partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Samantha Niblett

   Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

   It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friends and constituency neighbours, <span id="65WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="65WH"></span>the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for securing this important debate. Full disclosure: back in the early noughties, in my early twenties, I went to work for a company selling wine and spirits. I did a Wine and Spirit Education Trust advanced qualification, but not long after, we merged with the Beer Cellar at Chesterfield, and I had the great pleasure of learning all about cask ales. My patch covered Nottingham city, Derby city, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and I would frequently work with incredible landlords running fantastic pubs on pulling together their beer festivals. It was always a highlight of the year. Whether it was the beer festivals or going to pitch guest ales each month, it was always a joy to see what new beer mat might be on the tables that month. So this plays deep to my core, and I am really grateful for this debate being secured, because it means a heck of a lot to the people of South Derbyshire as well. When I knew the debate was going to happen, I put a shout out to Facebook—because that is where the real communication happens in South Derbyshire—asking people their favourite ale and the best place to buy and drink it. They were not backwards in coming forwards. I will refer to some of the recommendations they made in a moment, but I want to give a particular shout out to Tollgate brewery, the current owners of which have celebrated having it for 10 years. They have The Milking Parlour, a lovely venue that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and I visited together in the summer. They have two ales that are well beloved in South Derbyshire: Ashby pale ale and Hackney blonde, which my hon. Friend and I are hoping to get into Strangers Bar. Having put that Facebook post out, I was invited to the Melbourne rugby club’s beer festival over the weekend, by a brilliant local parish councillor, Andy Dawson, who is co-chair of the club. There, I got to meet the master brewer of Leatherbritches, a very small brewery based at the Tap House in Smisby, whose formal name is Edward Allingham but who is known colloquially as “Mad Ed”. He was telling me all about the history of Leatherbritches and where the name comes from. I would encourage everybody to google “ale connors” to learn a trick or two about how we used to tax ales back in the day. Talking about Melbourne, it would be remiss of me not to give a huge shout out to The Spirit Vaults, which came up time and again, as a pub that brews some of its own beer on premise. The Reverend bitter came out loud and proud as a big favourite. Another small brewer that came out loud and proud was the 3Ps brewery at Woodville—3Ps standing for pits, pots and pipes, which speaks to our heritage in South Derbyshire. While national brands were mentioned and places to drink them, like Pedigree at The Freehold Tavern in Newhall, and having a pint of Timothy Taylor’s Landlord—one of my favourites, actually—at The Robin Hood in Overseal, or a pint of Theakston at The Wheel Inn in Ticknall, there was one ale in particular that came out time and time again as a favourite. I do not know whether it is because of our close proximity to Burton that it is so very special to the people of South Derbyshire, but that is Bass. On the best places to get a great pint of Bass, people were not quiet in coming forward. Whether it is The Miners Arms in Church <span id="66WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="66WH"></span>Gresley, the Swadlincote Constitutional Club, the Thorn Tree or The Crown Inn in Newhall, the Chequers Inn in Ticknall, The Bull’s Head in Rosliston, The Malt in Aston, The Harrington Arms in Thulston, The Coopers Arms in Weston, the Green Man in Willington, The Admiral Rodney in Hartshorne, The Brookfield in Barrow, The Hawk &amp; Buckle or The Spread Eagle in Etwall, or The Colvile Arms in Lullington, Bass came out overwhelmingly as the people’s choice in South Derbyshire. It was also very obvious to me that mainly men like to drink cask ale; they must work some magic because the average bladder can contain 400 ml, but the average pint of course is 568 ml, so I am not quite sure where they hide it. That is the one thing that prevents me drinking pint after pint of cask ale, I have to say. The important thing about cask ales and the pubs that serve them is the sense of community they help bring. The excitement of guest ales is a joy but the consistency of a good pint of Bass is one thing that seems to bring real joy to the people of South Derbyshire.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sam Carling

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   On the subject of fire safety, residents of Fletton Quays in my constituency were shocked recently to see nearly all internal fire doors fail an inspection; it turns out that <span id="263" class="column-number" data-column-number="263"></span>they had not been inspected for many years and had been allowed to fall into disrepair, and residents are now on the hook to replace them at high cost, as well as being subjected to dangerous conditions. Does the Minister agree that that is really not on, and would she ask officials to examine whether that might be happening in other blocks of flats around the country, meaning that it might merit Government intervention?

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sagal Abdi-Wali

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   I am still the council leader in Camden.

   Hansard source
4. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sadik Al-Hassan

   Draft Renewables Obligation and Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. These regulations put the British industrial competitiveness scheme into effect. Eligible manufacturers will be exempt from the indirect costs of the renewables obligation and the capacity market, with the Government saying that other consumers will not pay more. In my North Somerset constituency, we sit on the edge of the West of England aerospace and advanced manufacturing cluster. These firms and their supply chains compete globally against rivals with far lower energy costs. Cutting those costs protects skilled jobs here, so I support the regulations.

   Hansard source
5. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Richard Quigley

   Topical Questions

   With Israelis heading to the polls today, the world will be watching anxiously. Hard-line figures such as Ben-Gvir and Naftali Bennett are emerging as potential kingmakers in the next Government. Given that both have supported policies relating to settlement expansion and the transfer of Palestinians from Gaza, there is real concern that the next Israeli Administration could move even further away from compliance with international law. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the UK’s commitment to international law is upheld in their relationship with any future Israeli Government?

