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. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

   Iran: Threats to British Interests

   It is an important question. My hon. Friend will know of the work that has been done through the Online Safety Act 2023 and other measures, but the wider challenge and threat of disinformation is growing. We spend a lot of time in this place focusing on Russian disinformation and the billions that Russia is spending on it, but of course it is not just Russia; it is also Iran and others. That is exactly why the Prime Minister is bringing together our capabilities, and responding to the Foreign Affairs Committee recommendations with a new centre for information resilience.

   Hansard source
2. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

   Iran: Threats to British Interests

   The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are spending hundreds of millions on defensive measures around bases in the UK. He will also know that operational decisions of the United States are based on a range of factors. The US rightly continues, as our closest defence and security partner, to retain a very significant presence in the United Kingdom. He will also know that we have raised defence spending. We are spending £300 billion over the course of this Parliament. We have increased it to 2.7%, from the 2.3% under his Government. We will continue on that track to 3.5% by 2035.

   Hansard source
3. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

   Iran: Threats to British Interests

   As I said, the investigations into the RAF Fairford incident are continuing and it is right that they are able to take their course. The Prime Minister yesterday set out the situation very clearly and the Iranian involvement in it. What I would say is that I have conveyed at the highest levels—indeed, I summoned the Iranian ambassador yesterday to make it absolutely and categorically clear—our condemnation of Iran’s actions and our expectation that it ceases them immediately. We always ensure that diplomats operating in the UK are able to do so in accordance with the Vienna convention. We keep all of that always under review.

   Hansard source
4. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Stephen Doughty

   Iran: Threats to British Interests

   We are fully aware of the threats that Iran poses. Our agencies do important work in identifying those threats and responding to them. We have excellent teams that work in cyber-defence. Of course, cyber-defence is a responsibility of all in society—businesses, individual citizens, Government and agencies—so we all have to play a part in that endeavour. On internal repression in Iran, including of religious minorities, I share the hon. Gentleman’s deep concerns and abhorrence at the use of the death penalty. That is exactly why we maintain diplomatic relations. We engage closely, through our ambassador and others, to raise those concerns and to hope for a better future for all people in Iran and globally.

   Hansard source
5. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sonia Kumar

   Cold Homes Plan

   12. Whether her Department is taking steps to implement a cold homes plan.

   Hansard source
6. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sonia Kumar

   Cold Homes Plan

   This summer, extreme heat was responsible for thousands of excess deaths across the United Kingdom. Though I commend the Department’s mission to tackle climate change and the root causes of extreme heat, does the Minister recognise that we must go faster and further in adapting and supporting households, especially vulnerable ones, with regard to extreme heat, and does she recognise that we need a cold homes plan across the country?

   Hansard source
7. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Seema Malhotra

   Pensions Triple Lock

   One question that pensioners in Feltham and Heston ask is whether their pensions will continue to rise every year with the adjusted triple lock. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will be the case?

   Hansard source
8. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Sackman

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
9. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Sackman

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   It is an honour to open the debate on the Report stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and to bring this important piece of legislation back before the House. This is a Bill with victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is delivered fairly for both victims and defendants. Currently, thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants are trapped in the long, slow wait for justice. That is simply unfair. For some, justice may never come. The old maxim rings true in our country today: far too often, justice delayed is justice denied. Occasionally, there are stories that stop one in one’s tracks. I appeared on “Newsnight” to explain the situation in our courts—backlogs reaching 80,000 and far too many people waiting for justice—and on that programme, I was confronted with the story of Morwenna Loughman. She spoke of the devastating impact that those court delays had had on her life. Morwenna was violently raped in February 2023. She was forced to wait over two years for her attacker to be convicted after her trial was cancelled not once, but twice at short notice. During that time, she lost her job, her home and her sense of self. Her story has stayed with me ever since—it is people exactly like Morwenna whom I have in my mind’s eye as I return to the House with this legislation. For far too many survivors, delays themselves have become another source of trauma. We cannot sit idly by; we have to act now to resolve this situation. The Bill seeks to turn a crisis into an opportunity—an opportunity to rebuild a justice system that is swifter and stronger, and has victims’ voices at its core. We have the opportunity to rebuild a system that gives courts, rather than defendants, the ability to triage cases, and that transforms our approach to the culture around rape and serious sexual violence. That is the ambition of this Bill—not just to repair what is broken, but to build something better in its place. This Government inherited a criminal justice system that was on its knees, with trials taking longer, hearings constantly cancelled and victims facing unacceptable delays. Years of inaction and under-investment had led to a courts system that, as Lord Leveson’s report concluded, was and remains simply unfit for purpose. Today, the Crown court backlog stands at almost 81,000 cases, and the pressure is growing. Cases themselves are increasingly complex, not least because of the growth of digital and forensic evidence. A single smartphone can hold the equivalent of 50 million printed pages, and this adds to disclosure, complexity, and the time it takes to reach a verdict. The police are arresting more criminals. We make absolutely no apologies for that, but a system that is already under strain cannot continue to absorb ever-rising demand without reform. Old structures are creaking under new volumes and new types of crime, and if we do not act, the situation will continue to spiral. Not only are we failing victims, this situation and these unacceptable delays are corrosive of public trust in the justice system itself. We can and must do better. To do so, we need a sensible, principled and pragmatic approach. As we will no doubt hear, the Opposition have offered plenty of objections, but precious few answers to the reality facing our courts. We will not take lectures from the party that left the criminal justice system in this state. This Government have a plan: a serious package of measures designed to drive down the backlog and ensure that victims get the fast, timely and fair justice that they deserve. Lord Leveson’s conclusion in the independent review of criminal courts was clear that there is no silver bullet for addressing this problem. We need to pull every lever—investment, modernisation and structural reform—and this Government are doing precisely that. Let me begin with investment. For a start, we have removed the financial limit on court sitting days. We have recruited more judges and magistrates. By uncapping Crown court sitting days—meaning that there is no financial limit on the number of cases that courts can hear—we have unleashed the potential of our Crown courts, which are hearing more cases than ever before. We are investing an additional £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades, alongside record investment in criminal legal aid to support the solicitors and barristers who run our criminal cases, alongside a package of more than half a billion pounds for victim services over the next three years. In addition, I am proud that we have announced a £23 million package to introduce specialist rape courts—a manifesto commitment—in every single Crown court centre. That will improve the experience of victims of rape and other sexual offences at court, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), whose bravery and determination has driven forward those changes. Modernisation and efficiency matter, too. I abhor inefficiency. When I speak not just to victims, but to defendants and to people who work within the system, the wastefulness of ineffective trials is so frustrating. We hear stories of trials being put off because a prisoner was not produced on time or because counsel was unavailable. Working with the judiciary, we are modernising our system and we are throwing the kitchen sink at it.

