What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
In September 2024, the Government suspended some arms sales to Israel over its war on Gaza. Given the escalating Israeli violence in the west bank, will the Government review their export licences to ensure no British military equipment is supplied to Israel that could be used there?
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker—a fellow Virgo. I very much welcome the clarity in the Lord Chancellor’s statement, but on the issue of additional prison capacity, the Prison Officers’ Association has already raised extreme concerns about understaffing, under-resourcing, risk of extreme violence and overcrowding. What reassurances can he give today that additional resources will be provided to operate the extra spaces safely?
T9. Around the world, countries such as Seychelles are leading the way in decriminalising same-sex acts, while others, such as Ghana, are passing appalling new laws that attack the LGBT+ community simply for being who they are. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK is doing all it can to work with like-minded countries around the world to advance equality and protect the fundamental rights of LGBT+ people?
In my constituency, more than one in five people are employed in logistics and related industries, and they will welcome this Government’s focus on growth in every region. Given the impact that business costs have on consumer prices, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to improve the operating environment for logistics businesses and help ease the cost of living pressures for families? Will he commit to meeting with small family-owned logistics companies in my constituency?
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In July he pledged to end rough sleeping, and that is warmly welcomed by me and my constituents in Cities of London and Westminster, which faces the highest levels of rough sleeping in the country. We have already heard people raise this issue in the Chamber today. When I speak to people who have been sleeping rough, they talk to me about feeling passed from pillar to post; when they have been offered somewhere to stay in a hostel, they simply do not feel safe and secure in it. The Prime Minister has made important statements in the Chamber today. Will he work with me on the way in which local authorities are applying the issue of local connection and on the condition of hostels in this country, which is simply not good enough? We need a real focus on that if we are to meet this ambitious pledge.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I really welcome being here with friends who are so committed to this issue, and who have been for such a long time. This debate is about much more than press freedom, although it is very much about that; it is about whether ordinary people can speak out in the public interest without fear of being silenced by those with deeper pockets, greater resources and access to expensive legal representation. Strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs, as they are so unattractively described—are designed not necessarily to win in court, but to intimidate, exhaust and suppress scrutiny. They are increasingly deployed against journalists and campaigners, whistleblowers, survivors of abuse, community activists and ordinary citizens. Anyone who raises legitimate concerns about matters of public interest can find themselves on the receiving end of aggressive legal threats, as we have heard. The consequence of that is a chilling effect that extends far beyond the individual target. When one person is punished for speaking out, countless others are forced to conclude that it might be safer for them to remain silent. That should concern every Member of this House. One case that demonstrates that danger particularly clearly is that of my constituent, the investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, founder of Sarawak Report. Ms Rewcastle Brown played a key role in exposing the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal in Malaysia—one of the largest corruption scandals in recent history. Her reporting helped bring international attention to allegations involving billions of dollars that had been diverted from a Malaysian state investment fund. Those allegations subsequently became the subject of investigations and prosecutions across multiple jurisdictions. But instead of scrutiny being met simply with accountability, it was met with legal pressure. Between 2017 and 2019, Ms Rewcastle Brown was pursued through the London courts in a libel action brought by Abdul Hadi Awang, the president of the Malaysian political party PAS. The claim was eventually withdrawn and settled in her favour before trial. The significance of that case lies not merely in its outcome, but in what it demonstrates about the power imbalance at the heart of SLAPPs. As Ms Rewcastle Brown has described, she understood that the objective was not simply to challenge particular words on a page; rather, it was to place immense pressure on a journalist through the prospect of years of costly litigation, with the hope that, eventually, that pressure would force a retraction, damage credibility and discourage further reporting. Even when defendants ultimately prevail, they cannot recover the years lost to litigation, the stress inflicted upon them, or the time diverted away from public interest work. That is why campaigners often say that in a SLAPP, the process becomes the punishment. Let us consider what is at stake. Without investigative journalists such as Clare Rewcastle Brown, one of the world’s most significant corruption scandals might never have received the scrutiny that it deserved, important information might never have reached the public domain and powerful individuals might never have been held accountable; yet our legal system left the burden on the journalist to endure years of legal challenge before reaching that outcome. The reality is that many people do not have the resilience, resources or support to do what Clare did. Many local journalists do not, many campaigners do not, many victims of wrongdoing do not, and many ordinary citizens certainly do not. Increasingly, these tactics are evolving. They are no longer confined to traditional defamation claims; we now see claims framed through privacy law, data protection law, harassment claims and injunctions. The legal mechanisms change but the purpose remains the same: to drive up cost, create fear and suppress participation in public life. That is why the existing protections are insufficient. The anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, as we have heard, were an important first step. However, they are limited to economic crime reporting and leave many people vulnerable. A journalist investigating corruption may receive some protection; a survivor speaking about abuse may not, a local campaigner raising concerns about environmental damage may not, and a resident exposing wrongdoing in their community may not. That cannot be the right approach. I am also concerned about questions surrounding enforcement and regulation. