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
Residents in Wokingham are absolutely sick of the failures of Thames Water’s management. In 2025 alone, Thames Water committed 74 sewage spills, for a duration of 684 hours. That means that Thames Water dumped sewage for the equivalent of 456 football matches, and there were certainly no clean sheets. No waterway in Wokingham is safe—
Fewer than half of the children in my constituency have seen an NHS dentist in the last two years, exacerbating health inequalities. The supervised toothbrushing programme is being evaluated for its effectiveness, but I hear uptake is low. What other measures does the Minister plan to introduce to tackle oral health inequalities for children? Will she commit to reviewing NHS dental provision in my constituency?
I have given the Government evidence that hundreds of children with special educational needs and disabilities are avoidably killing themselves because of public authority negligence and misconduct, including my constituent Jen Bridges-Chalkley. Does the Minister agree that the first step in tackling this problem is knowing how many of these suicides there are? We cannot do that unless we have a national oversight mechanism and a preventable death tracker that measure it.
I will discuss the future of Thames Water, starting with Thames Water’s record of pollution and environmental failure, and how it impacts everyone in my Witney constituency. Thames Water serves the constituency and embodies the systemic failure of the national water sector. Last year, Thames Water pumped sewage into rivers and lakes for 107,822 hours. West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for sewage. We have the Thames, the Evenlode, the Windrush, Shill brook and the Cole. We also have WASP, or Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been so active in going after Thames Water’s bad behaviour. It has mapped the illegal sewage spills at Thames Water sewage treatment works and found that, between 2021 and 2025, there were 1,231 illegal spills just in the Witney constituency, and 271 illegal spills in just one sewage treatment works, Faringdon. West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in trying to hold Thames Water to account, as has WASP, which inspired the Channel 4 programme “Dirty Business”, which many hon. Members will have seen, so well done to Peter, Ash, Geoff and Vaughan. Despite Thames Water’s appalling record, residents have seen their bills skyrocket. I have constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%; I even have one whose bill has gone up by 93%. That is outrageous, but those bill hikes are not making the situation any better. That is because Thames Water’s financial situation is disastrous. Thames has nearly £20 billion of debt.
I completely agree, and Thames Water’s full-year accounts are out at 7 am tomorrow morning. We will see just what they tell us. It is going to be ugly, not least because the company’s equity is worthless. The largest equity shareholders wrote down their shareholding to zero value and withdrew their board members more than two years ago. When Thames Water’s creditors sought to take on another £3 billion of debt last year, I was given permission to intervene in the High Court and speak for the interests of Thames Water’s 16 million customers, who are paying all these outrageous costs and interest expenses, but would otherwise have had no voice in court. This Labour Government have slow-peddled for the last two years, and have refused to draw a line under decades of Tory bad behaviour by putting Thames Water into special administration. This approach is costing customers an absolute fortune. Thames Water paid £338 million just in interest expenses in the six months to September 2025. That is £133 million more, just in interest expenses, than it paid in the same period the previous year. Labour is taking this hands-off approach despite the company’s multiple breaches of its operating licence. Let me illustrate some of those breaches. As I have stated, the company has carried out more than 1,000 illegal spills over four years. It must hold two investment-grade credit ratings as a condition of its operating licence, but it last held any investment-grade credit rating two years ago, in July 2024, and it has undergone a change of ultimate controller; yet the Minister, the Secretary of State and Ofwat have repeatedly refused to answer on that point.
Absolutely. The consumers are getting the raw deal, and there is no end in sight. To qualify as an ultimate controller—it is a defined term—a party need only have material influence over Thames Water. The creditor consortium right now is negotiating bilaterally with the company, and has put in £3 billion, but somehow that does not make it meet the criterion. It is ridiculous, and frankly, seeing this failure play out was probably the single moment when I most despaired of government and the rule of law. I repeatedly ask the same question, and repeatedly do not get an answer. I find it really, really bad.
