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 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the centrality of broadband access. We are looking really carefully at digital exclusion, and we will make sure that this transition does not leave his constituents behind. I am looking to work with him to make sure that we get this right.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we should demand the highest standards from Members across this House and people in public life. I share his absolute horror at the way that the deputy chairman of the Conservative party responded.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Leveson inquiry. I can tell the House that I met the families of the victims of press intrusion very recently. We have always acted with care in this space to ensure that we protect a free and fair press, but he is right to say that action is needed to better protect people in this space, and this Government are determined to take that action. I share his serious concern about the way that young people consume news. That is partly what this Green Paper is intended to address, but it is also one of the key driving forces behind the social media ban that my colleague the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced recently. We have not done enough to protect young people online, and we need to do more.
I have been working with the publishing industry to make sure that we protect our trusted sources and do not allow higher-quality content to be undermined by AI summaries. It is a concern that we recognise and share, and we will bring forward proposals around that to the House. We have seen lots of very good-quality independent news providers spring up around the country, and it is great to hear about my hon. Friend’s local newspaper in Harlow, but there are too many local news deserts across our country. That is precisely what the local media strategy intends to address.
I am very happy to do so, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention the importance of local radio.
I was recently at the BBC in Cardiff. The importance of Welsh-language content is not lost on this Government, and I have discussed the matter with both the interim director general and the new director general. We have been very keen to impress on the BBC the importance of protecting a regional footprint across all our nations and regions—something pioneered by former director general Tim Davie. Through the charter review process, we are ambitious for more power and funding to be dispersed out of London, so that the BBC becomes the engine of the nations and regions, producing content that reflects all our nations and regions, not just some parts of the country.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am happy to give him that assurance. He will know that the Minister for Media is also a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and I am sure he will be working closely with his colleagues to make sure that we address those concerns.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue, which I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. She and I are determined to make sure that we properly regulate the online space so that we protect people from those sorts of fake, generated images.
As I said in previous answers, we have to manage this transition. We cannot just drift into an unmanaged transition, which is precisely why we have brought these proposals forward early, with genuinely open questions about the date of the transition. I reiterate what I have said to many hon. Members: we are absolutely determined to get on the front foot and make sure that nobody is left behind.
One of the things we are trying to do is protect the plurality and diversity of our media, and also make sure that people have better access to high-quality sources not just of news but of content as well. That includes things such as children’s programming, which are really important. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that we have lived through a revolution in media and media consumption, and we just have not been quick enough to respond. That is partly what this TV Green Paper is designed to address.
I also represent a largely rural constituency, and I absolutely recognise the challenges that the hon. Gentleman talks about in relation not just to broadband but mobile signals. I cannot get reception in my own house, to be honest. There is a real challenge, which is precisely why we have brought forward these proposals now, with a genuinely open question about 2034 or 2044, so that we can work with industry to ensure that his constituents are not left behind.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there are particular challenges in certain parts of the country, and Northern Ireland is very firmly at the forefront of not just my mind but the mind of the Minister for Media as well. I would be more than happy to discuss it further with him, but we will work together to make sure that nobody is left behind.
I wonder if the Secretary of State agrees that for far too long farming has been undervalued because we have focused only on what goes out of the farm gate. We should focus more on the holistic contribution of farming—that is when we get good policy and can take our success forward for farmers.
Q2. Max Hall is 14 years old. He should be worrying about school, football, friends and what he wants to be when he grows up. Instead, he is living with a high-grade brain tumour and there is no cure available to him. His parents, Jackie and Steven, want to know why children being diagnosed with brain tumours are still being told that there are no treatment options available. Why does brain tumour research remain so underfunded, when brain tumours kill more children than adults under 40 than any other cancer? Why are families like them left to search for hope themselves? This Prime Minister has done so much to strengthen our NHS, so does he agree that we need to move at pace and do much more to offer hope to Max and his family, and families like his who are facing this unequally devastating disease?
I was born in Nottingham City hospital, and while the Ockenden report was necessarily bounded by the last 13 years, I think it is important to record that women and children were avoidably harmed and avoidably died in those settings many years before, and the pain is not diminished by the passing of time. As I have listened to these exchanges, I have had at the forefront of my mind those friends and people I grew up with who, many years later, found themselves close to death in circumstances that could have been avoided. As my right hon. Friend said in his compassionate and thoughtful statement, the description of what happened in Nottingham will be all too familiar to families well beyond that city. He will know that Sandwell and West Birmingham hospitals NHS trust is one of the trusts that are subject to particular attention as part of the national investigation. What assurance can he give people in cities such as Birmingham that this time, after these reports and their recommendations, things will change and NHS senior management will be held to account?
