partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline

   Residents in my constituency, such as my constituent Rhys, have contacted me worried about the impact of this situation on their bills. He shopped around, has a renewable-only tariff, insulated his home and bought an electric car. Although he welcomes the VAT cut to electricity, he says that the recently announced increase in the cap and the one he is now expecting in January will more than wipe it out. He says that throwing money at consumers does not deal with the huge profits or change supplier behaviour. Will the Minister accelerate plans to fully and quickly decouple electricity prices from the wholesale price of gas?

   Hansard source
2. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Student Loans

   I speak as the mother of three students, one of whom has just graduated. Two of them have a plan 2 loan, and one has a plan 5 loan. They and I were unaware that they are not allowed to start repaying their debt until they graduate, yet the interest starts from the very first day that they take the loan, which can be a gap of three or four years or, as was suggested earlier, even six or seven years. That adds between £5,000 and £8,000 to their borrowing. Did the Committee look at that? Has it made any recommendations on that specific issue?

   Hansard source
3. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Sepsis Awareness Month

   The hon. Gentleman is making a really moving speech. Although one in 100 cases of sepsis in adults is linked to meningitis, it is one in 10 for children—with harrowing consequences. One of those children is Hamish, who was a classmate of my nephew Louis in Sussex. He had all four limbs amputated, and I pay tribute to his resilience in getting on with life and going to university. Because of the link between vaccines and the prevention of sepsis, will the hon. Member join me in calling for the menB vaccine to be repeated for teenagers next year and every year until all children are protected, so we can reduce the risk of sepsis in young people?

   Hansard source
4. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Sepsis Awareness Month

   I too pay tribute to Lord Mackinlay because when Hamish’s story made the papers, he did not hesitate to visit Hamish, an 18-year-old, and help him through his recovery. When I first met Lord Mackinlay myself in Buckingham Palace when we had just been elected, I went to him and said, “What a hero. What an incredible man to do that every time a similar case happens.”

   Hansard source
5. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Sepsis Awareness Month

   I am really grateful to the shadow Minister for raising this issue, which I also raised earlier in the debate. My son George and his girlfriend Maisie both had their two doses in the past few weeks as they turned 18, but my constituent Victoria asked me to write to the Minister a few months ago about education and awareness. I was really disappointed that the Department for Education did not think it was necessary to add meningitis awareness into the personal, social, health and economic education programme in secondary school. Will the shadow Minister support me in advocating for that?

   Hansard source
6. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Young Carers’ Champions

   When most children go home from school, they bury their head in a book, grab a football or turn on the TV, but for young carers, home time looks very different. They carry burdens on their shoulders that are way beyond their years and, as a result, their life chances are affected. Research shows that they are twice as likely to be persistently absent from school, less likely to pass their GCSEs, and much more likely to face suspension from school. I have been working with MYTIME Young Carers, a charity based in my constituency, whose members have pioneered young carer champions in schools across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and they are seeing a difference. During an event with the Carers Trust last week, the Children’s Commissioner indicated her support for the scheme. Carers’ charities across the country have shared my petition, which now has nearly 4,000 signatures, calling for a champion in every school to support young carers in their communities. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of England, Declares that there are between 400,000 and 1 million young carers in England, who face overwhelming demands of providing care to a family member; further declares that research shows that young carers are twice as likely to be persistently absent from schools, less likely to pass GCSE English and Maths, and over twice as likely to be suspended from school all compared to their peers without a caring responsibility; further declares that it is wrong that young people giving their own time to support family members in need should then lose out themselves; further declares that it is welcome that the new Ofsted Framework includes a requirement to identify young carers in schools, but that there are currently no official means or roles for supporting those children once they are identified; further declares that vital wraparound support in schools is long overdue for young carers; further declares that establishing a Young Carers’ Champion in every school in England would provide schools with tools to support young carers with their educational attainment and wellbeing. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce legislation that would require every school in England to have a Young Carers’ Champion to lead the school’s strategic approaches to identifying and supporting young carers. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003241]

   Hansard source
7. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

   Q We have already mentioned the European convention on human rights, and other articles are involved too. Ms Tennant and Ms Lyons, can you comment on the fact that clause 36 would place an additional burden of proof and onus on the victim to self-identify? We know that the state has a duty under the ECHR and other obligations, such as the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. What is the interplay between making it a harder barrier for people to self-identify and realise that they are a victim of modern-day slavery, and the other articles that are engaged? Eleanor Lyons: Most of the survivors I have spoken to—I have a summit that draws together 15 lived experience advisory panels from across the UK—did not realise they were being exploited; it took them years of help and support to understand what was happening to them and to feel comfortable talking about it. That is why the premise is there that it should be the state’s responsibility to identify victims of modern slavery and offer them support in their recovery journey. That also has a very practical implication in terms of trying to stop re-trafficking and re-exploitation taking place, and to stop harm increasing. Clause 36, on the credibility assessment, is problematic because it says to safeguarding professionals, and it puts into law, that it is okay to question victims’ credibility if time has passed before they have come forward, if there are inconsistencies in what they have said or if they are exploited in the same way as someone else. That is an issue across all victim cohorts who have gone through horrific experiences. It is completely unacceptable that we are putting that into primary legislation. That part of the Bill should absolutely be removed completely.