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made it clear that solicitors must not pursue abusive litigation tactics, must not advance unmeritorious claims and must not use their professional position to intimidate those engaged in lawful public interest activity. Those principles are absolutely right, but principles alone are not enough if those subjected to abusive legal threats do not have confidence that the system is working. That is why legislation and regulation must go hand in hand in this scenario. We need a robust statutory framework that allows judges to dismiss abusive claims at the earliest possible stage, we need strong cost protections for defendants, and we need effective professional regulation that ensures lawyers who facilitate abusive tactics are held to account. This should not be a partisan issue. Members across this House depend on a free press. We depend on campaigners, researchers, whistleblowers and engaged citizens bringing serious issues to public attention. Democracy itself depends on scrutiny. I therefore urge the Government to work constructively with all colleagues from all parties to bring forward comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that protects public interest speech, upholds press freedom and ensures that our courts cannot be used as instruments of intimidation by those seeking to escape scrutiny. We should ask ourselves what is holding us back from tackling this, because ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle. In a democratic society, the law should protect those who speak truthfully in the public interest, not provide powerful individuals with the means to silence them.
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his role. Ten months ago, my constituents were promised a public inquiry into our mental health trust, after 10 years of campaigning for it. People have died in the interim, and it is simply unacceptable. In writing about unaccountable power over the summer, I have seen the weaknesses not only in the decision-making processes, but in the lines of scrutiny to ensure that we can deliver for our constituents. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and join me in the work I have been doing to ensure that we are talking about the devolution not just of power, but of scrutiny to hold such bodies to account?
It is crucial that conditions are followed on release. However, automatic recall often means that people who miss a probation appointment end up in prison, often for months on end. Will the Secretary of State look at the recall process and ensure that it is fair and equitable and that if people do err on their conditions, there is work to support that person outside prison rather than their being brought back into custody?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) on securing today’s important debate. He is a distinguished advocate for the financial services sector, and I reiterate his points about unlocking cash sat on deposit in ISAs and making it work harder, not only for savers but for British businesses. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), was keen to support in that challenge, and I want to stress it again as we look towards this autumn’s Budget. My contribution will make a slightly different point from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley. Before entering this House, I, too, spent my career in financial services: first, in a brief stint in commercial banking, and then, for a long time as a specialist tackling financial crime. I saw first hand the strengths of our world-leading financial sector and the vulnerabilities that can be exploited by those seeking to abuse them. That experience taught me a simple lesson: the future of financial services in this country has to be a clean one. A successful City—a successful financial services sector that works for everyone up and down the length of the country and, ultimately, a successful British economy—is not built on turning a blind eye to dirty money, but on trust, transparency and integrity. As chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I regularly engage with UK Finance, the City of London, compliance professionals and senior representative from across financial services. The message I hear repeatedly is that businesses do not want weaker regulation; they want smarter regulation, a point that the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) alluded to. That should mean regulation that works to prevent bad faith actors, maintains the integrity of our economy and is looked at with envy by investors and competitors from further afield. A secure financial system is inherently more investable, as investors seek certainty, strong institutions and robust enforcement of the rule of law. This Labour Government, building on the platform provided by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, have made significant strides on that issue. It would be remiss of me not to thank them for the anti-corruption and fraud strategies published over the last 12 months, and I welcome the Treasury’s move to consolidate the fragmented anti-money laundering professional body supervisors under the FCA via the forthcoming Financial Services and Markets Bill. However, to really capitalise on the opportunities that are available, I would like the Government to commit to two core deliverables as part of their wider approach to economic crime: better regulatory enforcement and better transparency. On enforcement, the FCA will need to be adequately supported to fulfil its new regulatory obligations. The reality is that enforcement pays for itself many times over, across the wider landscape. The compliance work of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has