Extreme Heat: Preparedness
The hon. Member’s example highlights just how much of a risk wildfires pose. We need to take greater measures as a country to prevent them, including seriously looking at her suggestion.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
I agree with the hon. Member. I will come on to the impact on schools, and the fact that extreme heat does not affect everyone equally, later in my speech. Some communities and individuals are particularly affected, so I support her call, particularly because it highlights the need for a cross-Government response.<span id="309WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="309WH"></span> The incidents I talked about were not isolated weather events, but a real-world test of our preparedness for a hotter climate, exposing vulnerabilities across our health service, critical infrastructure, emergency response and natural environment. Britain has entered a new climate reality. The Climate Change Committee’s latest UK climate risk assessment warns that climate risks are increasing faster than our preparedness, with progress described as slow, stalled or moving in the wrong direction. Extreme heat is no longer an occasional anomaly, but an increasingly defining feature of the UK’s climate. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2002, and the UK has already warmed by around 1.2° since the pre-industrial period. England has experienced four major summer heat events since 2018, and the three warmest Junes on record have all occurred during this decade. UK Health Security Agency projections indicate that heat-related deaths could more than triple by the 2050s without stronger adaptation. Extreme heat is now a growing threat to public health, infrastructure, food security, nature and national resilience. It is already a public health emergency. Evidence on rising temperatures and mortality shows that recent heatwaves were not merely uncomfortable; they were deadly. New analysis estimates that around 2,700 heath-related deaths occurred during the May and June heatwaves in England and Wales. These are not abstract statistics; they are the human cost of temperatures for which our society is not adequately prepared. Unlike floods or storms, extreme heat rarely creates dramatic images. Instead, people die quietly, in hospitals, care homes or at home. The Environmental Audit Committee described extreme heat as a “silent killer”. It increases mortality gradually, often among those already vulnerable. Extreme heat places significant strain on the body, increasing the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness, dehydration, heat exhaustion and heatstroke. Hospital admissions rise for heart attacks, strokes, kidney injury and respiratory disease, while those with chronic illnesses or pregnancies and the elderly feel the impacts more acutely. Prolonged heat also affects mental health by disrupting sleep, increasing anxiety and impairing cognitive performance.
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. It shows the breadth of issues that we need to contend with. Addressing this issue really is a whole-society, whole-Government matter. I very much support raising awareness of her point. It shows the need to review how we can treat people in a way that gives them the support they need but does not make other problems worse in the context of heatwaves. Where people live also matters. Poorly ventilated homes, upper-floor flats, care homes, social housing and densely built urban areas can trap heat for prolonged <span id="310WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="310WH"></span>periods. Poverty compounds the risks. Those least able to afford adaptations are often the most exposed. In my Waveney Valley constituency, Friends of the Earth analysis has identified neighbourhoods that are both highly exposed to extreme heat and socially vulnerable, with around one in 10 falling into that category. I am grateful to one of my constituents for drawing my attention to the risk of overheating faced by her neighbour, whose council-owned bungalow effectively became a greenhouse during the latest period of extreme heat. The consequences extend beyond individuals to our health and care system. The NHS was built for a different climate. During the June heatwave, hospitals declared critical incidents, elective operations were postponed and temporary cooling equipment was required. Ambulance services experienced unprecedented demand, with the London ambulance service recording its busiest week on record. At the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which serves part of my constituency, MRI scanners stopped working when the cooling systems failed. Much of the NHS estate was not designed to operate safely during prolonged periods of temperatures approaching 40°, while many care homes remain poorly adapted to protect vulnerable residents. Extreme heat therefore threatens not only individual health, but the resilience of the health and care system itself. Heat health warnings, public communication and targeted support for vulnerable people must become routine. Extreme heat is also an occupational health risk. Employers will increasingly need practical measures such as water, shade, ventilation, rest breaks and adjusted working patterns. Stronger workplace protections would safeguard both workers’ health and productivity. The private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) recognises that existing protections have not kept pace with our changing climate, and that employers need to be supported to ensure that people are working in safe and healthy conditions. Britain’s buildings were designed for a cooler climate. During heatwaves, schools, hospitals, libraries, prisons and care homes can become dangerously hot, placing public services under additional pressure just as demand is rising.
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
I thank the hon. Member for that point. I will come to the question of how we retrofit buildings and how we ensure that new buildings of <span id="311WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="311WH"></span>whatever type, including schools, are fit for purpose for the large numbers of mainly young people who use them. His points are well made. During heatwaves, schools can become unsuitable for learning, hospitals struggle to provide safe conditions for patients and staff, and care homes become hazardous for some of the most vulnerable members of society. The problem does not end when temperatures fall; many buildings retain heat long into the night. One constituent told me her home reached 42.5°, and her young son required urgent care after suffering a severe asthma attack induced by extreme heat in the flat. The Climate Change Committee warns that, by 2050, 92% of existing homes could overheat during summer heatwaves if we do not have a full programme of adaptation measures. Most of the homes that we will live in then have already been built now, which means that national retrofit programmes are essential to keep people safe, including those that deliver shading, cooling, ventilation and green infrastructure. At the same time, every new home, school, hospital and workplace should be designed for a hotter climate through passive cooling measures such as external shading, ventilation, green roofs and reflective materials. Retrofitting later is far more expensive than building resilience from the outset, and every building constructed today should be designed for the climate we are moving towards, not the one we have left behind. As well as changes to the built environment, we must also consider making social changes. We need to question whether the summer period will be the right time for exams in future. We must look to protect young people and help them to do their absolute best in exams, in whatever conditions are comfortable for them to work at their best.