   Hansard source
8. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

   Vicky, do you have anything to add? Vicky Tennant: I have nothing to add.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

   Q I want to follow up on line of questioning of my colleague Siân Berry. When previous Governments removed safe routes from overseas, did the NCA see an impact on illegal activity by those exploiting vulnerable people? Do you feel confident that the Bill will reverse that? Helen Rance: I understand the question, but I do not have the statistical figures over the last—

   Hansard source
10. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    Q I am not asking for a set of statistics; I am asking whether the NCA saw an increase in trafficking and criminal activity as a result of changes to the routes that asylum seekers, refugees and others could undertake. Helen Rance: Our work is on serious and organised immigration crime networks. I cannot be led to saying that they have increased due to specific measures, because a whole raft of factors make that happen. I am just not in a position to answer that.

    Hansard source
11. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    Q Has the NCA ever received any evidence or intelligence? Has information been gathered from these gangs about their seeking to exploit the Government’s having previously changed the system and removed those overseas routes? Helen Rance: I am sorry, but I just do not have that sort of information. You can rephrase the question again, but I am not clear that that is a matter for the NCA.

    Hansard source
12. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I have a quite technical question. I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and when we were dealing with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, one of the issues I asked the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), about was its compatibility with the EU victims’ directive. As part of the Windsor framework, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, there was a requirement for Northern Ireland to maintain compatibility with EU law. Does the Bill have any issues with compatibility in Northern Ireland? My other question is about the Good Friday agreement requiring the European convention on human rights to be embedded in Northern Ireland. Are there any concerns about the applicability of those issues and how they have been engaged in the Bill, or how it could be challenged in the courts in Northern Ireland? The last thing anyone wants is more Bills being dragged through the courts. Dan Hobbs: This has been the subject of litigation already, which I think has concluded that it does not relate in respect of people who do not have lawful status in the United Kingdom; it related to citizens of the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As I say, I think there is case law on this, as a case was brought against previous legislation. The courts found that it was consistent and that the alignment issues you talked about did not directly relate to immigration law. We can write to you with full details, but the immigration legislation applies right across the United Kingdom.

    Hansard source
13. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Public Accounts Committee

    I thank the hon. Lady for her statement. Is she able to outline whether, during the course of its work, the Committee gave any consideration to index-linking compensation payments in line with inflation? Those payments can take a very long time to be made, and over that time, the value of the award can have reduced. Was that something that the Committee looked at, or would consider?

    Hansard source
14. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Student Finance (Review)