I thank my hon. Friend. Rather than having customers pay hundreds of millions of pounds of debt at ludicrous interest rates of nearly 10%, Thames Water should be taken into a special administration regime, which is commonly known as bankruptcy on insolvency grounds. I urge the Government to pursue a SAR on the basis of insolvency, as this is a more straightforward way to secure special administration than on a performance basis, and it will give the special administrator additional powers and a stronger position in relation to the creditors. The Water Industry Act 1991 sets out triggers linked to financial insolvency. Among them is the company being unable, or likely to be unable, to pay its debts. The Secretary of State and Ofwat both have discretion to apply to the High Court for a special administration order if that condition is triggered. I understand that the Government currently do not have, and have refused to publish, a SAR assessment policy. That is despite the Cunliffe review concluding that there is a need for “broad, judgement-based tests within a clear policy, that has been set out in advance, of how the regulator will assess failing companies against these tests, the factors it will take into account and the indicators it will consider.” That is from paragraph 793, recommendation 59, of the final report. Clarity around those tests and when a SAR will be used would benefit the water sector and its investors. Importantly, it also increases the Government’s negotiating leverage with the class A creditor consortium by further increasing the credibility of the threat of a SAR. I am interested to hear from the Minister why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is so reluctant to publish those tests. A SAR process would allow Thames Water’s debt to be written down substantially, very likely into single-digit billions. This write-down is crucial, and it is not punitive. The write-down should be sufficient for the company to leave the SAR with a balance sheet that is strong enough to manage the huge spend that will be required over the next decade or so on treatment works and pipe networks.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what is going on up and down the catchment writ small, with treatment works deferred despite being crucially needed. In Aston, we have sewage running down the street year after year, and it is the same in Standlake. It is just disgusting, and there is no end in sight. A SAR process would allow the Government to use the period while Thames Water is in a SAR to put much of the good work from the Cunliffe review into new legislation, and to do the legwork to enable the company to exit as a mutual. Crucially, a SAR would not ultimately cost the Government anything—this really matters—because they will recoup all the funding spent on a SAR, as this new funding injected by the Government would be super senior to all other funding. I am very grateful to the former DEFRA Secretary, Steve Reed, for setting out in a letter to the—
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for setting out in a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in June last year that “we expect that any Government funding required during a SAR would be recouped after the conclusion of the administration”. The current Secretary of State set out the same point in a parliamentary debate on 16 June. It is also worth noting that the Tories—there are not any in the Chamber—continue to refuse to acknowledge this, and that Teneo, Thames Water’s own expert adviser, stated the same in its report to the High Court in December 2024.
I agree 100%, and that is what is so depressing; by continuing to demonstrate that the regulators have no teeth, we create a bigger and bigger problem for ourselves. The alternative to a SAR—a deal with the creditors, which, extraordinarily, seems to be the Government’s preferred option at this point—should not be countenanced. Giving these businesses, now operating as London & Valley Water consortium, yet more control of the company at ludicrously high interest rates would allow this downward spiral to continue. The Government must and can change course by using their power to ask for a SAR under existing legislation. There is now the opportunity for Thames Water to exit special administration as a mutual, owned and run in the interests of its customers, and to break the cycle of financial mismanagement and egregious environmental failings once and for all. Legislation sets out that a water company insolvency SAR can conclude in two ways: rescue, whereby the company is restructured, debts are written down or converted, and the existing legal entity continues in a modified form; or transfer, whereby the regulated undertaking is sold or transferred to a new owner. That does not require a competitive auction, as the legislation provides for a transfer approved by the Secretary of State and Ofwat.Nothing in the legislation states that either route requires a competitive sale, as the overriding objective in a SAR is continuity of public service, not maximising creditor returns. The Government could therefore set out at the point of SAR entry, or shortly after, that a mutual is the preferred exit route for Thames, and make that clear in the special administrator’s mandate. Work would need to be done in parallel with the SAR process to incorporate and put in place the governance framework for a new mutual, as well as more broadly updating water regulations to take into account the Cunliffe report’s recommendations. Ofwat could then work towards a licence transfer to the mutual, rather than running a market sale. In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. If she is unable to answer them now, I would appreciate an answer in writing if possible. Have the Government sought legal advice on the SAR process from a specialist law firm? I appreciate that FTI Consulting has been instructed for many months, but that is not a substitute for legal advice. A proper, specialist understanding of the SAR as a legal process, and of the litigation risk—perceived or actual—of applying for a SAR, is critical. Will the Government commit to publishing a SAR assessment policy, and does the Minister agree that the creditors consortium has material influence over Thames Water, and therefore meets the ultimate controller test? Will the Minister act with Ofwat to enforce the appropriate penalties on Thames Water for having undergone that change without having given notice, and will she provide an update on the negotiations between Ofwat and Thames Water? Will the Minister now take the London & Valley Water deal off the table, and work with the Secretary of State to apply to the court for Thames Water to be put into special administration? Finally, in response to a question about whether she would consider the Liberal Democrat call for water companies to be mutually owned public benefit companies, the Minister said: “I would be happy to see more mutual ownership of water companies, but the question is how we get there.”——[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 728.] Given that, will she confirm her Department’s position on mutual ownership models for water companies? What are the Department’s plans for exploring how we get there?
On that point, will the Minister give way?
How is that possible?
3. What steps his Department is taking to support social prescribing.
I agree that social prescribers do a fantastic job. I recently met members of Veterans Outdoors near Totnes, and visited the Vounder Therapy Garden at the Eden Project through the parliamentary knowledge schemes. Those organisations are doing incredible work, turning lives around, particularly for those with mental health challenges, but their projects receive absolutely no funding, although the National Academy for Social Prescribing has identified a return of up to £8.56 for every £1 invested. How does the Department expect them to survive and broaden their reach without funding? Given their cost-effectiveness, will the Government commit themselves not just to funding the link worker and the social prescriber, but to encouraging integrated care boards to fund those amazing projects?
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that the Government’s reluctance to take a company that is clearly now technically insolvent into a SAR is loading costs on to consumers who use other water companies, by creating a moral hazard that means that companies are incentivised to take on ever more debt, with the debt providers being protected by the Government? Instead, the Government should allow companies to fail, if they are going to fail, and to be taken into a SAR, so that there can be investment in the infrastructure that my hon. Friends referred to.
