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

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Council Housing

   Today is not about getting into the rights and wrongs of individual programmes at local authority level. The hon. Member and I have had many conversations about Birmingham city council in the past and I am sure that will continue. The matter here today is how central Government ensure that we have the framework, the incentives and the funding to get councils building council homes and social homes in their area. In addition, we have enabled councils to retain 100% of receipts from right-to-buy sales and provided greater flexibility on how those receipts can be used. That includes permitting councils to combine receipts with grant funding to unlock capacity for house building. These measures are already bearing fruit. Councils delivered around 10,600 homes in 2024-25, which is the highest level since current records began in 1991-92. Our package of right-to-buy reforms is estimated to deliver a net gain of around 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, compared with a pre-reform baseline of a loss of 26,000 homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned empty homes. We are strengthening powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming empty dwelling management orders. We are reducing the period for which a property must be empty before it becomes eligible from two years to six months under that programme. We know that we must go further and faster to deliver the good-quality, affordable homes that people need. We also know that councils share that ambition. The Government are committed to backing councils to build at a scale not seen for decades, and to build the right homes in the right places. We will continue to work with all levels of local and regional government to turn that ambition into homes and better outcomes for local people, so that everyone across the country has access to a home that is decent, secure and affordable.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   Over the weekend, in Ebbsfleet in my constituency we saw the damage that a fire in a residential block can cause. I express my concern for those in Bodycomb Street who were harmed in that fire or have been displaced by it. Another block nearby, Heron Court, has recently had a waking watch imposed on it by FirstPort, with the costs accruing to residents. Do not those two instances underline for everyone in the House how important it is that we get the Bill through Parliament so that we can get some recompense and support for residents who are suffering under the current regime?

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

   Polar Regions

   Yesterday I visited the National Oceanography Centre, with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), to learn about the UK’s leadership in polar science, and the real highlight was that I got to meet Boaty McBoatface. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how the FCDO is co-ordinating cross-Government work to deal with emerging climate and security threats, as well as how we can leverage the UK’s leadership in science and technology, climate finance, diplomacy and defence to that end?

   Hansard source
4. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last, but hopefully not least. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for all his work to honour the victims and families of Grenfell, and to ensure that nobody else suffers the horror of such unavoidable tragedy. I fully support the Government’s determination to accelerate remediation and better protect leaseholders who have been left carrying the emotional and often financial burden of a crisis they did not create. As we have heard from many hon. Members from across the House today, too many people across the country have been trapped in unsafe homes, facing uncertainty, financial anxiety and delays that have stretched on for years. Everyone deserves to live in a safe home and that is why the Bill is so important. I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, from the clear legal duty of responsibility for unsafe buildings to the stronger enforcement with clear consequences to ensure that leaseholders are not left paying the price for failures that were not their fault. I do, however, have to be honest about some of the practical barriers that are impacting my constituents and delaying works on the ground. In my constituency, residents in several high-rise blocks have contacted me repeatedly about remediation delays. In one case, a developer is ready to proceed with the necessary cladding works that would make the building safe, but has been waiting for approval from the Building Safety Regulator since the middle of 2024. The decision on certification has been pushed back six times. I have written to the Minister in the other place, Baroness Blake, regarding the case, but it remains a significant problem and the BSR delayed approval yet again only last month. Another property in my constituency is similarly impacted. The contractor has bought materials and submitted the relevant applications to the BSR in August 2025, but was rejected several months later. The application was submitted again, but it was rejected in May this year. In the meantime, residents continue to live with significant damp, mould and fire safety issues in the building. These are not isolated incidents and I could relay others—and I will, because this is significant. One building, a social housing building in my constituency, had some botched internal works, leaving really unacceptable conditions in communal areas and embarrassment for residents. One of them brought me in and showed me a piece of exposed wall with mould all over it where they had affixed a nametag that said, “Jackson Pollock 2024”. That building is on a hill, and when they brought in a contractor to remediate the internal bits of the building, they discovered that the building is smaller at the front than it is at the back. They then had to reclassify the building and submit an application to the Building Safety Regulator. I have very little faith in the fact that those residents, who have already been waiting more than two years for the internal works, will get them done in good time. This is not about weakening standards or cutting corners; it is about robust scrutiny and effective regulation that is absolutely necessary. The point is that residents, leaseholders and good contractors who are trying to do the right things should not be increasingly frustrated by these delays. My residents need certainty that the plans to make their homes safe can actually take place and be done at pace. We on the Labour Benches all want stronger regulators, but there appear to be genuine questions about whether the Building Safety Regulator has sufficient capacity and specialist resources to process applications as quickly as everyone would like. Concerns about delays with the regulator have been raised elsewhere, including by the Industry and Regulators Committee in the other place. The provisions in the Bill are necessary and long overdue, but if the ambitions of the Bill are to be realised in practice, the Building Safety Regulator must have the capacity and resources to match those ambitions. I would be grateful if the Minister, in her closing remarks, could address Building Safety Regulator resourcing and capacity. Will she also consider meeting Members from across the House whose constituents are experiencing delays, so that these concerns can be discussed directly? The regulator must have the staff, expertise and support it needs to ensure that vital remediation projects are not delayed unnecessarily. The people living in these buildings have waited long enough. They deserve safe homes. They deserve certainty and to see progress. I am proud to support the Bill and I hope that the Minister will address my concerns in her closing remarks.

