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·Jacob Collier

   Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

   I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as Intangible Cultural Heritage. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for originally securing this debate. He has now reached the dizzy heights of Parliamentary Private Secretary, so is unable to open the debate. I believe it started as an idea in the Brunswick Inn in Derby, an excellent pub combining my interests of railways and beer, and one that I have frequented. I also thank hon. Members who supported the application, and Brad Evans and Jonny Garrett for their tireless work through the Keep Cask Alive campaign. It is worth reminding ourselves what cask or real ale is. It is ale that, once brewed, is put straight into the barrel. That distinguishes it from most other beers, which tend to be filtered, pasteurised or carbonated before being put in the barrel. The shape of the cask barrel is different from that of the kegs that other beers are put into, to allow a natural, secondary fermentation process to occur within the barrel, allowing more flavour to develop after the barrel has left the brewery. Cask ale is a living product, a live beer, drawn out of the barrel using a hand pump—which is always a popular photo op for politicians. Cask ale is uniquely British—indeed, uniquely English. The cask method started here and, until the arrival of lager in the 20th century, cask ale was the main choice of drink for people across Britain. Cask is part of who we are, our heritage and British culture.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jacob Collier

   Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

   I of course join my hon. Friend in supporting those organisations. We have had conversations following Carlsberg’s decision to close Burton’s Marston’s <span id="54WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="54WH"></span>Brewery, where my hon. Friend’s ales are brewed. We will work closely to protect a heritage that is so important to his constituents and the rest of the country. I now have the immense privilege of serving as Member of Parliament for the residents of my home town of Burton upon Trent. We would not be who we are without cask ale. Our waters are rich in minerals, perfect for the brewing of cask ale. From our town a brewing empire was born, exporting beer across the world. Names such as Bass, Allsopp’s, Marston’s, Salt &amp; Co and Ind Coope enjoyed spectacular success from the 19th century onwards. At one time, over half the population of Burton upon Trent was employed by the breweries. My predecessors in this House include Bass, Ratcliff, Gretton and Evershed, before some were elevated to the other place. I can assure colleagues that, if I fail to be elected at the next general election, I am not in line for a “beerage”. Burton’s waters were so good that others copied them through a process called Burtonisation, but, of course, the original is always the best.

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jacob Collier

   Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

   My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) is absolutely right. The independent brewery sector has a real pride in and love for what it does. I think we are moving to a place where perhaps larger brewers are falling out of love with cask ale. It is smaller, independent brewers, which he spoke about, that have that real love for the craft and pride in what they do. If you look around Burton today, Sir Desmond, you will find our brewing past and present everywhere. Our football team are nicknamed the Brewers, the smell of hops permeates the air, and our pubs tell the stories of days gone by. As a Burtonian, it fills me with immense pride to see the words “Burton Ales” on the side of a pub or the No. 1 trademark of the Bass red triangle in a place where you are not looking for it. Many of my constituents worked for the breweries, or their ancestors did, and so feel a strong connection to this, which is why the news from Carlsberg about the closure of Marston’s brewery was such a hammer blow for our town. Burton’s brewing heritage might not matter to some, but it matters to us, and it really matters to me. Heritage is our link to the past. It gives us pride in place and a sense of identity. If places like Burton lose their distinct heritage, they lose a sense of identity and everywhere starts to feel the same. In an increasingly globalised world, place matters now more than ever.<span id="55WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="55WH"></span> Burton is just one example of the heritage value of cask ale. More broadly, we must recognise how British agriculture and farming have been shaped by cask ale. The pub itself is there historically because of cask ale; they are cask ale’s umbilical cord. From farmer to brewer, to publican, to pint in the pub, that process is a piece of living British history. Cask ale is an essential fabric within the tapestry of British heritage and identity. This debate is about the specific status of intangible cultural heritage, in relation to which there has been a campaign to get cask ale recognised by UNESCO. That status was created by UNESCO’s convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage in 2003, and in 2024 the UK signed up to that convention. Since 2024, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and UNESCO in the UK have begun to collect an inventory of living heritage in the UK. Cask ale should be included in that inventory.

   Hansard source
4. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jacob Collier

   Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

   I am sure that my hon. Friend, as the UK’s trade envoy to Japan, would be able to use UNESCO heritage status to strengthen the links we have with our Japanese friends, and I certainly agree with what he has said. Intangible cultural heritage status was created for the purpose of preserving traditions and social practices, just as previous efforts at protecting heritage had done for artefacts and buildings, neglecting the fact that we can learn so much about who we are and how we got here through established traditions. Cask ale is one of those traditions in this country. The brewing and barrelling of cask ale is an art form requiring specialist knowledge and skills honed over decades and even centuries. It is science and engineering, and it is innovation. Once the ale is brewed and barrelled, further specialist knowledge is required by the publican to serve it. We all know what an off pint tastes like; there is real skill in handling these products.

   Hansard source
5. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jacob Collier

   Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

   My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has been a real champion on these issues as chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group. I am a co-signatory to the letter to the Chancellor—we will await what he says tomorrow—and I did very much enjoy the Gower Gold that I sampled alongside my hon. Friend last month. There is no doubt that cask ale is a tradition of the kind that could be included in the inventory of living heritage. The reason it should be is because of the particular risk facing cask ale at the moment. Jonny Garrett of the Craft Beer Channel suggests that craft ale accounts for around 5% of beer sales annually, compared with around 50% in the mid-1990s. There are many reasons for that. Big brand lager provides significant competition at the bar, and the pub tie makes it difficult for smaller brewers to get their beers on sale in pubs across the country. I know that the Government have launched a review of the access to market rules, and I would welcome an update on that. Cask ale suffers when our pubs struggle, and declining footfall and rising bills force many pubs to concentrate resources on higher margin products, of which cask ale is not one. When footfall declines in pubs, so does the sale of cask ale—although we must remember that we have seen a recent growth in certain cask ale brands, largely where brewers have recognised the heritage value of their product and used that as a unique selling point. There are a growing number of successful brands, including Timothy Taylor’s Landlord, St Austell’s Tribute, Theakston’s, Boddingtons and Burton’s very own Bass, which is brewed at the Marston’s site. Samuel Allsopp’s brand has also been revived by Jamie Allsopp, most recently relaunching the famous Allsopp’s IPA. In my constituency, there are several successful independent breweries such as Burton Bridge, Tower, Outwoods, Roebuck, G3, Gates and the Uttoxeter Brewing Company. Some say that we may have reached the end of the road for large-scale cask ale brewing. However, the brands that I have listed show that there is a route to continued success for cask ale brewers, based on smaller-scale brewing dedicated to individual brands. The other path is decline and cask ale ceasing to exist. If we are to ensure that the right path is taken, certain steps need to be taken, which include, but are not limited to, formally recognising the production and serving of cask ale as living heritage. Doing so would not be unprecedented: this is the 10th anniversary of UNSECO adding beer culture in Belgium to its list of intangible cultural heritage. Including cask ale in the inventory would give it protection and recognition. Cask ale can be marketed as world-renowned heritage and become a staple treat for tourists visiting Britain—as we know, many sample the delights of cask ale anyway. Including cask ale would create incentives for private sector investment and efforts by local and central Government and those such as CAMRA and SIBA—the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates—which are preserving cask ale heritage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, heritage status is just one step that needs to be taken. Further steps are required so that cask ale can continue to thrive commercially. These include the reforms to access to market, to make it easier for cask ale to appear in pubs. There is also beer duty. Hopefully, the Chancellor will increase draught <span id="57WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="57WH"></span>relief tomorrow—I am sure we would all raise a glass to him. As the APPG on beer has highlighted, we should also consider whether to include brewing or hospitality as a whole in the industrial strategy and in industrial energy schemes. However, the status of intangible cultural heritage would be an important step. The serving and production of cask ale is uniquely British and is still alive today, centuries later. It is living history that deserves our protection; I look forward to the debate today.

   Hansard source
6. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jacob Collier

   Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

   I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank hon. and right hon. Members for their support. Not many issues get cross-party support in this House, and we have definitely had that today. I thank everybody for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who wins the award for the most pubs mentioned in this debate. It is no surprise to me that Bass is the most popular drink in her constituency. It is my drink of choice at The Devonshire Arms in Burton. As we have heard today, cask ale is at risk because of changing attitudes and market conditions, but also because of some of the barriers that have been put in place. I welcome the Government looking into this and we all welcome what the Chancellor has to say tomorrow to hopefully support this sector, cask ale and giving it the UNESCO recognition that it deserves. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Resolved,</em> That this House has considered the potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as Intangible Cultural Heritage.

   Hansard source
7. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jack Abbott

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   I thank the Secretary of State for the intent she has shown in the Bill that is before us. It is a privilege to be sat next to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—I know that his mission in this place is to fight for justice for so many of his constituents who have been left alone for so long. Across the country, far too many lives have been ruined by the building safety crisis. In Ipswich, we have hundreds of residents who have endured years of fear, uncertainty and immense financial hardship. These are people who did everything right—worked hard, saved for a deposit and bought somewhere to call home—only to discover that their home was unsafe. Since the day of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives—each entirely avoidable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said—leaseholders across the country have been left in limbo. What should have been a catalyst for change instead became a straitjacket for so many people who do not know whether they are safe, whether they will <span id="233" class="column-number" data-column-number="233"></span>lose their home, or whether they will be forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds to put right failures they did nothing to cause. I have spoken to plenty of residents in my constituency of Ipswich about their experiences. Their stories—like, I am sure, so many we will hear this afternoon—are devastating. They cannot sell their home, cannot move, and cannot move on with their lives. Their entire financial future is at stake, but so too is their mental health and peace of mind. Some have considered bankruptcy just to get out; others have thought about handing back the keys and simply walking away. It is heartbreaking that anyone should reach that point through no fault of their own. I want to highlight a few of the buildings that we in Ipswich have been facing issues with for many years, beginning with St Francis Tower. Remediation work on that building started in 2018, and residents spent years living under shrink wrap as it dragged on. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing visited St Francis Tower in a previous life, when I was a candidate and he was a shadow Minister, and we could not see natural daylight through the shrink wrap. Even when that was replaced, the work dragged on and on, and in July 2023, flooding forced those poor people from their homes after years of misery. Years of disruption were followed by the trauma of evacuation. My team and I worked with residents and the Government to secure funding for repairs in November 2024. That was an important step forward that replaced the outer cladding, but the internals are still damaged, and three years on, people have not yet been able to return to their homes. Although I am hopeful that there will be good news in the coming weeks, even if remediation work is able to start in the weeks before Christmas, it is unlikely that those people will be able to return to their homes until spring 2028—a decade after work on the building first started. Residents should never have been put in that position. Nobody should have to fight for something as basic as a safe home, but these people cannot even live in their homes. At Churchmans House, investigations revealed problems extending beyond external cladding—missing fire barriers and inadequate protection around structural steelwork. Leaseholders faced demands for eye-watering payments and the threat that they might have to leave their homes. The original developer was insolvent and people who had done nothing wrong were left facing the consequences, a story that we hear over and over again. The good news is that our Government confirmed funding for the necessary works to make the building safe, but not before months and years of worry. Unfortunately, residents of Cardinal Lofts were not so lucky. I cannot believe that such a building was ever deemed fit for habitation; if a fire broke out there, it would have ripped through the entire building because of a lack of compartmentalisation. People unknowingly slept in their beds every night—some for decades—without knowing how deeply unsafe their building was and how much of a threat to their lives it posed. No one ever never returned to Cardinal Lofts. The building is not fit for use. These are different buildings with different owners, but the same injustice is shared by so many people, in Ipswich and across the country, and I could name many <span id="234" class="column-number" data-column-number="234"></span>other buildings in our town that have been subjects of the same stories. People bought those homes in good faith, but were sold something faulty, and they should never have been left with the costs of putting things right. That is why the Bill is so important. For the first time, those responsible will face a clear legal duty to identify and remediate unsafe cladding in residential buildings. Building owners and others with repairing responsibilities must act. That means an end to indefinite delays as residents live with fear and financial uncertainty, trapped in unsafe buildings. Crucially, those who ignore their responsibilities may face substantial financial penalties, criminal prosecution and further enforcement action. Responsibilities can be enforced, and there will be consequences for those who ignore them. The remediation backstop is particularly important: when building owners fail to act, Homes England and local authorities will be able to step in, arrange repairs, and recover costs from those responsible. That matters enormously to people trapped in the middle of endless arguments over who should do the work. I also welcome measures to secure contributions from manufacturers whose unsafe construction products contributed to this crisis. We were elected to accelerate remediation and protect leaseholders better, and the Bill is an important step forward in the delivery of that promise. It builds on the remediation acceleration plan, which is already helping thousands of people across the country to live in safer homes. Alongside it are the plans announced by the Government to extend leaseholder protections and support necessary fire safety works in eligible buildings owned collectively by residents. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ipswich Cladiators, and the many, many residents of our town who have campaigned so tirelessly for change—not just for themselves but for their neighbours, their communities and people across the country. They should never have had to fight so hard, and we cannot give them back the years that they have all lost, but we can maintain a relentless focus on making their homes safe, protecting them from unfair costs, and helping them to move forward. That is what they deserve, and that, with this Bill, is what the Government are doing.