   Hansard source
10. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Sackman

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I was glad to meet the hon. Member to discuss the situation at Taunton, which I know has been a deep source of frustration. Nothing could more exemplify the years of neglect of our justice system than our crumbling court estate that was presided over by the Conservatives. This Government are investing in the fabric of our court estate. That is not just in the bricks and mortar, but in the digital upgrades that are so important, and I will speak to those now. We have the technology for remote hearings; we need to be deploying it. This Government will develop a pilot of virtual remand hearings, so that we do not need as many prisoner transfers as before. We will work with our judiciary to develop a new pioneering national video model. The model will allow suitable cases to be allocated to available judges across different locations. It might be that a judge in Cardiff is hearing a matter based down in London, helping to alleviate the pressures there, to make much more effective use of capacity and to target those areas facing the greatest backlogs. We are also adopting a new national listing tool, harnessing the capacity of AI to schedule cases more efficiently. We will have case progression officers in every single Crown court, making the more complex cases progress further and faster. We are working with the judiciary to set up short trial courts, which hear similar cases together over concentrated periods so that they can be dealt with more quickly. We are also expanding a scheme already used in Manchester, Bristol and Nottingham to allow prison vans to use bus lanes. I agree entirely with those who say we need to make the system more efficient, and we are stretching and straining every sinew to do exactly that, with the investment to go with it. We welcome in particular the judiciary’s reforms to prioritise rape and serious sexual offences and to end the unacceptable practice of floating trials for such cases, giving victims greater certainty about when their case will be heard. Lord Leveson’s review was clear that investment and modernisation can only take us so far. No single lever can fix a crisis that has been years in the making. We have had decades of under-investment in a system that has simply not kept pace with the 21st century, where cases now take twice as long as they did 25 years ago. So our third lever is pragmatic, principled structural reform to ease the pressure on the Crown court and ensure that its time is concentrated on the most serious cases, and that is precisely what the Bill delivers. The case for reform remains as strong as ever, but good government requires us to listen, and this place exists to scrutinise and improve legislation. When concerns are raised, it is right that the Government reflect and react. When the Prime Minister took office he committed himself to looking at these proposals again, and that is why over recent months the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and I have listened carefully to stakeholders, to Members on both sides of the House, and to people who work within the system. We have heard that strength of feeling, and we have acted. I can confirm today that the Government have tabled an amendment to remove clause 3, relating to the bench division. The effect will be that all defendants facing a trial in the Crown court will be heard with a jury. That decision does not change the destination or the ambition of the Bill, which has always remained the same: swifter justice for victims. Simplifying our approach and avoiding some of the operational reforms that would have come with a new division in the Crown court gives us the opportunity to move faster in implementing the changes set out in the Bill. Implementing those changes more efficiently will free up court capacity and make better use of court time, helping us to bring about fast, fair justice for victims. We remain confident that the guts of the Bill—the package of reforms backed by the record financial investment that I have described, along with our ambitious programme of modernisation—will be sufficient to free up Crown court time to turn the tide on the backlog within the current Parliament. This is the right decision for victims, and it is the right decision for the justice system. I know that the Opposition have tabled amendments to remove the remaining clauses relating to Lord Leveson’s review, but I am afraid that doing so would be to bury one’s head in the sand. We are proceeding with other structural reforms in the Bill, including the removal of defendants’ right to choose whether their cases are heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court when they involve an either-way offence. The reform that we have always proposed is that, as in Scotland, it should be the court rather than the defendant that triages cases. This has a double effect. Not only is it more efficient, ensuring that when the prosecution and the court decide that a case can be heard in the magistrates court, that is where it is heard; it is also fairer. It is about putting the power in the hands of the court rather than those of the defendant and giving a far greater say to victims whose voice can be heard through the prosecution, which puts its case as to what venue the case should be heard in, as well as hearing from the defence. It means that cases will be heard on the basis of their seriousness and not simply the preference of the defendant, as is the case in Scotland. This is exactly the right thing to do. These measures will not only reduce the demand on the Crown court, but will prevent defendants from gaming the system, electing for a jury trial in the simple hope that delays will drag on and the case will fall apart when the victims or witnesses withdraw. Our reforms are not only pragmatic but principled. For instance, giving magistrates courts greater sentencing powers means that more cases can be dealt with more quickly. The magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction. It currently deals with triable either way cases about four times faster than the Crown court.