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. Water conservation, like energy conservation, is critical, and there must be measures to help households to do their absolute best on that. My region is one of those with a hosepipe ban in force at the moment. She is absolutely right that data centres pose a real risk both to our water conservation and energy conservation targets. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I should declare that I am a member of, is currently doing an investigation into that. She is absolutely right that there is limited point in emphasising other ways of reducing water and energy consumption if we allow massive increases in usage in other ways. As a society, we have to get a grip of the environmental risks of data centres and AI before they take hold.
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
I strongly agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Food security and water security are absolutely central to this debate, and they are under real threat. I represent a rural area as well, and it is hard to believe that it is so difficult for farmers to get permission to store water on their farms when so many areas have the problem of too much water at some times of the year and too little at others. Surely, we can find an answer by bringing those problems together. As with anything else, Government policies need to support farmers to do things that they want to do that will help with our natural environment and our social preparedness. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that really important point. Our transport networks were designed for a cooler climate. Extreme heat causes rails to buckle, overhead power lines to sag and road surfaces to deteriorate, and that leads to delays, cancellations and rising maintenance costs. As heatwaves become more frequent, transport resilience must become a standard requirement for infrastructure investment. Every road and railway built today should be designed for the hotter climate that it will face over its lifetime, because building in resilience now is far cheaper than repeatedly repairing failures later. Our energy system was designed for a climate where peak demand occurred in winter. As temperatures rise, demand for cooling increases, while extreme heat reduces the efficiency of power generation and places greater strain on the electricity network. Recent heatwaves have demonstrated that hotter summers are creating new challenges for energy security and resilience. The electricity system must become more resilient to hotter summers as well as colder winters. Extreme heat causes one of Britain’s greatest long-term resilience challenges: water security. Hotter, drier summers increase demand, as higher temperatures reduce river flows, lower reservoir levels, dry soils and intensify pressures on supplies, particularly across eastern and southern England. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has repeatedly warned that England faces a serious risk of water shortages unless resilience improves. Ofwat warns that without action, England could face a daily water shortfall of around 5 billion litres by 2055. This year’s record-breaking spring heat provided a warning, with high demand and low storage levels leaving thousands of households in south-east England without water. Building resilience means expanding reservoir capacity, modernising ageing infrastructure, reducing leakage, improving water efficiency and restoring natural catchments. Water security is no longer simply an environmental issue. It is fundamental to public health, food production, economic resilience and national security.<span id="313WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="313WH"></span> Extreme heat is becoming one of the greatest threats facing farmers and our food system. Predictable seasons, reliable rainfall and healthy soils are at extreme risk from climate breakdown. The National Farmers’ Union describes climate change as “one of the biggest threats to UK food security”, while 80% of farmers say that increasingly frequent extreme weather is threatening their livelihoods and reducing productivity. Heat stress is also threatening animal welfare. During the 2022 heatwave, when UK temperatures exceeded 40° for the first time, around 18,500 chickens died from heat in transit. Government figures indicate that more poultry died during the heatwaves we have experienced this summer. Higher temperatures dry soils, increase irrigation demand and reduce crop yields. This year’s dry spring brought harvests forward into late June in some areas, with lower spring yields expected as a result. Many farmers can now harvest only in the mornings and evenings because grain becomes too dry during the hottest parts of the day, which increases storage fire risks and, in some cases, necessitates costly cooling before processing. The Climate Change Committee estimates that heat stress already costs agriculture around £205 million a year. Last year’s spring, the hottest and driest on record, contributed to one of the poorest harvests in recent decades, costing arable farmers at least £800 million in lost revenue. The consequences extend far beyond the farm gate. The UK food security digest concludes that climate-related disruption is already pushing up food prices, while the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit estimates that extreme weather added around £361 to the average household food bill during 2022 and 2023. As Britain becomes more reliant on imported food, we are increasingly exposed to climate shocks overseas, with disruption to just five staple foods estimated to have driven 30% to 40% of food price inflation over the past two years. Climate change is no longer just affecting where food is grown; it is affecting what families can afford. Supporting farmers through resilient farming systems, better water management, healthier soils, stronger animal welfare and continued innovation is essential to protecting affordable food, rural livelihoods and the resilience of Britain’s food supply. Food security is national security. Wildfires are becoming a growing challenge for farmers and fire and rescue services. They are occurring earlier, lasting longer and increasingly threatening homes, businesses, infrastructure and rural communities. Hotter, drier summers dry vegetation and soils, allowing fires to spread rapidly and causing devastating damage to crops, wildlife and property. As the climate warms, fire and rescue services will need greater capability, stronger land management and better public awareness. Wildfire resilience must become a central part of Britain’s climate adaptation strategy. Britain’s wildlife is experiencing the consequences of hotter, drier summers as well. Rivers and lakes warm rapidly during prolonged heat, reducing oxygen levels and contributing to fish deaths and declines in freshwater biodiversity. Wetlands dry out, placing pressures on amphibians, insects and water birds, while prolonged heat and drought weaken woodlands and leave ecosystems more vulnerable to pests, disease and wildfire. Those impacts come on top of decades of habitat loss and ecological decline. The Wildlife Trust warns that climate change is amplifying the nature crisis, while <span id="314WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="314WH"></span>the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has highlighted that important habitats, including peatlands, salt marshes, heathlands and wetlands, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to prolonged heat and drought. The problem we have is a lack of real-time data on ecological impacts. All of that matters, because healthy ecosystems are part of our national resilience. The Climate Change Committee increasingly describes healthy ecosystems not simply as environmental assets, but as part of the nation’s resilience infrastructure. Healthy ecosystems store water, cool communities, reduce flood risk and support biodiversity. Peatlands store carbon and retain water during periods of drought. Wetlands help to regulate