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 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous. Of course there are zero-hours contracts that work for some people and not for others. For example, if it is the choice of the employee, then it is fair enough, but if someone’s work is cancelled when they are on their way in, that is not fair. The 2025 Act still allows people who are employed to say, “No, I do not want those average hours. I am happy to work on a zero-hours contract.” That optionality is still there.
It is still the case that there is that differential, is it not? There is still about a £2 difference between under-21s and over-21s, so it is not actually having the impact that the right hon. Gentleman suggests it should. If there is still that differential, why is there that problem at the moment, when employers are not paying national insurance contributions for under-21s either? Considering that the differential still exists, why does the problem exist?
That is the important thing. The summer savings scheme could be really useful. I think the onus is on all of us as Members of Parliament to get out and spread the message to businesses across our high streets that they should make the most of it so that we can see how well it works.
The Minister will recall that in evidence, Dr Rosie Benneyworth, interim chief executive officer of HSSIB, spoke about the vital work of the organisation, especially with regard to investigations where vulnerable staff and workers do not feel confident about coming forward for fear of reprisal. HSSIB did great work in that area, and I am wondering whether the CQC will carry it on and take on board that learning.
The right hon. Gentleman sits with me on the International Development Committee, so he will know as I do that, to date, the Committee has found that there is still no detail on how “poverty alleviation is prioritised and tracked” under the new model going from donor to investor. Does he agree that if poverty reduction is to remain a primary focus of ODA, we need to understand better how these things will be tracked?
My hon. Friend mentioned multilaterals. I wanted to put on the record my concern, shared by a number of IDC members, that it will be much harder for us to influence the multilaterals when most of our money is going there, rather than to bilateral aid. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we need to resource appropriately to achieve maximum leverage within the multilateral system?
I thank the shadow Justice Secretary for his opening remarks. This is a profoundly serious matter for all Members in this place, victims across the country—including those here in the Gallery—and indeed all members the public. Confidence in our law and order system must be maintained. We must all, therefore, recognise that we as a country face a challenge: to ensure public safety and protect victims while maintaining a functioning prison estate. I have no doubt that this is a priority for us all. To begin, it is imperative to recognise the genesis of the Sentencing Act 2026, its implementation and provisions and, ultimately, why we are debating these issues. On 5 July 2024, the Home Secretary, in her first day in office as the then Justice Secretary, was presented immediately with a criminal justice system in crisis. There were fewer than 100 places left in the adult male estate. A day one decision for her was the nature and scope of an emergency release scheme, not whether there should be one. We all remember the chaotic scenes that we saw in the weeks afterwards. There were similar scenes when such last-minute release schemes were implemented by the last Government: judges were told not to jail the most serious offenders due to a lack of prison places and criminals walked away, with a lack of time to provide the most robust community measures. The Conservative party released more than 10,000 prisoners early for a series of emergency measures taken to manage the capacity crisis they created. Those schemes were introduced at short notice, without the long-term reforms necessary to put the system on a sustainable footing, but there was no option but to act to prevent a collapse of the criminal justice system, which would have seen sex offenders and others able to act with impunity. A prison capacity crisis is not just a problem for our prisons; it means the unravelling of the criminal justice system completely, with courts unable to hear cases, police unable to make arrests and a grinding halt to law and order in our country. Therefore, in the aftermath, the Government rightly wanted to ensure that would never happen again. The Home Secretary—then the Justice Secretary—commissioned the right hon. Sir David Gauke to undertake an urgent review of how we sentence offenders. On its conclusion, Gauke found that under the previous Administration action was taken only when the criminal justice system was within three days away of collapse. We recognised then that a two-pronged approach was required. One part was to build more prisons, backed by capital investment. That is how we have been able to embark on the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 14,000 new prison places by 2031. Two years into this Government, 3,200 places have already been delivered—contrast that with just 500 extra places over 14 years under the Conservative party. In the 14 years of Conservative government, 23 prisons were closed. We would not be having this debate if those decisions had not been taken.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He has been consistent on this, although we do not agree on everything when it comes to criminal justice matters. The Government have looked at all options, including whether we can reopen those prisons closed by the last Conservative Government. I was struck by the shadow Justice Secretary’s welcoming of the suggestion that there should be new planning reforms around how we build prisons, because every time we try to build a new prison in a Conservative MP’s constituency, the Conservatives oppose it. It has happened time and again, with one thing being said at the Dispatch Box and their MPs arguing something completely different in their local media.