    Hansard source
11. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Sackman

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I do not accept the premise of that question. I do not accept that we have a backlog in our magistrates court. What we have is a substantial caseload. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the magistrates court hear more than 1.5 million cases a year, and it is coping well. What I do acknowledge is that we need to increase their capacity, which is why we are increasing the number of sitting days. In 2025 there were 114,000 sitting days, and we will increase that to 130,000 by 2028-29. The other thing we are doing is increasing the number of magistrates. Under the previous Government, the number of magistrates in this country halved. We are going to restore the magistracy to its former glory. The changes that we have made to the application process, and the investment that we are putting into recruitment—quadrupling the budget—are already reaping the rewards, and we are on course to meet the 21,000 target. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) is right to say that we need to grow capacity as we see a more expanded role for the magistracy, but I believe that we can do it and we are on track to do so. We are reforming the automatic right of appeal. It is vital that there is a right of appeal, but it is also reasonable to ask a defence to identify grounds for appeal. By introducing a permission to filter out cases without merit, we will avoid a situation in which victims are needlessly put through unnecessary re-hearings where the appeal totally lacks merit. As I said, these reforms must be matched by the capacity to deliver them. That is why we are investing in our courts and in the people who make justice possible, and we remain on track to reach our target of 21,000 magistrates by 2028-29. We are also strengthening judicial capacity by boosting the number of district judges and legal advisers, who need to see better pay and career progression.

    Hansard source
12. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Sackman

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    We live in an era of problem solving, not point scoring. Indeed, as the Courts Minister, that has always been my focus. There is no bigger challenge in my portfolio than the unacceptable—indeed, intolerable—delays in our criminal courts, and that has always been the approach. To do politics is ultimately to make choices, and the choices we have made as a Government are around the action that is needed to reform, invest in and modernise our criminal justice system, so that it is fit for purpose. I always enjoy the oratory of the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—I am sorry that he is not here—who talked about our ancient rights. Magna Carta is absolutely clear: “to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” That is a recognition that timeliness is an essential ingredient of the thing that the state must guarantee: a fair trial. A trial that arrives for a victim today in 2029 or 2030 is not fair on the victim or defendant alike. It was said that we should try to invest. Well, we have done that. We have lifted the cap on sitting days and made record investment in legal aid and in our court estate. It was said that we should look at the Liverpool model, and I have been to Liverpool; it is indeed an excellent model, and we are entrenching many of those practices in the new national listing framework in the introduction of case progression officers. It was said that we should make prison vans run on time, and we are pulling out the stops to do just that, asking local authorities, Transport for London and others to open up bus lanes, while ensuring that PECS actually does its job. Those on the Opposition Benches say, “Nightingale courts” and “Let’s work longer days,” but they do not recognise the fact that the court day does not start at 10 am or 10.30 am. As we know, judges and barristers are working around the clock and around the court day to prepare cases and get the show on the road. We cannot ignore the conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts: there is no single solution. There needs to be investment and modernisation—and we are doing both those things—but there also needs to be structural reform. I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions, which have raised some really important themes that I want to address. The first is the impact that these changes will have on our magistrates courts, which was raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who talked so credibly about the contribution of her father as a magistrate. Those who act as magistrates and volunteer their time do an incredible job. They bring local voices—lay voices—into our justice system, which is incredibly precious. It is right that we are challenged and held accountable for whether we are increasing capacity in the magistrates courts to absorb the additional work, and indeed we are. Whether it is our recruitment drive for 21,000 magistrates—not an unrealistic one, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) put to me, but a credible one to get back to where we were as recently as 2014, and I am pleased to report to the House that we are on track—or the recruitment of an additional 166 legal advisers since April 2025 and an additional 100 district judges, that is what I mean when I say we are rebuilding our justice system from the bottom up. The impact on the magistrates courts is important, and we are increasing capacity. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) made a really good point about training. The Judicial College is working overtime to ensure that magistrates and district judges alike are trained, so that they are able to exercise the sentencing powers that this Bill will give them. The second excellent point that was made was about allocation and whether trials should be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and I have had our differences in the course of this debate, but I have always respected his voice, and I have always listened. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made a similar point about the allocation process. Let me be clear: the exercise that we are committing to in this Bill is the same that has always existed in primary legislation, whereby the court will look at allocation guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing and likely sentence is a relevant factor, but so too is hearing representations from both sides—the prosecution and the defence, the prosecution being able to bring in the victim’s perspective—on not just the likely sentence but the seriousness and complexity of the case at hand. Given the procedural, legal and factual complexity and any aggravating factors, that holistic exercise will determine where a case should be heard, so that the determining factor is the seriousness of the case, rather than the identity of the defendant. The next point that was forcefully and well made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North and for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others was in relation to legal aid, and new clauses 18 and 70. There is no greater champion of access to justice and the importance of legal aid than this Government and myself. I am a powerful advocate for legal aid, not least because I saw at first hand—when I was in practice, before coming to this place—the vital role it plays in our justice system. That is precisely why one of the first steps that I took as a Minister was to invest in our criminal legal aid system, with £116 million for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for criminal legal aid advocates. That investment is important, but it will not go all the way, and I recognise that. That is why we need to review the support that we give to unrepresented defendants in our magistrates courts or, indeed, in the Crown court in the rare cases where that arises. As I said in our response to the Leveson review, we will look again at those thresholds once these reforms have been embedded. I am sorry that I have to be very brief, but I want to address new clause 22 in relation to police accountability. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) will be aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) will be—that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court relating to this matter, so he will understand that the Government have to carefully consider the outcome of that before giving a full response to the issue raised around police accountability. I want to conclude by returning to what I said about the removal of the right to elect. This Bill is designed to bring down the backlog and to deliver timely justice, but it is also about building a better and fairer system—one in which the court triages cases, not the defendant. That is about redressing the balance of power between defendant and victim. It is also about making improvements to open justice by enhancing transparency and expanding the use of transcripts; improving the laws of evidence; and improving training for our court staff and judiciary by having trauma-informed training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) implored us to do. To govern is to choose. We are making that choice. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we will deliver not only timely justice but a fairer justice system that puts what has been the pride of the world—the English and Welsh justice system—back on its feet. Question put and agreed to. New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Hansard source
13. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Russell