river flows, reduce flood risk and provide cooler refuges during heatwaves. Trees and woodlands lower surrounding temperatures, helping to cool both urban and rural environments while supporting biodiversity. If we continue to lose the natural environments that regulate water, cool our towns and cities, retain fresh water and sustain biodiversity, we will become progressively less resilient to the impacts of climate change. Protecting and restoring nature is therefore not simply an environmental ambition; it is an essential part of preparing Britain for a hotter future. In conclusion, the costs of extreme heat are already being paid. Dame Emma Howard Boyd, chair of the National Heat Risk Commission, has described extreme heat as a “force multiplier”, because it increases healthcare costs, disrupts transport and energy systems, damages crops, raises food prices and places growing pressure on water supplies and wildfire risk. The June 2026 heatwave alone is estimated to have reduced UK productivity by at least £2.36 billion and, as that figure reflects only productivity losses, the true economic impact is almost certainly higher. If current trends continue, annual productivity losses could reach £25 billion by 2030. The Climate Change Committee estimates that around £11 billion a year is needed to strengthen the UK’s climate resilience, with around a third of that invested in protection from extreme heat. Adaptation is an investment in resilience, and prevention will always be cheaper than recovery. What is lacking is not evidence, but co-ordinated delivery. Britain needs a heat resilience strategy that is led from the Cabinet Office, with clear ministerial accountability, ensuring that decisions on housing, infrastructure, health, energy and land use are all designed for the climates that we now face. Heat health warnings, public information and targeted support for vulnerable people should become routine before heatwaves strike. Green infrastructure is among the most effective adaptation measures available, but adaptation alone cannot protect us from unchecked warming, and mitigation cannot protect us from the warming already locked in. We need both. A world that warms by 4° would bring dire consequences beyond the limits of adaptation, making climate resilience and decarbonisation inseparable. The challenge before Parliament is therefore not whether to act, but whether we act quickly enough and with enough ambition to prepare Britain for the climate in which we must now live.
- Hansard source
Extreme Heat: Preparedness
I thank all hon. Members who have come along to take part in today’s debate. It shows how much interest there is across the House in this issue, which affects our constituents’ day-to-day lives now, and that is before the changes that could come in the future. I thank the Minister for that information. She suggested that she has more to give, and I would welcome a written response to see what more there is, especially if she has gone to the trouble of preparing it. In particular, I would like to hear more about the cross-departmental work that is planned. That is why I called for the Cabinet Office to be the answering Department in this debate. As much as I respect and work with DEFRA Ministers, this is a cross-Government issue, and it is extremely important that it is led by the Cabinet Office. I was also looking forward to the Minister talking about what immediate actions can be taken this summer, given that many measures that will take longer to deliver—in particular, increasing support for tackling wildfires and for A&E departments. If she has more to add on that, I would welcome it. I want to underline what two or three other Members said. I too hosted a screening of “National Emergency Briefing” in my constituency recently. It would be immensely powerful if the Government got behind a public information screening of that film. Alongside that, information could be provided about measures that people can take to adapt as best they can to the changes. We need systemic measures—it is not about what individuals can do—but giving people that information would help to raise the profile of this issue and give them the sense that we are working together.<span id="333WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="333WH"></span> I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) made: if we are to get a grip of this problem, we must first stop making it far worse, which the granting of new licences for oil drilling in Rosebank and Jackdaw would do. Rosebank would produce emissions equivalent to 28 low-income countries; we cannot possibly justify that if we are to get to grips with the scale of the problem. It was reassuring to hear that Members from across the House are concerned about the degree of warming that is already happening. We need to tackle that to protect people—especially the most vulnerable, who are affected the most. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the range of actions that the Government have planned. <em>Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).</em>
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill
I support the reasoned amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), which has not been selected, alongside me, my Green party colleagues and a cross-party grouping. I associate myself with the comments made already by Members on the Opposition Benches; we must reject division, not feed it. I believe that our reasoned amendment represents the views of the majority of the UK public, who reject the far right, delight in the strong reputation that this country has for welcoming refugees and believe in human rights. We must treat those fleeing war, danger, discrimination and oppression the same as we would want to be treated if circumstances changed in this country. I believe the majority of the UK public are proud of the many, many migrant families of all kinds over the years, who are not only well-settled and well-integrated, but integral to our British identity. This Bill will do the opposite of maintaining our proud British tradition of integration and community cohesion. It is designed to make it harder for families to form, reunite or remain together, and it is clearly designed <span id="709" class="column-number" data-column-number="709"></span>to prevent refugees from finding a permanent safe new home here, which will damage community cohesion by preventing long-term integration. The conclusions of Liberty around the impact of the Bill on children are stark. It says that more children will face separation, either from their parent or their home. It has huge concerns about the proposals to force no weight to be given to relationships formed by people in the UK in irregular circumstances. Banning people from falling in love is unlikely to work, so many children will undoubtedly be seriously harmed by this blunt and bad-faith proposal. In addition, the proposals in part 4 of the Bill to force payments from financially vulnerable refugees are misconceived and cruel. Remember, these proposals will apply to the very poorest refugees, so it is a tax on poverty and on being a victim of war or persecution. It is a tax on free speech exercised by those who end up as political prisoners. It is a tax on LGBT+ people and on women fighting for education. It is a tax on discriminated-against minorities under authoritarian regimes. The Bill does nothing to increase the right to work for people seeking asylum, which is the most obvious way of closing the hotels, reducing poverty and destitution and reducing the costs to the state of the long waits that refugees face. Above all, the Bill does nothing to improve the poor initial decision making that every MP’s caseworkers know all too much about. It does not fix the problems caused by Brexit or provide any new safe routes for seeking asylum here. It does not reduce the number of small boats or prevent the criminal exploitation of those with clear and legitimate claims, but no safe way to reach the UK at all. The Home Secretary must reconsider and withdraw this Bill.