What we will not do is put our head in the sand, which would lead to another prison capacity crisis, which would lead to another urgent, chaotic early release scheme as we saw under the last Conservative Government time and again. I cannot look victims in the eye and tell them that is good for them or for the country, and I will not do so. That is why, when the Home Secretary was Justice Secretary—
Let me make some progress first. The Home Secretary recognised that alongside prison building, there would be a need to reform sentencing, and for that be done above party politics. That is the principal reason why she asked Sir David Gauke, a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to undertake an independent sentencing review.
Some Opposition Members still think he is a great man. I do not think that is a universal view on the Opposition Benches. Following publication of the review, the Sentencing Bill began its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent on 22 January this year. It was explained during its passage that many of its provisions would come into effect only in the autumn of this year. Any Government would continue to assess how best to achieve sustainability in our prison system, while ensuring public safety and confidence. Every decision that this Labour Government have taken has been based on keeping the public safe, protecting our criminal justice system and delivering justice for victims. That will continue to guide all future decisions, under this Prime Minister and the next Prime Minister.
I understand. I meet victims all the time in my role at the Ministry of Justice. Before being elected to Parliament, I represented many victims of child sexual abuse every day in courts up and down the country. I understand the issues that victims such as his constituent face. I impress on the hon. Member that the Sentencing Act and the provisions that we are debating today have not yet come into effect. I am happy to speak with him outside the Chamber about that individual case, but I just put that in the context of the Sentencing Act and the provisions implemented by this Government. I will deal briefly with the specific cohort of offenders cited in the motion. The grooming gang scandals remain one of the gravest betrayals of our time. We are determined to get to the truth behind years of systemic failure on the issue. I am sure that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have so bravely spoken out about their ordeal. As I have said, before entering Parliament I spent the best part of my career representing just some of them. I know personally just how difficult it is for them to speak out.
I am not sure which letters the right hon. Member is referring to, because none of the letters sent out by the Ministry of Justice has referred to people already being released. I understand the concerns that she raises. We take our engagement with victims incredibly seriously. The purpose of the letter is not merely for communication; it is also so that victims can have a say in licence conditions when offenders are released. Offenders are released as things stand. The Sentencing Act 2026 changes that for certain offenders, and there is a process in place by which probation ensures that the community is kept safe with robust licence measures. That will continue. We have improved the Probation Service’s powers. We are putting £700 million into the Probation Service, which is the biggest investment for a generation. I understand the right hon. Member’s concerns—I really do—but I gently suggest to her that criminals have been released from prison for a long time. There are measures in place, and we need to ensure that they are as robust as they can be.
Absolutely. The hon. Lady’s call for us all to reflect on that will be taken up. I know that the Justice Secretary and the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), who is sitting next to me, will have heard that. There will be further correspondence; it was not a blanket correspondence by any means. The Government and the Probation Service want to engage with victims as much as possible to ensure that their voices are heard every step of the way. I am grateful for the intervention.
As happened on numerous occasions under Boris Johnson and Theresa May, in Opposition day debates the Government are quite within their rights not to divide on an issue—an Opposition day is an Opposition day. This Government are dealing with the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. We are facing a situation where, if the Sentencing Act measures are not implemented, in October or November of this year we will be back where we were in July 2024. The Sentencing Act received Royal Assent in January and some of its measures are being implemented from September onwards. The Government will always balance making sure that we have a sustainable prison system and never going back to the crisis that we saw under the Conservatives with public safety and confidence in the system. That will continue under this Prime Minister and under the next Labour Prime Minister.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s kind words, personally, but I gently say that the Opposition party has no plan for how to deal with the prison crisis that its amendment would have brought about later this year—there is no plan; there is no suggestion; there is no idea of where they would put the criminals we are locking up every day. By the end of this Parliament there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before under a Labour Government. We are building more prisons than since the Victorian era. There is no plan from the Opposition. It is very easy and straightforward to bemoan the changes in the Sentencing Act, which received Royal Assent in January, but the Opposition have to come Parliament with a credible plan for capacity.
