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

What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.

Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology

Labour Party

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
646
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
258
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
109
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
15
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
19
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
15
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 11 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

Sitting MPs
4
Entries, last 7 days
2
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentSNPSeamus Logan

    Hunting Trophy Imports

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing a significant amount of parliamentary time for this debate. Most people know of Cecil, the iconic lion lured from a protected area in Zimbabwe, wounded by an American trophy hunter and killed some hours later. Cecil’s death sparked a global outcry and public calls to ban the outdated and inhumane practice of trophy hunting. As the hon. Member said, trophy hunting causes animal cruelty for the purposes of human entertainment and so-called sport. Animals hunted for trophies are shot by inexperienced hunters, and the animals’ suffering is not just celebrated, but incentivised, with some hunters using bows and crossbows to hunt. Animals that are shot but escape can take hours or even days to die in agony. The trophy-hunting industry is based on an economic model that incentivises the cruel and unsustainable exploitation of wildlife. It conflicts with and undermines the viability of ethical alternatives, including eco-tourism. As the hon. Member described, trophy hunting is not, as is sometimes claimed, essential for conservation. There are many highly successful conservation programmes operating around the world, in countries such as Kenya and Costa Rica, that do not involve killing the animals they are meant to protect. Yet we see organisations such as the Otterlo Business Corporation, based in the United Arab Emirates, making millions from this horrible so-called sport. I have been contacted by a number of constituents. Like my colleague beside me, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I see an awful lot of traffic in my inbox on this topic. The messages all agree that the practice of trophy hunting is deeply cruel and barbaric. In that correspondence, my constituents rightly point out that page 59 of Labour’s manifesto committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister when that Bill will be introduced. Can she confirm that work has actually begun on such a Bill? As the practice continues, one British hunter even boasted recently of proudly killing a critically endangered black rhino—one of the rarest and most vulnerable animals on the planet. People across these islands have been waiting for 11 years since the first promises were made to ban the import of hunting trophies. In that time, another 2,000 trophies from animals considered to be endangered by CITES have been brought back to Britain, including the ears of elephants, the feet of giraffes and the entire bodies of bears and monkeys. I am told that these so-called trophies are worthless in their countries of origin and gain value only when imported. That is the key to the legislation promised by this Labour Government. Across the Atlantic, the vice-president of the United States, J. D. Vance, has met Safari Club International, the trophy hunting group that targets endangered animals including pygmy hippos. The UK Government need to stand against any influence from the White House against proposals for a ban. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst mentioned Tanzania during his excellent speech. It is no coincidence that the most recent meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was held in Tanzania. The country is a member of the Commonwealth, yet we hear about human rights violations against the Maasai tribesmen and tribeswomen. These are not minor matters. I am sure he has seen the same footage that I have seen of Maasai tribesmen risking their lives to give evidence of disappearances, murders, forced evictions, the slaughter of cattle, corruption, bribery, false fines and paramilitaries operating on behalf of the Government. There are claims that allowing trophy hunting is all about conservation and reducing human-animal conflict. No, it is not about those things; it is about a multimillion-dollar industry called trophy hunting. The fact that the 153rd meeting of the IPU was held in Tanzania should be of great interest to us. I have read the report, especially the section on human rights, and there is no mention of trophy hunting. That meeting of the IPU was attended by Mr Speaker. It is about time that the UK Government acted and introduced a Bill to ban trophy hunting imports.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentSNPLara Bird