- Hansard source
Death of Ann Widdecombe
On behalf of the Green party, I would like to say how shocked, saddened and horrified I am by Ann Widdecombe’s horrific death—her brutal murder—and my sincere condolences go to her friends and family and all who knew her and loved her, including colleagues in this House. I welcome the points that the Home Secretary has made about reviewing security arrangements for those in public life, including former MPs and those outside this House. I very much agree with her about the responsibility that we all have, across this House and beyond, to avoid speculation, so that the police can hold their vital investigation and bring the culprit to justice. She has recognised the calls that have been made from across this House today for further action to tackle the proliferation of polarisation and hatred online. May I press her to set a timescale for taking that further action, to protect not only the safety and security of all those in public life, but the fundamentals of our democracy?
- Hansard source
Embodied Carbon: Buildings
The climate crisis is upon us. We in the UK are now in the midst of our third heatwave in less than three months. Communities have endured sweltering conditions that have put huge pressure on our NHS, our infrastructure and our natural environment. Our ambulance service has never been so busy. Tragically, lives have been lost as people have sought relief from the heat in rivers and lakes. Today, we have heard that it is estimated that there were 2,700 excess deaths due to just the May and June heatwaves. In my constituency, dozens of schools have had to close due to overheating. People are sweltering in hospitals, care homes and many other workplaces, and farmers and communities alike are facing critical water shortages. Extreme heat is no longer an occasional inconvenience, and neither are extreme storms and floods; they are now part of everyday life, and we know that things are getting worse. If we are serious about protecting future generations from climate breakdown, every sector must play its part in reducing emissions. Today I will focus on one sector that is rarely discussed, despite having an environmental footprint unlike any other. Globally, the construction of buildings contributes more than one tenth of the world’s carbon emissions—around four times the footprint of aviation. Here in the UK, the construction sector is responsible for fully 25% of the UK’s carbon footprint on a consumption basis. The built environment generates one third of the world’s waste—a figure surpassed only by food waste—and consumes nearly half of all the raw materials that we extract from the earth.
- Hansard source
Embodied Carbon: Buildings
The hon. Member makes an excellent point from a position of great expertise. That is precisely what this debate is about: we need to recognise that we should be reusing buildings as much as possible. We should be reducing the destruction caused by a failure to reuse. We should ensure that regulations are put in place that enable those who are developing, as well as those who have sites and responsibility for them, to take account of the whole life-cycle carbon assessment in deciding how to deal with a building. Let us take the waste hierarchy—reduce, reuse, recycle—into account in the construction sector, which is such a critical part of our nation’s carbon emissions.
- Hansard source
Embodied Carbon: Buildings
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Since I entered this place, I have been campaigning for homes and buildings that are truly fit for the future. We need to take this issue into account when we build and design buildings. We do not want to have to retrofit buildings at huge expense later on. We need to recognise that there are so many opportunities to deal with this at the design stage. The materials that we use in construction play a crucial role in reducing the need for active heating and cooling; they can allow us to incorporate passive elements. Measures to address the embodied carbon of buildings can also play a role in reducing the operational carbon impact of buildings. That is an excellent point, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. It is clear that the construction industry has a huge impact on both climate change and biodiversity loss. We rightly spend time discussing how efficiently buildings operate once they are occupied, but we spend remarkably little time discussing the emissions that occur before anybody even walks through the front door of a new building. Those emissions are known as embodied carbon—that is, the greenhouse gases emitted when we extract raw materials, process them into building materials and use them for construction. According to the UK Green Building Council, embodied carbon accounts for around 20% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions and is expected to account for fully half of the built environment’s emissions by 2035. Bizarrely, though, it has so far been ignored by central Government policy. Building regulations only set limits on a subset of operational emissions. The Government’s new future homes standard ignores embodied carbon and only tackles energy use in new homes, which is a small fraction of the total emissions from the built environment. The standard is silent on material use, construction processes and embodied carbon. These are not marginal omissions—they are large gaps in UK climate policy. The Environmental Audit Committee pointed this out several years ago, as have experts for years and years. The huge irony is that the construction sector is crying out for UK Government leadership in this area. We know that we have a housing crisis in this country. We need to build more houses—the right houses, in the right place, at the right price—and it is crucial to ensure that when we build, we do so in a way that is genuinely fit for the future, as we have discussed. That means using a whole-life carbon assessment to minimise both operational and embodied carbon emissions. The hugely frustrating thing for the construction sector is that the absence of national regulation in this area is creating more bureaucracy, not less. As a result of the Government failing to provide national direction, local planning authorities are increasingly stepping into the vacuum themselves. Recent research led by the University of Sheffield found that 61% of local planning authorities now reference embodied carbon in their planning policies, and 7% are moving to mandate assessments.<span id="736" class="column-number" data-column-number="736"></span> I commend those councils for their ambition—they recognise the urgency of climate action and are taking real, tangible action. However, the consequence is fragmentation. Different authorities are adopting different reporting templates, different thresholds, different assessment requirements and different policy wording. As such, national house builders and developers are being forced to navigate an increasingly complex patchwork of local rules. They have to learn a new set of rules every time they build in a different local authority. Planning officials are duplicating work, and local authorities are developing parallel systems. Everyone is investing time and money in solving the same problem dozens of times over. The Government would not leave local authorities to tackle other aspects that are fundamental to building design, such as fire safety or equality. Those areas have national minimum standards that authorities can build on, so why are carbon emissions not treated the same? Do we not take climate breakdown as seriously as safety or equality?