   Hansard source
5. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   SEND Provision: Rural Communities

   That is a particular problem in Cornwall, because we are on a peninsula. Numerous children had no specialist place at all by September, because the options simply were not there. Going out of county is just too far for many people.

   Hansard source
6. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Council Housing

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this vital debate. I know from years in Cornwall how big an issue the lack of affordable and council housing has become in my constituency of Truro and Falmouth. In Cornwall, the picture is stark: we have far lower levels of council housing than other parts of the country: only 11% of our stock is social housing, and the country-wide average is 18%. Cornwall’s HomeChoice register has over 26,000 households waiting for a home, against an estimated stock of 33,000 social and affordable homes right across Cornwall. We also have 800 households in temporary and emergency accommodation. The housing revenue account has a legacy debt of £92 million from the 2012 self-financing settlement, and that severely constrains Cornwall council’s ability to build, maintain and deliver social housing. Cornwall housing also has very low rental income, the result of decisions made by previous Lib Dem and independent council administrations. Bringing rents closer to national levels through rent conversions will take time, and the lack of income from low rents has resulted in a backlog of repairs that it is really struggling to get on top of. The Government’s extra £1 billion for the social and affordable homes programme and the preferential rates for council house borrowing are very welcome, as are the safeguards in the Bill, for example, on rights to buy new builds. In Cornwall, we have housing associations that are strategic providers, working hard to build and provide homes in Cornwall, but our HRA struggles with its debt and repairs and has no headroom to borrow. HRA reform will be crucial if we are to build council homes in Cornwall, as will making it easier for HRAs to borrow.

   Hansard source
7. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

   A Lords Committee criticised the Ministry of Justice under the previous Government for reappointing the contractors after repeated failures. Serco had an issue with finding a tag small enough for the elderly mother of my constituent, which delayed her release over Christmas. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that contractors manage to tag all prisoners before they leave prison?

   Hansard source
8. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

   Strengthening Community Resilience

   As a Cornish MP, I can tell the House that we had 18,000 off-grid again this weekend with Storm Austen. We all worked together closely during Storm Goretti, and I want to mention Cormac, our farmers, the National Grid and our parish councils. National guidance was missing during Storm Goretti. It is really important that we now have it and that we have a locally led response, with parish emergency plans in place. Other countries have been doing this for years and I am really pleased that this Government have finally brought it in and have launched the campaign. One issue we will always have, though, is comms. We do not have copper wire any more. Perhaps internet and mobile phone providers should be category 2 responders under the Civil Contingencies Act. I wonder if the Minister could comment on that.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

   West Bank: Illegal Settlements

   5. What discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the E1 settlement plan in the west bank.

   Hansard source
10. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

    West Bank: Illegal Settlements

    I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. The E1 scheme is a further terrifying situation for Palestinians, who are vulnerable and have no protections. Will he say what sanctions are being put in place at present? What more are the Government doing to ensure that those working on the E1 scheme are sanctioned?