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I draw attention to my declaration of interests: I am a solicitor. I continue to have two concerns about the Bill as drafted, and I am very grateful to the Government for changing their position on clause 3. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who said that the right to elect is being abused and probably is not critical, but there are two things that are. First, I support amendment 70 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on the importance of the extension of legal aid in the magistrates court. As solicitors, we have a saying: the lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. As solicitors, we do not attempt to represent ourselves, even in our areas of interest—I have given employment law advice to an employment lawyer. Yet we expect lay people to go into the magistrates court with sentencing powers of now up to two years with no legal advice and representation. When the Justice Committee asked what evaluation had been made of the impact on unrepresented litigants in person on the Crown court backlog, the answer from the MOJ was that no evaluation had been done. I feel strongly that we need to look at that as one of the causes of delay. The second matter I want to draw attention to is that sentences under the unduly lenient sentence scheme only apply in the Crown court. When we double the magistrates courts’ potential sentencing powers to two years, we will take very large numbers of offences out of the purview of the unduly lenient sentence scheme overnight. Fear of domestic violence, stalking involving fear of violence, coercive and controlling behaviour, and many first-time sexual offences will be likely to attract sentences of less than two years. They will be heard in the magistrates court, and if those sentences are unduly lenient, there will be nothing that we can do about it.

    Hansard source
14. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Owen

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    Your problem.

    Hansard source
15. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Police Funding: North-east England

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this debate. I will start as he did by paying tribute to our police officers and police staff, who work tirelessly in what can be incredibly difficult circumstances, and who sometimes have to pay the ultimate price. I think all hon. Members have paid tribute to PC Blades, PC Clough and PC Turnbull, all of whom died this year. Their deaths have all been an incredible loss to their families, but also to the policing community and their wider communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) talked about Jess and how young she was. I have met her father a couple of times now. He was a police officer and had just retired when Jess became one. That whole community has been devastated. At all three of those funerals I saw an entire community coming out to support policing, which was incredibly powerful to see. I know that there has been a struggle in terms of people’s confidence in policing. There are challenges that we are dealing with, but in those communities I saw a community supporting their police officers and giving them the respect they deserve. I probably have the best job in Government. Working with policing is an unbelievable privilege and a joy, but standing here and listening to hon. Members talk about the struggles they are facing in their communities is very humbling and difficult. I hear the message they are telling me loud and clear. Since the A66 crash and the awful incidents that followed, I have met the police and crime commissioner or the chief constable five or six times, and hon. Members as well. I have heard loud and clear, not least from my colleague in the Home Office, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), about the challenges that are being faced in people’s communities. I want hon. Members to know that I hear those challenges; that is important to say. I will touch on a couple of topics. The first one is the funding formula, which everybody has leant into in this debate. The funding formula used to be based on many of the measures that Members have mentioned: deprivation rates, crime rates, rurality and ethnicity. A whole raft of indicators went into the police funding formula and previous calculations. When the Conservatives began austerity, they took the decision to cut all forces by the same proportion. That was the point at which the relationship between funding and all the different factors that go into the funding formula was cut. It was still there, in that the proportions were increased—or decreased, in that case—equally, but over time, what was originally the funding formula has lost its meaning, and it has lost its connection to the factors that need to go into determining funding. We are reviewing that. I am spending a lot of time thinking about that process. It is complicated, and we have to get it right. There are lots of different parts to it. I ask Members to imagine a graph of a certain crime type—let us say violence against women and girls—plotted against an indicator of crime. We map all parts of the country and see what the line tells us. For example, it is clear from the graphs that there is a link between violent crime and educational attainment, so educational attainment has to be an indicator that is part of how funding formulas are worked out. A lot of work has to go into that. The police put a lot of work into solving crime, as well as their other work. Police spend more than 50% of their time dealing with things other than crime, such as missing people and people with mental health problems. They are working on things that are not what people might perceive as crime. We have to think about that work. Hon. Members mentioned fairness in relation to council tax and the precept. We have seen our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government go through that process, to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of others. There are always winners and losers in a funding formula review. It is a complicated process.