I am glad the Minister has moved on to the substance of DEFRA’s case. Will she clarify for my residents whether she considers a company that is spending 33% of the income it gets from customers on servicing its debt and paying a 10% premium on that debt is actually viable as a company? Will she set out for the House what she considers to be the measure of insolvency for a privately held monopoly?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Melksham and Devizes, I have been extremely fortunate to visit a number of farms, including pig farms, and meet many outstanding local farmers, including Cameron Naughton at West End farm, an independent pig farm with an attached farm shop. Cameron recently wrote to me to share his thoughts and to ask me to represent him, as an independent farmer, in this debate. He told me that his business is losing about £5,000 a week. Operating a high-welfare, outdoor-bred, RSPCA-assured farm like Cameron’s inevitably carries a much higher cost of production, but what he finds incomprehensible is that prices to the consumer keep rising while the supermarket supply chains continue to make substantial profits that are not reflected in what farmers are paid. Independent producers like Cameron are bearing the brunt of a market that has been declining since 2025, driven by a combination of factors: an oversupply of pigs, stagnating demand and falling prices to the farmer. With the UK pig breeding herd at a historic low, high-quality British products like Cameron’s risk being replaced by lower-welfare imported meat, which brings with it a heightened risk of diseases such as swine fever and foot and mouth disease. The European Food Safety Authority has reported a 76% increase this year in African swine fever outbreaks among pigs in the EU. I urge the Government, and particularly the incoming Prime Minister, not to forget our farmers and our rural communities. I ask them to sit down with the industry, particularly with independent farmers like Cameron, to determine what can be done to secure the survival of this vital sector and to help secure our country’s vital food security.
T6. I listened to the Minister’s answers earlier on the dentistry contract, and he said that the Government need time to get it right and that a consultation will be launched soon. My local dentists are desperate to take on NHS patients. This has been a known issue for a number of years. Is it not wholly unacceptable that the Government do not yet have a proposed solution, let alone are implementing one?
I understand that usually, if the Government want to make a statement relating to foreign affairs, we get a statement from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, so I hope it will not be a habit of the House to change the whole business to Back-Bench debates, rather than giving us a formal statement from Government Ministers. While we are on the subject of Opposition days, it would be remiss of me not to highlight that the Leader of the Opposition recently said: “The fact is we are the smallest opposition party in history—we don’t have enough MPs.” I suggest to the Leader of the House that if the Government want to allocate more Opposition day debates to the Liberal Democrats, we will gladly take them. [Interruption.] The Opposition have come out in force today—well done on coming out today. More broadly, the country will be wondering why, although we have effectively known for weeks who the new Prime Minister will be, it will be months before he faces any parliamentary scrutiny on his plans. Will the Leader of the House explain how this situation has been allowed to happen? Does he agree that our constituents deserve answers about the new Prime Minister’s plans much sooner?
The Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital rebuild has been delayed by up to two decades. The buildings are in a dire state and becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. Land for the new hospital is secured, so what possible justification can there be for further delay in building this new hospital?
As the hon. Member knows, small abattoirs are at breaking point in almost every imaginable way. One big issue is contradicting and inconsistent inspections. Does he agree that the Government urgently need to set out a clearer plan to streamline the regulation system?
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to omit section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; to provide that the Sovereign, the Royal Family, the Royal Household, the Royal Archives and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are public authorities for the purposes of that Act; and for connected purposes. I am grateful to have the chance to introduce this Bill alongside colleagues from parties across the House. I am very grateful for the breadth of support across many parties for the measures that it contains; that shows how much Members of the House recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in public office. Today the people of France celebrate Bastille Day, to commemorate when they were driven to revolt because they were fed up of an aloof regime that they had no way of holding to account. One particular member of the royal family was travelling to shady destinations to meet secretly with foreign men of extreme wealth for reasons that would have shocked the common people if they had known. There is no record we can find to say whether or not Marie Antoinette spent three days visiting any of these men to tell them that she could not be their friend any more. Meanwhile, the elected representatives of the country—the Third Estate—were being blocked from having any say in the behaviour of the French royal family or even being able to investigate what members like that were up to. To be clear, at this stage I do not believe that we in this place should be calling for an insurrection, as the Third Estate did then. Instead, the Bill I present today will go some way to adding a brick of transparency to the wall of secrecy and privilege that surrounds our own monarchy nearly 250 years later. The Bill also has support from the Campaign for Freedom of Information, Republic, the general committee of Labour International, and the National Union of Journalists. There are two questions that we must ask in connection with the royal family and freedom of information. Under our constitution, which needs modernising in so many ways, are the royal family public servants or not? If they are, is it reasonable for one set of public servants to have such a blanket exemption from the rules that all others have to follow? As MPs and Ministers, we are expected to follow the Nolan principles of public life, as are all public bodies and servants. The fifth Nolan principle is openness. It says: “Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so.” Clearly, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was created in that spirit. But despite meeting the criteria of a public body, and despite the royal family unarguably being public servants, the monarchy has its own special exemption carved out in the Act. Can that in any way be right? Some right hon. and hon. Members may be concerned that the Bill is not perfectly reasonable in what it asks for, but I assure them that it is. It is about providing the bare minimum of accountability to the royal family and closing loopholes that I think we all agree should not be carved out just for members of one privileged lineage. The Bill will address section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which gives a more or less blanket exemption to communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family, not just the King. That provision too often prevents communications from being released under freedom of information requests to other public authorities. In practice, the section 37 exemption has meant that perfectly reasonable questions about trips on the RAF’s royal flight have been refused, including the question of who flew with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor when he was not only a member of the royal family but employed as our trade envoy. We now have a former Prime Minister pressing for information about whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor used taxpayer-funded jets or RAF bases to meet the paedophile and trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Countless other questions along those lines should have been answered long ago. Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has seen the exemption at work time and again. He told me last week: “It’s a scandal the royal family are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act—this was never intended to be an absolute exemption, and in practice the public interest test that should be applied has never come down in favour of disclosure, in my experience from scores of requests over a decade.” This is really just one arbitrary and absurd rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us. My Bill would remove section 37 from the Freedom of Information Act completely. The second part of my Bill would add a number of relevant institutions to the list of public authorities in the 2000 Act. That is because none of the main royal institutions is listed in the Act, so freedom of information requests cannot be made of them directly. My Bill proposes to fix that by adding the royal family, the royal household, the Royal Archives, and the ex-officio royal duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster to the list of public authorities covered by the Act. We should be able to ask questions to those undoubtedly public authorities. Currently listed in schedule 1 of the 2000 Act are such institutions as the Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products, the British Wool Marketing Board, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine. The Act is very comprehensive, because we rightly expect transparency from the whole range of public bodies that owe us the Nolan duty of openness in exchange for our funding, patronage and respect—and we should of the royal family too. All the usual exemptions would still apply—those relating to junior staff and national security, for example—but my Bill would go further. With reasonable measures similar to those that protect MPs from disclosures that might pose a danger to us from a security perspective, my Bill will allow for non-disclosure where data such as future travel details appear. Finally, I want to say a few words about the uses and abuses of the secrecy currently afforded to the Royal Archives and why that must be included in schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. Under the Public Records Act 1958, UK Government Departments must identify records of historic interest and release all possible content to the National Archives. Many closed Government records have been made public this way through the 30-year rule—now the 20-year rule. MI5 now declassifies and releases historical records to the National Archives after 50 years, but the royal family operates with no such rule around its own archives. The Royal Archives operates broadly reign by reign, but nearly four years after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, still no historical records since 1952 can currently be accessed from the archives. Even when records are unlocked within the archives, as those from previous monarchs have been, it is still left to the archive gatekeepers to decide which historians can be given the keys—in private and without the public interest tests of the Freedom of Information Act. History should not be curated, but the preservation of royal image—even many years after a monarch’s death—seems to take precedence over academic inquiry. We need all historians, not just those within a certain circle, to have access to these records so that we can have a truthful account of our own history. This sounds like a Bill only for republicans, but I believe that monarchists should be its most fervent supporters. No one has damaged the reputation of the monarchy in this country and abroad more than Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was able to carry on his nefarious activities in the comfort of knowing that he was protected by this shroud of secrecy. Yes, we found him out many years later and took away his offices, but the sunlight of Nolan is not only disinfectant in retrospect, but also preventive. If he had had to be open, would he have been as bad? We will never know. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Siân Berry, Ian Byrne, Rachael Maskell, Tom Gordon, Pete Wishart, Kirsty Blackman, Claire Hanna, Jeremy Corbyn, Dr Ellie Chowns, Hannah Spencer, Liz Saville Roberts and David Davis present the Bill. Siân Berry accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 119).
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this extremely important and highly topical debate. Having had three heatwaves in less than three months, we are all more than aware of the reality of extreme heat. We need to talk more about our preparedness, or rather our lack of preparedness, for extreme heat. We do not yet have the figures for the latest heatwave, but we have heard about the figures published this week on the thousands of excess deaths due to the heatwaves in May and June, which spell out in clear terms exactly what impact this has on human lives. Like Members across the Chamber who have spoken today, I have heard from constituents about the direct impact that extreme heat is having on their lives. I have heard from parents who are deeply concerned, both about school closures and about schools not closing when their kids are struggling to learn in conditions of extreme heat, and from people who are desperately concerned about our health infrastructure, social care and homes. They are all struggling to cope with the effects, which is particularly important for the very young and our older community members, who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat. I represent North Herefordshire, an absolutely beautiful constituency with farming at its heart. Farmers are at the forefront of the impacts of climate change—not just extreme heat but other weather extremes such as flooding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley pointed out, we are facing a situation in which climate change, or climate breakdown, is driving the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. As he pointed out, we have known about this for decades, but sadly Governments have effectively been asleep at the wheel on reducing climate-warming emissions to the level we need them at, and particularly on adaptation and building our resilience. Our farmers now face water shortages, and those working in public services, whether in health, education or public transport, are struggling to cope with conditions for which our infrastructure is simply not built.