   Hansard source
6. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Richard Burgon

   Council Housing

   I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate; he is right. People in Leeds and across the country know there is a council house crisis and they support, I believe, Shelter’s campaign for the Government to make national council house building a mission, because building council houses not only provides homes; it is a bit like rent controls. An intervention in the private market can bring rents down because the private sector cannot solve the council house crisis and the housing crisis. Does my hon. Friend agree?

   Hansard source
7. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Richard Burgon

   Topical Questions

   As winter bites and the humanitarian situation worsens, will the Secretary of State commit to supplying food aid to Gaza, at least to last year’s levels? Will he use his welcome new sanctions regulations, laid earlier this month, to sanction those Israeli figures blocking aid from getting into Gaza?

   Hansard source
8. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rebecca Long Bailey

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   The Minister and the Secretary of State will both know that Salford has had a large number of buildings affected by the building safety crisis. That has meant years of worry about safety for residents, who have often faced eye-watering bills they cannot afford or been trapped in a home they cannot sell—all for a crisis that they did not cause. Before I move on with my contribution, I place on record my thanks to two key organisations and individuals. The first is Salford council. In the early days after the horrors of Grenfell, it was one of the first local authorities to act fast and think later in removing dangerous cladding from its council properties. It faced years of legal wranglings trying to recoup the costs from the developers, but it did the right thing and made sure that residents’ safety came first. Secondly, I place on record my special thanks to two special individuals: Darren Matthews and Mandy Sandhu. They were the first residents to come to me about the building safety crisis and a building called Transport House. They led an amazing campaign when they were faced with eye-watering bills of £97,000 each to pay for building safety remediation in their building. They secured the costs that they needed to carry out the remediations from the developers and the Building Safety Fund, and they acted as an inspiration to many other campaign organisations across Salford—and there were many. It is welcome to see the Government seeking to fill many of the apparent gaps in the Building Safety Act 2022. However, I will mention a few points that I hope the Minister and the Government will take forward as the Bill progresses through the House. First, on continued delays at the Building Safety Regulator, I know that the Government have introduced a plan to speed up applications, but in many cases it is not yet working. One building in Salford, Quebec Building, has faced significant delays. One resident there told me: “Our mortgage interest is now 8.9%. Our provider refuses us a new product until remediations are done. We cannot sell as ‘non qualifying leaseholders’ as the status carries on for new owners <span id="245" class="column-number" data-column-number="245"></span>which might mean liability for payment for some remediations. I am 65 years old and wanting to enjoy retirement and my husband has uncurable cancer and the stress is not helping. We just cannot sustain all this.” I implore the Minister and the Government to review, as a priority, what the blockages are at the Building Safety Regulator and ensure that it is properly staffed and resourced to tackle the backlog. Secondly, Salford has had huge issues with non-cladding-related fire safety defects, from non-compliant wooden balconies all the way through to insufficient internal fire doors. Residents have been left wrangling with developers in a David and Goliath-style legal battle, with the cost of temporary fire safety provisions ramping up service charges year on year and huge insurance bills to boot. Many have ultimately been forced to foot the bill for remediation themselves, which is simply unjust. The issue had already been raised in 2025 by the National Fire Chiefs Council, but the Bill still excludes non-cladding fire safety defects, so that must be addressed. I welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, as they suggest that the issue is on her radar. I look forward to seeing the details on that work going forward, and perhaps the Minister will divulge a little more detail in her summing up. Thirdly, though the Bill places legal requirements on building owners and responsible entities, developers signed up to the developer remediation contract are exempt. I know why: because the Government assume that being part of the DRC is a sufficient carrot. Yet it is worrying, given that we know that the auditing of assessments at DRC buildings is very thin on the ground in practice, and as End Our Cladding Scandal notes, there is a raft of conclusions “based on assumption rather than test evidence.” Worse still, we know that enforcement is weak. Property Week<em> </em>has already stated: “developer-led remediation continues to progress too slowly, with only 10% of projects complete and nearly 60% still awaiting agreed scopes of work.” Put simply, ruling out developers from the new remediation duty in the Bill but imposing it on resident-controlled entities sadly highlights just how skewed and unfair the system still is. That is a crucial issue that I hope the Government will look at getting right. It cannot be right to continue to place significant burdens on the shoulders of volunteer leaseholders, especially in buildings owned by leaseholders, which were ruled out of the leaseholder protections. The Bill makes no mention of protecting them at the moment, nor does it close gaps affecting non-qualifying leaseholders, shared owners and buildings below 11 metres. Those people are left fending for themselves. Again, the Secretary of State highlighted that she seeks to address those things, and I look forward to seeing the detail in due course. I will briefly make a final point on the wider issue of the capacity of fire authorities to respond to high-rise blazes. In 2025, I wrote to the Government to highlight significant understaffing, often due to poor pay, which was having an impact on the recruitment and retention of firefighters. That has resulted in situations where vehicles are sometimes sent out without a full complement <span id="246" class="column-number" data-column-number="246"></span>of five firefighters riding, where vehicles are deployed elsewhere to compensate for equipment or staffing gaps, or where vehicles simply cannot be deployed at all due to there not being enough staff to crew or repair them. Salford’s firefighters and appliances are frequently directed to surrounding boroughs to tackle high-rise blazes because there are not enough fire vehicles available at that time. That results in fewer firefighters on the ground in the early stages of an incident in Salford, which greatly increases the risks for everyone involved. At this time of year, with bonfire night approaching, the situation becomes more acute. I had three asks of Government in 2025, and I repeat them again today. First, they should co-ordinate with the Chancellor—we have the Budget tomorrow, so they will have to get in quick—to reverse the cuts and invest in the future of fire and rescue services with additional central Government funding. Secondly, they should urgently bring forward the plan to reintroduce national standards to remove the postcode lottery of incident responses and hold fire chiefs accountable. Lastly, they should give firefighters a fair say through a new advisory body that includes trade union representation, and powers and resourcing to investigate fires of special interest. The Bill is very welcome, and it is definitely a good starting place for identifying the gaps, but there is a long way to go. I hope that we will now have a collective and collegiate conversation about how we can get the final version of the Bill spot on.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Taylor

