National Care Service
I am very happy to confirm that. I think we all understand how challenging and bureaucratic that border between health and care can be, and that is one of the urgent matters that I am looking at.
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her for all the work she is doing with her local hospice and her community on this issue. Members across the House will understand that we have a challenge in hospice funding, which I am looking at as part of the end-of-life care work that I am doing. It sounds like she is more than on top of it with her ICB, but if I can be of any assistance to her, I would be happy to do so.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and in responding to him, I would like to quote the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who said in his statement to the House this week: “We know that people want security in retirement and we are committed to protecting the poorest pensioners. Under our plans, pensioner poverty is set to fall.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 198.] I hope my hon. Friend read that statement, and I hope he understands why I will respectfully disagree with him.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I thank my hon. Friend for asking that very important question. When I have heard about the situation in Scotland, I have to say that it worries me, so I will happily agree to his suggestion.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency before; I know what amazing young people there are, and they deserve a better chance. Working in care can be an absolutely fantastic career. A young person who has perhaps experienced unemployment might need a bit of confidence, and being in an emotionally intelligent profession like social care can be a really great start to their career. I will happily work with her on that if she would like.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I refer my hon. Friend to the comments I made in my statement about the importance of putting people first and also to the response that the Prime Minister gave yesterday about the development of co-op organisations in the care system. I think we can make important progress on this, and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to do that.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
Could I, through my hon. Friend, pay my respects to Councillor David’s family and all those who love him and miss him? As I have said, it is important to think about this matter from the point of view of the different communities we have across England. There are challenges in rural areas, and we need to be cognisant of them as we think about what the care service looks like on the ground.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
My hon. Friend rightly raises a really important issue. We cannot think about the welfare of people who are receiving care if we are not thinking about the welfare of people caring for them. That is why we are going to appoint a champion for unpaid carers, who can be their voice as we build the new national care service, to ensure that all the issues he rightly raises are considered in this process.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I thank my hon. Friend for an insightful and important question and for the work he does to ensure that his constituents’ views are put forward here. What matters in order to fulfil the test that he sets for the national care service is to be really clear on outcomes. A number of Members have mentioned the travesty of people staying in hospital longer than they need to, and how traumatic it is when we experience a loved one not being cared for in the way that we would wish towards the end of their life. We all have to be clear about the outcomes that we want to see from this new service, and then we will be able to meet the test his constituents set.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and through her, I thank all the people who campaigned for good care in her constituency. She tempts me; I am trying to be non-partisan today, and she is sparking my inner party-political fire. All of us, and all parties, can make a contribution to getting this right. We are rightly proud of the role of the Labour party in founding the NHS, and I want us to be just as proud of what we do to create the national care service from this point on.
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He is absolutely right: people feel as if the current system is a fog, at best. It is totally fractured, and it is too hard to navigate for people already dealing with some of life’s biggest challenges. Those Co-op values are an important factor in our thinking as we move forward with the national care service. He mentioned the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday; I am glad to confirm that those are exactly the values that we want to bring to this discussion. We are trying to ensure that people are empowered and have their voices heard, and that they work together for the good of those who need care.