generated around £22 for every £1 spent on compliance staff. Those are extraordinary returns on investment. We should view spending on economic crime enforcement not as a cost but as an investment in Britain’s prosperity and security. Of course, we are in a difficult period for public finances, which is why we should look carefully at how financial penalties for firms that do not abide by the rules are used. Between 2016 and 2025, the FCA secured more than £1 billion in regulatory and criminal fines, but significant sums are ultimately returned through rebate mechanisms rather than being used to strengthen the enforcement capabilities that generated the penalties in the first place. There is a strong case for allowing the FCA to retain a greater proportion of anti-money laundering fines to meet its enforcement costs, particularly as it takes on significant new supervisory responsibilities. I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to her place. As she knows, I am a long-term advocate for establishing an economic crime fighting fund, allowing a proportion of enforcement receipts to be reinvested in the agencies responsible for protecting our financial system. The financial sector rightly pays its way via the economic crime levy, so what about the criminals? Let us make them pay too. At present, billions of pounds have been raised through economic crime fines and enforcement activity, yet frontline agencies continue to face resource pressures. A sustainable, multi-year funding model would allow the likes of the FCA, the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office to further invest in specialist expertise, to build capability and to plan strategically for the long term. The Financial Action Task Force is already in town, ahead of next year’s mutual evaluation review, in which it will mark the UK’s homework on enforcement against economic crime. I would welcome the Minister’s initial reflections on whether existing schemes, such as the asset recovery incentivisation scheme, are performing as hoped, and on whether we might expect to see some reform to police funding in the forthcoming economic crime plan. I appreciate that that might not all fall squarely within the Minister’s brief, but I know that she has taken a keen interest in these matters previously and has a strong grasp of the cross-cutting nature of these issues across Whitehall. On the second point—transparency—equitable, clean growth can be achieved by reducing the compliance costs faced by legitimate firms, freeing up capital that could be more productively invested elsewhere. A major reason for those costs is the continued difficulty of identifying the true owners of companies hidden behind opaque offshore structures, as I saw first hand in my previous career. That is why I have long argued that the UK’s overseas territories must finally implement meaningful and accessible public registers of beneficial ownership, as we have in this country via Companies House. Every hour spent by compliance teams untangling complex offshore ownership chains is an hour not spent supporting customers, financing businesses or driving growth. Every duplicated check increases costs for legitimate firms, while benefiting those who rely on secrecy. Public registers of beneficial ownership would make “know your customer” checks faster, cheaper and more accurate. They would reduce duplication, lower compliance costs and strengthen confidence in our financial system. That would help to ensure that honest firms are not left carrying the burden created by hidden ownership structures and dirty money. I will not relitigate past debates on the issue, but I do want to place on record once again my wholehearted desire to see all British overseas territories, particularly the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, finally fulfil long-made promises by throwing open their books. Dirty money is not just a financial crime problem. It is a threat to economic growth, it distorts markets, it undermines trust, it damages fair competition and it weakens our institutions. I want a future financial services sector that is competitive because it is trusted, successful because it is transparent, and prosperous because it is clean. I will do everything in my power to support the Government achieve that objective.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for working with me to secure today’s debate. It has been about nine months since I initially presented the application to the Backbench Business Committee, but I am pleased to say that it has already been worth the wait. I also congratulate the Minister on her reappointment. It was a real pleasure to work with her in my role as a Ministry of Justice Parliamentary Private Secretary in the last Government. I found her no less supportive, engaged and collaborative when I have come to her with constituency issues, as I will speak to in more detail later. I would like to take this opportunity to share at least one particularly egregious example of vexatious litigation in the form of a SLAPP. Before I go any further, let me confirm that the cases I will mention today are not subject to ongoing legal proceedings. Back in 2016, Jennifer McAdam invested the inheritance that she received from her late father into a cryptocurrency called OneCoin, but OneCoin was a £3 billion lie. In reality, it was a global Ponzi scheme. When it collapsed the following year, millions of people from 125 countries lost money. In order to raise awareness and protect other investors, in 2017 Jennifer organised a webinar for other victims and cryptocurrency experts to explore ways to hold the company to account. Three weeks later, she received a legal threat from OneCoin and its co-founder Ruja Ignatova, dubbed the “Cryptoqueen” in the viral podcast that followed. That threat, sent via law firm Carter-Ruck claimed that Jennifer had defamed the so-called “Cryptoqueen” during the webinar. It went on to say that the only way to avoid a court case was to refrain from publishing similar allegations and to retract the webinar video. Even as legal action was threatened against Jennifer, regulatory action against OneCoin was already under way in a number of countries. Jennifer should have been celebrated for trying to help other victims and prevent future ones, not threatened and harassed. In 2025, Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck, instructed by OneCoin, was referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority on allegations that she sent a letter to McAdam that contained an improper threat of litigation. However, by the end of the year, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal refused to dismiss the proceedings, stating that Gill had acted on explicit client instructions and had no reason at that stage to disbelieve them, and that the SRA’s allegation was founded on hindsight rather than evidence of professional misconduct. The SRA has also been ordered to pay Gill’s costs, which Carter-Ruck claims to be around £1 million. Naturally, such sizeable costs raised fears that they may dampen the regulator’s appetite to challenge similar SLAPP-related cases in the foreseeable future. There are serious questions to be asked about the tribunal’s approach in setting such a high bar of actual knowledge of wrongdoing—effectively requiring evidence of complicity—before professional ethics really kick in. My concern is that the high bar makes it conveniently easy for lawyers to simply avoid asking questions that they do not want to know the answers to. If lawyers are allowed to blindly and ignorantly pursue their clients’ interests—even when that involves silencing the police and “in furtherance of fraud”, to use the tribunal’s wording before the case was thrown out—then we will never stop SLAPPs. This is not just about London lawyers and international scams. According to reporting by the Manchester Mill, back in 2021 a solicitor named Andrew Milne acquired 67 residential freeholds at auction for around £130 per property in Horwich, in my constituency. Milne then proceeded to demand thousands of pounds from my constituents in return for their freeholds, often citing spurious breaches of lease covenants. Yet when the Sheffield Tribune sought to report on Milne’s equally outrageous behaviour in Yorkshire, he sent them a message that included the following threat: “We will definitely bring proceedings for defamation and malicious falsehood if you publish such complete and malicious lies”. This is how it works: bullies, charlatans and chancers like Milne using their privileged positions to seek to silence journalists and whistleblowers from lifting the lid on their abhorrent actions. On a general policy point, I have been encouraged by noises coming out of the SRA since the regulator’s change in leadership, but as in the cases described, it strikes me that the regulatory framework as it currently stands is not up to the job. That is why a universal anti-SLAPP law is needed to ensure that those who speak out in the public interest are protected. I welcome the recent comments about the Government’s commitment to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation and the opportunity that the two private Members’ Bills on SLAPPS present both in this House and in the other place. In particular, I know that the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is keen to work with the Government in what I trust will be an exemplar of cross-party working. I hope that across party lines we can seize this opportunity to put to bed the spurious litigation put forward by individuals who seek to silence dissenting voices. To close, let me reiterate the ask from the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition that legislation must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action to ensure that lawyers are held to account for abusive legal tactics. I hope that the Government can deliver on that in the fullness of time.
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister will know that the commitment he has made on social and council housing will be very welcome in places such as Bracknell, where lots of families are waiting for a home. However, that is undermined when social housing providers sell off their social homes through the disposals process. I know that we are taking steps to address that issue through the Social Housing Bill, but I am concerned that we are not going far enough. It is good to see the Housing Minister in his place. Will the Prime Minister work with him to address this issue and ensure that we can stop disposals?
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful case. The tragic case of Adam will be felt across the country, including by my constituents in Sandhurst where we remember the tragic death of Lewis Marsh in not dissimilar circumstances while he was taking part in a sporting activity. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that screening is available for young people who might be at risk of cardiac death. I pay tribute to the work of the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young. Does he agree that we should see more of that rolled out, so that young people, in particular those who might be at a heightened risk, have screening made available so that they know they face that risk?
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. While I welcome the many improvements to the digital banking experience over the past decade, I am concerned that those changes are moving services further away from the most vulnerable and from remote constituencies where digital connectivity is very poor. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. In my remote coastal constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, the most southerly Labour constituency in the country, 85% of bank and building society branches have closed. We have just four branches left, two of which are due to close in a month’s time, and one of the remaining two is open only on Mondays. We must appreciate that online banking is far less accessible for older people, the vulnerable and the disabled, and that it is not a silver bullet for charities and small businesses that receive and need to deposit cash. I welcome the roll-out of the banking hubs in my constituency, and I look forward to the first permanent hub in Camborne opening in the coming weeks. We also have temporary hubs in Redruth and Hayle and a deposit machine in Perranporth. Planning permission has gone in for a permanent hub in Redruth, which I hope progresses smoothly. I welcome the Government’s review, and I urge the Minister to ensure that rural and remote coastal communities are, for once, at the heart of Government thinking as we consider what further action might be necessary to prioritise digital connectivity and secure permanent banking provision in places such as Redruth and Hayle.
14. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of international action on climate change on national security.
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), about the appalling scenes in Nepal. The success of our action on climate change is dependent on working collaboratively with international allies to secure resilient supply chains and limit dependencies on states hostile to the national interest. Cornwall council, as part of its international strategy, is working with the likes of the Breton government and the Quebec government to enhance the resilience of renewable energy and critical minerals supply chains. What is the Foreign Office doing to support national security through such outward-looking initiatives?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing today’s important debate. I represent a very urban constituency, but I also chair the Scottish Affairs Committee and we have been looking at this issue as part of an inquiry into Scotland’s high streets. I do not have to tell you, Mr Wishart, that many Scottish communities are rural and/or remote. It is also important to note that Scotland’s population is older, relative to the UK average, and that in many areas, access to reliable internet at a decent speed is extremely poor, if it exists at all. Those factors are clearly very significant, but The Herald reported earlier this summer that three in four bank branches in Scotland have closed in the last decade. For remote and rural areas, that means, as we have heard, lengthy journeys and unreliable travel connections to access alternative branches—often for people who cannot easily move to online banking. We have heard from Members whose constituents are travelling more than 100 miles to get to the nearest bank to access the kinds of services that they used to be able to get locally. UK Finance responded to our concerns by noting that only 2% of the UK population rely exclusively on in-person branches to do their banking, but it was unable to provide us with an equivalent figure specifically for rural Scotland. We were also disappointed at its very poor understanding of how much further—
The hon. Member makes a very valid point. I know that this issue concerns him greatly, because he has spoken to me about it on many occasions. There is an issue, as has been mentioned, about access to cash. Access to cash is important, but access to wider banking services is also crucial—something that Link acknowledged to us.
If I can speak for colleagues, I think that that would be the conclusion of everyone in the room. Importantly, our Committee asked witnesses what they would like to come from the Government’s review. I will briefly run through those points: a clear definition for what reasonable access to in-person banking services looks like, with consideration for geography and a minimum service level for consumers and small businesses, and a clear definition of what basic services should be offered in any in-person banking facility. They also wanted further investment in the banking hubs model so that it can provide more support to customers; for example, enhanced video links would allow customers to speak with specialist advisers who might not be able to travel to the region. That is not a panacea, but those steps might be helpful and I hope that the Minister will address them in her response.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, which will be welcomed by my constituents after a period of great anxiety, and I also thank him for his engagement with me over the summer. When PC Andrew Harper was killed in my constituency, it devastated our community, but it also left a deep determination to stand by our brave police, who run towards danger every day. Andrew Harper was the absolute best of us, and I would like to pay tribute to his family, who have fought so bravely in his memory. I would also like to thank everyone in my constituency and beyond who signed a petition and made their voices heard. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he will take to show our brave police that this Government will always be on their side?
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team, and I wish them well. In recent months I have been proud, alongside the former Prime Minister, to negotiate the UK’s participation in the EU support loan for Ukraine. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, going forward, there should be no unnecessary delays in procurement, and that the kit and the weapons need to get to the frontline in Ukraine, where they are needed, as soon as possible?
On the subject of social care, does the Prime Minister agree that there is a fundamental unfairness in dementia care being means-tested, while cancer care is funded by us all through general taxation? Is not that unfairness the issue that we need to address?
I welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation to make it possible for the sovereign grant to be reduced, but there remain a number of issues surrounding the grant that I believe they should also address. The first is the link between the grant and the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is quite separate from the monarchy, and operates to generate revenue for the Treasury. That seems a very odd form of indexation, and raises the question of why the grant is not based on the needs of the monarchy or its costs. That, I believe, needs to be reviewed. The fact that the grant could only ever go up—until the Government tabled this motion—was described by the Financial Times as an arrangement whereby in a good year the monarchy would win, and in a bad year the taxpayer would lose. It is therefore right that the Government are addressing that anomaly. The motion also raises the question of how the grant should be set. I believe that the Treasury should have the power to specify the amount on an annual basis. It is important for the funding of the monarchy to be transparent and open to MPs for debate. On numerous occasions I have tried to table questions about these issues, only to be told that this is not something for Parliament to discuss. That has to change. Finally, there are some anomalies relating to the monarch’s wider financial arrangements. Why, for example, are they not subject to inheritance tax? Why is no account taken of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster in the setting of the level of the sovereign grant, and why are the monarch’s financial affairs exempt from freedom of information legislation? While the Bill might be viewed as an administrative adjustment, it is important that we ask why the grant needs to be 322% higher than it was when it was first introduced in 2012. Even when we allow for inflation, the proposed grant is well over twice the real value of its starting point. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on those issues when he sums up the debate.