   West Bank: Illegal Settlements

   <Question HRSContentId="{339A096A-9C4D-4004-A6BA-807B9178C445}">4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{4D871748-F7EB-43E8-A2D8-F4063C0FA9F1}">What steps his Department is taking to oppose the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank.</QuestionText> </Question>

   Hansard source
10. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Taylor

    West Bank: Illegal Settlements

    The Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din has found that between 2005 and 2023 more than 93% of investigations into settler violence in the west bank were closed without indictment, with just 3% resulting in convictions. With the olive harvest underway, Palestinian farmers continue to face threats from settler violence. Will the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to protect Palestinian farmers and ensure that those responsible for violence are held to account?

    Hansard source
11. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Taylor

    Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

    I thank the Minister for the groundbreaking work of her Department in tagging prisoners before release, but will she update the House on the work that this Government are doing to start fixing the failure of the Conservatives to build more prison places or invest in our crumbling prison estate?

    Hansard source
12. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Taylor

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    Storms can strike anywhere at any time, as I found out last week. In many of our communities, neighbours and volunteers step in at critical times. In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, groups such as the Fillongley Flood Group step in to keep homes safe. What more can the Government do to ensure that community groups can help make sure that all vulnerable people are ready?

    Hansard source
13. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I draw Members’ attention to my category 8—miscellaneous—interest.

    Hansard source
14. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    On new clause 55, can the hon. Member share the evidence base for his proposal, including the number of tenants aged between 16 and 25? I struggle to believe that the proposal would make any difference in terms of home ownership for people aged between 16 <span id="8" class="column-number" data-column-number="8"></span>and 25. In fact, it is the long-run shortage of genuinely affordable homes, rental properties and home ownership products that is responsible for young people struggling to get on to the housing ladder.

    Hansard source
15. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
16. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I am listening with interest to the right hon. Member’s remarks, and I have some professional experience in this area. Amendments 95 and 98 seem more about delaying a reasonable approach to the Government administering right-to-buy receipts. I am interested to know what the Opposition think would be the alternative to any kind of movement of right-to-buy receipts between local authorities. Would it be entirely acceptable for right-to-buy receipts not to be reinvested in council homes?

    Hansard source
17. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I will have a go at delving into the process point; I do think that these are simply delaying amendments from the Opposition, but I will nevertheless engage on the principle of the process point. What is it about a determination, which would be open to written or oral questions, that the Opposition do not think is transparent and democratically accountable?

    Hansard source
18. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

    I draw Members’ attention to my category 8 —miscellaneous—interest.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

    The Minister has been incredibly generous. I wonder whether he will reflect in his closing remarks on the clause—which repeals what were, in my view, ideological attacks on something that is a very practical solution to a range of market needs and the affordability options open to people—that the previous Government did not enact these measures because they were found to be impractical, and because their implementation would actually cost the taxpayer money due to the risks of an additional administrative burden on local authorities and increasing homelessness; or will he remain as gracious and generous as he has been in our discussions so far?

    Hansard source
20. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachel Blake

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

    I strongly welcome the move to remove the local connection test for armed forces veterans. It indicates this Government’s recognition that the local connection sometimes creates barriers for people to making their way off the streets, particularly when they are vulnerable. I welcome the Bill’s acknowledgment of the issue. I hope that there can be an ongoing conversation about the role of local connection tests, particularly regarding rough sleeping and how we support people to stop sleeping rough.

    Hansard source
21. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Phil Brickell

    Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

    On the occasion of the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, now the Prime Minister, visiting my constituency, I was proud to host him in Blackedge’s Brewery Tap on Market Street in Westhoughton. Recognising that he understands the value of cask ale and local independent businesses and breweries, would the Minister perhaps persuade his good offices to see what they can do to support the cask ale business and breweries to continue this fine tradition?

    Hansard source
22. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Swallow

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    The Minister will know from our many conversations my concerns around the threats we face from foreign states and terrorism. He will also be aware that Bracknell Forest, which is 33% trees, is at particular risk of forest fires; many of my constituents are also seeing power cuts at the moment because of the storms. Will the Minister confirm to the House that the Government’s Be Ready campaign is about raising awareness, not alarm, of the full range of threats that we face to our community resilience, and empowering local people to have the tools at hand to address those concerns?