    Welfare

    It is heartbreaking that we still have a such a large proportion of working poor in our society, and that so many people across my constituency, and the constituencies of others Members, are working hard, making sacrifices and doing their best, yet are still being punished by increasingly oppressive policies that take one look at the reality of hardship faced by folk, and decide to look the other way. One thing that is clear, and has always been clear, is that we cannot cut our way to prosperity—the Tories’ own record shows that to be true. The way to get the welfare bill down is not to arbitrarily pick targets and experiment with people’s lives to score political points, and it is genuinely insulting that Conservative Members can come here today and try to offer half-baked solutions to problems that they created. This is largely a problem of the Conservative party’s own making. Conservative Members are trying to blame those in our society who rely on support because they cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. We must make it clear how misguided at best, or intentionally reckless at worst, the Conservative party is when it comes to welfare, because its austerity-fuelled cuts were linked directly to rising levels of poverty, and they have exacerbated the overall cost, long term. Anyone minded to listen to the Conservative party on their arbitrary welfare targets might need to seriously check themselves. Of course we do not want people to rely on welfare long term, but there is a trend over past years—largely instigated by Conservative Members, but it is increasingly found wider afield—to blame those who rely on additional support for Government mismanagement, instead of recognising that many who receive such support are already valuable, contributing members of our society. This trend completely fails to address why so many working-age, motivated and skilled individuals still have no choice but to rely on additional support. Indeed, many people are able to contribute to our society and economy only because they receive additional support. Rather than blame those people, there must be more intense scrutiny of why so many people have to rely on that support, why so many are dependent on universal credit despite being in full-time employment, and why so many young people are relying on jobseeker’s allowance. It is not because they do not want to work and are not looking for work; it is because the Labour Government have priced them out of employment by creating such a hostile hiring environment. So many parents and families rely on the Scottish child payment because life is just so unaffordable. I am especially concerned about young people who are coming of age today. A young person in my constituency who graduated from a university in England or Wales might have over £60,000 of debt, which they will likely be paying off for their entire life, and that amount will rise year on year because of interest. They have started paying that debt back earlier because Labour refused to amend the threshold freeze. A young person might not be able to find a job because the employer national insurance contribution hike is pricing young people out of work, or because of the refusal to cut VAT on hospitality, or because of the total mismanagement of minimum wage reforms. A young person could be paying more than £1,000 in energy bills; they are due to rise again in January, because of Labour’s choices. A young person who cannot afford to save knows that they will likely never buy a house, might never receive a state pension, and faces unaffordable monthly living costs. As one of the youngest Members in this House, it is so frustrating to come here and hear others speaking about the reality for young people without actually understanding what they are facing, and to see the discrepancy between apparent support from the Government and the reality for young people in my constituency. Yes, I want the welfare bill to come down, but the way to reduce it is to introduce effective employment support. The SNP will not support the Opposition motion this afternoon, and it is laughable to think that anyone would take their lead when it comes to addressing the welfare budget.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentSNPGraham Leadbitter

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The SNP’s approach to Scotland’s energy future is grounded in pragmatism, climate responsibility and protecting our industrial workforce. We recognise the inescapable reality that the economy will continue to require oil and gas for years to come as we transition towards net zero. That is why we do not support the Government’s blanket ban on new exploration licences as set out in the Energy Independence Bill. On major developments such as Rosebank, our position is both principled and rigorous. Decisions cannot be made on the basis of political posturing. They must be assessed individually against statutory emissions targets and climate compatibility. Where domestic production carries a lower emissions footprint than imported fossil fuels, it is entirely rational to consider it while demand remains. For as long as we need oil and gas, it is also ethically questionable to offshore our responsibilities to countries that have poorer environmental controls and, in many cases, very poor employment rights.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentSNPGraham Leadbitter

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    No, I will press on. Scotland’s renewable potential is extraordinary. Our nation leads the world in offshore wind deployment, with renewable generation breaking new records. Yet our constituents are forced to endure the cruel absurdity of living in an energy-rich nation while paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe and suffering widespread fuel poverty. For half a century, Westminster has treated Scotland’s energy reserves as a Treasury cash cow, squandering vast revenues rather than investing them for the lasting prosperity of our communities. We are determined that the north-east of Scotland, long the oil and gas capital of Europe, must become the net zero capital of the world. Yet our communities are caught between two failed Westminster extremes. Under the Conservatives, 70,000 jobs were lost while they pushed empty “Drill, drill, drill” slogans without building the renewables bridge. Now, Labour is pursuing the opposite extreme—imposing exploration bans and extending a punitive energy profits levy beyond all justification, threatening to repeat the industrial devastation that Thatcher inflicted in Scotland’s heartlands.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentSNPGraham Leadbitter

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    No. Neither ignoring the cliff edge nor pushing workers straight over it are serious policies—

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentSNPGraham Leadbitter

    Engagements

    Q15. The Chancellor has acknowledged that Scotland could have had a £1 trillion wealth fund from oil and gas, but instead we have seen no fund and 1,000 jobs lost every month. Before the Prime Minister jets off to COP31, will he commit to a Scottish wealth fund to ringfence revenues from Scotland’s waters for Scotland’s renewables future, or is he content to continue Labour’s deindustrialisation of Scotland, just like Thatcher in the ’80s?

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentSNPDave Doogan

    Employers

    The shadow Minister talks about businesses having warned the Labour Government about the impact that Labour’s jobs tax was going to have. Does she, like me, think it is inconceivable that Treasury officials would not similarly have advised the Government that this would be a consequence of the jobs tax? Is it not particularly pernicious of Labour to have put the biggest barricade in front of younger workers, possibly accessing their first job in hospitality, which will have a lifelong damaging effect on their careers?