May I welcome the Prime Minister back to this place and to the Dispatch Box, and welcome the ambition that he has brought to this country? He will know that he will need time to achieve the things he has set out today, which is why I know that he will share my concerns about what is happening in British politics. Reform has accepted £9 million in donations this year alone, with £8 million of it coming from just three UK-based donors. That is more than has been received by the Labour party and the Conservative party combined. Chequebooks are already circling the next general election, and if we wish to defend our democracy and make sure that all voices can be heard equally, we need to make sure it is not money that talks. I heard what the Prime Minister had to say to my colleagues about the defending democracy review. I welcome it and tomorrow’s legislation on UK donors, but he will know that there are people closer to home who wish to use their money to influence the process too. Can he confirm that his democracy review will look at caps on UK individual and company donors, and that we will legislate before the next general election so that we act?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. In the autumn Budget, the Government acted to reduce energy costs to benefit all households with a domestic energy contract. We did that by closing the energy company obligation scheme to new costs on bills and by moving 75% of the domestic cost of the renewables obligation to the Exchequer. Those decisions are already making a real difference. From April 2026, they took an average of £150 in costs off household energy bills, and they continue to keep bills lower than they would otherwise be. The renewables obligation exists to support renewable electricity generation through a system of tradeable certificates. The scheme is closed to new applications, and the first generators will come off the scheme from April 2027; the scheme will close finally in 2037. The scheme has been instrumental in building the UK’s renewable energy sector. It supports about 35 GW of generation capacity and about 30% of total UK electricity generation. The core of the renewables obligation scheme is a process in which electricity suppliers purchase certificates from renewables generators. Previously, suppliers recovered all the costs of complying with the obligations from consumers via their electricity bills, with Ofgem reflecting those costs through the price cap. From 1 April, the Government have instead provided grant funding to electricity suppliers to cover 75% of the domestic share of the costs in Great Britain. We have also taken steps to ensure that those savings are passed on: for customers on standard variable tariffs, Ofgem has factored the lower policy costs into the price cap; and for customers on other domestic tariffs, including fixed tariffs, the Government issued a legally binding direction requiring suppliers to pass through the savings in full. The latest price cap illustrates why that action matters. On 26 August, Ofgem announced that the cap for 1 October to 31 December will increase by 4% to £1,723 for a typical household, driven by ongoing wholesale price volatility as a result of the war in the middle east. Ofgem has been clear that the increase is likely to be felt primarily in gas bills, with electricity bills remaining broadly flat. Without the action we took at the Budget, the cap would be significantly higher still. The draft regulations are concerned with the legal basis for continuing to deliver the bill reduction measures. Section 13 of the Energy Prices Act 2022 provides the power we are using to take such steps to reduce people’s bills, but the power in section 13 is time-limited and may be extended only by six months at a time. Earlier this year, Parliament approved regulations extending the power from 25 April to 25 October 2026. The regulations before the Committee extend that time limit again, from 25 October to 25 April 2027, so that the policy can continue without interruption.
To be clear, we will do this while we need to. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will change the law so that we do not need to continue to extend in this way. The regulations do not give the Secretary of State any new powers. They simply extend the period in which the existing power may be used. I assure hon. Members that the Department is working on primary legislation to provide a more permanent solution when parliamentary time allows. The position is slightly different in Northern Ireland, where energy costs are a transferred matter for the Executive, and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation forms a smaller cost on energy bills. The Department has been supporting colleagues in Northern Ireland as they develop a comparable offer to the policy in Great Britain. Following a request from the Northern Ireland Minister for the Economy, separate regulations came into force on 20 June to enable the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver their comparable offer. The regulations are a straightforward extension of an existing time-limited power. At a time when international events continue to put pressure on wholesale energy markets, it is vital that the Government can continue to deliver the bill reductions announced in the Budget while work progresses on a longer-term legislative solution. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am happy to write him about the specifics of that.