    Hansard source
23. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Services for Children in Care

    I thank Members for attending and contributing to this debate. This is a deeply important subject, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for bringing it before us today. As has already been noted, he is a doughty champion for his constituents and an excellent constituency MP. I had the privilege of knowing his Labour predecessor in Cannock Chase, Tony Wright, and my hon. Friend is more than living up to his example. This Government are clear that children in care should grow up safe, supported and able to thrive, regardless of their background. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 and our children’s social care reset, we are delivering the biggest overhaul of children’s social care and child protection in a generation. We are delivering the change that we promised. We are building a children’s social care system that puts families at the heart of our work. My hon. Friend has already referenced kinship care, which is really important in that. We know that keeping children in their immediate and wider family network is key for improving outcomes, but we want a system that builds rather than breaks relationships, ensuring that every care-experienced young person starts adulthood with loving, enduring relationships. Let me address directly the questions that my hon. Friend put to me. On what steps the Government are taking to ensure that local authorities meet their existing statutory duties when placing children out of area and what happens when those duties are not met, let me be clear: if a local authority has to place a child outside their area, not notifying the incoming local authority is a breach of the law. It is imperative that that happens so that ongoing support can be arranged in the new area. We know that far too many children are currently placed out of their local area when they come into care or are moved during their time in care. In 2025, 22% of children in care—that is 18,000 children—lived more than 20 miles from their home community. Sometimes, that distance is for a good reason—children might be moving to live with their wider family network—but too often, children are placed far from home, which disrupts their relationships with family and friends, their education and their access to the services that support them. Where concerns arise that duties are not being met, as has been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, they should be escalated through local safeguarding arrangements, with relevant partners working together to identify risks and co-ordinate action. Furthermore, Ofsted takes account of whether local authorities are complying with that duty through its ILACS inspections—the inspecting local authority children’s services framework—including whether the placing authority promptly notifies the receiving authority when a child moves into its area and ensures they can access services that meet their needs. The Children’s Wellbeing <span id="278" class="column-number" data-column-number="278"></span>and Schools Act 2026 strengthens the information sharing between agencies, while multi-agency safeguarding arrangements support safeguarding partners in identifying risks, sharing intelligence and co-ordinating action for children placed outside their home area. Additionally, as part of a wider communication, the Department wrote to local authorities earlier this year, reminding them of their statutory duty to inform host local authorities when placing children out of area. My hon. Friend asked about working with health partners. Statutory guidance is clear that relevant services, including integrated care boards, should be notified before a child moves between placements, so that arrangements can be made to meet their needs. Where a move is made in an emergency, notification must follow within five working days. The guidance also recognises that identifying the right contact can sometimes be difficult, and it suggests practical steps, such as using generic inboxes to help ensure that information reaches the right organisation. More broadly, though, the new information-sharing duty strengthens the requirement on safeguarding partners, including in health, to share relevant information when a child relocates, so that important information about their safety and welfare is never lost. Importantly, the absence of a formal data-sharing agreement should not prevent information from being shared, where that duty applies. The Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS are working closely together to improve health outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers, and to ensure that information flows effectively between services and that there is no barrier to children receiving the support that they need. Our reforms to children’s social care strengthen multi-agency working and information sharing, and the Home Again programme will bring social care, health, education and youth justice together around a single plan for children with the most complex needs. Just last week, we announced the new mental health pilot in Greater Manchester, which embeds mental health professionals in children’s social care teams. That pilot, which is called Care Together, replaces fragmented provision with faster access to expert, needs-led mental health support, including family therapy and support for parents and primary care-givers. I am excited to see the impact that this £9.4 million pilot will have on 7,000 children and their families across my constituency of Rochdale, as well as in neighbouring Stockport and Tameside. Turning to my hon. Friend’s question about how the Government will ensure that their regulatory and inspection framework provides effective oversight of children’s homes, the Minister for children and families, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), keeps the adequacy of the regulatory framework under regular review. In April 2026, Ofsted introduced updates to the social care common inspection framework to promote high-quality inspections for children’s homes and other settings. That focus on the impact of services on the lives and relationships of children and families is crucial. Ofsted has recently consulted on further improvements to its inspection framework for children’s social care, and will set out plans for 2027 in due course.

    Hansard source
24. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Services for Children in Care