   Hansard source
8. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Imran Hussain

   Council Housing

   I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this timely and important debate and for the excellent speech that he is making. Although he briefly touched on the urgent need before moving on to the longer-term situation, does he agree that in places like Bradford, where we currently have 25,000 people on a waiting list—many are families with young children living in poverty and the same squalid, damp conditions that he mentions—there is an immediate, urgent need? Therefore, as well as asking the Minister how many—

   Hansard source
9. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Imran Hussain

   Council Housing

   Does my hon. Friend agree that the urgent need requires immediate housebuilding?

   Hansard source
10. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend just announced about those who have found themselves the owner of a flat that they <span id="221" class="column-number" data-column-number="221"></span>did not know was non-qualifying, because of a previous owner. It is clearly unfair that they should be penalised. Will that measure be retrospective? I have a constituent who unknowingly bought a non-qualifying flat and was gobsmacked—traumatised, actually—to discover what had happened to him. He faces potentially huge costs. Will someone who is already in that position benefit from the measure?

    Hansard source
11. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I unreservedly welcome the Bill. The story of the cladding crisis arose out of the appalling tragedy at Grenfell on that night over nine years ago, when all those people died in the place they should have felt most safe—their home. They died because of a series of catastrophic failures. The first and most obvious failure was that cladding was allowed to be put in combinations on the sides of buildings when no one had actually tested what would happen if those combinations caught fire. It is astonishing, when one looks back at it, that architects were able to specify combinations. We now know that when some of those combinations had been put on rigs and set fire to—boom!—they had gone up very quickly. The second thing—my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) spoke so well—is that we are here, over nine years after the event, and we still have not sorted it out. I am much struck by the example that he quoted from Australia; he is right. Many of my constituents have been affected by the cladding scandal. For most of them, it is fair to say, their homes have now been dealt with, but there are still far too many people whose homes have not been. The reaction of the Government at the time was, “Well, it’s not really our responsibility.” They had to be forced by stages, over the years, to do more and more. There was also a failure to build the blocks in line with the building regulations at the time. It is one thing to look at the cladding—people said, “Oh, I didn’t know that was a problem”—but as it was pulled off buildings, one after another, what did we find? We found that the fire-stopping measures, the firebreaks, were missing—even though that was a requirement of the building regulations at the time. This is a story of a <span id="247" class="column-number" data-column-number="247"></span>load of jerry-built buildings that people lived in for many years, as one Member said, with no idea that they were living in a fire trap. I make that point because, on occasion, I have heard Members in this Chamber lambast Britain as an over-regulated society. I mean, give us a break! This story is a monumental failure of regulation. People died as a result, and many other people’s lives have been put on hold, as we have heard. I join others in paying tribute to the End Our Cladding Scandal group, Leeds Cladding Scandal, and the many constituents who have raised cases with me and who have worked so hard to try to change the circumstances in which they find themselves. Time and again, people have said to me, as they have to all other hon. Members, “I thought I’d bought the home of my dreams, and I find I’m living in a nightmare that I don’t seem able to get out of.” Many Members have referred to people’s lives being put on hold. That is absolutely true: they cannot get on with things, whether having a family or moving to another part of the country where they have been offered a good job, because they cannot sell their flat. There appears to be no escape. The bills go up, the waking watches are costly, insurance is expensive and service charges go up. I remember the first constituent who told me, “I’ve had to move out of my flat.” I said, “You’ve moved out of your flat?” He said, “Yes, I couldn’t afford the bills, so I moved out of my flat; I’m now renting it, so I can pay the bills that I can’t afford in the flat that I thought was the home of my dreams.” Each block, particularly the ones that have not yet been remediated, is a very complex story—changing ownership, developers disappearing or going bust, the legal pass the parcel, which was mentioned in a previous speech, and mortgage lenders refusing to lend. The hard truth is that no legislation is going to require a mortgage lender to lend on a property it does not want to lend on. The mortgage lenders therefore have to have confidence.

    Hansard source
12. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is he arguing that a mortgage lender should be required by law—

    Hansard source
13. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Hilary Benn

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    No, the hon. Gentleman is not; I did not think that he was. That is a fundamental problem. It is about confidence in the system and in the property. Too many of my constituents still worry that they could be landed with bills they simply cannot afford. Someone said to me, “Thirty thousand quid? It might as well be 30 million quid, because I can’t afford thirty thousand.” I want to raise three specific issues. First, I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said in her opening speech about those who have bought non-qualifying flats. As I was reflecting on the question I put to her about making the measure retrospective, I realised that that probably is not an issue here. The sole owner of a <span id="248" class="column-number" data-column-number="248"></span>flat that was deemed to be non-qualifying will be relieved of the requirement to meet the costs themselves and will be eligible for the support that other leaseholders have. The second issue relates to blocks below 11 metres. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). There is a development in Leeds called the Chandlers; some of the blocks are over 11 metres and some are below 11 metres. Applications have been made to the new fund that was opened—from memory, the closing day was 17 August. There will be lots of applications, and we do not know who will be successful and who will not. I seek clarity from the Minister. As I understand it, under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, a “responsible person” is required to carry out fire risk assessments on all buildings and put in place measures to address fire risks they identify. A House of Commons Library briefing note states: “Since 2022, this risk assessment duty has included assessing the structure and external walls of the building, including cladding”. Although the Government generally argue that most buildings under 11 metres do not present a risk, what is the situation in cases where there is a risk in those buildings? For example, a PAS 9980 assessment was done for the Chandlers. The residents were first told that the blocks under 11 metres were a high risk; they were then told that those blocks were a medium risk. But hey—a medium risk is still a risk. Would you want to live in a block that has a medium risk of catching fire, putting your life at risk? I have read the Bill and the explanatory memorandum on this point quite hurriedly, and it appears that these particular powers apply to buildings of over 11 metres. However, since the Government have said, “We are prepared to provide funding for buildings under 11 metres,” can the Minister tell me whether any of the powers in the legislation as it is currently drafted apply to blocks of under 11 metres and the people responsible for them? If not, if such a block has got a PAS 9980 assessment that says, “This is a risk”, then why, logically, would we not extend these powers to ensure the remediation of blocks under 11 metres? Finally, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) in making a plea about people who really, really, really need to move. Could the Government think creatively about developers buying back flats or, as was said a moment ago, the local authority purchasing them? We want more social housing, and each one would be one more unit. I wonder whether we could see what might be done to help people who really needed to move—for example, if someone’s mother were extremely ill and they needed to move in order to look after her. Having said that, our constituents who still live in unsafe flats have waited far too long to have them made safe, and I look forward to the Bill making very speedy passage through both Houses.