    Hansard source
16. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Police Funding: North-east England

    My hon. Friend and I have had several conversations on this matter in recent times. Of course, I have talked to Victoria, I am well aware of all the statistics and I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. What I am saying is that we are reviewing the funding formula, and it will be fair. The funding for the year ahead will be allocated and it will not be under the new funding formula. At the moment, we are going through a process to which the chief constable, Matt Storey and all the police chiefs and PCCs from across England and Wales are party. They can come to us while we allocate funding for next year and tell us their exceptional financial situation or exceptional circumstances. Of course, we are having those conversations with colleagues across the north-east, as all Members present would expect. Although the funding formula will come with the reforms, we are looking right now at what we will do about the exceptional funding requests that people are making across the country. That is the second thing I wanted to say: there is a process, and we are looking at the funding for the next funding year, as well as reforming the funding formula, which will come later.

    Hansard source
17. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Police Funding: North-east England

    That is exactly the point about looking at the funding for the coming year. We are doing that. We are looking at the exceptional circumstances for police forces across the country right now, and what we need to do about that. I want to touch briefly on police reform, which some people have mentioned. The point of police reform is to do two things. The first is to make sure our police are equipped to tackle the epidemic of everyday crime that we see in our communities, and the second is to make sure we are equipped to tackle the changing nature of crime. Most crimes have a digital footprint. Serious organised crime does not pay any attention to boundaries and is much more complex than it used to be. Members have mentioned online sexual abuse, for example. We need to be able to tackle complex crimes. That is the point of police reform. We do not have the time now for me to set out how we will achieve the changes that we will achieve, but we will legislate on the police reform programme in this Session. We will introduce changes to the structure of police forces, and the way in which the funding formula works will have to fit with those structural changes. Importantly, we are also putting more police in our neighbourhoods. I want to make one final point, which is hard to make in a short space of time. We have had lots of conversations on police numbers, which I understand and appreciate and do not disagree with, but we cannot judge a police force on just numbers. It does not work. When the Tories were in, they cut police numbers by 20,000. They then rushed to recruit another 20,000, and arrest rates have actually gone down because we have 12,000 officers sat behind desks, not out in our communities fighting crime. We have had no investment in technology over the Tory years, which means that everybody has to spend hours filling in forms and doing the bureaucracy—I am sure that hon. Members find the same whenever they go out with the police. If we can cut that, people will have more time to be more productive. If we can get police out from behind desks and into our communities, they can be more productive. I am not denying the point that hon. Members make about police numbers, but if we measure just police numbers, that does not actually reflect what the police do and how they do it.

    Hansard source
18. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Jones

    Police Funding: North-east England

    I will not, because I have only a couple of moments left. We are tilting our resources into neighbourhood policing. We have got just shy of 4,000 extra police into our communities. I will end by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. He asked me a series of questions and I have a list of answers. He asked how we are tackling violence against women and girls in the north-east. Other hon. Members asked questions about antisocial behaviour, online harms and the early release scheme. I am happy to meet and talk to other Members because we do not have the time here. I assure hon. Members that the Government and I hear their case on the north-east. We are with them in their desire to reform policing and to make sure we have the people we need to fight crime so that their communities can feel safe, which is the very least that a Labour Government ought to be able to deliver.

    Hansard source
19. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Hall

    Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

    Papyrus was actually based in my constituency. Last month, alongside almost 60 cross-party MPs and peers, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State calling for urgent action to protect these vital services. I have also spoken to the administrators, and they are incredibly keen to find a solution. Will the Minister set out what action is being taken in response to the concerns raised in the letter, and will she agree to meet me to discuss them?

    Hansard source
20. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sam Carling

    UK Coach Industry

    A number of years ago, there was a great initiative in my constituency to run coach tours of local heritage assets linked to Mary, Queen of Scots and John Clare, the famous poet. Does the Minister recognise the value that the sector brings to supporting local heritage and tourism?

    Hansard source
21. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ruth Jones