About 90% of the reserves in the North sea have already been extracted. Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the analysis of how expensive it is to reach the rest of the reserves? One reason they are still there is that it is far more expensive to extract them. Has he seen whether there is an economic case for doing so?
Something that has been missing from this debate is the opportunity we have to be the leading exponents of offshore wind, including floating offshore wind, hybrid assets and energy connection. When I was a climate Minister, I held the international energy brief, and whether it was from talking to Azerbaijan about what it can do in the Caspian sea, to countries on the Black sea, to countries on the Baltic sea or to the governors of states on the west coast of America, I saw that everyone is interested in what we are doing and that there is huge potential. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Does the hon. Lady agree that we will never persuade other countries to take action to reduce their carbon emissions unless we show global leadership? Will she join me in congratulating the Prime Minister, who went to COP29 in Baku, announced an ambitious nationally determined contribution of reducing emissions by 81% by 2035? That was real climate leadership. Having been at that COP, I know that there was such disappointment among other countries about the fact that the previous Government had stepped away from showing that kind of leadership.
I beg to move, That the draft Carbon Budget Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 2 June, be approved.
This week has been like no other. At this very moment, people across our country are experiencing another reminder of the world we now live in. If anyone in this Chamber still thinks that climate change is a problem for tomorrow, they should step outside today. Parents will struggle to get their children to sleep through sweltering nights. Farmers will look anxiously at weather forecasts and cloudless skies. Hospitals, schools and care homes will prepare for temperatures that would have seemed extraordinary in Britain just a few decades ago. Parts of our country are facing temperatures of up to 38° this week, while experts warn that 40° days may arrive far sooner than anyone expected. Today’s debate is not taking place against the backdrop of climate change; it is taking place in the middle of it, and I cannot make it clearer to the House that this is not normal. A Met Office extreme heat warning is in place for parts of the UK today and tomorrow. In fact, it has just confirmed that today is the hottest June day ever. In recent months the crisis in the middle east has felt like a ghost from the recent past. Once again, the world has found itself staring at a major fossil fuel-producing region and wondering what happens next. Once again, energy markets have been holding their breath. Once again, families, businesses and Governments have been reminded just how fragile the system can be. This is, of course, the second fossil fuel shock in barely half a decade. It is only four years since Putin’s tanks rolled into Ukraine and sent shockwaves through the global economy, four years since family budgets were shredded by soaring energy bills, and four years since Britain was reminded that when our energy system depends on volatile fossil fuel markets, a crisis on the other side of the world can land on our doorstep in a matter of days. When faced with challenges of this scale, there is always a temptation to focus on the immediate crisis, to become consumed by the pressures of the day, and to postpone difficult decisions for another Parliament, another Government or another generation.
I will make some progress. Postponing difficult decisions has never been how our country has met its greatest challenges. We have always been strongest when we have looked beyond the immediate horizon, recognised the risks ahead and taken practical steps to prepare for them. That is what the carbon budget framework represents: a science-led budget to reduce emissions by around 87% between 2038 and 2042 compared with 1990 levels, including in international aviation and shipping. The framework is in line with the advice from the independent Climate Change Committee and is endorsed by the Environmental Audit Committee, which I thank for its rigorous scrutiny, including in the evidence session that it held with me last week. Alongside the carbon budget framework, the regulations before the House today will formally include the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions in carbon budgets from carbon budget 6 onwards, while the Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026 will ensure that carbon budget 5 is met through domestic action, allowing the UK economy to capture the full benefits of the transition.
I will keep going. In determining the level of the seventh carbon budget, we assessed different pathways for Britain’s future. What the analysis showed was remarkably clear: whether viewed through the lens of economic growth, national security, public health or long-term prosperity, the benefits of continuing on Britain’s path to net zero significantly outweigh the benefits of abandoning it. Let me explain why. The first reason is business uncertainty. This framework provides something every successful economy depends on and every serious business asks for: certainty. Investment flows not to the country with the lowest costs or the biggest market, but to the country with a plan. It flows to the country where business investors and entrepreneurs can look 10, 15 or 20 years into the future and have confidence about the direction of travel. Yesterday, in a career highlight, I was proud to open the London stock exchange to mark London Climate Action Week. It also celebrates a remarkable finding in new analysis by the London stock exchange, which is that the global green economy is now worth more than $10 trillion. Its analysis has found that green revenues grew by 5.3% in 2025, despite energy shocks, market volatility and geopolitical tensions. Here in the UK, I am proud to announce that this Government have officially secured £100 billion of private investment in clean energy since taking office. The message from investors could not be clearer: the race is on. Capital is flowing towards the countries that are building, planning and backing the industries of the future, and that is one of the great strengths of the Climate Change Act and the carbon budget framework. For almost two decades, that has provided a stable and predictable signal about where Britain is heading, giving businesses the confidence to invest, innovate and grow.