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review student finance in England; to require the review to consider loan repayment arrangements and thresholds; to require the review to consider the terms and conditions applying to student loans when they were issued; to require the review to consider the relationship between student finance loan repayment thresholds and average earnings; and for connected purposes. Before I begin, I wish to send my deepest condolences to the Prime Minister on the loss of his father. I am sure that the whole House will be thinking of them. I should also declare an interest, as a graduate with both a plan 2 loan and a postgraduate loan. This is not the speech that I intended to make. In fact, it is not even the Bill that I thought I would be presenting. Originally, when I secured this slot, I was planning to present a Bill that would remove time restrictions on disability bus passes, but before I could get to my feet, or even table that Bill, the Prime Minister handed me my first big win in Parliament, for which I am eternally grateful to him. I thank him for that, and for his new approach to politics, which is about problem solving, not point scoring. I can only hope he continues in that spirit and hands me another big win today, because the timing could not be any better. I want to start by paying tribute to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and to all the members of the Committee for their very thorough work on this matter, about which we heard earlier. Their report asks, “Student loans: Broken and unfair?” I think we all know the answer, on both counts: they are both broken and very unfair. Let me make it clear from the outset that this is not a single, individual political party’s failure. Every party that has sat on the Government Benches has had a bit of a shoddy record on this particular issue—Conservatives, Labour, and yes, even the Liberal Democrats, which might come as a surprise. In this regard, no one comes to the debate or to the Chamber with clean hands. Honesty has to start with three things: the repayment thresholds, the terms that graduates were sold, and whether those thresholds have kept pace with earnings. I grew up in a former mining town, in a working-class family. My mum had me when she was 18, and I was the first person in my family to go to university. For people like me, taking out a student loan was not an option or a luxury; it was a necessity, and it was the only way I could get through the door of a university—Newcastle, where I secured a biochemistry degree and a master’s in public health. Today, my student loans, combined, stand at more than £65,000. Between my two loans, 15p of every extra pound I earn goes on repayments, on top of tax. This is the cruellest part for many people across the country. The poorer your family, the more you have to borrow. In 2016, maintenance grants for poorer students were scrapped and replaced with loans, so the students who have the least borrow the most, graduate with the biggest debts, and are then charged interest on every penny. A system that was meant to be a ladder of opportunity has become a penalty for being born poor. That is not social mobility; it is social injustice, with interest. When I signed up, like millions of others, I was told a story. Department for Education slides compared repayments with a mobile phone contract: about £15 a month, we were told. Government-commissioned videos told teenagers that the threshold would rise with earnings. It was sold like a phone contract, and paid back like a second income tax. The Treasury Committee examined those materials, and concluded that they amounted to mis-selling. No other lender in this country would be allowed to sell a loan to an 18-year-old on one set of terms, only to rewrite them when the ink was barely even dry. If a bank did that, the regulator would shut it down. When the Government do it, they call it a policy change. Ministers wrote themselves out of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, and they have been getting away with it ever since. With no regulator watching, borrowers are left in the dark. When my university friends saw that I had this ten-minute rule Bill, WhatsApp groups that had not been active for a number of years suddenly lit up with everyone getting in touch. One friend, Jasmine, told me that she was refused a straight answer on what she owed and that her balance then jumped by a few thousand pounds because interest had not been properly added back in 2021. In her words, “I am livid.” My friend Rebecca had to open a case just to get back a refund she was owed. No customer of any other lender would put up with that. In 2010, the Universities Minister told this House that the threshold would rise “periodically” to reflect average earnings and that “The Government are committed to the progressive nature of the repayment system.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 924.] That was not a hope; that was a promise made in this place. It has been broken again and again by Governments of all persuasions. The thresholds for repayment were frozen again at the last Budget for another three years from April 2027. On top of that is a system where the interest piles up from the day you take out the loan, before you can even repay a penny, and where you earn more, the higher the interest rate you are charged. At its heart, this is an issue about fairness, and the injustice does not fall evenly. My friend Rebecca took maternity leave. While she was at home with her newborn, not making repayments and not earning, her balance rose by the best part of £2,000 in interest. Women have been charged interest for starting a family. Think of those living with long-term health conditions who cannot work full time or have to take time off sick. They are already fighting their bodies and now they watch their debt grow while their earnings often stall. This is damaging to our public services and our economy. I have heard from people who have turned down promotions because, after tax and loan repayments, the extra pay is simply not worth the extra responsibility. I have heard from doctors refusing extra shifts because once the higher tax rate, national insurance and the student loan repayments are added, they keep less than half of every extra pound. At a time when our NHS is calling out for extra staff and extra support, we are punishing those very people for trying to work harder. We have a generation on track to be the first in modern times to be worse off than their parents. They did everything they were told: they worked hard, went to university and tried to better themselves. What did they get in return? In addition to a housing crisis, a property ladder with the bottom rung sawn off and a really grim graduate jobs market, they have had, added on top, a 9% tax that will earn on everything above the threshold before it ever reaches their bank account. I have friends who have put off having children because they cannot afford childcare while hundreds of pounds a month leave their payslip in student loan repayments. This is an injustice at its starkest: a generation told to borrow for the future are now paying for it with their future. The Prime Minister has rightly talked about bringing back hope. I agree with him wholeheartedly. There is no better place to start than honouring the deal that my generation were promised. How have the Government responded to the Treasury Committee’s cross-party call to reverse the freeze, which it called “a moral obligation”? They state that they keep “all aspects of the student finance system under review”, which does not sound like they are going to reverse that freeze. Martin Lewis called it “a very disappointing response that does little to help the millions of students already struggling.” The Government’s answer is, in effect, that we will do better for future students, but millions of graduates are already paying under those terms today. They cannot wait for a better system to be built for people who have not yet borrowed a penny. I said at the start that every party of Government have had a hand in this situation. I say it again, because it is exactly why I believe we can reach a cross-party consensus. No party can claim the moral high ground, so every party can help to be part of the solution. My message to the Government and the Prime Minister is simple: in the spirit of problem solving, not point scoring, will the Government commit to a genuine fix? Not another promise to keep things under review, but looking honestly at the deal graduates were promised and the deal they are getting. Restore the link between repayment thresholds and earnings. Guarantee that the terms will not be changed after people have signed them and put right the wrongs that have already been done. Let us make sure that that fix reaches every borrower, not just those who are yet to walk through a university’s door. The Prime Minister has already shown this House that when he hears a good case, he acts on it, and I am asking him to do so again. The Select Committee asked whether student loans are broken and unfair, and we know the answer. The only question left is whether, together, we will commit to putting it right. I commend the tremendous efforts of Rethink Repayment, Ollie Gardner and the team who have been pushing on this issue. For the best part of two years, internally within my party, I have been banging the drum to try to make this an issue to which we Liberal Democrats can be part of the solution. I am really pleased that we have seen Members from across this House add their names in support of the Bill. I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Tom Gordon, Vikki Slade, Liz Jarvis, Ann Davies, Dr Danny Chambers, Siân Berry, Cat Eccles, Cat Smith, Christine Jardine, Layla Moran, Ruth Cadbury and Alex Sobel present the Bill. Tom Gordon accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 151).