    Hares

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a close season, from the start of February to the end of September, during which the killing or taking of brown hares is prohibited; to protect mountain hares; to repeal the seasonal prohibition on the sale of hares in the Hares Preservation Act 1892; and for connected purposes. Before starting my speech, I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Helic in the other place. She has been a tireless champion of this cause alongside the wider animal welfare sector, and it has been a privilege to work alongside her in putting together this Bill. Despite being affectionately heralded as an inhabitant of the British countryside and featuring in the Bank of England’s recent banknote competition—it came fifth—the brown hare is not originally native to these lands. The species is thought to have originated in central Asia and spread across Europe alongside the expansion of agriculture. Academics believe that the brown hare was introduced to Britain following the Roman invasion, although some suggest that hares may have arrived even before the Romans. Following the introduction of hares to Britain, the hare population continued to grow, peaking in the 18th and 19th centuries. Agricultural reforms, land enclosure and predator control on larger estates all created favourable conditions for hares—unlike other species—to thrive. Experts at the University of Bristol estimate that the hare population reached 4 million in the late 19th century. As a result, the species became deeply embedded in rural culture and folklore. However, those conditions were not to last. By the early 1990s, gamekeepers and rural ecologists were beginning to sound the alarm. Brown hare numbers had declined sharply, especially since the 1960s. The national brown hare survey organised by Hutchings and Harris in 1996 estimated that the brown hare population had fallen to as low as 817,000—barely a fifth of its number 100 years ago. Hare numbers were estimated to be falling by 2% a year during the 1990s. Shooting, coursing and poaching were specifically cited as a cause of the decline, alongside wider changes in farming intensification, decreasing crop diversity, and the loss of headlands and hedgerows. Despite brown hares being a priority species since 1992, their estimated number continued to decline, with targets to double the spring population by 2010 missed. Estimates in 2022 put the population at fewer than 600,000, with surveys such as the one done by the British Trust for Ornithology reporting a recovery only in the last few years. It is that worrisome decline that my Bill seeks to respond to by building on existing best practice to protect local hare populations. Principally, it would do so through the introduction of a statutory close season for the killing of hares in England and Wales. Hares are currently the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory close season, and they may therefore be killed throughout the year. That makes England and Wales outliers compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe. That gap in protection makes brown hare populations uniquely vulnerable to commercial shooting. Most organised hare shoots take place during February and March, following the closure of the game bird shooting season. This almost exactly aligns with the hare breeding season, meaning that shoots can devastate the local population. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust estimated that “a February hare shoot can remove 60% of the breeding stock.” In low population areas, such devastation can pose the risk of localised extinction. Such impacts are already reflected in guidance and voluntary codes, which have clearly proven ineffective. Researchers at the University of Bristol found that shooting hares in February resulted in a profoundly damaging combination of population shrinkage and the orphaning of leverets, with consequent animal welfare impacts and poor population recovery outcomes. Put simply, the killing of pregnant or nursing female hares during their principal breeding season cannot be reconciled with a modern and coherent approach to animal welfare. At a time when we are committed to restoring nature and biodiversity, such reckless practices only risk putting brown hare populations at further risk. When considering the welfare of hares across England and Wales, it is critical that we do not neglect mountain hares, the upland cousin of the more common brown hare. While their numbers have declined significantly since the 19th century, the Peak district maintains an established wild breeding population in the Dark Peak of Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. In Wales, however, the mountain hare population has all but disappeared, despite efforts to reintroduce the species in historical habitats. The lack of any specific wildlife protections for mountain hares in England and Wales has been a key contributor to their decline, with moorland and scrubland habitats being lost and intensive culling efforts linked to red grouse shooting. In responding to the intensifying threats to mountain hare populations, in 2021 the Scottish Government extended full protection under schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—a crucial step, given that Scotland is home to most of the native British mountain hare population. Clause 4 of my Bill seeks to extend the same protections afforded to mountain hares in Scotland to those in England and Wales. That would mean it would become generally unlawful to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a mountain hare without a licence. By providing greater protection, we can give this vulnerable species the breathing room that it needs to recover, boosting local ecology in the process. Having seen hares out and about on spring, summer and autumn evenings near my static caravan in St Davids in west Wales, I know it is a delight to watch them, and I want to ensure that we make all efforts to protect these marvellous little creatures. This Labour Government were elected on a commitment to deliver the biggest increase to animal welfare in a generation, providing increased protection for domestic, farmed and wild animals. The recently published animal welfare strategy was a major first step in delivering that, including a priority commitment to introducing a close season for hares. This Government have also committed to reversing ecological decline and boosting species abundance. We have had the warm words; now it is time for action. The Government must urgently back this Bill or an equivalent in the other place to introduce a close season and better protect our hares. Deeds, not words, will determine how this Government are judged before the next election, and that applies to animal welfare and the environment as much as anything else. I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ruth Jones, Irene Campbell, Sir Desmond Swayne, Kerry McCarthy, Sir Roger Gale, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Tim Farron, Ben Lake, Tonia Antoniazzi, Terry Jermy and Simon Hoare present the Bill. Ruth Jones accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 154).

    Hansard source
22. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rosie Wrighting

    Pensions Triple Lock

    The British public deserve politicians who will be honest with them about what is necessary in order to rewrite the social contract to make it work. Does the Secretary of State therefore share my genuine disappointment that the Conservatives chose to come here today and play politics rather than get behind our plan when so many of them say in private that they know it is in the interests of the British people?

    Hansard source
23. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Taylor

    Falkland Islands

    I welcome the Minister to her place. My constituents will be really pleased to hear her announcements on the commemoration events, and I look forward to taking part in those in my constituency. Does she agree that the action we are taking today is a clear indication of this Labour Government’s position that if Argentina continues to threaten the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, we will prepare additional measures, no matter what threats or economic coercion Argentina carries out against the Falkland Islanders?

    Hansard source
24. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Taylor

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I thank the shadow Minister for being generous with his time. What did his Government do in 14 years to ensure that people were tried by their peers? That is exactly what magistrates are there to do. I know that all too well, because my dad served as a magistrate in Warwickshire for over 40 years, and I am proud to say that. Magistrates courts are the bedrock of our justice system. The shadow Minister’s Government did nothing to protect them, but that is exactly what we are doing: we are investing in more magistrates, so that more people can be tried by their peers, and we are supporting those magistrates in doing the job effectively.

    Hansard source
25. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    The threat of Iranian surveillance is very real in my constituency; faith and residential communities have shared with me the real fear that they face. What processes do the FCDO and the Home Office have in place to make sure that communities are as safe as they possibly can be, and that intelligence is appropriately shared?