I will keep going for a bit if that is okay. This is a market solution to a generational challenge, providing certainty about the destination while allowing competition, innovation and enterprise to determine the journey, and the results can be seen across the country. On the day we laid this order before Parliament, new analysis showed that Britain’s net zero economy now supports more than 1 million jobs and generated £105 billion for the UK economy alone. We see that opportunity in carbon capture projects in Teesside, in new nuclear at Sizewell C in Suffolk, and in companies across the country building the technologies, supply chains and industries that will power the next chapter of British economic growth. Indeed, as more than 75,000 people have descended on London for London Climate Action Week this week—taking part in over 1,300 events and helping to broker deals, partnerships and investments that will shape the global economy for years to come—they are doing so in a city that has established itself as the sustainable finance capital of the world. That is why support for this framework extends far beyond Government. The British Chambers of Commerce says these plans provide “greater certainty for…firms”. The CBI describes the green economy as “a powerhouse of job creation and economic expansion”. E.ON says that “the prize is bigger than emissions alone.” Business leaders, manufacturers and investors are all making the same argument. In a world competing for capital, talent and innovation, long-term certainty is not a burden on growth; it is one of the foundations of it. Secondly, if the economic case for action is increasingly clear, so is the security case. Climate change has become a central concern not just for scientists and policy makers, but for our country’s military leaders, intelligence chiefs and security experts. On the agenda for the Munich security conference, climate change sits alongside geopolitical conflict and nuclear proliferation as one of the defining risks of our age. That assessment is increasingly shared across Britain’s own security establishment. Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston has said it “threatens global resilience and our shared security and prosperity.” Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, has said it is clear that climate change is the “greatest threat” we face. Lieutenant General Nugee has said: “Climate change is not an abstract environmental issue. It is now a core national security risk.” These are not campaigners or commentators; they have served their country and are people who have spent their careers identifying risks before they become crises and preparing our country for threats before they arrive. Climate change is often discussed as an environmental challenge, yet it is increasingly showing up elsewhere in conversations about food security, energy security, national resilience and the basic responsibility of Government to protect their citizens from foreseeable risks. The framework before the House is not just about reducing emissions; it is part of the long-term work of making Britain safer, stronger and less vulnerable in a more uncertain world. Thirdly and finally, we should see this transition for what it really is: one of the greatest upgrade projects in our country’s history. Too often, debates about climate change become trapped in the language of targets, regulations and emissions, but when future generations look back on this period, they are unlikely to remember the technical details of carbon budgets or policy frameworks. What they will remember is that this was the moment Britain began upgrading the system that underpins modern life. Every generation has had its national upgrade. Previous generations built the railways that connected our country, electrified our towns and cities, brought clean water into people’s homes, connected millions of households to the gas grid and transformed the way people travelled, worked and lived. Our generation’s task is no different. We are upgrading an energy system that leaves us exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets and replacing it with one powered increasingly by clean electricity generated here at home. We are upgrading homes and technology that allow families to generate, store and manage their own energy. We are upgrading transport, upgrading industry and upgrading infrastructure that in many cases was designed for a different century and a different economy. That is not a marginal adjustment to the economy we have today; it is a fundamental upgrade to how Britain powers itself, and the prize is enormous. Our analysis shows that clean power and electrification could save families and businesses £445 billion in fossil fuel spending over the next 25 years. Cleaner air could mean up to 8,000 fewer hospital admissions every year by 2050 and around £80 billion in health benefits, while action to restore nature could deliver a further £50 billion-worth of benefits.