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentSNPDave Doogan

    Employers

    There is a constant tension in that those who criticise Government fiscal policy must say where they would get the money from. On that basis, could the Minister advise the House what progress the Government have made over the past two years on closing the tax gap, and say what size it currently is?

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentSNPDave Doogan

    Employers

    The hon. Lady has given a comprehensive list of the impediments that this Government have put the way of business in just 24 months, but I hope she will not forget that we have the highest commercial energy prices anywhere in the developed world under this Labour Government. Those are similarly threatening to put businesses under.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentSNPDave Doogan

    Employers

    In the last Parliament, the SNP was a substantially bigger party than the Liberal Democrats, and we fought tooth and nail to maintain membership of the EU as well. I am sure the hon. Lady will acknowledge that.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentReformRichard Tice

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Oil and gas is energy treasure. That is the reality. Oil and gas represents 80%-plus of all the energy that we use currently, and that will be the case for many decades to come—way beyond 2050. Any nation blessed with such energy treasure is trying to extract it as fast as they possibly can, and we should do the same. Quite rightly, the Foreign Secretary has allowed the extraction of oil and gas in the Falkland Islands, so the idea that we would not allow the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea, just outside the wonderful nation of Scotland, is completely bizarre. The numbers are fantastic: more than £8 billion of GDP; 2,000 jobs during construction; and 500 jobs permanently—those are big, serious numbers.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentReformRichard Tice

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    I will not give way, if that is okay, because so many want to speak. That is hundreds and hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly. Frankly, it is financially gross negligence not to extract that energy treasure. That is the simple reality. The myth is that because the oil is exported, we should not extract it. Guess what? It goes to refineries in Europe, because we were stupid enough to shut down our refineries in the past 20 years, only for some 65% of what is exported to come back to the United Kingdom, as a parliamentary Committee heard recently. We need to take advantage of this treasure.

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentReformRichard Tice

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    I will not give way, because others want to speak. We have a growth crisis. This is a great opportunity for jobs, activity and investment. It is treasure, and we should extract every last barrel, every last drop.

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentReformRichard Tice

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    If we are the only G7 country to ban the drilling of new oil and gasfields, does the Minister think that other G7 countries will follow us, or does he think that they will laugh at our naive stupidity?

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentReformDanny Kruger

    Employers

    May I bring the hon. Lady back to the point about the opportunity presented by opening up greater access to the European single market? She has cited various reports suggesting that that would be good. Is she aware of the winners of the Nobel prize for economics last year, who demonstrated that what has driven growth across the world, but particularly in the United Kingdom, has not been access to wider markets, but innovation and technology? That is about the growth that we receive from supporting businesses to develop new products and services. It is not access to global markets that does that; it is our own industry and services economy here in the UK. Will the hon. Lady please return to the original liberal principles that helped to develop the prosperity of this country in the 19th and 20th centuries, which are about low tax and low regulation?