- Hansard source
Embodied Carbon: Buildings
Absolutely. As we have discussed, we should reduce, reuse and recycle; let us make sure that every part of a building is reused in the best way possible. Demolition should be the absolute last resort, so it sounds like the hon. Gentleman’s planning authority is taking the right direction. Last year, I attended an embodied carbon industry summit, which was held just over the road from this House. At the summit, a simple question was asked of attendees: without Government intervention, will local embodied carbon rules become more consistent or more divergent? The response was absolutely resounding: the rules will continue to diverge without Government leadership. It is clear that national regulation on embodied carbon will reduce complexity for the construction industry, not increase it. It will replace fragmentation with consistency, create a national carbon dataset, and provide certainty for industry, while delivering meaningful carbon reductions. Surely that is exactly the kind of planning reform that this Government should want to achieve. As the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted in its 2022 report, “Building to net zero: costing carbon in construction”, regulating embodied carbon would be “the single most significant policy the Government could introduce” if they wish to tackle the reuse of buildings, the development of low-carbon materials and a reduction in these emissions. Why are we still waiting? The encouraging news is that the construction sector is not waiting for Government. For more than four years, more than 250 organisations from across the built <span id="737" class="column-number" data-column-number="737"></span>environment sector have supported a campaign called “Part Z”, named after the various other parts of the building regulations. They have been calling for national embodied carbon regulation. Those companies are not asking the Government to invent something entirely new. Indeed, the same experts who developed “Part Z” have now produced the UK net zero carbon buildings standard, a ready-made framework that provides a practical route to compliance. It builds on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ whole-life carbon assessment methodology, one of the most developed embodied carbon methodologies in the world. These documents could form the basis of future regulatory reporting requirements and, in time, a new approved document. The Government do not need to start from scratch; the construction industry has already done much of the hard work. Indeed, members of this Government used to be in support of such action. When a private Member’s Bill on embodied carbon was debated in 2022, Jonathan Reynolds, now the Government’s Chief Whip, and previously the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, said “We support it”—
- Hansard source
Embodied Carbon: Buildings
I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand entirely corrected. The aforementioned right hon. Gentleman said: “We support it. I agree with his proposition that industry would welcome further regulation in this area”.<span id="vol723_col620" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="620" data-volume-number="723" data-external-id="011794AB-BDA4-4F53-9FC8-8CAF5B440B6F">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 25 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 620.]</span> He was right then, and that statement is right now, because this is not regulation that industry fears; it is regulation that the construction sector is asking for. Industry is calling for this, because it provides a level playing field, creates local green jobs and boosts investment in lower-carbon materials. Good regulation rewards innovation, provides certainty for investment and gives British businesses the confidence to lead. The rest of the world is moving ahead in this area. The Netherlands has regulated embodied carbon for more than a decade. The EU requires reporting from 2028 and will have limits from 2030. Türkiye is requiring reporting from 2027. Several US states mandate reporting today. Meanwhile, Britain, despite having world-leading engineers, researchers and designers, risks falling behind. This is not simply an environmental issue; this is an industrial strategy issue. It is a planning reform issue and a housing issue. It is about whether Britain intends to lead or follow. Today, I ask the Minister for one thing above all else: national leadership. I ask for a clear pathway towards national regulation to measure and reduce embodied carbon, aligned with the direction already being taken by many of our international partners and by many in the construction industry. I ask that embodied carbon is finally recognised within national planning policy, replacing <span id="738" class="column-number" data-column-number="738"></span>today’s fragmented patchwork with one coherent national approach. I ask the Government to consider using the UK net zero carbon buildings standard as the route to fast-tracking the compliance requirements, finally giving industry the certainty it has been requesting for years. When will the Government finally release their long-delayed circular economy growth plan, which could deal with embodied carbon at its core? Climate change is not hanging around, as we can see around us all the time, and embodied carbon is only making things worse. We can and must change that. We have the expertise, the methodology and the support from industry. Local authorities are crying out for consistency, and the standards have already been written—the only thing missing is national leadership. I call on the Minister to provide it.
- Hansard source
Embodied Carbon: Buildings
As the Minister has pointed out, there is a need for more consistency. Does she not recognise that Government is the institution that can provide exactly the consistency that the sector requires?
- Hansard source
Embodied Carbon: Buildings
The Minister has outlined the complexities of regulating in this area as in any other area, and I am glad to hear her say that this does not mean the Government <span id="742" class="column-number" data-column-number="742"></span>will do nothing. The Government would not say that fire safety is a complex area, and they therefore will not regulate. However, in this area, as I outlined in my speech, hundreds of industry experts have come together to create a framework that the Government could use as the basis for regulating. Does she recognise that so much of the preparatory work has already been done to address that complexity?
- Hansard source
State of Climate and Nature
I welcome the statement from the Nature Minister, and thank her for recognising the crucial link between nature restoration and tackling climate breakdown. Does she recognise that whatever action is taken—we need to see far more action taken both on nature restoration and on decarbonisation—if large-scale new oilfields are granted at Rosebank or Jackdaw, for example, there could be emissions equivalent to 28 low-income countries from just one oilfield, which would undo all the good work that she and all of us in the House want to see?
- Hansard source
River Wye: Pollution
My constituency has been devastated by water pollution. We are now nearly seven years into a planning moratorium that has decimated the construction industry, because of pollution in the River Lugg, a tributary of the Wye. We are 10 years on from the first court case that said the Government should publish a plan to clean it up, but that plan, last year, set out that the current measures will not get close to fixing the problem. We urgently need a water protection zone. Will the Minister come to North Herefordshire to meet local campaigners, citizen scientists and farmers to understand why we need that water protection zone, and make a commitment to bring one in to finally resolve this problem?