No, I will make some progress. Those benefits include greater protection from flooding, cleaner rivers and greater biodiversity. But this is not simply about what we avoid; it is about what we build. Across the world, more than $2 trillion is now invested in clean energy every year—roughly twice the amount invested in fossil fuels. It is where global capital is flowing, where industries are being built and where future economic advantage will increasingly be won. I make no apology for Britain competing for that opportunity. I do not want our country watching from the sidelines while others capture the jobs, industries and investment of the future. I want Britain helping to shape that future and benefiting from it. Let me finish by saying this. Long before I entered this House and long before I became a Minister, I was one of the many people involved in the wider effort that helped to build support for the Climate Change Act, which is one of the most significant and widely supported pieces of cross-party legislation this country has ever passed.
Let me just finish. Back then, it often felt like a cause that sat at the margins of politics, rather than at its centre. Progress felt slow; success felt uncertain. If someone had told me that one day I would stand at this Dispatch Box I might have struggled to believe it, but what that journey reminds me of is that real change is rarely the work of one person, one Government or one political party. It happens because people keep building year after year, Government after Government, Parliament after Parliament. Eighteen years ago, this House came together to pass the world’s first climate change Act. Seven years ago, it came together again to make Britain the first major economy to legislate on net zero emissions. Different Prime Ministers, different Governments and different political traditions have all helped to write that story.
I will just finish. History has many authors. As a result of that shared effort, Britain was the first major economy to cut emissions by more than half, while growing its economy by more than 85% between 1990 and 2025. We have helped to inspire around 60 countries to adopt similar legislation and we have shown it is possible to combine climate action with economic growth, energy security and national prosperity. At its best, this House has always been capable of looking beyond the pressures of the moment and acting in the interests of future generations. I believe this is one of those moments, so whatever our differences on the detail I hope we can recognise what this debate is really about: the kind of country we leave behind and whether we upgrade it while we have the chance. That is a legacy worth building together. I commend these orders and regulations to the House.
The temperature has certainly gone up outside, and at times it has gone up a little in here. This has been a very passionate debate, which I really welcome. I will probably not have time to go through all of the points that were raised, but I am happy to meet anybody to discuss them. Constructive engagement is really helpful on this issue. I think most of our constituents want us to tackle climate change and bring bills down, and this is an opportunity for us to work together. I will reply initially to the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). As she knows, this issue is about setting the trajectory towards 2050. It is not about 2050; it is about the budget. I listened really carefully and she makes some valid points, but I was a little confused at times. She challenged us on not having enough scrutiny, but this is the first time that we have had proper scrutiny of this budget. Under the previous Government, you never once voted on the carbon budget on the Floor of the House. You discredited, or you tried to discredit, the Committee on Climate Change—
The right hon. Lady used the Committee on Climate Change to discredit some of the figures and questioned food bills, but she knows that bills have already gone up by £361 as a result of food inflation. She talked about planning and referred to China’s innovation, but I would say that its planning system is a little bit more forthright than ours. The thing I was most unsure about was this: if the right hon. Lady is so clear, why did she not do that when she was in office and she was in my place? Actually, she did take this through when she was in charge. It is only in Opposition that she has changed her position entirely. I am from Yorkshire and we say things fairly directly. My advice has always been that we want to save carbon and make cash. I think that is a fairly blunt way of saying that this is about growth in the economy. I pay tribute to and thank my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). I would also like to thank the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Horsham (John Milne), my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Steve Race) and for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and the hon. Members for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). I understand that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness drives a Tesla, but his party wants to scrap the electric car grant. I understand that he put solar panels on properties owned by his former company, but Reform councillors are cancelling solar projects on public buildings. I understand that his former company invested in EV chargers and solar power, but Reform says Britain should slow down the green energy transition. I understand that he says he backs business, but he threatens to rip up green investment deals and send investors running for the exits. Some 91% of properties in the Boston and Skegness constituency face some level of flood risk. He talks about adapting to climate change, but he will not tackle what is causing it. I ask the hon. Members who have questioned the motions today: what is the alternative? I am very happy to have those conversations. Should we tell black cab drivers to give up their electric taxis and go back to paying more at the pump? Should we look constituents in flood-risk communities in the eye and tell them, “Sorry, we’re not going to tackle the causes of this?” Should I tell the gentleman I met in Makerfield, whose solar panels have helped to reduce his energy debt by £800, that he was better off without them? Should I tell the investors at the London Stock Exchange that Britain is not interested in its share of a $10 trillion global green economy? Let us be clear: that is the choice. In the middle of an unprecedented heatwave, perhaps we should all try to take the temperature down. This should not be a partisan issue. At its heart, carbon budget 7 is a pro-business, pro-investment framework. Let us choose resilience over risk, let us choose investment over stagnation, and let us choose the opportunities of the future over the comforts of the status quo. I hope that I have provided the reassurance that Members require. I urge colleagues across the House to support the orders and regulations before us today. I commend them to the House. Question put.