    Hansard source
14. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helena Dollimore

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    I want to raise the issue of water outages, which I know you have also been working on in Sussex, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have previously lobbied the Minister about upgrading how we see the risk of a water outage in the national risk register, and I was pleased to see it upgraded from the lowest form to the highest form of risk in the most recent register. However, I want to flag some issues, particularly with the priority services register, that we have encountered during outages in Hastings. The first issue relates to blocks of flats with multiple residents but one bill payer, such as a management company, which is particularly common in sheltered accommodation. Southern Water has told me: “Across the water industry…arrangements are designed around identified account holders and bill-paying customers. In centrally billed or bulk-metered properties, such as some blocks of flats, water companies typically have no direct relationship with individual residents and do not hold information about…personal circumstances. This creates a recognised industry challenge”. We really need to look at that in relation to resilience. Secondly, I am aware that the risk register is not updated in line with the electoral register, so the register is not updated when people move out and it ends up with so many people on it that delivery becomes unsustainable. Will the Minister look at those issues?

    Hansard source
15. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Graham Stringer

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing this debate. One of the surprising things, given how many people died during the covid epidemic, as well as the cost of approximately £400 billion and the cost of the inquiry heading northwards to £1 billion, is how little debate there has been in Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House. I want to use the opportunity of this debate on the fourth part of the inquiry not just to point out the lack of debate so far, but to use recommendation 1 to highlight a number of things.<span id="123WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="123WH"></span> Recommendation 1 and the Government’s response both draw attention to how the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies behaved during covid. The response says uncritically that it gave “co-ordinated scientific and technical advice”. Well, yes—to a point. But on 11 February 2020, SAGE had before it a report from Imperial College, based on Chinese statistics, showing a very strong relationship between age and mortality among people who caught covid. Basically, children were not at risk and people over 70 were at serious risk. SAGE did not discuss that at that meeting, even though the paper was there. Had it done so, it might well have come forward with different policies to keep children in school and to protect the most vulnerable people, rather than having a blanket policy that said, “Protect the NHS.” It is not our job to protect the NHS; it is the NHS’s job to protect us. Actually, I always read protecting the NHS as protecting the Government, because they were frightened of having people on trolleys in corridors. I think that was a mistake. The information was there and could have been used. The heroine of this episode, mentioned in the report, is Kate Bingham, who ran the vaccine taskforce. Because of her expertise in both science and funding, she was primarily responsible for getting the vaccine out more quickly than anywhere else. Given that she was so successful in doing that, we should have listened to what she said when she spoke to the Science and Technology Committee, the Health Committee and the inquiry. She was excoriating about the Government’s response. She talked about institutional blockages and “warfare” between the Business Department and the Health Department. She did not recommend what the report proposes—a pharmaceutical expert advisory panel, which does not seem to have very many powers. She wanted to protect and develop our vaccine manufacturing ability and our science ability. What did we get? The sale of the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre, and nothing else.

    Hansard source
16. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Graeme Downie

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    Just a few weeks ago, I hosted an event in Parliament with ambassadors from Denmark, Norway, Estonia and Finland on this exact topic. There were two common themes in the plans they are implementing. One was building public trust, and hopefully what we are seeing today in the national conversation is part of that. The second was the need to engage with businesses—and, indeed, the benefits of doing so—to inform employees and potentially use them as a resource, and to say that they could be the targets of something like a cyber-attack but also part of the response. Will the Minister confirm that he will speak to those allies specifically about the importance of engaging businesses, and that that point will be considered?

    Hansard source
17. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gordon McKee

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    For a decade we have rightly been worried about the impact of misinformation on social media fuelled by hostile foreign states, but now millions of people get their information from AI chatbots. What work is the Secretary of State doing with European allies to protect the information provided by AI systems during elections here and overseas?

    Hansard source
18. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his speech and for all his work on this issue. I have his report with me; it is a deep and thoughtful reflection on the challenges in his area and also reflects some of the challenges that, as we heard from other Members, are common to rural communities. I understand that my hon. Friend spoke to more than 300 parents. The themes that came through—the need to battle for support, children being out of education, <span id="77WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="77WH"></span>and the huge stress this issue puts on families—are sadly ones I have heard from many parts of the country. It is incredibly important that he has brought those voices to us, and I want to assure him that the voices of the parents and teachers in his constituency are being taken seriously as we work through the consultation on the SEND reform plans. My hon. Friend also took the time to sit down with me to discuss some of these issues in detail, which I really appreciate. He raised critical issues and common pressures, but some of those common pressures are exacerbated in rural communities by difficulties with recruitment, the long distances needing to be travelled and the availability of provision.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for raising these issues. I absolutely recognise the additional pressures that exist in rural and more remote communities. I will go on to discuss some of the things that we are doing to address those pressures, and I will come on to home-to-school transport when I go through that list. One of the first things that I want to highlight is the new Experts at Hand service, through which £1.8 billion is going in nationally, not only to deliver more occupational therapists, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, but to provide support from special schools and alternative provision into mainstream schools. We have just started rolling that service out and we are working with local authorities around the country. Every local authority has been asked to deliver a SEND reform plan and we are getting quarterly feedback on the data on how that is going, including the Experts at Hand service, so we will have a much clearer view of the gaps that sit around the country. As we build out the service, there will be the ability to work with those areas that are struggling to recruit and that see real gaps, in order to try and improve their provision in those areas. We will also be working with MPs to share some of the data that is coming through that national picture, which we have not previously had access to. The second thing that I wanted to flag is access to teacher training. We are investing £200 million into teacher training. The first set of resources has gone out into the system and those resources can be used by schools on their inset days. A host of different resources are coming out across the year, making it easier for schools in more remote locations to implement training. We will also develop a set of courses, starting from next year, which will be a mix of online teaching and live teaching for teaching assistants, school leaders and teachers. Where it is not possible for teachers to attend courses in person, it will be possible for them to take those courses online, if that is what they want. I also want to flag the investment that is going directly into schools through the inclusive mainstream fund, alongside the existing funding in the system.<span id="78WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="78WH"></span> As we move forward on SEND reform and respond to the consultation, one of the big parts of that process is asking schools to come together in clusters. Some of the extra funding that will go into schools will go through clusters; some of it will go directly to schools and some of it will go through clusters. One of the things that we are really considering is how we can ensure that those clusters work in rural communities. We want to do a test and learn process in a mix of different contexts. I am really keen to talk to Norfolk MPs about this, to see whether it is something we can work on.

