoke to the man and woman who had boarded it, I suspect that their vision of this country would not be the same as the purported utopia that we have heard from those on the Government Benches today. I suspect that if we asked people what they want to see from the tax system, they would want to see something that is not unnecessarily detrimental to a single group and not punitive in its intent. Fundamentally, it should not be something that disincentivises those who have done the right thing. Looking at the tax landscape in this country, it has become far too complicated and burdensome—we are now at more than 20,000 pages of tax codes, whereas in 1997 there were fewer than 5,000.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Inheritance Tax

    I recommend that the hon. Gentleman get on the Clapham omnibus, because it is a great opportunity to have his finger on the pulse of the British public. I think most will say that they want a fair system so that when they have worked, strived and built up a legacy for the next generation, they have something to hand down, because that is the most loving thing that people can do. I have not built up a family business or run a family farm, and I cannot imagine the stresses and strains that that involves, but these individuals understandably want to hand their businesses down to the next generation. We need them to do so, because if we do not have the farmers of tomorrow and the generation after that, we will not have on our tables the food that we enjoy today and that we hope our children will enjoy in years to come.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Inheritance Tax

    I fundamentally do not agree with the hon. Lady’s point, and I suspect that farmers in this country will be wondering why her party has not stood up for farmers over fertilisers today.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Inheritance Tax

    From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Let us not kid ourselves: this debate has been framed as though we have some sort of Dickensian model of the idle rich and then the poor who are propping up the state. That is not the truth. The reality is that, as my hon. Friends have said, those who are very rich will inevitably put their affairs into trusts and escape inheritance tax. We are talking about those who are just about managing: those who are trying to earn a crust and to support their families. It is the middle class who get caught—those who go out to work every day to provide for their families. The average property price in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley is now £345,000. Such properties are owned not by the toffs who are often derided by those on the Labour Benches, but by people who get up every morning and often work more than one job to provide for their families. People have tripped into paying inheritance tax by virtue of property prices being pushed up and the threshold remaining the same. The reality is that this tax is not operating as it was intended. It is not capturing the individuals it was intended to capture; it is capturing the ordinary man and woman. The fact that the Government have frozen the threshold until 2031—a threshold that was first put in place in 2009—means that, whereas only 4% of deaths were captured by this particular tax between 2001 and 2024, 9.5% of deaths will be captured by 2030. When we compare ourselves with other OECD nations, we see that 18 of those 38 nations do not pay any inheritance tax at all—Australia, Canada and New Zealand among them—and none of the remaining 20 has it at such a punitive rate as we have here. The purpose of a tax system is of course to help fund our public services, but it also has to be fair, sensible and aspirational in its intent. It must ensure that those who strive and work hard are not penalised as a consequence, and I am afraid that this Government’s direction of travel is simply taking out those that do work hard—our family farms, our family businesses and others—by the knee.

    Hansard source
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Hudson

    Inheritance Tax

    Are there any black Labradors at any of the premises that my hon. Friend mentions?

    Hansard source
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Hudson

    Inheritance Tax

    These are people who are doing the right thing: farmers who feed us and look after our precious environment, family businesses supporting their local economy and families who work hard to provide a family home. Is not their being able to pass on their farms, family businesses and family homes to the next generation free from inheritance tax, about fairness?