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentReformDanny Kruger

    Employers

    I want to acknowledge the contributions made by Labour Members, because I think they have clearly articulated their philosophy of growth. In a sense, it is coherent and respectable, because what they believe is that the economic growth is driven by state action. It is true, and they often make this point, that we need the rule of law, infrastructure and proper investment in people, in places and in the sectors that need help. Those are legitimate arguments, but the fact is that our economy is built on businesses. It is built by businesses—particularly small businesses—being free to operate themselves. The prosperity of this country historically was created by free men and women trading with each other with minimal Government regulation. Yes, this took place in a safe and rule-bound world, but with rules that were light and predictable and without excessive taxation. I think of Marlborough, in the heart of my constituency. This wonderful ancient town was given its charter 800 years ago, and it was a successful trading community on the road between London and Bristol. It was built on the textile trade, with amazing wool manufacture and processing. That is what made it rich. I was honoured to join the procession of the town council to the war memorial on Sunday—we love a procession in Marlborough—and to walk behind the robed councillors and mace bearers proclaiming the ancient wealth of the town. The economy of Marlborough now largely involves retail, hospitality and tourism. As the procession walked into St Mary’s church, we passed Franklyn’s Bistro, a restaurant I know well—I was in only a month or two ago—and I saw that, to my great regret, it has now closed altogether. This happens in hospitality. Restaurants open and close, but there is something happening in Marlborough and across my constituency and across the country, which is that hospitality is absolutely on its knees. Worst of all, Marlborough received the terrible news this week that the Polly Tea Rooms had closed down. It was an institution in the town, open for 114 years and surviving two world wars and all the economic ups and downs of the last century and more. This large shop front on the high street had been selling tea and cakes and lunch and dinner for all those decades. I was very proud to be able to support the Polly during covid, and I was very proud that the owner said, “You have saved the Polly,” because I helped him with managing his application for a covid loan, but I am afraid to say that it is all over. I want to quote the notice that the owner, David Clarke, put out: “I have decided to close the Polly Tearooms with immediate effect. I was hoping that the budget…would offer some help to businesses like ours, but the result was the same as every budget this Government has brought in, quite the opposite…Fuel costs and business rates have also been increasing all of the time, but with the cost of living crisis as it is, we simply can’t increase our prices to our customers and expect them to still come in as often as they did in the past. The Chancellor John Healey spoke in his budget…of ‘hope’ for the future. He said the word so many times, I lost count. He sounded like Mr Micawber from David Copperfield, hoping something will turn up. But that is all this government has—hope. No plan for growth, no idea what to do, just hoping something will turn up, rather than creating the environment and conditions to make the economy grow. They are spending far too much money on the wrong things, and then taxing the very people who would be able to create growth to the level that they have nothing left to achieve any of it. The measure for the government investing in anything should be how will this improve our economy. They should apply this test to every penny they spend—literally every penny. But this of course is not what…Labour…do. So, along with literally hundreds of other businesses, I have no option but to give up trying to make it work.” I could not put it better myself. I am the son of a restaurateur, so I know how people pour their hearts into these businesses. I am so sorry for the Polly, Franklyn’s Bistro and the other hospitality businesses in my constituency that are closing. What should the Government do about it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has set out a series of measures on behalf of my party: we would raise the VAT threshold from £90,000 to £150,000 to support those small businesses to grow, take on more work and take on more staff; we would end tax on overtime; and we would reverse the employer national insurance rise back to 13.8%. On hospitality, we would cut VAT to 10%, we would cut beer duty by 10%, we would progressively over time abolish business rates for pubs, and of course we would repeal the job-destroying Employment Rights Act 2025.

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentReformDanny Kruger

    Employers

    I do not accept for a second that cutting VAT on hospitality would not be of great benefit to those businesses. I am astonished to hear that the IFS might have said such a thing. VAT is one of the major costs that businesses have to carry, so clearly a cut in what is essentially a sales tax for retail businesses would be helpful. I will speak briefly about the challenge of the cost of living and energy costs in particular, because the issue for retail businesses like the Polly is not just about the costs that they have to carry; it is about the demand for their business being reduced because of the cost of living that customers are carrying, as Mr Clarke said in the statement I read out. What the Government should do is not simply give people more money to spend, but ensure a stable economy and a stable society, and then leave people with more of their own money that they can spend on our high streets. That is why my party proposes raising the personal allowance for individual taxpayers to £15,000. That would be a tax cut of £500 per person for over 40 million people in this country. On the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I say that we would take £250 off household energy bills, which is the right response to the accelerating energy costs that have been caused not just by global instability but by Labour’s obsession with net zero.

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentLib DemVikki Slade

    Charity Commission

    I am staggered by the story of Scarisbrick village hall—what the hon. Lady is describing is terrifying. It seems to me that the Charity Commission does not have the resources it needs to do any of its work. I have a constituent who is starting a charity, HeritageTies, and he has been told that it is going to take 23 weeks to register his charity. During that time, he cannot get a bank account, fundraise, or start the job he is trying to do. I am told that 3,000 new church charities have been added, so does the hon. Lady agree that we need a root-and-branch investigation of whether the Charity Commission has the resources it needs to do its job?