I will not give way another time. Once prisoners are released, offenders will be subject to strict licence conditions. We are adding tougher restrictions as part of the Probation Service’s toolkit for managing offenders when they leave prison. That includes restriction zones, which can be used for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, pinning the offender to certain areas rather than restricting the movements of victims. We are ramping up tagging to monitor offenders in the community, with thousands more subject to 24/7 monitoring and curfews. We are already tagging at record levels, and we will invest a further £100 million to expand our ability to monitor even more offenders. That is the biggest expansion of tagging in history. Also, while on licence, offenders can be recalled immediately if they cannot be safely managed in the community. To carry out all that additional supervision, we need a Probation Service that is fighting fit. That is why we are increasing probation—
I understand my hon. Friend’s intervention. Let us be clear that many of the offenders we are talking about have been released previously and would continue being released but for the Sentencing Act. This is about what measures we put in the community to ensure that the community is safe, and that is why we are investing more than ever before in our Probation Service and why we have recruited a further 1,300 probation officers this year. We are refocusing supervision to devote more time to dangerous offenders so that we can better protect the public. This is ultimately the choice: either strict licence conditions in the community for those who have already served time in prison under the changes; or, simply put, the collapse of the system altogether, leaving sex offenders and others to act with impunity. I understand how distressing it can be for victims when an offender in their case is released. That is why we are taking steps, as I have already touched upon, to contact those eligible for and opted into the victim contact scheme to let them know how these changes will affect them, but I recognise that this will not cover all victims affected. That is why, through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we will for the first time provide a new dedicated route for all victims to request information about an offender. We must ensure that we get this right, which is why it is taking some time to implement carefully, but this is proper engagement with victims rather than the chaotic botched emergency release schemes that we had under the previous Government.
Sentencing judges always consider dangerousness and risk to the public, as probation officers do. Every offender has a level of dangerousness, which is risk-assessed by probation as and when they leave prison. That has happened for the last 50 years and will continue to happen under the new Sentencing Act. I want to end again by reflecting on the horrific grooming gangs scandal, which lays heavily on our national conscience, and the women and girls, often young girls, who were systematically raped and exploited and then disbelieved by those who should have protected them. Those who prey on children must face the full force of the law, but in order to do that, we need a prison system with enough space. The previous Government left prisons on the verge of collapse. We prevented the disaster of running out of places altogether, and the breakdown of law and order it could have caused, but only just. Now we are ensuring that we never again return to that position, building prisons at an exceptional rate and delivering landmark reforms to sentencing to ensure that there is always a cell available for the most dangerous offenders and to end the cycle of capacity crisis.
I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy for the sector. She will know that I have Uttoxeter racecourse in my constituency. For over 60 years the horserace betting levy has helped courses such as ours, but some of that levy does not go to racecourses such as Uttoxeter in the same way that similar levies in European countries go to their racecourses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Horserace Betting Levy Board should look to give more support to courses such as ours?
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Kashmir. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As a British parliamentarian, I remain proud of my roots in Pakistan and Kashmir. I continue to be privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, which has support from across the political spectrum. It has worked across Parliament and engaged with Government Ministers around one simple principle: the inalienable human rights of Kashmiris must always come first. That is why this debate is extremely timely, as Members across the House continue to be extremely concerned about the seriously escalating tensions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Before I come on to that, let me put some points on the record very clearly. For over a decade, I have called out the persecution, oppression and injustice faced by Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Their calls for justice have too often gone unanswered. Their fundamental human rights have been violated. Their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied to them. For over a decade, I have called out and challenged the most repressive and draconian security legislation: the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This legislation continues to be used to give the Indian armed forces sweeping powers of detention and immunity to persecute journalists, human rights defenders, political activists and ordinary civilians. In August 2019, we all saw the right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and illegally revoke articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status. That was followed by mass detentions and unprecedented communications blackouts, severe restrictions on civil liberties and the further erosion of democratic rights. I led the campaign in this place, on every single forum, to call out the illegal actions of the Modi regime. I want to today reassure the sons and daughters of Kashmir who remain under oppression in Indian-occupied Kashmir that their voices will never be silenced. They will continue to be heard loudly and clearly in this place. I want to make another point for the record before I move on to the substantial part of the debate. There is no comparison between the long-term systematic human rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir and the current situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The scale, duration and nature of the repression in Indian-occupied Kashmir remains in a different category altogether. But that does not mean we should remain silent when serious concerns arise. That brings me to the deeply troubling and worrying situation we have witnessed in recent weeks in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Members from across the House have been contacted by deeply distressed constituents unable to reach loved ones because of the lockdown and communications blackout imposed on parts of Azad Kashmir, now well into its fourth week.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to his point shortly. For over 1 million British Kashmiris, more than 50,000 of whom demonstrated on the streets of London over the weekend, this is not a distant foreign policy issue. These are their parents, brothers and sisters—their families—and they have been worried sick, staring at silent phones waiting for a call that does not come and hoping that people they love are safe.