    Hansard source
11. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

    Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

    I thank the Minister for her responses. Does she agree that more needs to be done to prevent reoffending while offenders are actually in prison, so that they do not commit further crimes when they are released and on tags? What is she doing to ensure that there is appropriate education and training across the prison estate?

    Hansard source
12. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank the Secretary of State for the work she has been doing on dangerous cladding remediation. Some constituents of mine have been able to benefit from the remediation work for buildings under 11 metres, but could she say a bit more about when funding will become available? My constituents are still waiting on the release of funding for work that needs to take place.

    Hansard source
13. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Janet Daby

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    May I press the Secretary of State a little further? In my constituency, there is a block of flats under 11 metres that has already been recognised as a priority, but the challenge is the release of that funding. Will she arrange to meet me or agree to look at that further?

    Hansard source
14. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    Developer Contributions (Infrastructure Delivery)

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the use of developer contributions for the delivery of local infrastructure; to make provision about the powers and responsibilities of public authorities and other public bodies in relation to such contributions; and to make further provision in relation to such contributions. Nine billion pounds, Madam Deputy Speaker—that is how much money in developer contributions is currently sitting unspent in local authority bank accounts across this country. This is money collected from house builders and commercial developers to pay for schools, GP surgeries, leisure centres and roads. It is money that has already been paid by developers, which would ideally be being spent, at no extra cost to the taxpayer, in local economies up and down the country today—but it is not. Instead, it is sat in bank accounts, where, year on year, the figure grows. At a time when every community in this country is calling for more investment, it is my view that we cannot afford—either morally or economically—to sit on this amount of money, as inflation devalues the contributions originally made. For me, this is a major problem, and one that all Members should be interested in. I am tabling this ten-minute rule Bill, which will hopefully bring attention to the problem while also suggesting some initial solutions. I asked the internet what I could buy with £9 billion. First, it told me that that was equivalent to roughly £135 for every person in the UK. It then told me that for that money, I could pay for 33,000 homes at £272,000 a piece; nearly four years of school rebuilding funding at £2.4 billion per annum; 18,000 electric buses, assuming £500,000 per bus; or 1.5 million household solar installations at £6,000 per installation. In short, this amount of money is transformational. It is enough money to improve several struggling sectors at the same time. What is more, this money is not theoretical; it exists, it has been paid, and local authorities are currently the custodians of it. For those who have not been involved with local government finance and planning before, let me briefly describe what is happening. When developers build homes or commercial spaces, they are normally required to pay towards the associated infrastructure as part of their planning permission. When new homes are built, the developer therefore contributes to new schools or school places, to GPs and/or local hospitals, to leisure facilities and/or to other local infrastructure. Crucially, the contribution is exactly that: a partial payment that another developer will also need to pay towards in due course to complete the intended project. Each year, the Home Builders Federation publishes data on how much money is unspent, and each year, the figure is going up. It has gone from around £8 billion in total in 2024-25, when I first raised this issue in this place, to almost £9 billion in 2025-26. Within that total, the latest data shows that there is £2 billion waiting to be spent on schools and £700 million for affordable housing. It also shows that £3 billion—a third of the money held—has been held for more than five years. In my constituency of Rushcliffe, the situation is particularly acute. Our local council is holding around £40 million in section 106 money and another £8.5 million in community infrastructure levy money. That is money that my constituents desperately want to see spent, often on infrastructure that they were promised when they bought a house, sometimes many years ago. The challenge with spending this money is so extreme that in some cases, developer contributions are at risk of being returned. The village of East Leake, in my constituency, which has grown by 40% since 2001, has needed a new health centre for the past 20 years. Due to delivery and value for money challenges, we are currently in a situation where funds have been held on file for so long that almost £500,000 of developer contributions are due to be returned. To a community that has waited for investment for two decades, this is unconscionable. In nearby East Staffordshire, almost £400,000 was returned to a developer in 2023 after the money was not spent in time, and there are many other cases across the country. In many cases, additional public sector support is ultimately required to close developer funding gaps. This is not the failure of any one council or developer. We all know that costs rise, that land can be lost, that partners do not act quickly, and that councils can at times lack capacity. Yet we still have not put a backstop in place. There is no mechanism by which ringfenced pots of money can be pooled together, no deadline by which councils must make every endeavour to facilitate works, and