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentLib DemSteve Darling

    Welfare

    I am sure that all of us in this House agree that we need to manage the benefits system, but that we need to manage it appropriately. The Liberal Democrats fear that the official Opposition are playing the man rather than the ball. It is systems that are broken and need amending, and that is where the focus should be, rather than on demonising individuals. As a Liberal Democrat, I am extremely proud that the architect of our welfare state was Beveridge, who issued his report in 1942, which was then taken on by the Labour Government of 1945 and has built the bedrock of our society since. It is something that we need to ensure evolves appropriately, rather than the slashing and burning that we have seen. From my two years on the Work and Pensions Committee, I reflect on how extending the pension age has significantly impacted a lot of manual workers, who are unable to continue in those roles for year upon year until their retirement age, and thus have to fall back on the benefits system. That is a pressure that has not been there historically. Closer to home, I am aware of the individuals who 50 years ago would have died very early as premature babies, but who now often live through to adulthood because of the marvels of health services around the world. There is therefore an added pressure on our benefits system. I also reflect—I am sure that other Members will agree— that I will not take lectures from His Majesty’s Opposition, given that they saw a £33 billion increase in the benefits bill during their last year in power. Another element that I am alive to about those years of Conservative Government is the lack of investment in our national health service. Capital money was used on revenue spending, which has left a gaping hole that will be a challenge for years to come—that money could have been used ensuring that we were getting people back into work. On the Conservative proposals before us today, it is not so much about seeing that there is a mask, but that the mask has been completely removed. The Child Poverty Action Group suggests that the proposals would see the biggest plunge of children into child poverty that we have ever had as a nation. It is often suggested that it is all about people who work and people who do not, but one third of people who are on universal credit are in work. A few weeks ago, I met in the Lobby a lady who had come up from Torbay hospital, where she worked. She puts a fair amount of time into the hospital, supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet she is still in receipt of universal credit. That is a significant challenge that we need to be alive to: one third of people on universal credit are in work. Similarly, there is the suggestion that people on personal independence payments are out of work, but an awful lot of people use PIP to get themselves into work. There is a significant pressure relating to local housing allowance. In London, only 2.3% of rents are affordable using that measure. In my constituency, the average rent for a studio flat is £577, yet the amount paid by local housing allowance is £503. There is a massive gap between rents and what the state supports people with; they will have to subsidise their rent with other benefits that they may receive. The Liberal Democrats strongly believe that the best way to get people out of the benefits system is to grow our economy. The botched Brexit deal has seen a 32% reduction in job vacancies in the United Kingdom, and that pressure continues to build. Sadly, it has been exacerbated by the Labour Government’s NIC hike, which has seen 100,000 jobs lost in the hospitality industry—jobs that are often a first step on the employment ladder. We need to be alive to how to fix the system. Only last week, the Work and Pensions Committee heard that the system that supports people on carer’s allowance is older than the data officer at the Department for Work and Pensions. Significant systems need renewing in the DWP if it is to be fit for purpose. Cliff edges in the benefits system for NEETs need to be tackled, so that people are encouraged to go into work. Access to Work needs to be ungummed up; it too has an old system that has problems getting people into employment. The Minister spoke about Disability Confident employers, but the scheme feels to me like a tick-box exercise. We need to ensure that disabled people and employers work together, so that the scheme becomes a lot more meaningful as a driver of people into employment. I will say it again: we need to play the ball and not the man. The Conservatives are behaving like the Argentinian football team at the last world cup; they played the man, rather than the ball. We need a fair deal for those most in need.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentLib DemSarah Olney

    Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Unfair Dismissal) (Removal of Limit on Compensation) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The Liberal Democrats voted against plans to remove the compensation cap as the legislation made its way through the House, and we will oppose the SI today. The removal of the limit on compensation was a Government amendment at a very late stage in the progress of the Bill and was something that took a lot of people by surprise, which was why we were not able to support it on that occasion. We will continue to oppose it now. The Minister said in her opening remarks that she would expect compensation payout awards to remain modest. I would challenge her on that point, because I do not know on what basis we can expect claims to remain modest if we remove a compensation cap. There will undoubtedly be an increase in claims from people who would now expect to receive an award above the cap, and that will not only increase the backlog, which is already immense in the tribunals and causing a huge amount of detriment to my constituents, and I am sure hers as well. It will contribute to increasing that backlog, and it will create massive disruption for employers. I am particularly concerned that where employers currently take out insurance and pay premiums to cover the cost of employment tribunals, those premium costs will either go up enormously, or some employers will find that their costs are simply uninsurable. That will create a knock-on impact so that some of these jobs will simply not be available. It will be too great a risk for employers to take people on.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentLib DemSarah Olney

    Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Unfair Dismissal) (Removal of Limit on Compensation) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    The whole point about a tribunal is to assess whether somebody has been dismissed unfairly. It will undoubtedly be the employer’s point of view that it is not an unfair dismissal, but the employee’s view that it has been. That is the point of a tribunal. The employer will not have been intending in any way to dismiss somebody unfairly. Nobody intends to dismiss unfairly. [Interruption.] The point of the tribunal is to test whether an unfair dismissal has taken place. My final point to the Minister is this: as we go through this process, there is a fundamental shift at the moment between what humans will continue to do in the workplace versus what will be taken on by AI or other innovative tech. The changes will make it more difficult and more expensive for employers to take on human beings to do the work, which will undoubtedly accelerate the shift that is already taking place. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats will oppose this SI.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentLib DemSarah Olney

    Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Unfair Dismissal) (Removal of Limit on Compensation) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    I want to challenge what the Minister said about us debating this measure at length. It was not introduced until a very late stage, so there was not a lengthy debate about removing the compensation cap.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentLib DemRichard Foord

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    Before the Government even consider taking revenue from Rosebank, does the hon. Member think that they should be increasing taxes on the British insurance companies that are currently providing maritime services to the movement of Russian gas?