- Hansard source
Unpaid Carers
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate. This is a debate that matters to millions of people across the country, not least because so many unpaid carers shoulder responsibilities that our health and social care systems could not do without. Around 4.7 million people in England provide unpaid care for a family member or friend. I am one of them. Like many mothers, I did not think of myself as an unpaid carer at first, because when you are a parent of a disabled child, you just assume that caring is part of the package. Yet too often that commitment comes at significant financial cost. For many people, caring is a full-time job and the hours required make it impossible to stay in paid employment, forcing families into impossible choices. I myself changed careers to accommodate my son’s needs, but I was one of the lucky ones. Every day, about 1,500 people are forced to leave the workforce because of caring responsibilities. Over the last two years, more than 1 million people have done so. One of my constituents recently had to leave her job to care for her eight-year-old autistic son, because his needs could not be met through existing educational provision. She told me: “We are under immense emotional, financial and practical pressure, yet we feel we have been left to cope alone.” Another constituent, Steve, and his partner, Sindy, care for their 26-year-old son, who has severe learning difficulties. They recently brought him back to the family home due to safety concerns and, when exploring other services, they encountered a shortage of suitable supported living placements in Scarborough. Like countless other families, they stepped in because there was simply nowhere else for their son to go. These families do not complain. They do not ask for special treatment. They simply want the right support at the right time. Yet too often they find themselves battling systems that are fragmented, overstretched and difficult to navigate. I was honoured recently to welcome HRH the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, to Scarborough to meet staff and volunteers at Carers Plus Yorkshire, many of whom are unpaid carers themselves. It was wonderful to see the joy that the royal visit brought to these people. I am really grateful for the work that Carers Plus Yorkshire does. At a time when more people are living longer and more children and adults are living with disabilities or long-term conditions, the number of these wonderful unpaid carers is only going to grow. That means supporting carers is not simply an act of compassion, but an economic necessity. I greatly welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming social care by creating a national care service. For far too long, reforming social care has been labelled as too difficult. Carers deserve better than warm words. They deserve a system that works. Unpaid carers save this country billions of pounds every year. They care for our children, our parents, our partners and our neighbours. I am really pleased that we are going to have an unpaid carers’ champion. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in his closing remarks what further steps the Government will take to provide financial support for unpaid carers and to ensure that social care reform delivers real and lasting change for unpaid carers and our families.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Boulby underground laboratory in North Yorkshire is competing to host XLZD, a prestigious physics experiment that could deliver Nobel prize-winning discoveries in the UK. In the light of the Science and Technology Facilities Council cuts, can the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to securing the XLZD dark matter experiment for the UK?
- Hansard source
Joint committee on Human Rights
Thank you very much, Mrs Barker. As the newly elected Chair, I am proud to be presenting the significant findings of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on human rights and the regulation of artificial intelligence. I thank Lord Alton for his exemplary leadership and service as the Chair of our Committee. All the evidence suggests that the world is at the precipice of the outcomes of a reckless race towards superintelligent AI—AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. Our report found that no cross-economy regulators, agencies or bodies have systemic powers to prevent AI models or systems from being deployed, even if they pose significant risks. Regulators lack the power to test and evaluate AI systems before they are publicly released or to prevent their release if they are considered to pose unacceptable risks, except in very limited circumstances. Our existing copyright laws will not stop the onset of superintelligent AI in the UK. Model developers engage the AI Security Institute on a voluntary basis. The AI Security Institute has no statutory power. The Committee found that AI indeed threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. We welcome the Prime Minister accepting one of our key recommendations that the Government should use its G20 presidency to address AI harms. That being said, with the speed and turbulence that frontier developers are hurtling towards unleashing superintelligent AI, we must regulate now—not in a year, not in five years, but now. With the G20 in mind, we should seek a global agreement on standards and regulations next year. The Committee has concentrated on the key principles identified in the Council of Europe’s framework convention as being fundamental to the protection of human rights— equality and non-discrimination, and privacy and personal data protection. The Committee defined that AI systems are machine systems that perceive, learn and act. AI is now widely used across a diverse range of purposes, from email spam filters through to powerful tools for scientific discovery. AI systems are being incorporated into more complex AI agents. These are small, specialised pieces of software that can make decisions and operate co-operatively or independently to achieve pre-specified objectives. A fundamental aspect of current AI systems is their capacity to operate with varying degrees of autonomy and adaptiveness. Some AI models operate in ways that are so mathematically complex that their outputs are opaque, even to an informed expert. The general-purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, but use vast amounts of data and are grown, not built. This results in systems that nobody fully understands or can