    Hansard source
15. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

    Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if she will make a statement on the implications of the closure of the Saudi east-west oil pipeline for UK energy security, fuel prices and global oil supply, and on the steps the Government are taking in response.

    Hansard source
16. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

    Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline

    I thank the Minister for his reply. Saudi’s closure of the 1,200 km east-west pipeline is a massive blow. The pipeline allowed Saudi Arabia to export millions of barrels of crude a day, and it has been the key alternative route to the strait of Hormuz since Donald Trump’s war led to its regular closure. The closure has predictably led to further increases in already high oil prices, which stand at $106 a barrel just today. We have reports that Saudi Arabia could exhaust crude available for export within days unless that pipeline resumes operation. The consequences are huge for my constituents and everybody else’s. We are already paying through the nose for fuel as a result of the war in Iran, and they are now being hit by even higher prices because of this closure. Rural communities relying on heating oil are especially vulnerable to shortages and price hikes. The impact on farmers and food production could do further damage to the UK’s food security. The tragic reality is that while the UK will struggle if the pipeline is not reopened, this could mean starvation for millions on the African continent. The latest crisis puts a further spotlight on our failure as a country to be energy secure. Even those few people who are not yet convinced that climate change is real and needs tackling surely now understand that energy security really matters. Neither Houthi rebels nor Putin nor Iran nor Trump can turn off our waves, wind, sunshine or nuclear industry. It is time for siren voices to stop whining about wokery and start focusing on security. So I ask the Minister, what oil reserves does the United Kingdom have? Will the Government accelerate domestic energy generation? Will they implement a 10p temporary fuel duty cut, and cuts in bus and rail fares, so that people in Cumbria and across the country are not plunged into further hardship as a result of this crisis? What plans does the Minister have to accelerate the warm homes plan, which, sadly, has insulated only 0.3% of the expected homes this year—especially in communities such as mine, where a quarter of the housing stock was built before 1900 and is in need of more bespoke solutions? What will he do to introduce an energy price cap for heating oil, and what extra work is he doing with our allies in the middle east and NATO to ensure that the pipeline reopens as soon as possible?

    Hansard source
17. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

    English Whisky: Single Malt Definition

    English whisky rightly has a growing reputation, and it is right that it should have geographical indication status. I confess to being a single malt enjoyer myself, as well as the owner of a decent collection, including a fine bottle of Lindores. I am also an avid supporter of the annual Kendal whisky festival, where Cumbria whisky distilleries proudly tout their wares alongside whiskies from all parts of the British Isles, and indeed beyond. So English whisky is good, and English whisky from the lakes is even better. However, DEFRA’s proposed criteria for English whisky are not good, nor is the tiny appeal period on that status. To put it bluntly, English whisky is too good to be held to this low a standard. It will damage the English whisky brand and, in turn, impact on the brand and reputation of Scotch whisky, along with whiskies from Wales and Ireland. It is also quite wrong for this consultation and the appeal period to be open for only two parliamentary sitting days. Without this urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), there would have been no parliamentary scrutiny of this at all, and even with this question, the appeal period is far too brief or fair to be adequate. I urge the Minister to think again.