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentLib DemPippa Heylings

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I join everybody else in thanking the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important and timely debate. And it is timely, as we have heard powerfully from Members across the room, and at the multiple people’s emergency briefings in my constituency and across the country following a summer of record-breaking heatwaves, droughts and wildfires.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentLib DemPippa Heylings

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    It is very hard to look my children and the next generation in the eyes as we debate this issue. The Met Office has confirmed that, as a result of burning fossil fuels, we are now living in a changed climate. The UK’s independent climate advisers acknowledge that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches net zero, but they are clear that “this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentLib DemPippa Heylings

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    I will not. Instead, those advisers said that limiting the expansion of fossil fuel production must be a key priority. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a new objective to support “a globally standard-setting, 1.5°C and climate science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production.”

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLib DemPippa Heylings

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that not only did I allow him to speak, but I agree with him. The decision on Rosebank will be the first major test of the Government’s new approach and the UK’s climate commitments. We need energy security now more than ever in this unstable world. Although we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper, more efficient energy, successive Governments have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity. Because they scrapped zero-carbon homes and insulation schemes, the Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in energy bills between 2017 and 2025, and leaving those off-grid exposed to heating oil price spikes, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) described. The Conservatives have pledged that they would continue doing the same if elected. The sad truth is that Britain has not moved anywhere near fast enough when it comes to reducing the demand for gas and oil in our homes and transport, so we need some North sea oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, accepting that reality does not mean supporting every new oil and gas development. When it comes to Rosebank, we Liberal Democrats are clear that the evidence does not meet rigorous climate tests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) stated, around 90% of Rosebank’s reserves are oil, most of which will be sold into the global markets, not reserved for British consumers. Rosebank will not necessarily shield households and businesses from the volatility of global energy prices, and so will not bring down people’s bills in my constituency or other constituencies. The oil and gas workers who have powered our economy for generations deserve our gratitude and respect, and they are rightly angry that the number of jobs supported by the North sea over the past decade has more than halved, with no transition in place. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for the Just Transition Commission to put them at the heart of the new transition. Ministers must also confront a wider climate issue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) powerfully highlighted. Following the Finch judgment, the full climate impact of oil and gas production can be properly assessed. Rosebank’s projected scope 3 emissions are around seven times greater than those associated with Jackdaw, equivalent to roughly a quarter of the UK’s sixth carbon budget. The Government have stated that the approval of Jackdaw is in line with our legally binding net zero targets, but that is because our net zero targets do not include scope 3 emissions. Will the Government therefore comply with their own policy, following the Finch judgment, that mitigations will be required for scope 3 emissions? None has been set for Jackdaw. Rather than pursuing projects such as Rosebank, we should focus our efforts on accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy and to electrification, so that we can use up all this good, clean energy. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a national electrification strategy? This debate is about the choices we make for our energy future. Rosebank will not lower bills, it raises serious questions about tax revenues, it will not increase our energy security, and it will not save the North sea—but it will wreck our climate.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLib DemMunira Wilson

    Topical Questions

    T6. The Prime Minister has said that it is important that rape and sexual assault victims do not feel like they are the ones being put on trial in cases, yet the mother of a rape victim who came to see me last week said that her daughter felt exactly that way when her abuser was put on trial. Does the Minister agree with the Victims’ Commissioner that juries in those cases need to be directed in the myths and misconceptions around rape?

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLib DemMr Lee Dillon

    Employers

    In my constituency of Newbury, a volunteer centre survey found that charities needed to raise an additional £300,000 a year just to stand still. Does the right hon. Member agree that charities’ time should be focused on serving our constituents rather than worrying about fundraising off the back of Labour’s tax rises?

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentLib DemMike Martin

    Welfare

    Here is some crude maths: if we want to get to 3.5% on defence, it will cost about £30 billion extra a year, so where will that money come from? Furthermore, why are the Conservatives not supporting the Government on restricting the triple lock, because that would help with funding the future defence budget?