reliably predict. Let me be clear: AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century. It is vital to effective defence and promotes vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK’s prosperity. However, there are many ways in which AI may adversely affect human rights. In particular, witnesses during our inquiry told us of the potential impact on the treatment and condition of workers, workers’ rights generally and on the environment. Furthermore, companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI reality. The chief executives of top AI companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life at between 10% and 25%. In any other industry, with that level of risk, this development would be ruled out. How have we allowed frontier developers to create the rules in which they govern themselves? On the first principle of the framework convention—equality and non-discrimination—we heard that intentional abuses committed using AI systems such as deepfakes can have a disproportionate effect on people from minoritised groups, compounding existing structural and systemic racism and sexism that impacts victims’ personal and professional lives. The Safety Not Surveillance coalition told us: “AI is having a chilling effect on communities of colour in the UK.” Discrimination can arise when AI systems are deployed, because of these baked-in biases and choices made by those deploying AI systems. We heard explicit examples of AI facial recognition software having racial basis and of AI recruitment tools discriminating against women applicants. AI systems are prone to producing unfairly discriminatory outcomes because of biased training data. That threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. Next, we looked at the second principle of the framework convention, which is that AI systems pose particular risks to privacy and personal data. The Committee found that because of the prevalence of web scraping to collect personal data to train large language models, there is potential for AI systems to be used in highly intrusive ways. That threatens the article 8 right to privacy of people in the UK and is given particular expression in data protection law in relation to personal data. Between January and October 2025, about 3 million people would have had their faces scanned by police facial recognition technology in the UK without their consent. Human rights principles must inform all aspects of the Government’s policies and practices relating to AI systems, including their approach to the regulation of AI. The Committee recommends that the Government encourage the development of AI use cases that can demonstrably improve human rights. Although the AI action plan commissioned by the previous Administration brings a welcome focus on innovation and economic opportunity, it fails to pay sufficient attention to the need to secure the protection of human rights from AI-generated interference throughout the supply chain. The UK’s leading position as the third largest AI market in the world affords opportunities not only for economic growth, but for setting strong standards on the responsible adoption and development of new technologies. The Committee is encouraged by the prominence given to AI by the new Administration and urges the Government to seize the opportunity to regulate AI in a way that puts human rights first. To address the global nature of AI harms and protect human rights, Governments need to collaborate to identify risks and promote consistent standards. The UK can be justifiably proud of its record of leadership on AI. That has been maintained across Administrations from different sides of the debate. An appropriate regulatory regime would not only enhance human rights protections but help to reinforce the UK’s leadership position in AI safety. The Committee recommends that the Government introduce a new AI Bill, as promised in the 2024 King’s Speech, to place AI regulation on a sound basis and give full effect to the framework convention. A risk-based approach is needed to address AI harms. The Hugging Face incident and others illustrate the significant risks that can arise from the newest and most advanced AI models, and legislation should address those risks on a precautionary basis with a view to avoiding harm, as with the regulation of pharmaceuticals. Low-risk AI systems should be subject to fewer and less demanding legal requirements. To ensure that regulation can keep pace with technological developments, it is preferable for legislation to take the form of broadly framed principles. The AI Bill that we recommend should provide for a regulatory regime that would classify different risk levels and mandate proportionately more demanding obligations for higher-risk AI systems and models. Some uses of AI should be prohibited because they are incompatible with human rights. I believe that to be the case when it comes to superintelligent AI. Once developers reach superintelligent AI, it will be too late to slow anything down in time for us to regulate. The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum, so where we draw the line matters. That line must be able to recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement—the full automation of AI development, with no humans in the loop. That is the point at which we lose control, as development towards superintelligent AI would proceed too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control. Frontier developers are heeding standards, rather than statute, for their own AI models. These are the same developers who are deliberately training their models to hack and deceive, as we heard this week during the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee inquiry session, which I guested at as JCHR Chair. We heard from ex-employees of frontier developers OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic. We heard about non-existent safety cultures in these organisations. Some whistleblowers put the chance of AI destroying humanity at 50%—a coin flip as to whether we survive. This is not a human rights model that we should ever be working with. These frontier developers believe that they will not get stopped by Government in their race to superintelligence. Let us put a stop to that and regulate now. In the words of David Krueger, previously at the UK AI Security Institute, “My dream is that in 10 years people will look back and say: ‘Remember when there were all these people building AI that could’ve killed everybody? That was CRAZY! What were we thinking!?’”