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to be moderate and not twirl. The net zero transition is now a fundamental part of our economy, generating about £105 billion in value and, as we have heard, employing over 1 million people. Importantly, it is not focused in one part of the country, but spread all across the UK. Growth in the sector is expanding, with 400,000 jobs expected to be created by 2030. Given that productivity in the net zero sector is one and a half times the average for the UK, the potential is there for all to see. As we head towards the future, we need to have in mind the protection of existing jobs. The order sets the carbon budget for 12 years’ time, but there is an area where I think the Government are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good: the zero emission vehicle mandate. This country has a long history of building cars that should rightly be regarded as some of the best in the world. We have a strong manufacturing base for electric vehicles—including at the Vauxhall Motors plant in Ellesmere Port, which has embraced the transition to net zero by becoming an all-electric plant—but the market demand for electric vehicles has not developed as quickly as anticipated. As of May, the market share for electric vehicles was only 26%, which is a long way short of the 33% required this year in the ZEV mandate. The Climate Change Committee predicted that the market share for new electric vehicles would reach 55% by next year. Market share is going to need to double within a year for that prediction to come true, which is simply not going to happen. Its prediction that the proportion of electric cars and vans will reach around 95% of new sales by 2030 is not born out by experience to date, and needs revising down in light of the evidence.
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because there are a whole range of factors, which I will come to, in why people are not purchasing the vehicles. The industry is still keen to have a clear signal on where we are heading, but the speed and steepness of the incline is too much for it to bear. We cannot ignore the fact that the figure of 26% relies heavily on subsidies from Government, which are pushing sales to about twice their natural level. I am afraid that there is deep concern among manufacturers about that. To fill the gap between demand and what domestic manufacturers are producing, the industry is already having to buy credits, in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which is clearly not sustainable. Meanwhile, importing manufacturers, including from China, can exceed ZEV thresholds here and sell their unused credits on to domestic manufacturers. That means that foreign manufacturers of EVs from China are not only taking ever-increasing shares of the market but profiting from exceeding ZEV thresholds. To be clear, this is not an argument about having no ZEV mandate. It is important that we tackle the climate crisis and put an end to internal combustion engines, but what bigger fillip could there be to the climate sceptics than UK factories closing down because of a rigid approach to net zero—an approach that sees millions of pounds go to overseas competitors whose manufacturing is often far more carbon intensive than ours? The ZEV mandate must be adapted to take account of the real-world market conditions, and the escalator must be changed to reflect them. It is clear that for many consumers, even with generous discounts, the cost of a new EV is out of reach. We need to be aware of limitations caused by cost, range anxiety and charging infrastructure. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) that we can do more in that area. As a number of Members have said in this debate, we need to take people with us; we are clearly not bringing them to where we need them to be in order to hit the target. I welcome the Chancellor saying that the review of the mandate will be brought forward to this year, but that needs to start now, and we need to get the right answers within a few months. On the subject of well-meaning policies that could actually be counterproductive, I raise a red flag about the proposed introduction of the deposit return scheme, scheduled for later next year. Most households already recycle their materials through kerbside collections. The participation rates for kerbside recycling are high: it works and it provides a revenue stream to councils. If we are changing that, the public will undoubtedly ask what problem we are trying to fix. The practical reality of the scheme for many people will be a minor inconvenience that they are happy to participate in, but for parents, carers, disabled people, elderly residents and those without easy access to large supermarkets, it could be a significant nuisance. People with complex lives will simply not do it at all. Once again, there is a well-meaning policy here that risks alienating people and damaging our road to net zero, which, on this side of the House at least, we all want to get to.
I pay tribute and give my admiration to the families who have fought so hard and who have been so strong at this time in their lives, when they have had to repeat what they have been through over and over again. Their fight for justice and accountability is truly fought. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who has not stopped this fight and has continued the story, and I commend her for everything that she has done. The findings of the Donna Ockenden review are harrowing. It is indefensible that babies, mothers, fathers and families in my constituency have suffered injury, death and lasting trauma under the care of the NHS. The Ockenden review has made it clear that mothers’ voices were not listened to and that families were not treated with the dignity, respect and compassion that they not only deserve but is expected from our NHS. The indifference that people have shown to families is indefensible. The public listening to the debate at home will understandably be wondering how we are here again and asking when things will change. I say to the Secretary of State: let us not treat these recommendations as just another set of recommendations to put on the shelf, but let us look at them as a catalyst for change and improvement, making sure that inequalities are addressed. Will the Secretary of State outline what immediate steps the Government will be taking on the most urgent recommendations in the review, and set out how they will be monitored and reviewed?