    Hansard source
18. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Susan Murray

    Civil Service Pension Scheme

    I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate. I was contacted in February by a constituent who sadly lost her partner in November 2025. She was left caring for two children on one income. When she reached out to access a hardship loan, she was denied. The Government had shut out bereaved families at the time they most needed help. When I asked the Minister how much it would have cost to include them, I did not get an answer. That has been the theme throughout, for myself and my constituents. I have asked what penalties have been applied to Capita—no answer. Given that much of Capita appears to be nothing more than a rebranding of MyCSP, with the same workforce doing the same job, can the Minister tell me what assurances she can provide that we will not see a repeat of the Capita fiasco? The Cabinet Office is responsible for civil service pensions. Unlike other pension providers that are monitored by the Financial Conduct Authority, this issue is not subject to FCA scrutiny.

    Hansard source
19. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Susan Murray

    English Whisky: Single Malt Definition

    Can the Minister tell distillers in Scotland, like those who invested £12 million in the Port of Leith distillery in Edinburgh to achieve the prize Scottish single malt label, which I visited with the Scottish Affairs Committee earlier this year, why English producers will be able to use the same single malt label without playing by the same rules?

    Hansard source
20. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steve Darling

    Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

    Tourists visiting Torbay already pay double the rate of VAT compared with those visiting Italy, France or Spain. The reality is that a cost of living crisis is just the wrong time to implement a tourism tax. Can the Minister please share what investigations he has made of the impact of the tourism tax, but also assure us that Airbnb operators will also pay their fair share?

    Hansard source
21. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steve Darling

    Dentistry in Coastal Areas

    Further to our online petition on NHS dentistry, which had over 1,000 signatures, there continues to be a desperate need in many coastal communities, including mine in Torbay, for more NHS dentists. That is why I am delighted to present a petition that calls on the Government to reform the NHS dentistry contract to ensure that coastal communities such as mine are adequately served. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that more NHS dental appointments are needed in coastal communities. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reform the NHS dental contract to bring more dentists back to the NHS from the private sector, and adopt a flexible commissioning approach to meet patients’ needs, particularly in coastal areas. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003242]

    Hansard source
22. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Reoffending Reduction Programmes

    20. What steps he is taking to improve programmes that reduce reoffending.

    Hansard source
23. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Reoffending Reduction Programmes

    The problems with early release that we saw over the summer are partly an issue with reoffending, as a quarter of prisoners released go on to reoffend. I have a constituent whose sibling has moved into her small house after spending time in prison, to prevent him becoming homeless. I understand that community accommodation service tier 3 is a good scheme for supporting prisoners when they are first released, but what housing schemes support rehabilitation later, to stop that revolving door for some offenders?

    Hansard source
24. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

    Businesses in Devon have told me of their concern about this proposed visitor levy, including Littlecourt Cottages in Sidmouth. They point out that the tourist footfall might decrease, not just for the cottages, but for the restaurants, the attractions and the shops in the local area. This tax has been dreamed up on the basis of what it will do for cities that see a higher proportion of wealthy overseas visitors, has it not?

    Hansard source
25. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline

    The National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, has said that Europe will experience real hardship this winter. We have repeatedly seen the UK exposed to energy shocks linked to volatile fossil fuel prices set on international markets: Russia and Ukraine, the strait of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandeb and now the Saudi east-west oil pipeline. Will the UK step up investment in clean, domestic renewable energy production, as well as in the grid to distribute it?

    Hansard source
26. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Fracking Ban