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLib DemMax Wilkinson

    Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. It is right that the Government are making this change to support our hospitality sector. We hope that it will prevent the absurdity that happened this summer, when the England team played late at night and the Government were required to make a one-off order to allow venues to stay open late. Will the Minister confirm that the order will give some extra flexibility, so that we do not have a repeat of the scenario we experienced before the Mexico game in the summer? There are, however, general concerns about the application of TENs. They are annually used in my constituency to circumvent licensing laws to allow pop-up sexual entertainment venues. In particular, that happens during Cheltenham race week. If councillors on the local authority reject sexual entertainment venue applications, it is well known that the venues will open anyway, perhaps even in the same place, under TENs exemptions. Those venues then operate to a lower standard of regulation and represent a risk to women—the performers. The TENs regulations, as they stand, undermine SEV licensing regulations, but Ministers in this Government and the previous one have repeatedly refused to engage. Will the Minister look at how she can amend legislation to close that loophole and to address the gaping hole in licensing regulations, particularly given the ongoing debate about the need to tackle threats and violence against women and girls in general? Will she and her officials meet me to discuss the matter at the very least, to prove that the Government are as good as their word on VAWG?

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLib DemMartin Wrigley

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    The summer has been so hot and the storms so bad in my constituency that we are in a state of severe drought and flood warnings at the same time. Can we really consider allowing Rosebank to go ahead and look the next generation in the face?

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLib DemMarie Goldman

    Violence against Women and Girls

    Yesterday, ITV News and The Guardian reported disturbing allegations, only possible thanks to the courage of the women who came forward, of grooming and sexual misconduct made against the celebrity David Walliams. Among the disgusting allegations of sexual advances to girls as young as 15, the years-long investigation also describes how one of the women received a threatening letter from Walliams’s lawyers demanding a written promise that she never speak about her experiences. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) to discuss, cross-party, how we work to end the manipulation of the justice system by rich and powerful men who try to silence their victims?

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLib DemLuke Taylor

    West London Orbital Rail Project

    I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this incredibly important debate. Although we welcome the additional connectivity that the West London orbital will bring, TfL has refused to extend the line to provide connections for other underserved areas, such as Whitton and Twickenham. The hon. Member mentioned Wembley stadium; there are opportunities to provide better rail access to Twickenham stadium, but also for the Ivybridge estate, which sits in her constituency. Does she agree that TfL should reconsider its refusal to extend the service to those underserved areas of London?

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLib DemLuke Taylor

    Safety of Emergency Workers

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Emergency workers are heroes who carry this country on their shoulders. They may be there with someone in their final moments, they may have to put their life on the line to rescue someone in harm’s way and, sadly, they may also witness extraordinary abuse and violence—all in a day’s work. They are heroes because they take that mantle on with pride and commitment. They are the best of us because they cope with the unbelievable stress of constantly having to expect the unexpected. What they should not have to expect, however, is extraordinary abuse, violence or risk to life and limb to be targeted at them for doing their jobs. It is not part of the job to be insulted. It is not par for the course to be assaulted. There is no excuse for this vile and disgusting behaviour—yet it is on the rise. There were 22,536 incidents of violence, aggression and abuse against paramedics and other ambulance workers in 2024-25, up 15% from a year before, according to the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives. Since many incidents go unreported, that number is likely an underestimate. The latest NHS staff survey found that nearly one in seven workers in England were physically attacked by patients or the public last year—the highest level in three years. I recently met with representatives from the Royal College of Nursing, who told me about the scale of the challenge their members face, often on top of incredibly difficult working conditions. They pointed out that some trusts have had to take the extraordinary step of launching awareness campaigns encouraging patients not to abuse nursing staff, such as Chelsea and Westminster hospital’s “I Am Human” campaign. Could there be a sorrier reflection of the state of affairs than a campaign asking people not to harm those who are there to help them? This entire debate is taking place in the context of the outrageous scenes we saw earlier this year in Portsmouth and across the south coast, in which thugs—that is who they are: thugs—targeted RNLI volunteers and staff for daring to comply with the law, their mandate and simple human conscience. The RNLI is a British institution, and those who take on this difficult work sum up what is best about this country, not least the Dunkirk spirit of ordinary people performing brave feats of rescue at sea; yet these heroes were subject to abuse both in person and online. They were confronted in public and doxed online, their children were bullied at school because of their parents’ rescue work, and they were forced to pause their services in Portsmouth altogether—all of that due to a handful of small people with small hearts and an even smaller and warped worldview whipped up by the extreme right. The Liberal Democrats are clear that the targeting of emergency workers in the RNLI and across the emergency services is egregious on a human level, dangerous at a public health level and a critical risk to wider faith in public institutions at a Government level. It is egregious on a human level to do what those committing these crimes are doing—namely, refusing to see the human being behind the uniform or disregarding their right to go about doing their job safely. There is never an excuse for this kind of behaviour, and it is right that a specific offence was created in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. It is dangerous at a public health level, because when threats, intimidation and violence go up, the attractiveness of a career in the emergency services predictably declines, compounding existing shortages in policing, paramedics and nursing. To take policing alone, when officers are already overstretched, these issues only compound the strain of facing the work day and lead to sickness-related absences. Between the challenges facing police officers and the fact that in London alone there are currently 189,000 rest days owed to officers, this gruelling picture is clear. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for funding so that police services can offer their officers proactive mental health and wellbeing check-ups every six months, as well as a package of policies to recruit more officers to ease the burden on the existing workforce. It is why we supported and continue to support the 2018 Act that created a specific offence for assault of an emergency worker, and why I call on the Government to foster stronger links between hospital staff and local police so that they can work towards a stronger, more assuring police presence in medical settings, where appropriate and necessary. It is also why we continue to publicly and proudly stand up for the RNLI by calling out the dangerous and un-British extremists who have targeted it, enflamed by the dehumanising rhetoric that too many on the right of politics espouse. Particularly dangerous are the repeated descriptions of the RNLI as a “taxi service” for migrants: a disgraceful misrepresentation of the role of those heroic volunteers and other staff. I am sad not to see Reform Members in this debate to condemn and to withdraw completely those remarks. With all that in mind, we Liberal Democrats are keen to hear what specific additional steps the Government are taking to home in on the perpetrators of these crimes and to tackle the broader set of challenges facing our emergency services. I hope the Minister will give specific indications of what the Government plan to do.