- Hansard source
Iran Conflict: Ceasefire
Iran’s attack on commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz is clearly a flagrant breach of international law, and incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. The escalating US response is also extremely dangerous, and it is not just tit for tat—it is a disproportionate escalation. Let us not forget that this war was started by the US and Israel choosing to launch attacks on Iran on 28 February. Can the Minister say what the UK Government are doing to maximise pressure on both parties to come back to the negotiating table—through sanctions and so forth, on Iran and on the US—to pull them back from the brink of this incredibly dangerous moment of escalation?
- Hansard source
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
I warmly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this much-needed debate. It is much-needed, because despite the fact that we have discussed the need for a ban on settlement trade on numerous occasions in this Chamber, and despite the fact that colleagues from all parts of the House have <span id="550" class="column-number" data-column-number="550"></span>repeatedly called on the Government to ban settlement trade, for the past two years we have heard nothing from this Government except excuses. That is simply unacceptable, because we in this country are complicit in what is happening. Failing to ban settlement trade means that money from Britain is actively supporting the perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and the clock is ticking. We debated just last week the E1 settlement expansion, which will put to death any prospect of a two-state solution and any prospect of lasting peace in Israel and Palestine if it is not stopped. The Government have an obligation to do everything in their power to pressure the Israeli Government to stop the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes along with it. There is a moral obligation. There is an international legal obligation, too. Two years ago, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion stating that very clearly. One of the excuses we repeatedly hear from the Government is that the opinion is only advisory, but we have UN resolutions and UN commissions of inquiry that state that there is a clear legal obligation on the UK Government to do everything possible to not provide material support to illegal occupation. There is a clear moral obligation, too. We hear two excuses repeated by this Government. One is that we cannot do this alone, and have to work in concert. We heard that yet again last week from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). We heard it in June last year, when I raised this precise issue with him in a debate that I led on tackling Israeli genocide in Gaza. He said: “at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.”<span id="vol769_col66WH" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="66WH" data-volume-number="769" data-external-id="CBC93C61-9A34-4338-8964-67D208FC7620">—[<em>Official Report, </em>17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 66WH.]</span> Since then, as we have heard, Spain has implemented a ban, as have the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and it is possible that the entire EU will. Our neighbours and partners are moving far faster than us, yet the UK bears a specific historical responsibility for this situation. How is it that our Government are abdicating that responsibility and enabling the perpetuation of a situation that will actively counteract their declaration last year of their recognition of the state of Palestine? One excuse from the Government is that we need to work together, yet others are way ahead of us. Is it not time for the UK at least to catch up, even if we cannot bring ourselves to show leadership? The other excuse we hear is that a ban is too difficult, but as colleagues across the Chamber have already pointed out, it was not too difficult when it came to Russia or Crimea. We have the legislation in place, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We could put the provisions in place now.
- Hansard source
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. One of the other excuses we hear from the Government is that settlement goods do not benefit from the preferential trade agreement that we have with Israel. That implies that it is already possible to distinguish between settlement goods and non-settlement goods, under existing provisions that we should be enforcing. Fundamentally, as has been pointed out, the shoe should be on the other foot. If Israeli exporters cannot prove that their exports do not come from illegal settlements, they should not be able to export to us. We should be absolutely certain. We must make it clear that it is unacceptable for British money to be at any risk of supporting the continuation of these illegal settlements. There is no excuse. We do not have the excuse that we have to wait for other countries to move, because they have moved ahead of us; and we do not have the excuse that this is too technically difficult, because the legal framework already exists, so what are the Government waiting for? Why will they not take this step? Will the Minister recognise the absolute imperative on the UK to take this step now, or will we hear yet more excuses from him when he sums up?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
At the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday, the Minister for Nature did not have a clear answer for why the national security assessment on ecosystem collapse has not been released in its full form to MPs. I got the impression that it was not her decision to withhold the full unredacted report from MPs. Whose decision was it?
- Hansard source
Timms Review: Interim Report
I have heard from constituents of different ages who are concerned about the planned changes to PIP, and who highlight its importance in enabling them to work and to play a full part in society. I want to ask specifically about young people under the age of 25. What mechanisms are being <span id="522" class="column-number" data-column-number="522"></span>put in place as part of this review to ensure that young people with cancer and other disabilities are considered, and that their distinct experiences are properly accounted for and heard as part of this process?
- Hansard source
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful speech. She talks about international law; does she agree with me on the importance of applying it consistently? In particular, given that the UK has rightly imposed sanctions and trade restrictions elsewhere—notably on Russia—does she agree that the same measures need to be applied to the Israeli Government’s illegal settlements on Palestinian territory?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Our politics needs fixing fast. The broken, outdated first-past-the-post system has clearly failed to deliver stable government. We urgently need to rebuild trust in our democracy and ensure that everybody’s vote counts <span id="305" class="column-number" data-column-number="305"></span>equally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) that proportional representation is an idea whose time has come? Does he also agree with me and Members across the House that that time is now, before the next general election?