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing this vital debate with the backing of the Backbench Business Committee. I am very far from being an elder of this House, but I am among the minority of Members who saw the end of the Liz Truss premiership during the last Parliament. That period is most associated with the Truss-Kwarteng mini-Budget, but as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) pointed out, it should really go down in history for its association with fracking. What few people recall is that the Truss era fractured, gave out volatile gases and combusted on 19 October 2022 with a Conservative party rebellion over the Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill. Forty Conservative MPs did not vote with their Government against an Opposition motion to ban fracking. Some Conservative MPs abstained because they were not in the House, but others abstained as a matter of principle, and I commend them. They included the former Minister Chris Skidmore, who was one of those principled MPs who would never vote in support of such a proposal. I want to set out why the rebels were right. It is fair to say that the moratorium is insufficient on two grounds: first because it is inadequate, and secondly because of climate change more broadly. The moratorium came into effect in 2019 after serious concerns were raised about how fracking could cause damage to nature and our communities. However, a ban might not cover all forms of fracking and could potentially leave significant loopholes if that is not addressed. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) made an excellent speech, and I completely agree with her that at the moment we see the exclusion of small-scale fracking, often referred to as proppant squeeze. The guidelines in the Petroleum Act 1998 are outdated, defining the fracturing of rock for shale gas as involving “the injection of…more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage…of the hydraulic fracturing”. We need that loophole to be closed and a proper ban to be introduced. In 2019 the Preston New Road fracking site in Lancashire recorded more than 120 seismic events. The British Geological Survey typically detects between 200 and 300 earthquakes across the country across the whole year. Before the fracking moratorium came into effect, drilling licences over shale gas reserves were issued across 127 constituencies in England and Wales, and there is a risk that communities will suffer from not just the seismic activity, but the polluted groundwater and the damage to natural habitats that flows from it. A full ban on fracking would provide certainty to our communities. The Minister for Energy has previously argued that the Government would need “objective evidence” in order to close those loopholes and include low-volume fracking in the ban. What additional evidence do the Government need? There is large support in this country for a full ban on fracking—almost half the country believes we should not be fracking, and less than 30% of the British population support it. It can lead to water scarcity and risks polluting our air, our soil, our health and our biodiversity. Green space and nature are an intrinsic part of life in the UK, and we should be protecting our wildlife with everything we have. Ministers have previously suggested that all forms of fracking would be considered within the scope of a ban, and the former Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), told the 2025 Labour party conference: “Let’s ban fracking and send the frackers packing.” I welcome the point made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who reminded us of some of the traditional Labour arguments about social justice, but also that they could apply to creating new jobs in new industries. What the public do support is action to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. Eight in 10 people say that they are concerned about climate change—they want a transition to clean energy. In mid and east Devon, protecting our natural environment is a priority for thousands of people who have corresponded with me on the subject. Reports of nature in decline, and of the loss of our precious wildlife and biodiversity, are very concerning to them. I hope that this debate will not only protect communities from the damage of fracking now but, in a small way, help to protect future generations from the worst impacts of climate change. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talked about the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground. We have just seen the hottest average summer temperatures on record, which are around 130 times more likely because of human-induced climate change. Last year, 47% of all the electricity generated in the UK was generated from renewable sources. That represents a fourfold increase in renewables since 2012, far in advance of the pace of progress that was forecast. Yes, we will continue to need some oil and gas in the years to come, but why would anyone want us to hitch ourselves to the slow wagons—of which fracking is one—as other countries gallop away behind the technologies of the future?

    Hansard source
27. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    Fracking Ban

    I know that this is a local matter for the hon. Member, so he will be interested in my response. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about emissions resulting from the greater extraction of fossil fuels, both in UK waters and around the world. For oil in particular, the extraction exercise is pointless, given that we are exporting it so that other countries can refine it and take profits from it. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) referred to a similar point, and he made repeated references to treasure. For those who know the story “Treasure Island”, he is the Squire John Trelawney of this House: a rich landowner who pays for the ship, but talks too much and trusts the wrong people. There is a real danger that investment in fracking will be a catastrophic mistake, as the fuels, facilities and resources become stranded assets. There is a real risk that they will lose their value prematurely as the tide of renewable technology advances around them. To finish where I started, I am concerned about the Conservative party’s journey towards political extinction. Polling suggests that support for any fracking is a complete misreading of where our constituents are. We Liberal Democrats could quietly gloat that the Conservative party has misread the room and enjoy the electoral dividends that that brings, but we would much rather that it returned to the consensus. Climate change is one of the gravest issues that our generation of politicians has been sent to this House to tackle. Let us not make a catastrophic mistake.

    Hansard source
28. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

    Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), for securing this debate. In my Woking constituency, residents have been the direct victims of construction failures. The Victoria Square development, a new shopping centre with two residential towers and another tower containing a hotel, is a glaring example. It was all built by Sir Robert McAlpine. This development was meant to help my town grow and ensure that we can build new homes and grow our economy. Instead, it has put Woking on the map for all the wrong reasons. The original opening date was meant to be October 2020. However, after cladding failures, it opened at Halloween 2024, and it has continued to be a horror ever since. Cladding panels fell off after the hotel opened, leading to road closures that disrupted local businesses and massively inconvenienced residents in their day-to-day lives. This was next to the town’s main road, an A road. One time the road was closed after being open for just 11 days, because another panel had fallen off. The road was closed during Christmas, and we all know how important that time of year is for businesses. I asked town centre residents and businesses to tell me how this impacted them. One family-owned restaurant told me its bookings had dropped, and unfortunately it had to cut staff hours. A carers agency said its staff were constantly being delayed in delivering necessary care to vulnerable people, all because Sir Robert McAlpine did not build the building properly in the first place. Thankfully, the road has now reopened and the cladding panels have now, only recently, been properly secured. Under the common law of negligence, according to the Chartered Institute of Building, purely economic losses are just not recoverable. However, this could be included under contract law. Why is that not standard practice for building projects? Will the Minister and her Department look at making it standard practice as part of forthcoming legislation? Just a stone’s throw from Victoria Square is another building safety issue in Woking. The Eastgate building has sat abandoned since late 2023, when over 100 residents were evacuated after a report identified significant structural defects. It has been years since then, and the developer says the building is safe. The owner says otherwise. After I got involved last year, independent testing was carried out. Although the testing was completed many months ago, the results still have not been released. There is no way that both sides can be right in this situation. I do not know what they are hiding, but this needs to be resolved immediately. Residents deserve to know what is going on. Does the Minister agree with me that the results of the testing need to be released immediately and that one of the parties must admit it is wrong, whether that means residents being allowed back in and an explanation of why the original structural testing was wrong or the developer needing to rebuild Eastgate and pay compensation? These two examples from my Woking constituency show the pressing need for stricter oversight, stronger retrospective enforcement and clear accountability for those that are responsible. We live in a country where a university degree is needed to become a lawyer or a teacher, and maybe two to be accredited, so it is shocking that I could go to B&Q, buy some materials and become a cowboy builder tomorrow, without a licence. The construction industry is an unregulated wild west. I know the Federation of Master Builders has been calling on the Government to introduce mandatory licensing and testing for UK construction firms. Does the Minister agree, and will the Government include it in forthcoming legislation? I urge the Government to listen.