    Hansard source
26. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachael Maskell

    Pensions Triple Lock

    I welcome the Government’s ambition to have free personal care and to keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. However, the Secretary of State will know that I have deep concern about the levels of pensioner poverty, with 1.7 million pensioners making difficult choices and 880,000 pensioners not claiming the pension credit that they could. Will the Secretary of State raise his ambition to end pensioner poverty in this Parliament and ensure that we find mechanisms to give sufficiency to those pensioners not claiming their pension credit? Will he also publish an impact assessment so we can have a real understanding of the consequences of the proposals?

    Hansard source
27. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

    Meur ras, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate. Improving mental health services for our young people is deeply personal for me, and one of the reasons I became an MP. Too often, the first support someone receives comes only once they have reached crisis point, either at a busy A&E department or on a charity hotline, so I was extremely concerned to hear that Papyrus had gone into administration. One constituent, Anne, lost her son Toby to suicide in 2011. She told me how Papyrus had given her and others hope for the future. She raised thousands to keep its HopeLine going, including by trekking 50 km across the Sahara in Toby’s memory. She speaks for many when she asks how such a vital service could be allowed to disappear. I welcome the Government’s investment in new community mental health centres and crisis centres, including in my constituency. They are the right investments—

    Hansard source
28. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

    On that point, does the Minister agree that, as an absolute base principle of success, no young person should have to wait until the point of criticality at an A&E department or a charity helpline before they get the support that they deserve?

    Hansard source
29. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Patrick Hurley

    Energy Costs for Businesses

    6. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to help reduce energy costs for businesses.

    Hansard source
30. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Patrick Hurley

    Energy Costs for Businesses

    I have been investigating the extraordinary differences in domestic electricity standing charges in regions of the country, and I am increasingly concerned that the same underlying network charging system may also be imposing substantially higher fixed costs on businesses in Merseyside and north Wales. Will the Minister ask Ofgem to investigate the impact of regional network charging on business competitiveness, as well as household bills?

    Hansard source
31. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Patricia Ferguson

    Pensions Triple Lock

    I know the Secretary of State shares my pride that it was a Labour-led Government in Scotland who introduced free personal care for elderly people in 2002. Since then, our ambition has grown in Scotland, and we have campaigned for 10 years to introduce a social care system—something that the SNP promised, spent £28 million trying to establish and then dropped. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the money spent on social care in England will be replicated by Barnett consequentials that will be available to the Scottish Government to spend on social care, or anything else they wish to spend it on?

    Hansard source
32. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s plan for the future uprating of the state pension. Security and dignity in later life is a mission that has run through every Labour Government. Harold Wilson was the first to introduce the statutory link with earnings. The creation of pension credit in the early 2000s increased the incomes of the poorest pensioners and saw pensioner poverty halve under the last Labour Government. In our 2024 manifesto, we said we would keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament—that is a promise that we will keep to pensioners. Keeping that promise means that this year the full new state pension is rising by £575. It is set to be over £2,000 a year more by the end of this Parliament compared with when we took office in 2024. That will take the new state pension to over 30% of average earnings by the end of the Parliament and it is forecast to be a record high. In the future, we will adjust the triple lock to make those gains permanent but also to put the state pension on a sustainable basis. Let me set out how that will work and deliver a state pension that rises each and every year. The uprating mechanism will retain its current three elements. There will be a universal state pension that protects against inflation, ensures a material rise every year, and enables pensioners to share in the wealth of the nation as wages go up. From April 2030, the state pension will continue to go up by the highest of inflation, 2.5% or what is required to maintain its record high level against average earnings. That will lock in for the future all the gains from the triple lock up until April 2030. The adjusted mechanism will mean that the state pension grows in line with earnings over time, instead of outpacing them as is the case with the current triple lock. It will end what is known as the ratchet effect, which makes the triple lock consume a greater share of national wealth over time, making reform at some stage inevitable. In simple terms, it will mean the state pension will continue to rise but not to permanently grow as a share of average earnings. We know that people want security in retirement and we are committed to protecting the poorest pensioners. Under our plans, pensioner poverty is set to fall. In addition, we have asked the Pensions Commission to include suggestions on further supporting lower-income pensioners in its final report, to be delivered next year. A good retirement, however, is about more than income. It is about security and peace of mind too, which is why it is so important that the savings from the change will make a significant contribution to a new settlement for older people: a rising, more sustainable state pension alongside free personal care through a new national care service. This is a policy that is better for pensioners, better for families and better for the NHS. It is better for pensioners because so many worry about what will happen to them in their final years; better for families because those worries are shared by children and grandchildren who want to know that their elderly relatives will be looked after when they need it; and better for the NHS because it will ease the pressure we see today, where failings in our social care system mean many pensioners are kept in hospital longer than they need to be because social care beds are unavailable. The cost of inaction—the cost of turning away from this—is more pressure on the NHS, more ambulance call-outs, more A&E admissions, more corridor care and more people stuck in hospital when they do not have to be. That is why change is needed. The triple lock has of course been the subject of much debate. Economists and commentators have proposed a range of options—as has the Conservative party, over the years—from removing the earnings link to scrapping the triple lock altogether. Some have called for the state pension to be means-tested. We have rejected those proposals. We believe that our plan is the right answer to a difficult question that has been ignored for far too long. I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for his work in this area, which has helped to ensure that we can have a system going forward that is sustainable and retains, in an adjusted way, the three current elements of the triple lock system. It will mean that the state pension will not continue to outpace average earnings as it would have done under the current triple lock. The savings from the changes will reduce spending by an estimated £15 billion a year by the end of the next decade, rising substantially to around £50 billion a year by 2050. The pension and social care changes are a new settlement that puts the universal state pension on a more sustainable footing, so that it is there for decades to come, while giving pensioners and older people a better deal on social care. Pensioners can be confident that they will have a rising state pension every year. They can also be confident that we are sorting out one of the most difficult problems the country has faced for a long time—the issue of social care. A new settlement for pensioners, a rising pension, a sustainable system, and a plan to fix our social care system: that is what we will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.