- Hansard source
NHS Corridor Care
I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this incredibly important debate. I have heard from literally dozens of my constituents about why this issue is so important. They have told me their individual stories about elderly relatives stuck in corridors and the terrible effect that has had on their treatment, care and health outcomes. I have heard from staff in my local hospitals, who have shared exactly the same concerns about the conditions in which they are forced to work. Patients tell me universally how proud they are of the NHS and how much they value the incredible care they get at the hands of the people who keep it going, but they also tell me universally that corridor care is shameful and should not continue. I recently raised this matter directly with the chief executive of my local hospital, Hereford hospital, in our regular catch-up, and was delighted to hear that Hereford is not just aiming to meet the Government’s target of ending corridor care by 2029, but that locally, we have a target of ending corridor care by this autumn. I am really pleased that this is being prioritised so much locally, and I will be keeping a careful eye out to ensure that that happens. I want to raise a particular issue that has been touched on by many colleagues across the House this afternoon, which is the integral relationship between the NHS—what happens in our hospitals—and the social care system. We simply cannot fix the problem of corridor care unless we fix the problem of social care. For too many years—for decades, in fact—social care has been a political football kicked down the road by Governments of all stripes because it is difficult, but we have to grasp this nettle. We simply cannot fix the NHS unless we fix social care. Lord Darzi said exactly that himself. Sadly, however, we have not given the necessary attention to fixing social care. Yes, we have the Casey commission, which I value very much. I am very pleased with the work that has been done by Baroness Casey, but insufficient political effort is being put into this issue. It took nine <span id="400" class="column-number" data-column-number="400"></span>months for us to have the first cross-party meeting that the previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said he was going to call, and we have only recently had the second. We must put our shoulders to the wheel collectively to fix the challenges of social care and to have the difficult conversations about how we will fund it, because it does need funding; we do need those political conversations, and we need to find consensus. Unless we address the issues at the back door, too many people will be stuck in hospital when they would be better cared for elsewhere—better for them and their health; better for the national budget, because it would be cheaper; and better for our overall outcomes. It is shocking to learn that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine calculates that there were 15,000 excess deaths last year because of corridor care. That should not happen in our country today. I urge the Minister and her colleagues as strongly as possible to give the same attention to fixing social care as to fixing the NHS. Let every Member put in that effort too. It is notable that at Health and Social Care questions there is usually one question on social care and 19 on health. We must redress the balance collectively, put in the focus to fix social care, and thereby fix corridor care.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
I very much agree with Members who have talked about the importance of summer jobs for young people, but as the <span id="199" class="column-number" data-column-number="199"></span>hon. Gentleman says, we also need to think about providing more long-term jobs. Does he agree that it is vital that the Government reinvest all the money from the growth and skills levy in skills, and do not let the Treasury take away a top slice? We also need to make sure that the apprenticeship budget reflects the ambition of the sector; it could drive transformational change, and get our young people into the good jobs that they all deserve—good, long-term jobs and summer jobs.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
Does the hon. Member agree that there is a problem in Clacton, in particular, with certain people applying for jobs and then not actually doing them, or doing lots of other jobs instead of the one they should be doing? Perhaps we could think about a scheme where people like that do work experience with some of the incredible, hard-working young people who do vital jobs so that those people could learn a thing or two about how to behave in work and how to work hard.
- Hansard source
UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and an honour to follow the contributions by the right hon. Members for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I thank the former for securing this very important debate. It is shocking that we are in this position—that a Labour Government, who are supposed to share the principles of concern for the vulnerable, for equality and for solidarity, are the Government who have presided over the biggest ever single cut to the UK aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, aid, our investment as a country in international development, has historically been a matter of cross-party consensus. That is crucial. This is not a party political issue; it is about our fundamental humanity as politicians and as a nation. Disappointing is not the word; it is shocking and shameful that we are in this position and that this Government have slashed aid to such an extent. It is short-sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better and a more secure world, and it is immoral, because aid does work. As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with all her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths—millions. Every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is immoral.
- Hansard source
UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends
Very, very briefly, as I have almost no time.
- Hansard source
UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends
I thank the hon. Member. We know that aid works; I have seen it myself. I worked in international development for several decades before coming to this place. I have seen, in Malawi, how the provision of clean water literally saves lives. I have seen, in Burundi, how work on HIV and AIDS literally saves lives. I have seen in northern Uganda how investment in conflict <span id="59WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="59WH"></span>resolution, conflict prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers works to rebuild lives and livelihoods. I have seen, in the Philippines, how international aid has helped a community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods. Aid works. No, it is not perfect—of course it is not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer-term programmes, how to work better with local partners, and how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. We know all that, and we have been doing it for decades—yet what has happened? The rug has been pulled out from under aid, and for what purpose? To put the money into defence spending, which, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, has itself too often been a black hole, with cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. In the aid sector, we have focused on results and on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results. Why was that done? Let us remember that this aid cut was put in place on 25 February 2025. That was one month after Donald Trump returned to the White House and two days before the Prime Minister went to the White House, touting this aid cut and redirection of funding into defence, as part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Look how well that worked. It did not—it was never going to. This country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity, and for what? It is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid, because it is lifesaving, because it is the long-term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place, and because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country. That is not just about aid; it is about engagement with the debt crisis and with our trading relationships, and it means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as “polluter pays” taxes, to generate new streams of revenue to invest in these lifesaving and life-changing programmes. But one thing must be clear: we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world. This aid cut—this shameful Labour aid cut—makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour Government will reverse course.
- Hansard source
UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends
The argument that aid is only a small part of the solution to global poverty and inequality is not a controversial one, but lower-middle income countries have not been calling for the change that the hon. Member’s Government have delivered: the biggest slash in the aid budget altogether. If he believes that aid expenditure and development investment need to be done slightly differently, let us make the argument for that, but cutting it should play no part in the sorts of changes he talks about.
- Hansard source
UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Climate Change: Weather Events
The Secretary of State has referred to the number of people who are already losing their lives annually due to excess extreme heat, and that number will reach 10,000 by mid-century. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that the costs of putting in place the adaptations that are needed are less than the costs of not putting those adaptations in place. Will he be adopting the Climate Change Committee’s “A Well-Adapted UK” recommendations and investment plans in full?