    My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will certainly pass that on to the Minister for children and families. He is right that we need the capacity to match the requirements that we are imposing. My hon. Friend’s last point, which was about the impact of regional care co-operatives on improving sufficiency and co-ordination, is really important. We now have seven regional care co-operatives covering more than 100 local authorities, including his own, Staffordshire, through the west midlands partnership. I can confirm that regional care co-operatives are not simply about increasing placement capacity; as we have heard tonight, children in care can be involved with multiple services, across local authorities, health and justice, so co-ordinated regional planning and partnership working is a core requirement for these new regional care co-operatives. By bringing these partners together to forecast need and commission care more strategically, regional care co-operatives will help ensure that provision and wider support are better joined up around children’s needs—a point that my hon. Friend was right to make repeatedly. We should be focusing on the child; all the services around them should be child-centred. I recognise the concerns about the distribution of children’s homes across England. They are legitimate, and they are shared cross-party. Some areas have a disproportionally high concentration of homes, while others have insufficient provision. That can contribute to children being placed further away from their support networks and can lead to poor outcomes. We know that can be driven by a focus on maximising profits; some providers are attracted by lower property costs. We know for sure that this is happening in the north, and in the west midlands. We are taking action to reshape the children’s social care market and improve placement sufficiency to combat those problems. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, we are rebalancing the market, increasing transparency, and helping local authorities to secure the placements that children need. We want the right homes in the right places, so that children, when it is in their best interests, are kept close to their communities. Our aim is to support provision where there is a clear need and the children’s needs can be fully met. We are also providing significant capital funding to deliver 540 new placements in local authority-owned children’s homes by March 2029, in 75 authorities. Two hundred will be specialist placements for children at risk of deprivation of liberty; 237 are already completed, registered and operational. Several Members have mentioned the work that we are leading on fostering reforms to ensure that as few children as possible need to enter care in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) rightly pointed out, there should be respite support for foster parents, but all too often, it <span id="280" class="column-number" data-column-number="280"></span>is not there. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in the Chamber, was right to say that we should be removing the practical barriers to fostering. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase has personal experience of the impact of being a foster carer, and I want to put on record our thanks to him and all the foster parents who do such a marvellous job, day in, day out, and week in, week out, with some of the most vulnerable children in society. We owe them a deep debt of gratitude. In March last year, 67% of all children looked after in England were living with foster families, but 46% of those children were placed out of their local area. That is why the Government have launched the fostering action plan that my hon. Friend mentioned. We are committed to creating 10,000 more foster places during this Parliament. The plan includes an England-wide recruitment campaign—I hope that Members have already read about it—which is challenging the myths that prevent people from considering fostering, and recruiting thousands more foster carers who can give children the loving, stable homes that they need and deserve. The plan is backed by an £88 million investment over two years, which includes funds for the expansion of dedicated regional foster carer recruitment hubs; support to enable foster carers to adapt their homes, so that they can care for more children; an increase in the number of Mockingbird peer-support clusters, which I know are greatly valued across the country; and the launch of a fostering innovation programme to support better outcomes for children. We know that the best way to keep children safe and give them the best possible start in life is to support families before problems reach crisis point. Our “families first for children” pathfinders have tested that approach in 10 local authorities, bringing together earlier, more intensive family help, expert multi-agency child protection and wider family networks to identify problems sooner and help children to remain safely within their families, whenever that is in their best interests. We are now applying those lessons nationally through the families first partnership programme, backed by £2.4 billion over the next three years, including £853 million in 2026-27. This represents a fundamental shift towards prevention, strengthening families and ensuring that when serious safeguarding concerns arise, children benefit from co-ordinated expertise across agencies. Let me again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase for bringing this important matter to the House, and reiterate the Government’s aim that every child in care should receive the same joined-up support, stability and opportunity that we would want for our own children. We recognise that local and national Government, health and education authorities, and every partner must work together for each child in our care. I know that my colleague the Minister for children and families—who has done such marvellous work in this regard, both inside and outside Government—will continue to push through the reforms we have discussed this evening, which the system needs so urgently, so that children are safe, supported, close to the people and places that matter to them most, and able to thrive. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em>

    Hansard source
25. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Pam Cox

    Topical Questions

    There is cross-party concern about an extremely concerning situation in Tanzania—the trial of Mr Tundu Lissu, the chair of the party for democracy and progress, Chadema. Mr Lissu has been charged with treason after calling for electoral reform at a public rally during an election campaign. If <span id="174" class="column-number" data-column-number="174"></span>found guilty, he could be sentenced to death. The UK has long enjoyed close and constructive relations with Tanzania, so can I ask what action Ministers are taking to raise concerns about this serious matter?

    Hansard source
26. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Nesil Caliskan

    West Bank: Illegal Settlements

    <Question HRSContentId="{2EEB81F6-CC82-4693-B350-BE52FEE42287}">9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{C0EC03C5-F99E-44D0-90C0-ECB15218EEDB}">What steps his Department is taking to oppose the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
27. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Nesil Caliskan

    West Bank: Illegal Settlements

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s new sanctions to address illegal settlement expansion in the west bank. We have all watched in great horror as Palestinians face injustice and ethnic cleansing. Indeed, a Human Rights Watch report found that Israeli forces had committed war crimes in the west bank. Will the Secretary of State stand by his words to this House, as I am sure that he will, not only to call out injustice and suffering, but to act? With that in mind, will the Government sanction Israeli Defence Minister Katz and Major General Bluth, who are implicated in these crimes?

    Hansard source
28. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Council Housing

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate. In Poole, we have one of the widest gaps between average wages and private rents in the country, and we suffer from a distinct lack of truly affordable housing for local people, with house prices that are 16% higher than the national figure sitting alongside rents far higher than rents in other parts of the south-west. In 2024-25, my local council built just 89 affordable homes, out of a total of 988 new properties. What we do have is a proliferation of luxury seafront apartments that local people cannot afford. It is no wonder that housing is the biggest issue raised by my constituents. Just 1% of properties in Poole are affordable to rent at the local rate of housing benefit. The freeze on local housing allowance is making rents unaffordable; it needs to be uprated urgently. Also, we need a system of rent controls, as a step towards easing the housing crisis while the building gets started .