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing the debate. I have been applying for a debate on this subject for many months, so it is great that we are having one. I warmly welcome the new farming Minister to his place, too. I recently had a catch-up with farmers in Cannock Chase and heard about various challenges that they are facing. We are living in highly uncertain times. The new series of “Clarkson’s Farm” is shining a light on how financially tough farming can be, but also on the many ways that technology can improve that picture environmentally and financially. The Government’s investment of £123 million to help farmers boost their productivity is therefore very welcome. I am also very pleased that the farming road map is now out. As chair of the APPG on UK food security, I was particularly pleased to see the restated commitment to maintaining our food production at at least current levels. I am also keen on making sure that supply chains are fair for our farmers—something that we often could not have said in recent years. Over the last couple of weeks, the EFRA Committee has had the privilege of visiting New Zealand, where I was struck by the prevalence and power of agricultural co-operatives and the power that they give Kiwi farmers. I would love to see more of that here, because it would go a long way to redressing the imbalance that we all too often see in our supply chains here in Britain. I look forward to working with the Minister on that and many other issues that colleagues have raised, but in the interests of time I will leave it there.
The road map is a very welcome step forward that will give our farmers certainty for the future. I particularly welcome what the Secretary of State had to say on co-operatives, which could go a long way to redressing the current power imbalance in our food system. I hope we can begin that work at pace. We hear consistently from farmers that they feel that the planning system—made so much worse by the Conservatives—is stacked against them. Broiler chicken farmers, for instance, are expected to lower stocking densities but cannot get permission to expand their sheds to compensate, while farms in water-stressed areas are having to go through years of bureaucracy to build reservoirs. Does the Secretary of State agree that reforming the planning system will be key to freeing up trapped investment and getting us to the sustainable, prosperous future for British farming that this road map sets out?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 May. This statutory instrument is the first of three pieces of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement, or LLE, which establishes a new system of tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules that begin on or after 1 January 2027. The LLE is a major reform to student finance, creating a single flexible funding system for levels 4 to 6 across further and higher education. It will support people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives, and will deliver one of the core commitments in our post-16 education and skills White Paper, underpinning the growth and skills missions. The concept of a lifelong learning entitlement stems from the recommendations made by Sir Philip Augar’s independent panel to the post-18 education and funding review back in 2019. Primary legislation enacted in 2022 and 2023 by the previous Government established the framework, and these regulations are the next step in delivering it—this is a true cross-party effort. The regulations set out how tuition fee limits will apply under the LLE. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider can charge per year if it is subject to a fee cap. Currently, that limit is £9,790 for standard full-time courses. Those fixed annual fee limits suit traditional degrees, regardless of the volume of study undertaken, but do not work for shorter courses or modules. The regulations introduce a credit-based system to change that. Credits are a widely recognised measure of learning, with one credit typically equivalent to around 10 hours of learning. To illustrate that, the standard fee limit for a typical higher education course in the 2026-27 academic year is £9,790, and a full year of study usually comprises 120 credits. Dividing £9,790 by 120 produces a per-credit fee limit of around £82. The regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course. That does not change overall fee caps—most students will not see any difference in what they pay—but applies them more fairly across full courses and shorter study, linking fees to learning volume. Subject to Parliament’s approval of the regulations, we intend to lay two further instruments needed to establish the LLE. Those instruments, on student support and repayments, have been published in draft to give the House full visibility and to help the sector prepare. Both will be subject to the negative procedure. As they depend on the regulations before the Committee, they will be made only if these regulations are approved. The regulations mark an important step in delivering the LLE and transforming our skills system. They put in place the new approach to applying fee limits, which is needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance that better serves young people and adult learners. That will allow people to study in ways that fit around their lives, support providers to respond to evolving skills needs, and help individuals across the country to access the education and training that they need to succeed.