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
The hon. Gentleman is clearly passionate about the horseracing sector. Did he see the incident at the Grand National festival earlier this year, when Gold Dancer broke his back during the race and was whipped to continue? As a result, when he got over the finishing line, it was too late for the vets to save him. That is not an isolated incident. Last year, there were 254 deaths of horses due to horseracing. In too many cases, the horses could have survived their injuries, but the owners judged that the damage was not worth it in terms of the financial value the horses could bring. Given all that, and the 641 instances of recorded whip abuses, if the horseracing sector is serious about its future—I recognise it matters to many people—it needs to show that horses will not be treated as expendable assets but as the beautiful animals they are, and future deaths must be avoided.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
A high proportion of my constituents proudly serve in our armed forces or are veterans. They want to know that the investment in the DIP is being spent cost-effectively. Given that more than half the capital budget is to be spent on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise—more than on every other bit of technology, equipment and kit for the entire armed forces put together—can the Secretary of State assure me that value for money analysis has been undertaken in line with the Treasury Green Book, and will he improve parliamentary scrutiny?
- Hansard source
Foreign Interference in UK Politics
I welcome that the Government have accepted all of the Rycroft review’s recommendations, but as Rycroft himself noted, his terms of reference did not enable him to look at all sources of distortion in our democracy. It does not just come from abroad. In a democracy, every voter’s voice should count equally, but it is clear that billionaires are buying influence. Why will the Minister not set a cap on all donations, so that we can eliminate the corrosive and corrupting influence of big money in our politics?
- Hansard source
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whose motion, report and recommendations for the Bill I support and welcome. Thorough and fair leasehold reform is long overdue. My inbox as MP for Brighton Pavilion is littered with horror stories from constituents about their experiences as leaseholders who are forced to fork out extortionate service charges with no value for money, poor maintenance and no transparency on how that money is spent, as well as awful communications. My leaseholders continue to suffer from a lack of agency in solving the building safety scandal, which has left too many leaseholders in Brighton’s many high-rise and mid-rise blocks stuck in unsafe homes. Some of my constituents tell me that they believe freeholders are still trying to cut corners and do this work on the cheap. Just last month I was contacted by multiple constituents about developer Barratt Redrow’s plans to remediate their blocks, built in the early 2000s, to a B1 standard, rather than to an A2 standard as they had understood would happen. This type of dispute, nine years on from the avoidable Grenfell disaster, is commonplace, and it is so worrying for too many of my constituents. I, too, want to talk about property management agents. A large number of leaseholders in Brighton and Hove are in a nightmare situation right now of not being able to access money paid into accounts managed by just one large property management company in sudden crisis. Under current leasehold regulations, when a managing agent’s client accounts are frozen, or irregularities are identified that suggest mismanagement of accounts, leaseholders are left exposed to very big financial losses. In the private rented sector, there is a Government-backed tenancy guarantee scheme, but for leaseholders there is no equivalent guarantee on service charge accounts and reserve funds. Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 does require property management companies to hold service charge contributions in trust and with a financial institution authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Yet the flexibility of how leaseholder money is held in reality means that the sums of money <span id="1086" class="column-number" data-column-number="1086"></span>in property management company accounts may far exceed the maximum amounts guaranteed under the financial services compensation scheme. Section 156 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 adds a requirement for managing agents to hold service charge funds in designated separate accounts, but it is not yet in force. This lack of enactment seems to leave wide open the potential for managing agents to hold leaseholder money in a way that falls outside of compensation schemes. It cannot be right that leaseholders are left exposed to risk in that way. To conclude, there is no doubt that the feudal leasehold system is broken and must be abolished in favour of commonhold. The regulation of managing agents to end their exploitation is very, very urgent. The promises that the Government made in opposition, to end the system within the first 100 days, were missed long ago, but we need full reform now, without delay, to ensure an end to leaseholders being ripped off, living in unsafe homes or being exposed to avoidable financial risk and losses.
- Hansard source
Access to Further Education
Too often, the voices of people who come through routes like apprenticeships, working people or tradespeople are missing from these debates, but I am really proud of my education and of my route through as an apprentice.<span id="1116" class="column-number" data-column-number="1116"></span> On apprenticeships, at the moment we are asking too many small and medium-sized businesses to carry the responsibility of training up the next generations of people without the funding and recognition that they deserve. I have met with small businesses across my constituency that want to take on apprentices, but tell me it is too expensive and too complicated; and it is not a lack of lack of willingness—it is a lack of support. We have to make it easier for small businesses to recruit apprentices by simplifying levy transfers, reducing administrative burdens wherever possible, and providing long-term funding certainty for their rising costs. Apprenticeships need to be made easier for young people and families to understand and access, and to be recognised and respected as the meaningful route into essential skilled work that they are, with support for apprenticeship wages that better reflect local labour markets and the removal of unfair practical barriers. We want free bus fares for under-22s so that no young person is held back from getting to their apprenticeship. We want equal access to funded childcare and the scrapping of disincentives such as those within the benefit system. Finally, we need economic policy that focuses on spreading opportunity and investment more fairly across the country, so that young people in places like Gorton and Denton are no longer left behind. In places like Gorton, Denton, Abbey Hey, Burnage, Longsight—all the places in my constituency—our young people have never lacked talent or drive, but we must stop wasting it, give them a chance and properly back further education and apprenticeships as the national assets that they are.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Small rural businesses in villages such as Pembridge in my constituency tell me that the combination of high business and VAT rates and rising national insurance contributions means they are facing a struggle for survival. Small rural businesses face greater pressure than their urban counterparts, with lower footfall and seasonal fluctuations in trade, so they operate with very tight margins. Does the Minister recognise the additional pressures faced by such businesses and that existing support schemes simply are not enough, and what more will he do to support businesses in constituencies such as mine?