- Hansard source
Joint committee on Human Rights
I thank my fellow Committee member for that question. In the report, we said: “Many AI systems developed for a specific purpose can be deployed or adapted for use for different purposes and contexts from those intended by the AI developer. Those deploying the system may lack understanding of the risks arising from the way in which the AI system has been designed and developed”. We also recommend that the AI Bill should “impose proportionate obligations on actors at all stages of the AI lifecycle and supply chain to ensure that risks are identified, evaluated and effectively addressed at the appropriate stage.” On Tuesday, at the BIST Committee, we heard from Daniel Kokotajlo, a whistleblower, who said that pre-deployment training was insufficient and AISI or other safety institutes should be undertaking internal testing during all stages of development.
- Hansard source
Joint committee on Human Rights
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. It has been my great privilege to twice hear Pope Leo address an audience in the Vatican. The second time, at the Jubilee of Governments, last year in June, he addressed this exact issue. This is not a recent development for the Pope. I read his encyclical and think that every Government should study it. It is interesting that—although he is technically a head of state, because the Vatican is a state—a faith leader such as the Pope has such an incisive view on an issue such as this and brings it back to the central principle that human rights are for humans. We have already seen the anthropocentric effects on the climate. We cannot have the same pervade every area of life through AI. These AI companies are now at a stage where they are trying to replace Governments and not be regulated by Governments. That is, exactly as my hon Friend says, because they can then limit their liabilities, maximise their profits and act without any scope from the state. That should concern us all.
- Hansard source
Joint committee on Human Rights
I absolutely agree. We continually heard evidence right across the industry, both here in the House and externally, about the excellent work that the AISI does. I am pleased that the AI Minister, who is here in the Chamber, has played another leading role in developing AISI as the world’s leading AI safety institute. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two things. The first, as the report found, is about human utilisation of AI tools through, for instance, deepfakes, which affect people’s human rights, or through employment practices, which we can probably very easily regulate, control and legislate for, but that need Government action. Then, secondly, there are the frontier models. We need a very different level of regulation and legislation for those than we have for individual assistive tools. I am not really worried about ChatGPT 2.0. It is not going to create an existential crisis but, without regulation, future models that are being developed can and will.
- Hansard source
Joint committee on Human Rights
First, AI may have the potential to replace many things, but it will probably never be able to replace the hon. Gentleman’s intervention at the Adjournment debate. We can probably rest assured of one thing in terms of AI development. I am glad that we now seem to have cross-party support from the hon. Gentleman and his party for a new AI Bill with human rights at the centre. What he says about human rights is absolutely correct. I always say that human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible and apply everywhere in the world. Our Committee’s remit is for the UK, but this is an international issue. I am sure that the Minister has heard all that we have said.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T5. Yesterday, I met the chief executive of Ofcom with colleagues from this House to discuss our frustration about the lack of effectiveness of its enforcement action in improving Royal Mail services in my constituency. In Gloucester, we are getting post every couple of weeks at best. People are missing hospital appointments and important legal deadlines, and quite frankly, they are wondering whether they should put their Christmas cards in the post this week, so that they might arrive in time for 25 December. How can we ensure that Ofcom has the power to effectively enforce the universal service obligation, so that Royal Mail services actually improve in my constituency?
- Hansard source
Science and Research Investment
3. What steps his Department has taken to support investment in science and research.
- Hansard source
Science and Research Investment
I welcome the new Minister to his new place. Despite the Government’s significant funding increases to science generally, the Science and Technology Facilities Council is facing significant cost pressures. I met recently with some STFC-funded former colleagues who fear an exodus of professional talent from the UK because of those pressures. Given the importance of STFC-funded facilities in the UK’s scientific capability, will the Minister set out what he is doing to ensure that the council’s financial position is put on a sustainable footing, without undermining the long-term pipeline of researchers and the UK’s ability to participate in major international science programmes?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
As well as breaking the UK’s legally binding climate commitments and contributing to a global climate disaster, the approval of Rosebank will result in the UK continuing to facilitate illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine and being complicit in breaches of international law. Israeli energy company Delek Group, which owns Ithaca Energy, has been named in the United Nations list of businesses whose activities in the west bank have raised particular human rights concerns, and it has received over £200 million in revenue from the Rosebank field. Given that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and largest pension fund have already divested from Delek, will the Secretary of State confirm that Delek Group Ltd will be one of the companies sanctioned for its role in illegal settlement expansion?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Sean Egan from Morrisons in Walsall, Gary MacArthur from Sainsbury’s in Wickham and Jorge Costa from Sainsbury’s in Hertford are all workers who were sacked by their employers for confronting shoplifters. In Gary’s case, that happened just hours after he had applied CPR to the store’s only security guard, who would otherwise have died. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that those workers deserve their jobs back, and that we need greater protection for workers who just do the right thing and confront shoplifters?