    Hansard source
29. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Duncan-Jordan

    Council Housing

    Yes. Obviously, there is an issue about viability and the way developers use that to renege on their earlier commitments to local authorities. There is also the key point that if we want the public sector and public services of the future, the workers who provide those services need to be able to afford to live in the area, so it is a circular argument that we need to keep making with the Government. Building a new generation of council houses is essential to ending the housing crisis. The £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is welcome, but does not go far enough. The Government need to be more creative when it comes to longer term financing of the sector. Currently, £88 billion-worth of UK pension funds is invested in fossil fuel companies. What better use of that money could there be than redirecting it into council housing? Let us be more ambitious in our growth agenda. Let us see a council house building programme as a key part of that ambition. Let us remove the historical debt from <span id="91WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="91WH"></span>councils’ housing revenue accounts, which other Members have mentioned. Let us unlock low-cost financing for council house building, enable councils to buy land at the right price to build social rent homes, and bring empty properties back to life. Let us give future generations the hope that was there after 1945, with a real housing revolution that offers everyone a place they can call home.

    Hansard source
30. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Neil Coyle

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Cabinet. It took months of legal wrangling and court time to <span id="218" class="column-number" data-column-number="218"></span>secure a £1 million refund for leaseholders and £9 million in remediation works on Empire Square in Southwark. Although I fully support the Government’s action to tackle freeholder delays and neglect, as well as some of the charges, will she set out how some of the penalty amounts in the legislation were set? The sum in clause 6 is capped at £14,000, which seems very low, given the overall sums involved. How is the Department working with leaseholders and other stakeholders to set fees that allow us to go at the pace required to deliver on her ambition, and that of the Government?

    Hansard source
31. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Julie Minns

    Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing today’s important debate and giving us all the opportunity to speak in support of recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. When I think of cultural heritage, I think of notable historic buildings like Carlisle castle or Carlisle cathedral, or structures like the Bewcastle cross and Hadrian’s wall, but heritage is also about the skills and traditions we pass on between generations. Few capture that better than cask ale. A great pint depends on the craftmanship of the brewer who makes the beer, the cellarperson who conditions it and the publican who serves it. These skills require knowledge, experience and care; they are worth celebrating and preserving. Carlisle has a distinct place in brewing history. In 1916, during the first world war, the Government brought the city’s pubs and breweries under state control with the Carlisle state management scheme. Members might be interested to know that that remained in place between 1916 and 1973, and the last pub that the state built and opened was in 1973. I am not advocating for the nationalisation of our brewing sector; however, that remarkable experiment shaped pub design and licensing policy and left a lasting mark on my city’s identity. That brewing tradition continues today. Carlisle is fortunate to have four independent breweries: the Carlisle Brewing Company, West Walls Brewing Co., the Great Corby Brewhouse and the Old Vicarage Brewery. Those small breweries support jobs, attract visitors and help to sustain our local culture. I am very much looking forward to sampling a little of their product at the Carlisle beer and cider festival later this week. West Walls Brewing is a success story, having opened its taproom just two years ago. It is a particularly good example of how independent brewing can attract new customers and create a vibrant hub of community life in our city centre. Carlisle’s cask ale has even found its way into popular fiction. Readers of M. W. Craven’s “Washington Poe” novels will know of the detective’s fondness for the Carlisle Brewing Company’s Spun Gold ale and his appreciation of a properly kept beer, usually poured from The Kings Head in Carlisle city centre. Behind that fictional example is a serious point: getting cask ale right is a craft, and it depends on skills we cannot take for granted. However, getting pints of independently brewed craft ale into the hands of consumers is a challenge due to the practices of the large brewing companies. I therefore invite the Minister to set out in her remarks where the Government’s thinking is on the introduction of a guest beer agreement in England. What discussions have been had with SIBA about improving market access for smaller breweries? As I am sure a number of Members know, SIBA has looked at the impact of the Scottish guest beer agreement and what it has done for tied pubs, and 86% of the tenants who have an agreement in place have said it improved their trade. I feel it acutely because I represent a borders constituency, and I can literally walk a matter <span id="62WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="62WH"></span>of metres to a pub that can enjoy a guest beer agreement. I urge the Government to get on with introducing a guest beer agreement in England. Recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage would celebrate much more than a drink; it would recognise the people, craftmanship and community traditions behind it. At a time when pubs face many pressures and independent breweries are working hard to remain competitive, that recognition would send an important message: traditions matter and good beer matters. From Carlisle’s unique brewing history to the businesses keeping it alive today, our great border city—my great border city—shows why cask ale deserves to be celebrated and passed on to future generations.

    Hansard source
32. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Abena Oppong-Asare

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    I welcome the statement and I support the Be Ready campaign. The Committee heard from the fire and rescue service, which is very much in support of the whole society resilience approach. A constant theme was the need for clarity on the role that the Government would like the fire and rescue service to play in this space. Essentially, when looking at the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, I urge the Minister to think about the role that the fire and rescue service could play and to make sure it is part of the process.