I completely agree. To do that, we need to think long-term. We do not do well enough in this country at thinking long-term, or beyond the next election cycle. We need to think of the next generation. What sort of world do we want to bequeath to them? What sort of country do we want to bequeath to them, and how will we build the country that is suitable for the climate that will be here in a few decades’ time? As has been pointed out, this is the coolest it will be in our lifetimes: the climate will only become more extreme, with more extreme heat and more extreme floods. We need to change our ways as a country. Experts have been telling us this for a long time. The Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that we are not doing anywhere near enough to meet the adaptation challenge facing us. I call on the Government to grasp the nettle. This is investment in building a better future—it is a win-win investment. Building houses that are suitable for the weather conditions that we will be facing is much cheaper than having to retrofit them afterwards. If we use materials and building methods that enable us to cool buildings naturally, we can create urban areas that are not such huge heat islands as they currently are. By building in such a way, including with lots of tree planting in urban areas, we can cool temperatures locally using natural methods. We have a real opportunity here, and we should grasp it with both hands. Tackling the adaptation and the resilience challenge is not about just sticking our finger in the dyke or using a sticking plaster approach, such as patchwork retrofitting air-con in every building that is struggling with the heat; it is an opportunity to imagine and to build a better country for the future. There are things the Government can do right now. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) introduced a private Member’s Bill yesterday to establish a maximum workplace temperature. We have a minimum workplace temperature, but we clearly need a maximum one. Minister, is this something that the Government will support? I hope they will. As we have seen, there is international precedent and huge levels of support across the country We also need to recognise that we must build the long-term resilience that we require. As a country, we do not yet have an adaptation plan that is fit for purpose, or the co-ordination that is needed. I raised that issue with the Minister a few days ago in a debate on national security and resilience and was told that Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for resilience in farming, and that the Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for resilience in health. I raised this in Health questions this morning, but the issues we face are not solved just by retrofitting our hospitals. We have to enable everybody in the country to stay healthy in the extremes of heat that we are increasingly seeing so that they do not have to go into hospital in the first place. This is a cross-Government requirement and priority, so will the Government put in place adaptation plans that the Climate Change Committee will itself declare are fit for purpose? Finally, we must put the brakes on the problem at the same time. It is not an either/or between mitigation and adaptation; we still have more to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions that are causing climate breakdown, so that we save ourselves from the worst possible effects of runaway climate change. I call on the Government to go further and faster on real climate action, not least by holding the line on Jackdaw and Rosebank. We cannot on the one hand struggle with facing the consequences of climate change, such as extreme heat, and on the other hand continue to take more fossil fuels out of the ground and burn them. We need consistent Government policy across the piece. I hope the Government will provide that.
It is so important to clarify that we are talking about 2°C of warming, not 2%. The average pre-industrial temperature was 14°C; it is way more than 2%.
Heatwaves, which are becoming more frequent and more severe due to the climate crisis, create a health crisis. We see that in excessive temperatures in our hospitals and other health buildings, and we see it in the huge, unprecedented demand on ambulance services. First, will the Minister support my colleague Hannah Spencer’s private Member’s Bill to set a maximum workplace temperature to help keep people healthy during heatwaves? Secondly, what conversations is the Department having with the Cabinet Office to ensure that we have a Government-wide adaptation and resilience plan to deal with the effects of climate breakdown?
I beg to move, That this House has considered preparedness for extreme heat. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. This issue affects all our constituents, so I will be happy to take interventions. Over recent weeks, Britain has experienced an extraordinary succession of heatwaves that have tested the resilience of our communities and public services. We have talked on our way in today about how we have all been personally affected—we might have been uncomfortable at various points—but this succession of heatwaves poses serious risks. We have seen hospitals declaring critical incidents, ambulance services facing record demand, transport disrupted, schools closed and firefighters battling major wildfires following prolonged hot and dry conditions.
The hon. Member’s example highlights just how much of a risk wildfires pose. We need to take greater measures as a country to prevent them, including seriously looking at her suggestion.