I thank Committee members for their contributions to the debate. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can. The first set of questions came from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Windsor, about face-to-face teaching. The system allows for credit funding flexibility, which is down to providers, but I recognise the importance of face-to-face teaching. That is one of the reasons why, earlier this week, my noble Friend the Minister for Skills set out the intention to link the outcomes of the teaching excellence framework scores to future access to fee increases. That is why, over different Governments, we have built a system that allows competition so that students can pick and select from a range of providers and, in essence, shop around for the best option. Greater visibility of the quality is important, and that should come from the teaching excellence framework. A number of Members asked about the various impacts of the changes. Impact assessments have been published as part of this process. I will ask for copies of them to be sent to Members in the coming days. I hope that they will answer a number of questions. The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and I have had several exchanges about student finance and student funding. I have a great deal of affection for the Liberal Democrats, but it is a system that was partly designed by them in office. His Majesty’s Opposition had affection for the Liberal Democrats at a certain point in time as well, so perhaps that is something that we can share. The changes described are cultural for the country, affecting how adult learners look to access lifelong learning and do courses that will be shorter or compressed. The regulations allow for that. I think they will take some time to bed in, so it seems reasonable to give a five-year time horizon, but of course there will be a great deal of scrutiny from Parliament and elsewhere on their implementation. I am happy to come back to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire on foundation degree fees and our plans for them. The question on credit fee amounts was very detailed, and I thank him for his scrutiny of the rounding convention that we are using—there may well be a future dormant asset fund to be raided by a Government in 20 or 30 years’ time as a result of it. Again, I will write to him about why we are using a different figure from the one that he mentioned. Finally, the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, was heavily involved in the inception of this measure and the review that led to its recommendation. Again, I am happy to share the Department’s assessments of behavioural impacts. The Committee will know that this SI is a critical step towards delivering the lifelong learning entitlement. It will bring further and higher education closer together and support the growth of more flexible modular study. It sets tuition fee limits for LLE-funded courses and modules, marking a transformation of our higher and further education systems that will start this January. The changes aim not to overhaul the entire system but to tackle a key weakness in the current model, which is too rigid and focused on the traditional three-year degree, limiting opportunities for adults to retrain or upskill across their working lives. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate and on his advocacy for Bramhall high school. As a former teacher myself, who spent years standing in front of young people in Oldham and in Stockport, I know from first-hand experience that spaces around lessons really do matter—the classroom environment speaks to children before any lesson begins. That is why tackling our crumbling school estate is imperative: to show children that their education matters and their future matters. Now, as a Minister in the Department for Education, I am proud that we are calling time on RAAC and rebuilding Bramhall high school, so that children and staff have the high-quality classrooms they deserve. This Government are doing things differently to fix the failures of the past. We published a 10-year infrastructure strategy, which—coupled with long-term capital budgets, the modern industrial strategy and a commitment to investing in skills and training—presents a lifetime of opportunities. Investing in infrastructure will drive growth and raise living standards in every part of the UK. Infrastructure will support our modern industrial strategy, and it will improve public services by taking a long-term approach to improving the fabric of our country. That, of course, includes our schools and colleges. We are maintaining public investment at the highest sustained level in four decades, supported by an increase in departmental capital spending of over £120 billion over this Parliament, compared with previous plans. This was only made possible by the decisions this Government have taken about the fiscal rules, which have supported a necessary step change in investment. We will increase and prioritise investment where it is most needed through maintenance, renewal and rebuilding programmes, and that is what we are doing for our schools. That is why we increased overall capital investment in education to £38 billion up to 2029-30—the highest level since 2010, when Labour was last in government. With over 22,000 schools and colleges in England, the education estate supports 10 million children, but we inherited from the previous Government the RAAC crisis and years of decline in the school estate. After years of under-investment, too many children are learning in buildings that have deteriorated and are in need of repair. For too long, schools have had to patch and mend buildings that have already deteriorated beyond repair, instead of undergoing the rebuilds they needed at an earlier point. We are turning the page on years of decline in the school estate, fixing a legacy of neglect and removing RAAC for good. At the core of our strategy is a shift to more proactive management, long-term maintenance, and more renewal of the existing estate. That comes alongside rebuilding more schools and making sure there are high-quality places from early years to post-16. Our 10-year plan for the school estate, which I published a few