    Hansard source
20. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    As we move into this new system, we will be looking at all the funding going into it, whether that is through the local funding formula or the high needs funding. The thinking behind the cluster approach is that in the new system we want every school to be inclusive, and to take and support students with a range of needs but who do not need to be in specialist provision. Within that, some schools might have higher need and the cluster approach is to ensure that we can move money to where the need is highest. However, we must ensure that that works in different contexts, which is why we are committed to testing and learning within rural contexts. I also want to flag capital investment. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk mentioned the new special school, and said that that alone is not enough, which I agree with. We are investing £3.7 billion into capital investment to deliver a range of changes. Some are to mainstream schools to make them more accessible, but the funding can be used for new special schools. We are clear that it should drive an expansion of inclusion bases, which are really important because they bring SEND provision to more remote communities and closer to families. I have seen many examples where children were out of school and really struggling to get an education, and having that inclusion base on their doorstep has been completely transformative in opening up that access and reducing the need to travel. The high-needs capital funding that is going into Norfolk is £13 million in 2025-26 and £15.8 million in 2026-27, so there is significant investment going in to help that capital challenge and deliver inclusion bases.

    Hansard source
21. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    We absolutely recognise the importance of assistive technology in the system. The hon. Member has raised and championed that, and I will follow up and give him a proper update on how it is going and our plans. My next point is about the importance of partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk talked about how parents have to navigate myriad different services and are bouncing between them. One key thing we want to deliver in the immediate term is asking local areas to strengthen their partnership arrangements across health, education and local authorities but critically also with parents and young people. In the long term we aim to have much stronger partnership arrangements in place so that whichever stage a child is at, whether they need early intervention or more specialist support, that comes in a timely manner and without a fight.

    Hansard source
22. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    We have an expert panel that is developing a set of specialist provision packages, which will set out what we expect from settings to meet a whole range of needs that will be consulted on. The expectation is that local authorities will need to commission against all of those specialist provision packages so the full range of need should be met within a local area. That will make it much easier for providers and local authorities to understand what is expected of them and to provide those packages. Critically, when a child requires that support, they will not have to wait for it because it is commissioned and available in that area. At the moment, there is a huge postcode lottery with some support available in some areas while in others it is completely absent—that is why we see some of the long distances that we have heard about.

    Hansard source
23. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    I agree. In a previous life I led a council, and I used to sit in frustration, asking, “Does anyone in Government talk to each other?” because we often saw very siloed decisions. People’s lives are not split into different Government Departments: they live in communities, travel, need healthcare, and work, and all those things come together. It is critical that we work <span id="80WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="80WH"></span>together, and SEND is an area where there was a promise of greater integration in the 2014 reforms, but the experience, as we have heard, is that that promise has not been delivered. Working closely across Government, particularly with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care, we are determined to drive integration, so that families get a seamless experience. That is a really important point. I also want to respond to the points made about distance travelled. There are two important things to say. First, one way to reduce that is to ensure the right provision is available in local areas. Whether that is the greater roll-out of inclusion bases, or the development of specialist provision packages, which make clear what should be available locally, we expect to see a much greater range of local provision. We also recognise that the nature of rural communities means that travel distances are greater. That is why, in the changes to home-to-school transport, there is now a separate formula that includes distance travelled, and that is a key part of the system. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate; I know how important these issues are. Our aim is to ensure everyone gets early intervention, without a postcode lottery. People will get the support they need, wherever they live. That requires a focus on rural communities to understand the specific challenges. We are committed to testing and learning, looking at those challenges, understanding the data and disparities, and working alongside local authorities to ensure that the national vision is felt by families and communities everywhere. I encourage hon. Members to stay involved in that conversation, to keep working with us by sharing feedback on the challenges in their areas, as Experts at Hand, the inclusion mainstream fund and teacher training roll out, so that we can respond.

    Hansard source
24. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    Absolutely. That is why we have said that every Best Start hub needs a lead SEND practitioner. We are investing £200 million in the roll-out of SEND support through Best Start hubs, working closely with parent-carer forums on support for parents. We have talked about integration. Another big programme we are rolling out is the Family First Partnership, to rebuild early help and support for parents. We want to ensure those partnerships are working with Experts at Hand and schools, so that parents and families get the support they need at the same time as young people. That is an important part of bringing it all together, looking at all the investments to ensure they work on the ground. I thank everyone for the debate and you, Sir Desmond, for your chairship. <em>Question put and agreed </em><em>to</em><em>.</em>

    Hansard source
25. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fred Thomas

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    I welcome the Government’s Be Ready campaign, which I will champion in my patch in Plymouth. I thank the Minister for his continued endeavours, over the last several years, to knot together different bits of Government agenda and Departments to grow greater resilience. Can he assure the House that this will encompass AI and emerging technologies as well, and can he give us a sense of what new endeavours are being stood up, given the massive acceleration of the threat to our national resilience in that space?