- Hansard source
Sustainable Farming Incentive
When I went to my agricultural shows in Nottinghamshire in August, all the farmers told me that this was going to be a complete shambles—and it was a complete shambles. This is not a surprise; everyone knew it was going to be a disaster. In his answer to a previous question, we heard that the Minister knew that the scheme was going to be massively oversubscribed, and yet he proceeded. He said the scheme was half-cocked, but he has now put his name to it. Is he going to apologise for the complete fiasco that he has put my farmers through, and what is he going to do next year to ensure this insult is never applied again?
- Hansard source
National Care Service
Instead of cutting foreign aid, net zero subsidies or benefits for migrants, the Government have chosen to cut the state pension to pay for their care system, but most experts agree that that does not even touch the sides of the problem: there is an £18 billion to £40 billion black hole. Will the Minister accept that, to pay for this, taxes are going to have to rise a lot? People are very worried, so will she use this opportunity to rule out the death tax, in which the Government would go after people’s homes—their nest eggs—at the end of their lives?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Almost three quarters of homes in Ceredigion Preseli do not have a connection to the mains gas network, meaning that they rely on oil and liquefied petroleum gas for their heating and cooking. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), they are therefore not able to benefit from the energy price cap and are fully exposed to the significant increase in prices following the crisis in the middle east. Could we have an urgent statement from the Government on the support that will be made available to off-grid homes this winter?
- Hansard source
National Care Service
I congratulate the Minister not only on the statement, but specifically on the creation of a national care service. It will undoubtedly have a transformational impact on so many people. Will she ensure that representatives from political parties in Wales can be included in some of the cross-party talks? Although the provision of social care in Wales is a devolved responsibility, there are important considerations, including the arrangements for cross-border packages and matters of funding, that are perhaps best understood and addressed at an early stage.
- Hansard source
Online Marketplaces: Safety of Products
Countless constituents have written to me about their concerns over the proliferation of high-powered e-bikes and e-scooters and conversion kits, many of which are bought online. I have been liaising with Currys, which is being as proactive as it can in making it clear to people through its point-of-sale material what the law is when people buy them in a shop; online, however, it is a wild west. Given the failures in the police cracking down on these vehicles where they are not permitted, will the Government consider limiting their online sales using the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
This week another young life was lost on Dorset’s rural roads, as the second Wimborne man died this year after the roads around this small town saw the deaths of four people last December. Another family narrowly avoided tragedy after a vehicle ploughed into the front of their house on the Cranborne road. While the incidents are subject to investigation, the 60 mph default speed limit on country lanes means that road safety requests have to go through long and costly processes for each and every one, making it a matrix of delay, whereas a rural speed limit of 40 mph would better suit the countryside where the roads simply were not built for the level of traffic. In advance of legislation linked to the road safety strategy, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time on reducing road deaths?
- Hansard source
National Care Service
For the last year, I have been campaigning for Richard’s law after Louise and Richard were robbed by a care worker in their own home in Dorset. The law would ensure that all care workers are registered with the Disclosure and Barring Service, have minimum levels of training and, most importantly, are on a single national carers register. That is supported by Visiting Angels and the National Care Association, as it will allow carers to move employers more easily, reduce employers’ costs and professionalise the sector. Will the Minister support that?