I agree with the hon. Member. I will come on to the impact on schools, and the fact that extreme heat does not affect everyone equally, later in my speech. Some communities and individuals are particularly affected, so I support her call, particularly because it highlights the need for a cross-Government response. The incidents I talked about were not isolated weather events, but a real-world test of our preparedness for a hotter climate, exposing vulnerabilities across our health service, critical infrastructure, emergency response and natural environment. Britain has entered a new climate reality. The Climate Change Committee’s latest UK climate risk assessment warns that climate risks are increasing faster than our preparedness, with progress described as slow, stalled or moving in the wrong direction. Extreme heat is no longer an occasional anomaly, but an increasingly defining feature of the UK’s climate. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2002, and the UK has already warmed by around 1.2° since the pre-industrial period. England has experienced four major summer heat events since 2018, and the three warmest Junes on record have all occurred during this decade. UK Health Security Agency projections indicate that heat-related deaths could more than triple by the 2050s without stronger adaptation. Extreme heat is now a growing threat to public health, infrastructure, food security, nature and national resilience. It is already a public health emergency. Evidence on rising temperatures and mortality shows that recent heatwaves were not merely uncomfortable; they were deadly. New analysis estimates that around 2,700 heath-related deaths occurred during the May and June heatwaves in England and Wales. These are not abstract statistics; they are the human cost of temperatures for which our society is not adequately prepared. Unlike floods or storms, extreme heat rarely creates dramatic images. Instead, people die quietly, in hospitals, care homes or at home. The Environmental Audit Committee described extreme heat as a “silent killer”. It increases mortality gradually, often among those already vulnerable. Extreme heat places significant strain on the body, increasing the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness, dehydration, heat exhaustion and heatstroke. Hospital admissions rise for heart attacks, strokes, kidney injury and respiratory disease, while those with chronic illnesses or pregnancies and the elderly feel the impacts more acutely. Prolonged heat also affects mental health by disrupting sleep, increasing anxiety and impairing cognitive performance.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. It shows the breadth of issues that we need to contend with. Addressing this issue really is a whole-society, whole-Government matter. I very much support raising awareness of her point. It shows the need to review how we can treat people in a way that gives them the support they need but does not make other problems worse in the context of heatwaves. Where people live also matters. Poorly ventilated homes, upper-floor flats, care homes, social housing and densely built urban areas can trap heat for prolonged periods. Poverty compounds the risks. Those least able to afford adaptations are often the most exposed. In my Waveney Valley constituency, Friends of the Earth analysis has identified neighbourhoods that are both highly exposed to extreme heat and socially vulnerable, with around one in 10 falling into that category. I am grateful to one of my constituents for drawing my attention to the risk of overheating faced by her neighbour, whose council-owned bungalow effectively became a greenhouse during the latest period of extreme heat. The consequences extend beyond individuals to our health and care system. The NHS was built for a different climate. During the June heatwave, hospitals declared critical incidents, elective operations were postponed and temporary cooling equipment was required. Ambulance services experienced unprecedented demand, with the London ambulance service recording its busiest week on record. At the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which serves part of my constituency, MRI scanners stopped working when the cooling systems failed. Much of the NHS estate was not designed to operate safely during prolonged periods of temperatures approaching 40°, while many care homes remain poorly adapted to protect vulnerable residents. Extreme heat therefore threatens not only individual health, but the resilience of the health and care system itself. Heat health warnings, public communication and targeted support for vulnerable people must become routine. Extreme heat is also an occupational health risk. Employers will increasingly need practical measures such as water, shade, ventilation, rest breaks and adjusted working patterns. Stronger workplace protections would safeguard both workers’ health and productivity. The private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) recognises that existing protections have not kept pace with our changing climate, and that employers need to be supported to ensure that people are working in safe and healthy conditions. Britain’s buildings were designed for a cooler climate. During heatwaves, schools, hospitals, libraries, prisons and care homes can become dangerously hot, placing public services under additional pressure just as demand is rising.
I thank the hon. Member for that point. I will come to the question of how we retrofit buildings and how we ensure that new buildings of whatever type, including schools, are fit for purpose for the large numbers of mainly young people who use them. His points are well made. During heatwaves, schools can become unsuitable for learning, hospitals struggle to provide safe conditions for patients and staff, and care homes become hazardous for some of the most vulnerable members of society. The problem does not end when temperatures fall; many buildings retain heat long into the night. One constituent told me her home reached 42.5°, and her young son required urgent care after suffering a severe asthma attack induced by extreme heat in the flat. The Climate Change Committee warns that, by 2050, 92% of existing homes could overheat during summer heatwaves if we do not have a full programme of adaptation measures. Most of the homes that we will live in then have already been built now, which means that national retrofit programmes are essential to keep people safe, including those that deliver shading, cooling, ventilation and green infrastructure. At the same time, every new home, school, hospital and workplace should be designed for a hotter climate through passive cooling measures such as external shading, ventilation, green roofs and reflective materials. Retrofitting later is far more expensive than building resilience from the outset, and every building constructed today should be designed for the climate we are moving towards, not the one we have left behind. As well as changes to the built environment, we must also consider making social changes. We need to question whether the summer period will be the right time for exams in future. We must look to protect young people and help them to do their absolute best in exams, in whatever conditions are comfortable for them to work at their best.
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. Water conservation, like energy conservation, is critical, and there must be measures to help households to do their absolute best on that. My region is one of those with a hosepipe ban in force at the moment. She is absolutely right that data centres pose a real risk both to our water conservation and energy conservation targets. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I should declare that I am a member of, is currently doing an investigation into that. She is absolutely right that there is limited point in emphasising other ways of reducing water and energy consumption if we allow massive increases in usage in other ways. As a society, we have to get a grip of the environmental risks of data centres and AI before they take hold.