I will give way, but I ask hon. Members to be extremely brief in their interventions because I have a substantial contribution to make.
I will take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who may make a similar point.
I thank both my hon. Friends, and I absolutely agree with them. They will know that, as chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I co-ordinated a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for urgent diplomatic engagement to address those very issues and tabled an early-day motion that now has the combined support of over 70 parliamentarians across the House, so I am grateful to all my colleagues. We have met Ministers and convened emergency parliamentary meetings through the APPG because this House cannot simply look away. We have all seen deeply concerning reports of continued bloodshed, arbitrary arrests, restrictions on communication and a breakdown in dialogue with representatives of grassroots groups. More recently, we have seen reports suggesting restrictions on the movement of food and medical supplies into parts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Those reports are profoundly concerning. We have also seen reports that those seeking to act as peaceful arbitrators, including senior Pakistani politicians, have been prevented from entering Azad Kashmir. That cannot help to de-escalate the situation. Groups such as the Joint Awami Action Committee have for many months sought to pursue peaceful negotiations around long-standing civic governance and economic concerns. There was a commitment that those issues would be resolved through dialogue. Criminalising grassroots movements can never be a solution. Most of their reasonable demands were negotiated and met. There remain a number of outstanding issues, most importantly the 12 refugee seats. Of course, there will be strongly held views on all sides of that issue, but whatever view one takes, ordinary Kashmiris should not be made to pay the price for a failure to return to peaceful table talks. It is deeply unfortunate that the situation has deteriorated to this point. I say to the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and to the Joint Awami Action Committee, that the answer must be dialogue, restraint and peaceful negotiations. I welcome the efforts made in recent days by political figures and others who have called for an immediate return to negotiations. Those seeking to lower the temperature deserve the full support of this House.
I absolutely agree. While not all the reports have emerged in full because of the communications blackout, they continue to concern the whole House, as they should. My message to those who use inflammatory and divisive language is that they do not help anyone. Successive Pakistani high commissioners and Ministers have engaged constructively with the all-party parliamentary group in the past. I ask the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir what message they are sending on human rights to over a million British Kashmiris and the international community. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—he could not be with us today, but he is no doubt well represented—for regularly meeting me and the all-party parliamentary group. He has visited Pakistan and continues to monitor the situation and raise the matter directly. Today, we in this House make an appeal to our Government to send a direct appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Kashmir to ensure that this situation ends immediately. The lockdown and communications blackout must end. Any restrictions affecting the movement of food and medical supplies must end. Those acting as peaceful mediators must be allowed immediate access. Meaningful table talks with grassroots groups must resume immediately. At the heart of those negotiations must remain one principle above all others: respect for the human rights of Kashmiris. Our Government must play their role for the 1 million British Kashmiris impacted by this situation. They must continue to use every appropriate diplomatic channel to encourage restraint, de-escalation and dialogue. Ultimately, peace and dialogue must prevail. There is only one sustainable path forward: peaceful table talks. As chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I will continue to work constructively with all those prepared to pursue that objective. I will continue to stand up and be the voice for over 1 million British Kashmiris with family who continue to be directly affected by these events. We will continue to speak out whenever the human rights of Kashmiris are threatened, and I will continue to push for a peaceful resolution in which the voices, dignity and fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people are placed where they always should have been: at the very heart of any lasting settlement.