    Hansard source
33. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    I listened to the shadow Secretary of State carefully outline her opposition to our plans. The trouble for her is that so many in her party agree with the case for change. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for example, has said that we should “unpick” the triple lock. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has called it “simply not affordable” and described it as a “Ponzi system”. The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), actually wrote the 2017 manifesto that pledged to replace it with a double lock. But my favourite is Lord Gove, who told LBC that if Andy Burnham changed the triple lock he would “declare that I will be campaigning at the next general election exclusively for Stella Creasy in Walthamstow.” I look forward to seeing him at the end of the Victoria line at the next election with a red rosette on his chest! I could go on, but we would be here all day. Let me just say that I have a file as thick as my morning porridge full of quotes from Tories saying that the triple lock is unsustainable and will have to be changed. They say it in private, they say it before they join the Front Bench and they say it after they leave it, but the shadow Secretary of State did not say it. That leaves her with some questions. How will she fund her opposition to what we have announced? Will it be, as when the Tories were in government before, through faster and faster rises in the state pension age, asking people to work into their 70s before they even get a pension at all? If she will not tell us that, can she tell us how they would fund the future of social care? Should we simply add that to the list of unfunded tax promises that they come out with on an almost-weekly basis? Stamp duty, inheritance tax, national insurance, private schools—all funded from fantasy welfare savings that they never manage to achieve in office. The right hon. Lady spent her time attacking the system that her Government designed, created and legislated for. She spoke about welfare bills rising. In this Parliament, they are rising at half the rate as in her party’s last Parliament in power. She spoke about pensioner poverty. It rose under the Government in which she served. We look forward to the report of the Pensions Commission next year. I referred to it in my statement. Baroness Casey will also report on how and when the national care system will be rolled out. In the midst of her attacks against a system that her own party created, the right hon. Lady did ask about welfare reform. We have already cut the gap between the health and standard elements of universal credit, and we have made changes to the Motability scheme. We have stopped people buying British pensions on the cheap, and we will make more changes following the reports of the Milburn and Timms reviews. The truth is that what we have here is a stark contrast between a party that is prepared to take the decisions needed to offer a new settlement for older people and their families, and one that is in the frankly pathetic position of resisting that change in public while, one after another, agreeing with it in private.

    Hansard source
34. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is designed to cover the kind of personal care that people are having to pay for out of the current system. It is also, as he suggested, a national system and less reliant on the various local differences that we see throughout the current care system.

    Hansard source
35. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    Let me begin with a cross-party point of agreement: when the hon. Member draws attention to the Liberal legacy in establishing a state pension system, he is right. He is also right that the break with earnings for many years hurt pensioner incomes. That damage has been put right through many years of state pension rises. When we get to April 2030—when the new system kicks in—those gains will be locked in under this adjusted triple lock for future years. I began my response by reaching out to the hon. Member. I am afraid that I must also point out that the Liberal Democrats did support faster than expected rises in the state pension age during their time in power. He asked about pensioner poverty, which is set to fall under our plans, the details of which were published on 29 September. He also asked about the pace and scale of rolling out the national care service. That is a matter for Baroness Louise Casey to report on, and she will issue her final report next summer.

    Hansard source
36. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    My hon. Friend is quite right that we deserve clarity. If the Conservatives are going to set their face against the changes we have announced when so many of their Front Benchers past and present have supported change, why should they be believed for one instant on all the welfare savings they talk about elsewhere? If they cannot be believed on those things, I will tell the House what that leaves them with: a bunch of unfunded tax pledges. We are keeping score. They have not identified the funds to pay for them, and they are racking up promises, which they have not said how they will pay for.

    Hansard source
37. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    As I said to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), the pace and scale of the rolling out of the national care service will be set out next year by Baroness Louise Casey. I remind the right hon. Member that I pointed out in my statement that the changes we have announced today will actually result in savings of £50 billion a year by 2050.

    Hansard source
38. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    Let me say to the pensioners in Feltham and Heston, and in every other constituency, that the state pension will continue to rise every year. It will rise by prices or by 2.5%, and the gains that it will show in relation to average earnings will be locked in from April 2030 onwards.

    Hansard source
39. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    It is important to appreciate that in the UK we have a dual system of a state pension and additional second pensions. We have a very healthy second pension system—trillions of pounds of investment—and it is important to look at pensioner incomes taking both those things into account. By that measure, we have a healthy pension system. Under the plans that we have announced today, the state pension will continue to rise each and every year.

    Hansard source
40. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pat McFadden

    Pensions Triple Lock

    My hon. Friend is right. She knows that many MPs on the Conservative Benches agree with our position. However, their Front-Bench colleagues have chosen to adopt a different position, which is to talk about reducing the Department’s budget and then, when we make a decision to make it sustainable for the future, to run for the hills. That is what they have done today—everyone will have seen it—and it undermines everything else they say about savings in the DWP budget.

    Hansard source