no power for councils to easily revisit old agreements. In short, there is no obligation on anyone to act. That means that the money does not move. It simply accumulates while residents wait for action and delivery costs increase ahead of bank interest rates. In the current economic climate, I do not think that this situation is good enough, so I propose this Bill to achieve four things. First, it would introduce a backstop. Where contributions have not been spent within a set period, councils should have more powers to reallocate them to related public infrastructure in their area—subject, of course, to democratic oversight. Time and again, we saw that if things are not built quickly, the funding gap grows. We need to develop a system that recognises that and seeks to mitigate it as best as possible. Secondly, the Bill would introduce a duty to plan. Where money is held for education, health or transport, I believe that the body responsible should produce a delivery plan within 12 months of the first developer contribution being agreed. Accountable bodies must be clearer about how they plan to get spades in the ground. Thirdly, the Bill addresses transparency. I believe that all local authorities should produce a standard public infrastructure funding statement showing how much has been collected, what for, and when the money is expected to be spent. There is not currently a standardised way of doing this. Finally, I believe that we need to look at a sensible bridging loan facility for local authorities to close existing or emerging gaps, to be repaid from future contributions as they come in. This would mean that a school or health centre could open as families are arriving, not years later. As MPs, we all know that, handled badly, new developments become a source of grievance. Handled well, they become something else: a story of investment. I know that an updated developer contribution system could not guarantee that all promised infrastructure would be built quickly, but I believe that the current situation fails everyone. It fails councils and councillors who want to deliver infrastructure; it fails local supply chains and businesses who want to help build; it fails developers who want to deliver on their promises for multi-purpose sites; and it blatantly fails residents who lack the services they were promised, often for years on end. Ultimately, given that we have an important fiscal event taking place tomorrow, it should be stated on the record that unspent developer contributions fail our economy and our country’s growth strategy. Nine billion pounds in local authority bank accounts is not growth; it is deferred jobs, deferred infrastructure and deferred community benefit. We should not stand for it any longer. Good growth in every postcode requires councils that can build the infrastructure that their communities need. This Bill would give them that power. I believe that a more efficient, outcome-centred approach to spending developer contributions is something that everybody in this place wants to see. It is something we must see. I therefore commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That James Naish, Alistair Strathern, Dr Allison Gardner, Andrew Cooper, Chris Bloore, Dave Robertson, Leigh Ingham, Maya Ellis, Rachel Taylor and Richard Quigley present the Bill. James Naish accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 167).

    Hansard source
15. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    Exactly 12 months ago, I met the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), alongside the mum and brother of Amanda Walker. Amanda sadly took her own life as a result of the cladding scandal, which consumed her completely. Before her death, she gave evidence to the other place, seeking five changes, included closure of the loopholes that leave non-qualifying and enfranchised leaseholders exposed, and an industry-funded remediation scheme. I know the Secretary of State is aware of Amanda’s case. Will she consider Amanda’s asks as the Bill continues through this place?

    Hansard source
16. 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
17. 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 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 & 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
18. 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. 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
19. 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
20. 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 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
21. 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. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as Intangible Cultural Heritage.

    Hansard source
22. 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 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 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
23. 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
24. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Imran Hussain

    Council Housing

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

    Hansard source
25. 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 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
26. 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 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
27. 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
28. 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 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
29. 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
30. 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. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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, 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
34. 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. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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 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
39. 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. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
40. 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