I thank all Members who have taken part in this very important debate. Our constituents will no doubt have listened to all the contributions. May I briefly address the age-old policy that this is a bilateral issue? Let us be absolutely clear in this Chamber that this is an international issue that stems from international law and the birthright of Kashmiris under international law. We in this place have a moral, historical and legal duty, and it is about time we developed the moral courage to execute that moral duty. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister who responded to the debate today, but also to the Minister for the Middle East and Pakistan. He has kept me regularly updated, has visited Pakistan during this period and has assured me that he continues to monitor the situation, relay the concerns of this House and make sure that we push and press towards a peaceful resolution. I will make this point to the Government again: over 70 parliamentarians now support the call of the all-party parliamentary group—I am grateful to them—and I hope the Government have heard that call clearly. We will not stop. We will continue that campaign, and more parliamentarians will join it. To go to the root of it, I again urge our Government to continue to use every diplomatic lever to press the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir to immediately end the lockdown; to immediately restore all communications; to immediately allow full access to food and, in particular, medical supplies; to allow access to mediators and human rights organisations; and finally, to immediately resume peaceful table talks, at the heart of which must remain the inalienable human rights of Kashmiris. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Kashmir.
I will make my intervention very quick, Mrs Harris. Unfortunately, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government have not opted to join the Report Fraud scheme. That means that my constituents do not benefit from it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they should make progress in joining it?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. The point she raises is apt, and what she describes is currently happening. I am sure she will share my concerns and welcome comments from the Minister about how we can mitigate the unintended consequences the Government have unfortunately brought about—particularly the big betting companies reducing their sponsorship in the horseracing sector as a result of the recent changes to the tax regime. That was not intended, but it is happening and the impact is being felt right now.
I appreciate that the Minister is standing in for the Minister for the Middle East, who is not in his place this afternoon. On bilateral working, the UK Government have settled positions on Somalia, Crimea and the conflict in Israel and Palestine, and we do not recognise northern Cyprus. There is a whole host of areas of disputed territory where we, as a Government, have taken a position and said what we believe the outcome should be. Why is this dispute any different? Why are the Government unable to say, “We believe that UN resolution 47, which we originally supported, should be in play”? Why do we have a different position on this from our position on all the other conflicts and disputed territories in the world?
T3. It was a pleasure to welcome the Minister for Energy to Bellshill for the opening of the new RES maintenance facility last week. RES’ partnership with Scottish Power will support 15 windfarm sites, ensuring clean power for more than 400,000 homes. Does my hon. Friend agree that partnerships like that are important for our energy security, and help to ensure that communities such as Bellshill benefit from skilled industrial jobs?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026. It is now an extra pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, as I am slightly less warm than I was a few moments ago. The regulations were laid before the House on 3 June. They are an important step towards enabling the deployment of Rolls-Royce small modular reactors in the UK, supporting our energy security, net zero and economic growth. They give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that the technology is justified under the UK’s regulatory framework for practices involving ionising radiation. The regulations do not give approval for the building, use or funding of small modular reactors, but set out that legally the Secretary of State’s decision was justified. That means that the technology’s benefits outweigh the potential risks to health from radiation exposure, allowing it to proceed towards deployment in the UK. The Secretary of State identified a range of benefits. The Rolls-Royce SMR has the potential to provide reliable low carbon electricity at scale, helping to power homes and meet growing demand, while supporting the transition to net zero. The technology is based on well understood pressurised water reactor technology and can contribute to a more secure home grown energy system, reducing reliance on imports. The development and deployment of the technology are also expected to create opportunities for UK jobs, manufacturing and supply chains. The benefits were weighed against the potential detriment. The evidence indicates that radiological health risks would be low, with well established regulatory arrangements in place to limit exposure. The assessment also found that the technology would not introduce new categories of radioactive waste and that waste can be managed through existing UK arrangements, including the future geological disposal programme for the most hazardous waste. Wider environmental impacts are considered manageable, with site-specific issues addressed through the UK’s planning and permitting regimes. This decision follows a thorough, evidence-based process informed by independent regulators, statutory consultees and a public consultation in 2025. There were 50 responses to that consultation. Most respondents agreed that this is a new class of practice and that there was sufficient evidence to assess the technology. All views were considered alongside regulators’ advice before the Secretary of State reached her decision. This is a generic, non-site-specific decision: it does not grant permission to build or operate a reactor