- Hansard source
Science and Research Investment
Harpenden is home to Rothamsted Research and our universities lead the world, yet too much of that brilliance never leaves the lab. Will the Minister look at Lib Dem proposals to bring in a standard national framework for spin-out IP, and quintuple proof-of-concept funding, so Britain’s discoveries scale here and not abroad?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I have been contacted by Petruth Paddocks, a family-run camping business on the outskirts of Cheddar, which welcomes more than 20,000 visitors a year and supports more than 50 jobs. Its business rates liability this year has increased by almost 2,700%, from £1,070 per annum to £28,820 per annum, with no meaningful warning and no chance to plan for this catastrophic hike. Will a Minister or the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what can be done in rural Somerset, where so many businesses depend on hospitality and tourism? They really cannot take this kind of kicking.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Farming Incentive
I wanted to point out to the Minister that a lot of farmers in my area have terrible difficulties with buffering broadband, as internet access is poor. I had actually thought that those who had agents were the lucky ones, but I was informed quite neatly after I had said something about this that most agents actually only managed to get in eight, nine or 10 applications in the very short window that was available, so that was not the case. The Minister has mentioned that he is going to be running workshops with farmers, but has he actually asked the Rural Payments Agency to do a high-speed review, as he does not have very much time before 2027, so that the barriers to applicants, particularly those who had expiring agreements and those who do use agents—
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Metachromatic leukodystrophy, known as MLD, is a devastating genetic disease that progressively destroys the nervous system. Children born apparently healthy lose their ability to walk, talk, see, hear, swallow and then, eventually, breathe. Most do not live to enjoy their fifth birthday. Existing MLD treatment on the NHS is highly effective at halting the disease and is delivered at the Royal Manchester Children’s hospital, but early diagnosis is essential. We already test newborn babies for 10 conditions. Without the need to take any additional blood, MLD screening could be added to each newborn baby’s heel prick test at a cost of 17p per test. Will the Leader of the House ask the Department of Health and Social Care to meet me to discuss this simple and inexpensive solution, which would save the life of a child per month in this country?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I suspect I am going to add to the Secretary of State’s frustration when I ask on behalf of Scottish food and drink exporters, who still face paperwork and border checks that did not exist before breakfast—before Brexit—[Laughter.]
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Hungry, yes. If growth is the mission, will the Secretary of State open talks on a customs union with the EU?
- Hansard source
Jobs for Young People
Youth unemployment stands at 15%, and in London that figure is 25%, while 700,000 graduates are out of work. Retail and hospitality are cornerstones of the everyday economy, providing vital employment, driving local growth and creating thriving town centres. However, average employment costs have increased by 11% since Labour took office, which disproportionately affects sectors that traditionally offer entry level jobs. Policy decisions taken by this Government are making it impossibly hard for businesses to provide young people with their first foot on the career ladder. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the damage being done to young people, and will Ministers ensure that, as they implement secondary legislation under the Employment Rights Act 2025, they balance the rights of employees fairly with the needs of businesses to provide jobs for young people?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
On Monday, the Prime Minister joined the Liberal Democrats in acknowledging that refusing to countenance closer UK relations with the EU would be a “dereliction of duty”, yet the Government remain committed to their red lines. Joining the single market and a new UK-EU customs union could boost UK GDP by at least 3.6% and result in around £27 billion a year in extra tax revenue. Does the Secretary of State agree that refusing to cross those red lines, while knowing the damage that Brexit continues to cause businesses up and down the country, is in fact a dereliction of duty?
- Hansard source
Sustainable Farming Incentive
SFI is the foundation of a resilient food system, and it delivers for nature. When it closed without warning last year, the Liberal Democrats warned of the damage to farm finances and our environmental goals. Farmers now face a two-tier system once again. Clare farms near Puckington. Her countryside stewardship scheme agreement is ending, and SFI was meant to be her way forward. Farmers deserve better than a Glastonbury ticket scramble, so I welcome the end of “first come, first served”, but having a fairer queue for the same small pot just changes who gets turned away. The Liberal Democrats would back farmers with an extra £1 billion a year to produce food and protect nature, not choose between them. With the Budget just two weeks away, will the Minister back our call and press the Chancellor to fund SFI properly?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
As the nights draw in and temperatures start to drop, householders who rely on heating oil are facing bills that have doubled in a year. Unlike gas and electricity, heating oil has no price cap to protect them. The sector simply is not working for consumers. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the cap to be extended to every household that relies on heating oil. Will the Leader of the House urge the relevant Minister to meet me without delay, so that no family in Glastonbury and Somerton is left to face this winter in a cold home?