I strongly agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Food security and water security are absolutely central to this debate, and they are under real threat. I represent a rural area as well, and it is hard to believe that it is so difficult for farmers to get permission to store water on their farms when so many areas have the problem of too much water at some times of the year and too little at others. Surely, we can find an answer by bringing those problems together. As with anything else, Government policies need to support farmers to do things that they want to do that will help with our natural environment and our social preparedness. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that really important point. Our transport networks were designed for a cooler climate. Extreme heat causes rails to buckle, overhead power lines to sag and road surfaces to deteriorate, and that leads to delays, cancellations and rising maintenance costs. As heatwaves become more frequent, transport resilience must become a standard requirement for infrastructure investment. Every road and railway built today should be designed for the hotter climate that it will face over its lifetime, because building in resilience now is far cheaper than repeatedly repairing failures later. Our energy system was designed for a climate where peak demand occurred in winter. As temperatures rise, demand for cooling increases, while extreme heat reduces the efficiency of power generation and places greater strain on the electricity network. Recent heatwaves have demonstrated that hotter summers are creating new challenges for energy security and resilience. The electricity system must become more resilient to hotter summers as well as colder winters. Extreme heat causes one of Britain’s greatest long-term resilience challenges: water security. Hotter, drier summers increase demand, as higher temperatures reduce river flows, lower reservoir levels, dry soils and intensify pressures on supplies, particularly across eastern and southern England. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has repeatedly warned that England faces a serious risk of water shortages unless resilience improves. Ofwat warns that without action, England could face a daily water shortfall of around 5 billion litres by 2055. This year’s record-breaking spring heat provided a warning, with high demand and low storage levels leaving thousands of households in south-east England without water. Building resilience means expanding reservoir capacity, modernising ageing infrastructure, reducing leakage, improving water efficiency and restoring natural catchments. Water security is no longer simply an environmental issue. It is fundamental to public health, food production, economic resilience and national security. Extreme heat is becoming one of the greatest threats facing farmers and our food system. Predictable seasons, reliable rainfall and healthy soils are at extreme risk from climate breakdown. The National Farmers’ Union describes climate change as “one of the biggest threats to UK food security”, while 80% of farmers say that increasingly frequent extreme weather is threatening their livelihoods and reducing productivity. Heat stress is also threatening animal welfare. During the 2022 heatwave, when UK temperatures exceeded 40° for the first time, around 18,500 chickens died from heat in transit. Government figures indicate that more poultry died during the heatwaves we have experienced this summer. Higher temperatures dry soils, increase irrigation demand and reduce crop yields. This year’s dry spring brought harvests forward into late June in some areas, with lower spring yields expected as a result. Many farmers can now harvest only in the mornings and evenings because grain becomes too dry during the hottest parts of the day, which increases storage fire risks and, in some cases, necessitates costly cooling before processing. The Climate Change Committee estimates that heat stress already costs agriculture around £205 million a year. Last year’s spring, the hottest and driest on record, contributed to one of the poorest harvests in recent decades, costing arable farmers at least £800 million in lost revenue. The consequences extend far beyond the farm gate. The UK food security digest concludes that climate-related disruption is already pushing up food prices, while the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit estimates that extreme weather added around £361 to the average household food bill during 2022 and 2023. As Britain becomes more reliant on imported food, we are increasingly exposed to climate shocks overseas, with disruption to just five staple foods estimated to have driven 30% to 40% of food price inflation over the past two years. Climate change is no longer just affecting where food is grown; it is affecting what families can afford. Supporting farmers through resilient farming systems, better water management, healthier soils, stronger animal welfare and continued innovation is essential to protecting affordable food, rural livelihoods and the resilience of Britain’s food supply. Food security is national security. Wildfires are becoming a growing challenge for farmers and fire and rescue services. They are occurring earlier, lasting longer and increasingly threatening homes, businesses, infrastructure and rural communities. Hotter, drier summers dry vegetation and soils, allowing fires to spread rapidly and causing devastating damage to crops, wildlife and property. As the climate warms, fire and rescue services will need greater capability, stronger land management and better public awareness. Wildfire resilience must become a central part of Britain’s climate adaptation strategy. Britain’s wildlife is experiencing the consequences of hotter, drier summers as well. Rivers and lakes warm rapidly during prolonged heat, reducing oxygen levels and contributing to fish deaths and declines in freshwater biodiversity. Wetlands dry out, placing pressures on amphibians, insects and water birds, while prolonged heat and drought weaken woodlands and leave ecosystems more vulnerable to pests, disease and wildfire. Those impacts come on top of decades of habitat loss and ecological decline. The Wildlife Trust warns that climate change is amplifying the nature crisis, while the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has highlighted that important habitats, including peatlands, salt marshes, heathlands and wetlands, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to prolonged heat and drought. The problem we have is a lack of real-time data on ecological impacts. All of that matters, because healthy ecosystems are part of our national resilience. The Climate Change Committee increasingly describes healthy ecosystems not simply as environmental assets, but as part of the nation’s resilience infrastructure. Healthy ecosystems store water, cool communities, reduce flood risk and support biodiversity. Peatlands store carbon and retain water during periods of drought. Wetlands help to regulate river flows, reduce flood risk and provide cooler refuges during heatwaves. Trees and woodlands lower surrounding temperatures, helping to cool both urban and rural environments while supporting biodiversity. If we continue to lose the natural environments that regulate water, cool our towns and cities, retain fresh water and sustain biodiversity, we will become progressively less resilient to the impacts of climate change. Protecting and restoring nature is therefore not simply an environmental ambition; it is an essential part of preparing Britain for a hotter future. In conclusion, the costs of extreme heat are already being paid. Dame Emma Howard Boyd, chair of the National Heat Risk Commission, has described extreme heat as a “force multiplier”, because it increases healthcare costs, disrupts transport and energy systems, damages crops, raises food prices and places growing pressure on water supplies and wildfire risk. The June 2026 heatwave alone is estimated to have reduced UK productivity by at least £2.36 billion and, as that figure reflects only productivity losses, the true economic impact is almost certainly higher. If current trends continue, annual productivity losses could reach £25 billion by 2030. The Climate Change Committee estimates that around £11 billion a year is needed to strengthen the UK’s climate resilience, with around a third of that invested in protection from extreme heat. Adaptation is an investment in resilience, and prevention will always be cheaper than recovery. What is lacking is not evidence, but co-ordinated delivery. Britain needs a heat resilience strategy that is led from the Cabinet Office, with clear ministerial accountability, ensuring that decisions on housing, infrastructure, health, energy and land use are all designed for the climates that we now face. Heat health warnings, public information and targeted support for vulnerable people should become routine before heatwaves strike. Green infrastructure is among the most effective adaptation measures available, but adaptation alone cannot protect us from unchecked warming, and mitigation cannot protect us from the warming already locked in. We need both. A world that warms by 4° would bring dire consequences beyond the limits of adaptation, making climate resilience and decarbonisation inseparable. The challenge before Parliament is therefore not whether to act, but whether we act quickly enough and with enough ambition to prepare Britain for the climate in which we must now live.