    Hansard source
29. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

    Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

    I had better not, given the timings. I urge the Government to listen to Members present and take the necessary steps to deliver the building safety and accountability that people back home in Woking, and across the country, deserve.

    Hansard source
30. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

    Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for introducing the debate. As the Member of Parliament for Woking, housing is the top issue in my inbox due to issues such as overcrowding, evictions, problems with bedbugs or mould, and problems with leasehold. We need more and better quality homes in Woking and across the country. There is planning permission for more than 2,000 homes in Woking town centre and the surrounding area, including 1,000 in the EcoWorld site on Goldsworth Road and the 100 in the former Greenfield school site on Brooklyn Road. All those 2,000 homes got planning permission before the pandemic, and none are under construction—absolutely none. None of them are financially viable for the developers, so they are sitting on that land. Recently, the Secretary of State stated that there is a “slim chance” that the Government will hit their target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has raised its concerns about that with the Government before. Instead of tackling the high construction costs that leave sites for new homes abandoned in Woking and across the country, the Government have adopted the concept of “grey belt” to encourage development to meet their housing targets. In one Surrey borough it is believed that 80% of its green belt would be reclassified as grey belt. Woking borough council is doing the same assessment to find out how the reclassification will impact my constituency. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member that the definition of grey belt is too broad. It has been described in a very specific way—with which even the average nimby would have no problem—but it has also been defined in a very broad manner that would, I worry, fundamentally damage our local environments. Last year, I held a public meeting in Mayford to hear from residents about how a large proposed development would impact them. They do not want to see the fields north of Saunders Lane, which are used for recreation and agriculture, turned into a housing estate. People in Maybourne Rise in Mayford do not want to lose their fields either. Residents in Sutton Green are concerned about the green belt being lost there. Rather than unlock sustainable development in Woking and other brownfield locations, the Government have chosen to encourage development in less sustainable locations, where there is no or limited infrastructure. That will damage the local environment; that is what grey belt does. Rather than building in the places that we should be, we are targeting places for housing growth that should be protected for future generations. I ask the Minister, will the Government seek action in the Budget to unlock the brownfield development sites that are stalled, to relieve pressure on nature and on our grey and green belt and build the homes we need? Are the Minister and his colleagues urging the Chancellor to go big in the forthcoming Budget to ensure that it unlocks those development sites? Are the Government looking at reducing tax on development on brownfield sites? Have they ruled out changing the community infrastructure or development contributions? Is everything on the table to try to unlock development, or have they not got that far and are happy to sit on empty construction sites while people on housing waiting lists wait for evermore? If they have not thought about financial measures, will the Minister and the Government consider the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce “use it or lose it” powers for long-term empty sites? My constituents do not want a town full of empty sites and people sitting on a housing waiting list, while the Government introduce grey belt and damage our environment. I am afraid that, without a change of course—remember that this Government have been happy to U-turn—that is what is going to happen.

    Hansard source
31. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

    Probation Service: Recruitment and Retention

    After releasing a man with a history of domestic violence from prison, the Probation Service told his former partner that he had made threats against both her and her child as he was being released. Unsurprisingly, she now lives in fear. The Probation Service even told my local authority, Woking borough council, that it needs to rehouse her for her own safety. Will the Minister urgently look at this case and agree to increase the probation workforce to ensure that this incident never happens again?