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLib DemJohn Milne

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. We are reaching a point where a decision must be made about Rosebank. There are arguments on either side, but not every argument is equally valid. It is not true that Rosebank will help with energy security; the oil it produces will be overwhelmingly exported. Rather, we should invest in industries that actually do contribute, such as solar and wind. It is not true that Rosebank will reduce energy prices, and it is disappointing that people still put out that message for public consumption when it is quite clearly flat wrong. It is also not true that if we do not drill this oil, the Norwegians will. It is a geologically separate field; if we do not drill there, nobody does. On the other side of the argument, drilling at Rosebank will not necessarily increase UK use of fossil fuels in absolute terms, although it would, as others have said, add to the total amount of world fossil fuel production. The international COP process is focused on reducing fossil fuel demand and not supply, and perhaps that is a problem. A further argument has been made that, although the state does not own Rosebank oil, it will benefit from taxation, but that is actually a very difficult thing to calculate. Profits can be offset against development and decommissioning costs, and depending on the exact timescale, much of the potential tax revenue might never reach the public purse.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLib DemJohn Milne

    Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

    I will not. A new taxation regime, the oil and gas revenue levy, begins in 2030. Equinor will make most of its investment while the generous reliefs are switched on, but will generate most of its profit after 2030 when the windfall tax is no longer in effect. I ask the Minister what assumptions are being made regarding tax revenue—the rationale, not just the amount. Does the Minister accept that returns could be greatly reduced by clever accountancy? Can we be sure that Rosebank does not end up as a gigantic tax dodge?

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLib DemJohn Milne

    Violence against Women and Girls

    12. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLib DemJohn Milne

    Violence against Women and Girls

    Chart Way is a major pedestrian route into central Horsham, but its street lighting is operated by the owner of an adjacent office block that was recently purchased by a venture capital company. Unfortunately, the company in question has refused to turn on the lights or respond to any inquiry from councillors or my office, despite the fear felt by women and girls—and, indeed, the danger it creates—as the nights draw in. What avenues do we have to address this problem; can the Minister offer any assistance? We just do not seem to have any powers.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLib DemIan Sollom

    Engagements

    Q2. My constituent Maxwell has spinal muscular atrophy, has used a wheelchair since he was two, and relies on carers every single day. He has a first-class degree and a good job, and like many young people, he wants to save a deposit for a home, but under the social care capital limit, every pound he saves above £23,250 goes directly on his care. The Prime Minister has rightly made social care a priority of this Government, so will he meet Maxwell and me to discuss how we can remove the capital limit, and stop placing a limit on the aspirations of young people like Maxwell?

    Hansard source