    Hansard source
33. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Abena Oppong-Asare

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank the Secretary of State for her work on this. Some campaigners have raised concerns about past methods and how the Government have come to the conclusions on which they have legislated. There are concerns that legislation could be gamed by developers, making the situation much worse for residents. I would be grateful for clarification on that.

    Hansard source
34. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    I thank the Security Minister for his statement on this vital topic, and welcome the much-delayed start to the national conversation. It is widely acknowledged that, in the event of conflict, military effectiveness is reliant on civilian systems being able to function under attack, be it physical or cyber-attack, and that relies on us taking a whole-of-society approach. Why is the forthcoming national exercise, Albiston Shadow, classified, thereby excluding those from outside Government? If we accept that resilience is a whole-of-society endeavour, why are the Government not engaging more widely with industry, councils, civil society and Members of this House, so that we can properly stress-test the planning? What information-sharing mechanisms have been established to ensure that key individuals without the necessary security clearance are included in the event of crisis or conflict?

    Hansard source
35. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Jonathan Brash

    Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

    Between May and August this year, Kevin Brown committed eight burglaries in Hartlepool, targeting businesses and charities like Alice House hospice and Cornerstone homelessness charity. The court handed him a suspended sentence. That is not good enough for me, and it is not good enough for my constituents. Does the Minister agree that we must build more prison places so that individuals like this are locked up?

    Hansard source
36. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Topical Questions

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the important question. I would like to inform the House that the UK will reassociate with Erasmus+ from 1 January 2027. Applications open this November, and they are not simply for undergraduates and other university students, but for educational institutions of all kinds. I encourage right hon. and hon. Members across the House to work with the British Council and get their institutions engaged. That is one of the concrete ways that we will help young people through closer a relationship with the EU.

    Hansard source
37. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Topical Questions

    I am pleased to confirm that talks about our security and defence co-operation with the EU will be an important part of the summit that the Foreign Secretary mentioned in his earlier answer. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to SAFE—Security Action for Europe. It was a shame that the UK was not part of it, but we are continuing our discussions with the EU to ensure that we can play our full role in Europe.

    Hansard source
38. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Topical Questions

    I represent the great city of Lincoln, which also has an aerospace background. We are making important progress in our relationship with many of our European friends, including, notably, with the Italians, on the Global Combat Air Programme. As I said in my earlier answer, we will discuss security and defence co-operation as part of the summit on 20 November.

    Hansard source
39. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    Next June will mark 10 years since the Grenfell fire. As many have said, at the end of August this year, more than 2,000 residential buildings still had unsafe building cladding, with remediation not yet started. Behind that figure are tens of thousands of people who cannot sell their homes, get mortgages or get affordable insurance, and many who cannot sleep at night. Those people did nothing wrong; they bought a home in good faith, and they have been left carrying the consequences of the failures of others. That is why I welcome this Bill and will support it throughout its passage. At its heart, the Bill is about responsibility: who must act, who must pay and who must be protected. I will start with the question of who it is that must act. For too long, the system has relied on expectations and good will. Building owners have been asked, encouraged and cajoled to get on and fix the problem, but many have chosen simply not to act. When we debated remediation in Westminster Hall in September, I argued that we had to move from targets to duties and ensure that any duties we set are enforceable. The Bill does just that: it puts a clear legal duty on those who are responsible for a building to fix it; it gives regulators real power, backed by real penalties; and, where an owner will not act, it will let the local authority step in and get the job done. For residents who have spent many years being passed from freeholder to managing agent to developer and back again, that clarity will matter enormously. The Bill also tackles something that has quietly undermined progress for years. We have heard today about buildings that sit in the middle ground and are not quite high rise. We still do not know where all these buildings are or who really owns them. A register of mid-rise buildings and new powers to find out who sits behind a building’s ownership will mean that owners are no longer be able to hide behind complex structures. A problem cannot be fixed if it cannot be seen, and someone cannot be held to account if they cannot be found. The Bill will protect leaseholders by making sure that when a building owner is penalised for failing to act, the bill for fixing the issue cannot be passed back to residents through their service charges. The people who are failing must pay, and the people who have been failed must be protected. That brings me to the part of the Bill that I have shown a particular interest in: part 5 on construction product liability. So far, the cost of fixing this crisis has <span id="242" class="column-number" data-column-number="242"></span>fallen on taxpayers and developers. More than £5 billion of public money has been committed to remediation, but the manufacturers who sold the products that are now being stripped off buildings across the country have contributed next to nothing. That cannot be right. The last Government recognised those principles in the Building Safety Act, but we have to be honest and admit that under its provisions many manufacturers were not held to account, many of the legal hurdles were too high and the claims were too few. Too many manufacturers were able to sit back, confident that nobody could prove enough to make them pay. This Bill changes that. It shifts the test away from narrow technicalities about whether a regulation was breached and towards the questions that matter: was the product unsafe in the way that it was actually used, and was it marketed in a misleading way? It gives the courts the power to look inside these companies so that we can see what they knew and when they knew it. It also makes sure that corporate structures cannot be used to put assets beyond reach. There is a really simple principle here—that the polluter pays. That approach is guided by the adage, “Fix it first and fast”. Residents should not be waiting for companies to argue over the bill. Buildings must be made safe now; the fight over who pays should happen afterwards—maybe in court, between the companies responsible, but not on the doorsteps of the people living with the consequences. I ask the Minister to keep one point in mind as the Bill goes into Committee. Liability has to flow properly through the supply chain and the interface with other regulations, such as the legislation on defective products. If we extend liability at the top of the supply chain but it does not carry further down to the façade contractor and their supply chain and suppliers, we risk loading main contractors with liability while those who supplied or made the products are able to escape. Getting liability right all the way through the supply chain is critical to whether the Bill delivers real money for remediation or simply moves the risk around. The Bill is a big step forward but it is not the end of the job. I want to raise two areas where there is more to do. I really welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today from the Dispatch Box on enfranchised and non-qualifying leaseholders. These are people who were excluded from protections that many other leaseholders enjoy, often for reasons such as the date on which they bought their flat. I look forward to amendments coming forward to help shape those provisions further. The second area is the people who made hay from this crisis. There are two groups who have done very well from building safety issues: insurers and lawyers. I have heard many people talk about the challenges of getting insurance for a building, but I have also heard from contractors and developers. I have heard of contractors who were encouraged to take out professional indemnity cover for works, only to find insurers using every single technicality to avoid paying. When I worked at Mace, I sat on the silver team on building safety, and we were faced with the complexity of working out where our liability sat and how we dealt with our insurers. Dealing with the complexities of product liability as a main contractor was something that gave a lot of people many nights of headaches, and it is an area that I do not think we are completely finished with.<span id="243" class="column-number" data-column-number="243"></span> We risk seeing contractors collapse if we do not fix this. I mentioned lawyers as well, because I have heard stories where the legal fees for trying to fix cladding have vastly exceeded the actual cost of fixing the cladding itself. That cannot be right. It is a scandal within the scandal. The Bill rightly opens up a stronger route to recover costs for manufacturers. It does not yet start to address those who make money out of this crisis, but it does ensure that the Government deliver a route for redress, not another payday. Every pound should be spent on making homes safer, not on lawyers’ fees and insurers’ delaying tactics. Let me end where I began. The Bill puts responsibility where it belongs and makes sure that we are protecting those who need protection. It builds on and strengthens the work of the previous Government, but it rebalances power so that we can fix this crisis once and for all. I support the Bill and hope that the whole House will work to ensure that it passes quickly through this place—we need to see it become legislation, not be stuck in Committee—so that we can end the crisis of dangerous buildings in our country once and for all, and end this nightmare for all.