indicated assent.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I will turn briefly to the points raised. The No. 1 priority of this Government is to tackle the cost of living crisis that people face. The Government acted at last year’s Budget by taking an average £150 of costs off energy bills. Those decisions are now factored into bills for the years to come. That decision was taken at the autumn Budget 2025 before the conflict in the middle east and the subsequent increase in wholesale energy prices. As a result, households are better protected from those increases than they would otherwise have been. The rise in the price cap announced by Ofgem will be deeply concerning news for families. We will continue to monitor the situation ahead of the winter and plan for all contingencies. I recognise that some would like us to go further in immediately reducing bills in response to recent events. One of the first steps that the new Prime Minister took was to cut VAT on electricity bills. Without that intervention, the price cap figure would have been around £45 higher than announced. Although the price cap will increase by 4% on 1 October, driven by ongoing wholesale price volatility as a direct consequence of the events in the middle east, it would have been considerably higher still without the ongoing effects of moving the renewables obligation to the Exchequer, which continues to suppress bills. Where impacts have been felt by those outside the energy price cap, we have acted, with £53 million of support via the crisis and resilience fund for vulnerable heating oil customers announced in March. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk for his question about the crisis and resilience fund. I understand people’s concern about whether they should apply. I urge anyone who relies on heating oil who has any concerns about their ability to afford to keep their home warm this winter to apply to the fund, and I will be keen to ensure that local authorities recognise their responsibilities when it comes to disbursing funds accordingly.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am sure we will continue to have conversations about this. Our manifesto commitment is absolutely to make sure that we have lower energy bills in the future. We also have to be honest about how we manage external shocks to our system and make sure that we are protecting customers and consumers from those. That is one reason why we have the clean power plan, and why we are looking to reform the market over time so that we are not exposed to the kinds of global shocks that push up prices, as we have seen recently.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is very clear. As I said, we absolutely stand by our commitment. The previous Energy Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), said: “Bills are too high and we stand by our promise to get bills down by up to £300 by 2030.” We have already taken £150 off bills as a consequence of the decisions made in the previous Budget. The new Prime Minister has announced a £45 reduction on average across an energy bill because of the reduction in VAT. The independent Resolution Foundation found that across 2026 as a whole, the typical energy bill is now expected to be more than £200 lower in real terms than in 2024 before the conflict in the middle east began. I understand that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness knows a lot about the energy system and I respect his understanding, but when there are global shocks like there are, we have to do everything we can as a Government to protect consumers from those global shocks. That includes the short term with the efforts we are putting in now, and the long term in reforming the market. I look forward to seeing him supporting our reform of that market in order to be able to protect consumers in the future. The UK has a diverse and resilient energy system—indeed, one that the right hon. Gentleman oversaw for some time—and we will of course continue to monitor the situation in the middle east closely. I assure colleagues that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality to ensure that the Government can be responsive and responsible. It is important to understand that we need a principled reform to shift the balance of levy costs from the bill to the Exchequer, because we need to make sure that that is a fairer way of dealing with the cost of a shift to a cleaner and more resilient energy system. The reason we have given for not abolishing the renewables obligation, which is a suggestion from the Conservatives, is that it would significantly impact on investor confidence and energy security. There is a risk of there being no certainty that 25,000 renewable energy projects would continue generating without that subsidy. I am sure that His Majesty’s Opposition would not want a set of policy proposals that would threaten the security of our energy system in that way. The draft regulations extend a time limit on essential legal powers that will enable us to take action to reduce people’s energy bills. While simple in themselves, the regulations support the reduction of energy bills, which is a key part of the Government’s focus on the cost of living. Question put and agreed to.
25. What steps his Department is taking with international partners to help tackle climate change.
The Minister will be aware that the world’s peatlands play a critical role in tackling climate change, storing twice as much carbon as all the world’s forests combined. Thanks to previous EU funding, work to restore the Bolton Fell Moss peatland in my constituency began in 2015. Can the Minister outline what international peatland restoration programmes the UK Government are currently engaged with, and will she press DEFRA colleagues to ensure that the UK continues to provide long-term funding to restore Cumbria’s upland bogs?
Opposition Members seem to need reminding that the early release programme was devised by a Conservative Government. We have been debating at great length, in the media and among politicians, keeping people in prison for longer. I support Government policy on this issue, but I remind the House that the only things, ultimately, that make people safer are: giving more support to prison officers, including their salary; putting money into improving the prison estate—some prisons are Victorian buildings; and, finally, putting effort and money into the rehabilitation of prisoners, not just keeping them in prison longer.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome him to his place. The Prime Minister knows the Hoolickin family from Middleton, who tragically lost their beloved Michael as a result of the callous actions of a violent reoffender who should have been recalled to custody far sooner, if only the local probation service had been more rigorous in its monitoring. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking seriously at the Probation Service’s accountability and how it operates, so that serious further offenders are given no opportunity to cause further harm to constituents like mine?