anywhere in the United Kingdom. Any future project would be subject to the UK’s established independent regulatory processes involving environmental permitting, nuclear site licensing and planning consent. Those are separate decisions taken later on a site-specific basis. That ensures that issues such as safety, security, environmental protection and waste management are subject to detailed, independent assessment before any project can be brought. The regulations extend across the United Kingdom but do not require any part of the UK to host such a facility. They do not change devolved responsibilities: matters such as planning, environmental protections and waste management remain subject to the relevant devolved arrangements. In summary, the regulations give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that the benefits of Rolls-Royce SMRs outweigh their potential radiological health detriment. This statutory instrument is a necessary step within the UK’s regulatory framework to enable that potential. Together, the evidence supports a clear conclusion: this technology will support energy transition and net zero, and it will contribute to the UK economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
I thank the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for supporting the regulations. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley asked about delivery timelines; obviously, those are not determined through the justification process. Industry has set out indicative timelines for deployment, which are subject to a separate decision and sit outside the scope of this instrument. I note the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the matter and will make sure that it is passed on to the Department for Business and Trade, which is the responsible Department. I share his excitement about the high-skilled jobs that this can bring to the UK and how it can give wider socioeconomic benefits. I also share the positivity expressed by the Liberal Democrats. The evidence provides clear and consistent picture. The risks are low and this technology offers real benefit for energy security, net zero and jobs in supply chains in the UK. It is right that this practice should be justified under the UK’s regulatory framework. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
The heatwave last month saw the maximum all-time June temperature record in the UK set at 37.7°C, 2° higher than at any time since records began. Without human-induced climate change, the World Weather Attribution group of scientists has found that this 2026 European heatwave would have been virtually impossible. The climate emergency is real, and it is here. As we face these facts, this Government will continue to follow the science, to protect current and future generations.
My hon. Friend articulates the position incredibly well. This is an emergency, as I said. We have seen in the last few weeks the way it affects our transport system, our education system and, indeed, health. The figures on deaths from heat-related episodes are really chilling. The UK Health Security Agency estimated that there were 1,504 heat-associated deaths in England last summer, 1,311 in 2024, 2,295 in 2023 and 2,985 in 2022. That is why it is so important that we act.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that active cooling systems will be really important to manage overheating in buildings. That is why we announced that we will extend support under the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which offer both heating and cooling. These grants make £2,500 available for installation of those systems, and air-to-air heat pumps are also included in the VAT relief scheme for energy-saving materials, which are currently subject to 0% VAT. It is a very important issue for the future.
The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion before. This is a very, very important point: of course, we have to do more on adaptation, but the idea that we give up on tackling the climate crisis is grossly irresponsible. Why? Because the costs will become enormous and unmanageable. We have had this discussion at the Select Committee before. We have got to do both. He will see, as somebody who is concerned about our economy, that we simply cannot say, “We’re going to just let climate change run away to 3.5° or 4°,” as he was saying, which would have massive impacts on our population. We have to keep to the Paris agreement and adapt as well.
Well, that is obviously a matter for discussion across Government, but the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and I do agree with it. The May 2026 report of the Climate Change Committee is an incredibly important, landmark report. We know that adaptation has essentially been in the past a poor cousin when it comes to government, and it needs more priority; I absolutely agree with him about that. He is also right to talk about the emergency, because we often say, “This is hotter than it has ever been before,” but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) said, this is a cooler summer than we will have in the future—that is the reality that we face. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said on all these matters.
I support all efforts to make people aware of this emergency. Indeed, the state of climate and nature annual statement, which we pioneered last year, will be happening again in the next couple of weeks precisely to draw people’s attention to this issue. I suspect that the hon. Lady would agree that we have got to make people aware of the dangers and show that there is something that we can do about them. If we say to people, “It’s an emergency but there’s nothing that can be done,” people will be despairing, whereas if we say, “It is an emergency and we are acting, and we can act, and we can even act more than we are,” then we can show that something can be done.
Solar power is one of the cheapest sources of energy available to us. I am proud that we have consented nearly 6 GW of solar power since this Government came into office—around six times the amount that the previous Government consented. This year has seen record solar power, generating around 20 TWh of electricity and providing around 7% of the total electricity generated. If we want lower energy bills, new solar is an essential part of making that happen.