months ago, is backed by unprecedented long-term funding. By 2034-35, we will be investing almost £3 billion per year in capital maintenance to improve the condition of the school and college estate, rising from £2.4 billion in 2025-26. We are investing almost £20 billion through the school rebuilding programme. Over 500 schools are already in that programme, with well over half in delivery. Some 59 schools have already been rebuilt through the SRP, with 47 of those completed under this Government, and we will select a further 250 for the next stage of the SRP at the start of 2027. The renewal and retrofit programme, backed by £710 million to 2029-30, will improve the condition of schools that are coming towards the end of their life, but where deeper renewal and retrofit can extend that considerably. RAAC has been permanently removed from 80 schools and colleges, and we have set out a clear plan to finish the job. By 2029, every school and college in England that is not being fully or substantially rebuilt will be RAAC-free, and every school with RAAC that needs to be rebuilt through the SRP will be in delivery by that point. That includes Bramhall high school. As the hon. Member for Cheadle has set out, Bramhall high school has faced building challenges, with parts of the estate dating back to the 1960s and the presence of RAAC. However, what stands out is the positive and determined way in which the school community has responded to those challenges. It was a major operational challenge, but the school, Stockport council and the Department worked together to keep pupils learning safely and to minimise the disruption to pupils as much as possible. I recognise that achievement. Through excellent joint working between Stockport, the headteacher and the Department, all RAAC mitigations are in place. That means that pupils can once again use the spaces safely while we get on with the job of rebuilding the school. This is about not just resolving a building condition issue, but delivering a lasting legacy for pupils, staff, families and the wider Bramhall community. I am pleased to say that delivery is under way with real momentum behind it. Willmott Dixon is the appointed contractor, and it has worked closely with the school and the Department to design an ambitious new build. We expect to have spades in the ground later this year, but it is more than just a construction project. The rebuilding work will also provide valuable T-levels and placement opportunities and support apprenticeships, creating local jobs. A new modern three-storey building will give Bramhall high school the facilities it needs for the decades ahead. Every building apart from the maths block will be replaced. That building was built post-2000 and has solar panels on the roof and other modern features. Detailed surveys have been conducted, which show it is in good condition and does not warrant demolishing or rebuilding. We are working with the school to remodel the block to integrate it with the new buildings that will be created. In response to the hon. Member’s point, 90% of the school will be rebuilt. I understand that when there is a new school project like this—I have visited a number of them—the desire is to have the whole shebang and for the whole school to be completely rebuilt. In the context of a schools estate of 22,000 schools across the country, it is important that public funds are not used to replace buildings that are still well within their lifespan. I regularly look at lists of schools from the ’60s and ’70s that are not yet in any school rebuilding programme. They are well beyond their lifespan, and we are doing the job of clearing up that backlog. It does mean, however, that we need to prioritise investment in those buildings that absolutely do need to be replaced. Through the school rebuilding programme, Bramhall high school will benefit from 25 general classrooms and a full range of specialist teaching spaces. That includes 10 science laboratories, computing and ICT rooms, workshops, a drama studio and an art and design classroom. The plans include a dedicated area for pupils with special educational needs. Sports and leisure provision will also be improved with a new four-court sports hall, activity studio and changing facilities. That includes two multi-use games areas—one for school use and one intended for community use. This is a substantial and exciting investment into a school that is modern, energy-efficient and designed to support excellent teaching, learning and sport. The hon. Member mentioned the fixtures and fittings of the school. All fixed furniture, fixtures and equipment are provided in a school rebuilding project. That means that schools receive a huge amount of money for new furniture and equipment. For example, the school will get a new kitchen, all classrooms will be integrated with ICT equipment, drama will get the lighting rigs that it needs, and so on. However, we do not normally provide new standard loose furniture, such as tables and chairs, as schools should have an ongoing programme to replace them as they reach the end of their life. That is part of a school’s normal management of capital. I acknowledge the strong partnership that has driven progress so far. I thank the headteacher, Paul Williams, and his staff; the chair of the school’s governing body, Sarah Brown; Stockport council; and Willmott Dixon for the work they have done together alongside the Department’s programme management team. I reassure the hon. Member that this Government remain committed to delivering a safe, modern and high-quality school in Bramhall. Together we have moved from the challenge of RAAC and fear about the future of the school building to delivering one of the most exciting school rebuilding programmes in the country, which the people of Stockport and his constituents rightly deserve. More important than anything else is ensuring that pupils have the inspiring classroom facilities they need for the future. I am sure that there will be matters that he will continue to want to raise with me, and I will be glad to speak to him. This is a good example of the investment that we are making as a Government and as a country because of the choices we have made. Question put and agreed to.