I thank all hon. Members who have come along to take part in today’s debate. It shows how much interest there is across the House in this issue, which affects our constituents’ day-to-day lives now, and that is before the changes that could come in the future. I thank the Minister for that information. She suggested that she has more to give, and I would welcome a written response to see what more there is, especially if she has gone to the trouble of preparing it. In particular, I would like to hear more about the cross-departmental work that is planned. That is why I called for the Cabinet Office to be the answering Department in this debate. As much as I respect and work with DEFRA Ministers, this is a cross-Government issue, and it is extremely important that it is led by the Cabinet Office. I was also looking forward to the Minister talking about what immediate actions can be taken this summer, given that many measures that will take longer to deliver—in particular, increasing support for tackling wildfires and for A&E departments. If she has more to add on that, I would welcome it. I want to underline what two or three other Members said. I too hosted a screening of “National Emergency Briefing” in my constituency recently. It would be immensely powerful if the Government got behind a public information screening of that film. Alongside that, information could be provided about measures that people can take to adapt as best they can to the changes. We need systemic measures—it is not about what individuals can do—but giving people that information would help to raise the profile of this issue and give them the sense that we are working together. I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) made: if we are to get a grip of this problem, we must first stop making it far worse, which the granting of new licences for oil drilling in Rosebank and Jackdaw would do. Rosebank would produce emissions equivalent to 28 low-income countries; we cannot possibly justify that if we are to get to grips with the scale of the problem. It was reassuring to hear that Members from across the House are concerned about the degree of warming that is already happening. We need to tackle that to protect people—especially the most vulnerable, who are affected the most. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the range of actions that the Government have planned. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
My time as Chief Whip may have been a little shorter than that of the Leader of the House, but I would gently remind him that it is highly unusual for an Opposition day to be pulled in this way. Sadly, the crisis is in this place. We are on the cusp of a new Prime Minister coming into office; the general public expect to know his plans, and they expect us in this place to have the opportunity to scrutinise those plans. I urge the Leader of the House to go to the man who we expect to become Prime Minister this week, have a serious conversation with him, and ask him whether he will do the decent thing and come to this place.
Is the number of patients waiting for admission for an operation or procedure today higher or lower than when this Government took office?
Well, that was clearly no answer to my question, so let me give it: the Government’s own figures show that the number is higher. Additionally, in response to concerns that I have raised, the Office for Statistics Regulation confirmed that the published figures do not clearly distinguish between patients who are treated and those who are removed from waiting lists without treatment. With consultants now taking strike action and the situation potentially getting worse, how can the Secretary of State prove that patients are actually being seen faster, rather than that statistics are being massaged?
One of the best ways to improve the health of neurodiverse young people is high-quality attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism assessments. The Government are proposing to cut substantially the amount paid to providers. Will the Health Secretary speak to providers in this area, because this cut could have significant implications for the standard and quality of autism and ADHD assessments?
The Leader of the House had nothing to do with this decision on the business. He knows that, even at the height of Brexit, once an Opposition day debate was agreed, it was agreed. My constituents want to know what the new Prime Minister will do on defence, for small businesses, and on energy, and the decision to not allow the House the opportunity to question the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is thwarting that desire. Can I urge the Leader of the House to remind the new No. 10 that there will be a point during this summer when the new Prime Minister will wish he had sought consent from this House, and will totally regret the decision that has been made today?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now that the new Prime Minister’s special advisers have removed by diktat the opportunity for the Opposition to hold a debate about allowing him to be scrutinised on Monday, can you provide the House with clarity on what other routes might be available for us to hear from the new Prime Minister, from whom we will not otherwise hear for over 50 days?