    Hansard source
26. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank Members from across the House for their contributions. As the Secretary of State, the shadow Minister and many hon. and right hon. Members outlined, next June will mark a decade since the Grenfell fire disaster took the lives of 72 people, including 18 children. None of us can imagine the horror that survivors, families and friends suffered that day, and the community will continue to carry that trauma, anguish and suffering throughout their lives. It is a tragedy that should never have happened, and one that must never happen again, but we must be honest and say that it is unacceptable that far too many people in this country still do not have the safety and security of a safe roof over their heads, nine years after Grenfell. This is not just about building safety; it is about giving everyone the peace of mind that a safe, <span id="262" class="column-number" data-column-number="262"></span>decent and affordable home brings. We must ask ourselves how we can expect anyone to sleep soundly, and get on in life, if the building they sleep in every night is covered in dangerous and flammable cladding. The building safety crisis must be resolved, homes must be made safe, and residents must be allowed to live their lives. This Government were elected on a manifesto that made commitments to accelerate remediation, better protect leaseholders and make those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right. Our remediation acceleration plan and this Bill deliver on that pledge. By introducing a register of 11 to 18 metre buildings and a national standard for assessing buildings, the Bill will finally bring certainty on the scale of the problem and the work required to fix it. By creating a new legal duty to remediate, backed up by substantial new penalties for inaction, we will compel those responsible to fix their buildings without delay.

    Hansard source
27. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A number of Members have raised the matter of remediation standards. I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is sitting next to him, also raised it in a recent Westminster Hall debate that I responded to. Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that the Bill will make independent auditing of fire risk appraisals of external walls mandatory. We are confident that PAS 9980 has a robust and appropriate methodology for assessing the risk of fire spreading throughout the building. The Bill will also look at the independent auditing and the statutory requirement, ensuring that additional checks on those assessments have been carried out properly. To reassure Members, Homes England will also audit all assessments that recommend mitigation and remediation and will have the power to audit other assessments. By delivering the remediation backstop, we will ensure that no building and no resident is left behind, even if the person responsible for the building is determined to ignore the risks it presents to residents. By creating stronger avenues for redress against construction product manufacturers, we will ensure that those responsible for the cladding safety crisis pay towards the cost of fixing it. I thank the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, Baroness Blake, for bringing the Bill forward. I also thank all the Ministers who came before me for the work they did to make this Bill a reality, including the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali).

    Hansard source
28. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for that point. This Bill deliberately focuses on unsafe external cladding, because the Grenfell tower inquiry phase 1 report found that cladding on external walls. We will be looking at the area he raises as the Bill progresses, so I give him that assurance. I now turn to a number of comments made by right hon. and hon. Members today, and apologise that I may not be able to cover all Members’ comments. I start with the shadow Minister and the comments she made on the limited workforce capacity of fire safety technicians. We will continue to review that area. There is additional funding to ensure that those fire assessors are in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) outlined why this is such an important issue. I thank him for tireless campaigning and continued work with the survivors of Grenfell. He highlighted some of the dangers that still exist and mentioned the increasing costs that many of his constituents are facing—examples of some residents who are having to pay eye-watering bills to fix the issues. One of the matters I worked with him on in my former role as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee was the national oversight mechanism. It is not right that we are having to go through those recommendations one by one. I hope I can assure him that the Government accepted all the inquiry’s recommendations and we are making progress. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) outlined the issue with PAS 9980. I hope that he will be assured that we will continue to look at that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) detailed the real-life nature of this issue and the fact that many leaseholders continue to be left in limbo, and their mental state is being affected. Leaseholders are in limbo, waiting for remediation, sometimes having to spend a decade out of their homes. Residents continue to face this injustice, and I thank him for continuing to work with leaseholders. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) outlined the work that he has been leading around Ocean Village and Oceana Boulevard. That building was built only 20 years ago—yet, 10 years in, fire safety defects were outlined. That shows why we have to continue to work to ensure that all buildings are safe, including some that were deemed to be new builds. The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) detailed the tragic case of her 97-year-old constituent, who is having to rely on her children to buy her property to give her some certainty. They are now lumbered with a property that they cannot sell—simply for doing the right thing for their parent. No child should have to go through that process and face those costs. That is why we are making sure that the developers are paying for the work with the developer remediation fund.<span id="264" class="column-number" data-column-number="264"></span> My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) outlined points that a number of Members highlighted. We will continue to look at the issues around insurance and non-qualifying leaseholders. I know he has expertise and knowledge on construction product manufacture, and I will continue to engage with him as the Bill progresses. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) outlined the work she has been doing with her constituents for many years and praised the decisive action taken by Salford council to act fast and think later, and then seek those costs back. It shows that our local authorities, where possible, are stepping forward to fill the gaps where developers have failed, but councils should not have to be leading on this. The developers of the buildings should be the ones paying, and we hope that the Bill will identify those owners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) outlined the fantastic work that he has been doing with the Leeds cladding campaigners. He also highlighted the issues around the delays in building safety regulations. Under the leadership of Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley, I hope that Members will see that we are making progress in building regulation standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) highlighted the tragic case of the fire at Neutron Tower, which sadly resulted in a resident losing his life. My hon. Friend knows that the investigation is still ongoing, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but we are continuing to work with relevant parties to ensure that the safeguarding and wellbeing of displaced residents is addressed as soon as possible. The London Fire Brigade has stated that the fire is believed to be accidental, but as this investigation is ongoing, we will continue to engage with my hon. Friend and her residents. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) highlighted the PTSD faced by his constituent. That shows the real-life consequences that many of our firefighters—the first responders to that tragic fire and the many tragic fires we continue to see—have to live with. I hope that Ministers in the DWP will take into account how my hon. Friend’s constituent has to reapply every two years to that Department. This is a real issue on which all hon. Members need to continue to engage and discuss. I hope that hon. Members will continue to engage constructively with us as the Bill progresses through the Public Bill Committee. The passion with which hon. Members have spoken is testament to the desire we all share to bring the building safety crisis to an end and protect the residents and leaseholders who desperately need and want to see action. The Government are delivering on that. We are providing more remediation funding than ever before, remediating more buildings than ever before, prioritising higher-risk buildings and putting the safety of residents at the heart of our work. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke about the work of his constituent, whom the Secretary of State and I had the pleasure of meeting two weeks ago, along with cladding scandal group members. No one could have been unmoved when listening to their testimony, given the real-life issues and trauma that the ongoing delay is causing to so many. People’s lives are on hold—they cannot plan <span id="265" class="column-number" data-column-number="265"></span>for their future, and they are in financial ruins. Tragically, some people have died waiting for the issue to be resolved. Alongside the package of measures we have delivered to accelerate remediation and support leaseholders, the Bill will ensure that no building and no resident is left behind. I hope that hon. Members see that the Bill will bring certainty, clarity and accountability to drive forward remediation and make every building safe. That is what we owe to residents, and that what we owe to the country. I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties who have given their support to work with us on the Bill. In that spirit, I commend it to the House. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Bill accordingly read a Second time.</em> Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (Programme) <em>Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),</em> That the following provisions shall apply to the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill: Committal (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee. Proceedings in Public Bill Committee (2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8 December 2026. (3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets. Consideration and Third Reading (4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced. (5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day. (6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.<span id="266" class="column-number" data-column-number="266"></span> Other proceedings (7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—<em>(Rachel </em><em>Hopkins</em><em>.)</em> <em>Question agreed to.</em> Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (Money) <em>King’s recommendation signified.</em> <em>Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),</em> That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of: (a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—<em>(Rachel </em><em>Hopkins</em><em>.)</em> <em>Question agreed to.</em> Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (Ways and Means) <em>Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),</em> That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees and charges under or by virtue of the Act.—<em>(Rachel </em><em>Hopkins</em><em>.)</em> <em>Question agreed to.</em>