    Hansard source
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

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

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse, in my first outing on an SI from a Department I spent 18 months in. Not only is it amazing how much things have changed; it is amazing how much they have not, given some of the arguments that have come forward. As the Minister rightly set out, the draft regulations extend the BUS to thermal energy storage systems and make it a little easier for Ofgem to recover payments. However, it would be remiss of me not to point out the context of this debate, when we have heard in the media that this could be one of the schemes facing funding cuts. We only have to look at paragraph 5.5 of the explanatory memorandum to see that it still refers to the £2.7 billion. We discussed this issue yesterday in Energy Security and Net Zero questions, when we asked whether every single penny of the warm homes plan—that £15 billion-worth of funding—would be kept. However, the Minister was unable to give an answer, so it will be interesting to see whether that will be the case today. When we boil this SI down, the real question is whether this further extension of subsidy represents value for money. The Government’s wider ambition was to install 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028, but deployment remains far below that level. Of course, this scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government, but we should judge policy by its results, and not defend it simply because we introduced it. The fundamental problem is that electricity remains too expensive. Rather than addressing the underlying problem, the Government continue to reach for subsidies. That risks having to ask taxpayers to compensate for an energy market that makes electric heating less attractive than it should be. There is also a question of fairness: households unable to afford a new heating system should not face additional costs to subsidise those who can. Heat batteries may well have a role, particularly in homes unsuitable for heat pumps. We are not opposed to the technology; we are simply questioning the economics of subsidising it. The Government have announced a grant of £2,500 per installation, but they appear to have decided the level of subsidy before demonstrating publicly why that figure represents good value. In essence, Ministers have put the cart before the horse. A question still arises over whether the necessary standards have been established. If so, that is welcome, but standards tell us whether a system is safe and properly installed; they do not tell us whether it is worth subsidising. For example, a car can pass its MOT, but that does not mean the Government should give anyone £2,500 to buy it. I therefore have three areas to explore. The first is the standards, which was also raised in the other place. Can the Minister confirm that all necessary product safety, design and installation standards are now in force? Will those standards assess real-world performance and not just safety? What redress will consumers have if properly installed systems fail to deliver the efficiency or savings they were promised? The second area I would like to explore is the methodology. What evidence led Ministers to select heat batteries for taxpayer support? Heat batteries can store energy bought at cheaper times for use later. That may lower bills, but shifting electricity consumption is not the same as reducing it. The benefit depends on efficiency, household demand, electricity tariffs and the system’s operating life. Will the Minister publish the Department’s underlying analysis, including its assumptions about consumption, efficiency, running costs and lifetime carbon savings? How does that analysis compare heat batteries with other heating technologies? My question is not whether heat batteries work, but why the technology was selected for subsidy over other electric heating solutions. What criteria were applied and what alternatives were assessed? If another technology can deliver the same or greater carbon reduction at lower cost to the taxpayer, why should it not qualify? That leads me to the final area: the costings. I simply ask the Minister how the Government arrived at £2,500. It would be helpful to understand what average purchase and installation costs were assumed. What annual running costs have been modelled, and what proportion of the total cost will taxpayers fund? Most importantly, what is the expected taxpayer cost per tonne of carbon saved, and how does that compare with the equivalent support for heat pumps? If the Government cannot answer those questions, how can this Committee judge whether £2,500 represents value for money? Ministers may point to high satisfaction, as they did in the other place, among existing boiler upgrade scheme recipients, but satisfaction with one subsidised technology does not justify the price of subsidising another. They may also argue that the extension increases customer choice—the Minister mentioned that in his speech—but genuine choice requires clear information about installation costs, running costs and long-term performance, not simply the Government promising a grant. This is not an argument against innovation, but one for evidence-led policy and proper stewardship of taxpayer money. We ask the Government to establish the standards, publish the methodology, and demonstrate the carbon savings and value for money, then determine the subsidy. Parliament should not be asked to approve an extension of subsidy without clear evidence that the Government have the economics right. The Minister would do well to explain not simply why heat batteries might work, but why the taxpayer should pay £2,500 toward them, and what measurable benefit we will see. Of course, this is all in the context of what will come in the Budget, so I am very interested to see if the Minister can answer those questions today.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    The fact is that the hotels have been closed down because HMOs have been opened up, and the Government will not even specify how many HMOs are involved because they conglomerate the data, so we cannot even obtain transparent answers for my community. That puts my community at risk, and it puts at risk the people who are housed in the HMOs. Does my hon. Friend not agree with that?

    Hansard source
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    That happened in my neighbouring constituency. Does my hon. Friend understand why my community is so upset when we see people moving into HMOs, given the risk posed and the evidence base that she has just announced?

    Hansard source