I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, and I particularly welcome his commitment to go to COP31. What will be even more important than him going there is what he says when he gets there: we look forward to him showing that the UK will continue to remain committed to fighting climate change here in the UK and to doing our bit overseas. Will he say whether, when he goes to COP31, he will be able to commit to the tropical forests forever facility, which the Government have been looking at? Will his fight on the cost of living continue to encourage people to make choices that support the environment, such as by having an electric vehicle, and will he bring down the cost of electric to support heating choices?
The Prime Minister has rightly described council tax as “highly regressive”, saying that it is unfair that people in Greater Manchester often pay far more than people living in London. Does he agree that that same injustice is even more stark in towns like Hartlepool, where a band D household pays £2,556 a year compared with £1,048 in Westminster? He has rightly attacked that unfairness, so will he now commit to attacking the problem and replacing the hated council tax system that hammers towns like mine?
My constituent Terry Rowley received an IPP sentence on 8 February 2008 with a minimum tariff of one year and 126 days. That was 6,780 days ago—more than 18 and a half years—and yet he remains in prison. The Government have rightly committed to ending this injustice. Will the Justice Secretary ensure that as we do so, people like Terry will have a fair, transparent and genuinely rehabilitative route to release, while the public continue to be protected?
I join the Home Secretary and the whole House in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and in sending our heartfelt condolences to their families and loved ones. Matthew was a coach at my son’s football club, FC Hartlepool, and at Seaton Carew FC. The teams played each other last Saturday, when I was proud to join so many other Poolies in paying tribute to a remarkable man who was so loved by everyone who knew him. I also pay tribute to our police and all emergency services personnel, who are getting up every single day grief-stricken at the loss of their two colleagues, but are still doing their jobs to an amazing extent. These tragic events did not materialise out of the blue. The lawlessness that we are seeing in certain parts of our communities did not happen overnight. It is the consequence of systemic underfunding of our police and our fire service. I welcome the £2 million announced by the Home Secretary today, but does she agree—I join my colleagues in saying this—that we need a long-term solution to fix the funding formula, for both our police and our fire service, if we are to protect all of our communities? I hope that she is sincere about ensuring that that happens.
I am honoured to be standing at the Dispatch Box as the new Minister for Health Innovation. Let me start by thanking NHS staff for their heroic shifts over the summer months. I also thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) for bringing this debate forward and speaking with such deep conviction. I am humbled that this is the subject of my first outing in this new role, and I thank him and other Members for their work in this important area. I know that the hon. Gentleman, through his work on the APPG, already met a previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), in July. Reading about it and then listening to the hon. Gentleman’s account again in this debate, we agree that Adam’s death was an absolute tragedy. As a dad, I cannot begin to imagine what Adam’s mum and dad continue to go through, and I pay tribute to them. It goes without saying that I would of course be happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman and Adam’s parents to discuss what more we can do to change the system, to go through the seven requests in detail, and to help save other parents from the same heartbreaking loss that they have endured. I am determined that the benefits of innovation are felt first and fastest by patients and families, as quickly and safely as possible. That means accelerating the adoption of technology, digital services and the Government’s single patient record, and better integration between our national platforms, so that relevant information about known conditions, family associations and medical history can follow the person across services, professionals and organisations.
I never fail to be impressed by the sheer determination of humans who have endured the worst of losses to turn such loss into a positive contribution. Without hesitation, I pay tribute to Mia’s family for their fundraising efforts. Done properly, innovation can support more joined-up care and personalised services, and faster sharing and implementation of new guidance and learning. Let me now turn to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. NHS England has made changes to the call script in response to new advice from Resuscitation Council UK, issued in November 2023. That advice was given just two months before Adam’s death. It is tragic that it had not yet come into force by the time that Adam stepped on to that pitch. As healthcare professionals, Adam’s mum and dad will know that those changes would have given him a much better chance of survival, as callers now receive advice to begin life support, as well as the certainty of using a defibrillator on a teenager. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important points about the NHS pathways system. The challenge we face in improving the sensitivity of cardiac arrest identification is to do so in a way that does not generate false positives. Ongoing performance monitoring of NHS pathways finds that the system accepts over-triage; this is an intentional safety feature of triage systems. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at a time when many ambulance services are under such significant strain, the management of stretched resources is paramount. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that NHS England works with the NHS pathways clinical team, ambulance services and specialist organisations, including Resuscitation Council UK, to review data and emerging evidence and to see where we can do better.