    Hansard source
29. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fleur Anderson

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I too pay tribute to the families of those who died in the Grenfell fire, which we will never forget. It scarred not only those in that area of London, but all Londoners. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his excellent speech, for the campaigning he has done and for standing up for his community, and for his work to ensure that the Bill is as good as it is. I welcome and support the Bill, although I wish it had been introduced by the previous Government, years ago. Unsafe cladding is a big issue across the country. The UK Government track 4,724 high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding. Some 39% of those are now fully remediated, and 15% have works under way, but 46% are still waiting for works to start. There are more than 1,000 such buildings in London, several of which are in my constituency of Putney. Let me begin by thanking the Minister and her team, as well as former Ministers, for their constructive engagement throughout the development of the Bill. They have taken the time to listen to me. I have shown case studies of what is happening to my constituents to Ministers and asked, “Would the Bill work for them?” I am so glad to see so many ways in which it will. The Bill goes a great way, in many ways, to address problems, and to hold to account the developers who built the buildings and who, in so many cases, seem to have been able to walk away, delay, obfuscate and make things really difficult, when they should have stepped up and said, “There were these issues. These are our buildings, and we will work to rectify them.” The Bill represents a significant step, and builds on the remediation acceleration plan in putting safety, accountability and those affected first. For too long, many leaseholders have been trapped in homes that they cannot remortgage and, in some cases, do not even feel safe living in. They bought their homes in good faith and followed the rules, but they have found themselves paying the price for failures elsewhere in a system that they trusted. The human impact of the delays cannot be overestimated, as many Members have said. I have spoken to constituents who are not able to start or increase the size of a family, take up jobs or care for relatives across the country because they are stuck in their home and unable to move on with their life. They have experienced prolonged disruption and financial uncertainty, and huge levels of stress. I welcome these measures. The Bill gives regulators stronger powers to hold to account those who delay or obstruct remediation, and introduces a statutory duty to remediate. It replaces cosy deals and voluntary commitments, as so many Ministers in the former Government promised to. Time and again, I came to the Chamber, with many other Members who are here, <span id="253" class="column-number" data-column-number="253"></span>to be told, “We will take action. It will be done. I have got the developers round the table, and they are all going to do it—don’t you worry”, but that did not happen at all. No more of that.

    Hansard source
30. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fleur Anderson

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend’s constituents, my constituents and the constituents of all Members will be watching this debate, half feeling glad that all this is happening, and half hoping that it actually will happen. In that respect, one part of the Bill I really welcome is that a remediation compliance plan has to be published on a website, openly available and proactively shared with residents. The fact that that even has to be said is testament to how frustrating it has been for residents to try to find information. Instead of them asking, “Who has built this building? Who are the responsible parties? What are they going to do? Where is the plan? Will I be moved out? When is it going to happen? When can I get on with my life?”, a plan has to be published, put on a website and proactively shared. I really welcome that.

    Hansard source
31. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fleur Anderson

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I have been following this issue closely. As well as EWS1 forms and the question of who fills them in, developers marking their own homework to any degree causes problems in the system. Many Members will be looking at the Bill as it progresses through this House and the other place to see how we can strengthen it even further. Measures may be put into the Bill in all good faith, but in practice, there may not be enough people inspecting buildings, so there may be huge delays in the system. We do not want those people to want to minimise the amount of work done and keep the delays going. I welcome the fact that building owners who fail to act could face fines of £500,000 and even criminal prosecution. Where owners refuse to do the work, Homes England will have the backstop powers to step in and ensure remediation is finally carried out, with the costs falling on those responsible, rather than the leaseholders. The measures in the Bill will help accelerate the resolution of historical safety defects, require manufacturers of <span id="254" class="column-number" data-column-number="254"></span>unsafe building products to contribute to putting things right, and ensure that those affected have a clearer route to redress. For many people, the cladding scandal is not a historical issue, but a daily reality. Throughout this scandal, I have found out all the layers of poor regulation in building works. For many homes and developments in Putney, not only has the cladding been unsafe, but many other parts of the building have been unsafe as well. In looking at the cladding, we have also found missing or inadequate fire stopping, inadequate compartmentation, poorly installed cavity barriers, defective balconies and water ingress. In a couple of the developments I have been in, I have watched water flowing down through electrical cupboards. That shoddy building work and the way that developers seem to have been able to get away with it should also be looked at, although not in this Bill. This Bill needs to be specific, and we need to get on with it, but other questions are being asked as a result of this process. My residents have had to find out a lot more about whole developments and how they work; about their managing agents and how they should be working for them, but in many ways are not; about waking watches; and about non-communication by those who are meant to communicate about other defects in their buildings. They have had to become experts in inspections and how they work. They have had to work with the fire service themselves, because they are the people who are involved with all of these different things. I have been to meeting after meeting that residents have called, or that I have called, to try to get answers. It really should not have been so hard—it should be far easier for residents and leaseholders to know what is going on in their building. That is why I really look forward to the upcoming leasehold and commonhold Bill, because in my constituency of Putney, Roehampton, Southfields and Wandsworth Town, I am still working with people whose lives continue to be disrupted years after these problems first emerged. Many of them are currently decanted and living in other places, and many are unable to rent, sell or remortgage. They struggle to obtain their EWS1 forms or—as has been mentioned by other Members—affordable insurance, and far too often, their service charges are also going up. They describe uncertainty, stress and frustration. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to continuing delays by the Building Safety Regulator, which I have talked about before in a Westminster Hall debate. I have had three developments really affected by huge delays by the Building Safety Regulator; two of them have now been fixed, so I thank the Ministers very much for that, but I have one left, so I am going to raise it now. That is the heritage-listed stilt blocks on the Alton estate in Roehampton. They are really iconic—people come from all over the world to look at our stilt blocks. We are very proud of them, but living inside them is not so nice. They have mould, and they have really poor windows that let the water and the weather in. Residents have endured winter after winter waiting for replacement windows. Although Wandsworth council approved and funded new windows and stairwell fire doors in September 2023, the introduction of the new building safety regime transferred responsibility for approving those works to the Building Safety Regulator, because those listed blocks <span id="255" class="column-number" data-column-number="255"></span>are classified as high-rise residential buildings. The residents narrowly missed the approval window before the new arrangements came in, leaving them in limbo with the Building Safety Regulator and causing further delays for people who have already waited far too long. They have waited through the winters of 2023, 2024 and 2025, and now they are approaching yet another winter with these very cold windows. Residents say that when they put a radiator on, they might as well just be throwing money out of the window. It is an appalling situation, and I really hope that as a result of me raising it in the Chamber today, the Ministers will address it. None of us wants to return to the failures of the past. Robust regulation is essential, and the whole purpose of reform is to ensure that safety comes first, but a system that leaves people in prolonged uncertainty is also failing them. As implementation of the Bill proceeds, I urge Ministers to continue examining how regulatory processes can be made more efficient without compromising safety, whether that is ensuring they have the right number of staff or that their systems are right—whatever it takes to make the system work. People should not be left waiting months or years for decisions when works are ready to proceed. Safety and speed are not mutually exclusive; we need to have both. As I have said, I look forward to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, which is part of the package of exciting and strong new regulatory powers that are being introduced by the Government in a number of ways. The last Government could have done the same, but did not. I support this Bill, and I hope that while making these reforms, we will continue to focus relentlessly on turning regulation into results for the people of Putney and people across the country.