    Hansard source
40. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Before I speak to clause 1, I would like to put on the record once again my sincere thanks to my ministerial colleague Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for ably shepherding the Bill through its House of Lords stages. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debates on the Bill in the other place. It goes without saying that we did not agree with all the arguments made—we cannot accept the incorporation into the Bill of clause 13, for reasons that I will detail in due course—but overall the expert scrutiny and challenge provided by <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>peers have helped to improve the Bill. A number of Government amendments that we have tabled arise directly from the issues raised and the points made during the debates in the Lords. The Bill has three core objectives. The first is to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby to incentivise the building of more social rented homes. The second is to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protection for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. The third is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right-to-buy scheme that are designed to put it on a fair and sustainable footing for the future. They are informed by the feedback that we received in the public consultation, which ran from November 2024 to 2025, and are set out in clauses 1 to 10. More than 2 million tenants have exercised the right to buy since it was introduced in 1980. However, as we all know, many of the homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced, which has depleted social housing stock. There is now an insufficient supply of good-quality social housing to meet demand. More than 1.3 million households are on the social housing waiting list, and almost 180,000 children are living homeless in temporary accommodation. The right-to-buy scheme has also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, since new homes can be sold before the council can recover its investment. Although we respect those who believe that right to buy should be abolished outright, the Government’s position remains that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, as I argued on Second Reading, there is a pressing need to radically reform the right to buy to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to once again build at scale, and to attract broader investment in council housing. As things stand, to qualify for the right to buy an individual must be a secure tenant and must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant—in other words, their landlord must be a public body, usually a council or a housing association. The three years do not have to have been continuous, and an individual can add together any time they spent as a public sector tenant. They are also able to count any period when their husband, wife or civil partner was a public sector tenant. Until 2014, the minimum eligibility requirement was five, not three, years. The main rationale given at the time for reducing the qualifying period by two years was explicitly to drive an increase in the take-up of right to buy. The decision was taken in the full knowledge that a tenant occupying a property for three years is extremely unlikely to have paid rent that equates to the available discount. The Government believe that a more sustainable balance must be struck to support councils to rebuild their stock of homes. Clause 1 therefore amends section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 to increase the minimum <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>eligibility requirement from three to 10 years. As under the existing law, a combination of present and previous tenancies will continue to count towards the qualifying period. Increasing the minimum eligibility period in that way has received strong support from stakeholders. In our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of respondents, including 62% of tenants who responded, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least 10 years. In fact, the majority of respondents supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than 10 years before becoming eligible for the right to buy. The Government believe that 10 years strikes the right balance between allowing long-standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting much-needed social housing stock. Incidentally, 10 years is also the average length of tenancy for someone buying under the scheme currently. This targeted change will maintain access to the right to buy for long-standing tenants, but in a way that provides for a fairer and more sustainable scheme and better supports the long-term supply of social housing.

    Hansard source