    Hansard source
32. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emily Thornberry

    Defence and Security: European Partners

    I learnt a great deal during my trip to Ukraine last month. I learnt that the Ukrainians see themselves as Europeans, that they know who their friends are and that they are incredibly grateful to Britain, but that they are also very disappointed as they hit this very difficult winter. We know that they will need about £90 billion to get through it. There are £200 billion-worth of Russian assets frozen in Europe; what can we in Britain do to ensure that those assets are unlocked and used in Ukraine? Might one answer be to lead by example? Is there something we can do about the £25 billion-worth of Russian assets that we have in the UK and—as we head towards the anniversary of Abramovich’s being told that he had to hand them over—the £2.5 billion-worth of Chelsea assets?

    Hansard source
33. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emily Thornberry

    Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

    When Pentonville Prison was built in 1842, I do not imagine anybody expected that today it would have twice the number of prisoners the Victorians thought ought to be kept there. Furthermore, Pentonville Prison is a London remand prison—people used to be there for six to eight months on remand in pretty terrible conditions, but now they are there for years because of the crisis in the criminal justice system. The question is this: when they are released, what should be done with them? I was speaking to the governor of the prison on <span id="183" class="column-number" data-column-number="183"></span>Friday, and he said that if the Government wished them to, prison officers would be quite happy to be trained to put the tags on people themselves before releasing them.

    Hansard source
34. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emily Darlington

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{5EC251FD-E948-4E23-A0D9-8E2F36B06B4A}">T8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{5B73DA4B-20EE-4E69-8FA1-E9E29FE9C935}"></QuestionText>While successive Governments have cut the international aid budget, the reality is that the public are still donating in their millions to causes that are dear to their hearts. Those usually relate to disasters, but the public also care about women and LGBT communities in other countries and many other issues. Will the Minister meet me to talk about how we can extend UK Aid Match beyond disaster recovery?</Question>

    Hansard source
35. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ed Miliband

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    At the Warsaw security forum earlier this month, I discussed with our allies our work to deter and disrupt threats to our democracy from foreign interference. The Prime Minister announced at the UN General Assembly that, in line with the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we will establish a national centre for information defence to detect, deter and disrupt information attacks from hostile states. This is a very serious and important issue for our democracies, and all countries need to do more to tackle it.

    Hansard source
36. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ed Miliband

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    The hon. Lady raises an important issue, and Governments across the world, and indeed across Europe, need to do more. Since October 2024, this Government have sanctioned 106 entities and individuals responsible for delivering Russia’s information warfare. That includes, in July, sanctioning Rybar, the media company resourced by the Russian state and responsible for spreading false narratives about Ukraine and interfering in European elections, including in Moldova. I hope—indeed, I am confident—that the centre that the Prime Minister announced is something we will work on with our European partners to counter this grave threat to our democratic way of life, frankly, across the world.

    Hansard source
37. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ed Miliband

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I recently read the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on these issues, and that was an important document. He is absolutely right about countering all the threats we face from AI, as well as taking advantage of the opportunities. That is something that the new centre the Prime Minister announced will definitely do.

    Hansard source
38. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ed Miliband

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    I and the Prime Minister have always accepted the result of the Brexit referendum, and it is important to say that. I do think it is important, though, that whatever side we were on in that debate or in other debates across this House, we all recognise that Russia is seeking to interfere all the time and to disrupt and destabilise our democracy. I know the right hon. Gentleman has a proud record on these issues.

    Hansard source
39. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ed Miliband

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this. Whether it is in Georgia or elsewhere, it is incredibly important that we speak out in favour of democratic norms and ways of life. We know that we face more of a threat to democracy and the rule of law from hostile actors across the world than at any time since world war two. This Government will bow to nobody in speaking out in favour of democracy and the values shared across this House.

    Hansard source
40. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ed Miliband

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. She talks eloquently about the threats we face from across the world, whether that is Russia, Iran or China. It is incredibly important, and this Government will be absolutely resolute in countering these threats whatever form they take. Frankly—this is why this question is so relevant—the threats to our national life have changed. They are not simply the threats we are used to from the past; hybrid warfare is the modern threat, and we will absolutely counter it.

    Hansard source