    Hansard source
32. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    Q Would you reject the view that the referral system is exploited? Eleanor Lyons: I would say that, from the evidence that we have seen—this has been looked at across the years by different Select Committees and academics—there is no evidence of widespread misuse of the system. Of the flights that did not go ahead in 2025 after 3 pm, that is less than 1% of the number of potential victims of modern slavery whom we identified in the UK last year. As I mentioned, if you make these sweeping changes in the legislation, you will also have a negative impact on all victims of modern slavery, in particular cases where we have taken too long to identify them. For example, the survivors of al-Fayed have reached out to me, and they have serious concerns, because we failed them; we did not identify them when we should have done. The Bill would have a negative impact on them, too.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    Q I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and have spoken to your colleagues about smashing the gangs. The NCA has been trying to smash the drug gangs for half a century. Is there anything missing from the Bill that would help you to smash the gangs? What is your view on how far the NCA has progressed in smashing the gangs? Helen Rance: If “smashing the gangs” means reducing small boat crossings, crossings are down this year compared with last year, and the number—

    Hansard source
34. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    Q Do you think that is because the gangs have been smashed? Do you think that is why the reduction has happened? Helen Rance: There is a combination of factors. The law enforcement approach to reducing small boat equipment, to working closely with international partners and to using our international intelligence reach has certainly contributed to that. We would not claim that the work is complete or that we have fixed this, but our efforts have certainly contributed to the reduction in crossings.

    Hansard source
35. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    Q I would like to turn to the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I was in Denmark last week—hardly a slouch when it comes to asylum claims. People there were astounded that we were moving from a judicial to an administrative process for judging these matters. What is your view on the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority? Dr Casey: I think that if you want to help bring down the quite large backlog in the tribunal system, you will need more first-instance appellate decision makers. Numbers are hard to come by, but I think there are 90 salaried judges in the first tier tribunal and then an indeterminate number of part-time judges. I think the full number might not be more than 200 or 250—so not a lot when it comes to processing tens of thousands of appeals. If you were to expand the pool of decision makers by requiring less onerous legal qualifications, it would stand to reason that you could recruit more people to process the backlog. That is the positive picture that I imagine the Home Secretary would articulate, and there is a lot to be said for it. But as I see it the risk is that on the current design you just risk moving the backlog. If you have a large pool of people without legal training applying a complicated body of law—extraordinarily complicated: ECHR law, UK domestic law, immigration rules, statutes—they will be more likely to make mistakes and errors of law. Then there would be a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, where there will still be judges. They may then grant more leave to appeal. So you might just relocate the backlog from the first-instance appeal level up to the upper tribunal. That is the risk. I am loath to say things on the hoof about complicated points of designing institutions, but it might not be a choice between having no legal qualifications and being fit for judicial office with over 12 years’ experience. You could simply require some level of legal qualification, and that would still keep the pool of possible decision makers much broader than it is with the first-tier tribunal. Those are just some initial thoughts on that part of the Bill. Professor Ekins: For my part, I think it is too strong to say this is a move from a judicial process to an administrative process. It is certainly a change and, if enacted and put in practice, it moves us closer to a model of departmental adjudication. However, that is still not departmental adjudication, as the relevant adjudicators will be at some distance from the Home Secretary, and they will be adjudicating claims appeals and so on. I think there could be some advantages in the proposed change, namely trying to integrate the process of reviewing particular cases more closely to the immigration and asylum system, and making the public interest in the enforcement of migration law a more pressing consideration. However, there certainly are considerable risks—not least of which, as my colleague has pointed out, is the sheer complexity of this body of law. To my mind, part of the problem with the body of law is the fact that sometimes, in some critical respects, its application turns on the relevant adjudicator’s individuated assessment of the relevant harshness, proportionality, fairness or otherwise of removing this person who is in violation of migration law. That makes things unpredictable, and it makes the disposition of the relevant adjudicators awfully important, which I think will result in more litigation and appeals. Changing the persons who are doing that kind of individuated assessment might well result in a different set of outcomes. I do not know who will be recruited for this, but it is conceivable, for example, that former police officers would constitute persons for appointment. They might well—I do not know—take a different view on the fairness or otherwise of removing some persons whose claims come before them from the view taken by the existing cadre of first-tier tribunal judges. However, the same body of law is being applied, and it is complex—that is certainly true—so I think one can expect a lot of appeals. In addition to that—this a crucial point for the Committee to bear in mind—I think there could be considerable collateral litigation to challenge decisions of the new adjudicative body, and those challenges might be at a high level. If the Bill proceeds into law, when the Home Secretary comes to promulgating secondary legislation and making critical decisions about the structure and operation of the adjudicative body, many of those decisions will be challenged by judicial review. When the adjudicative body is under way, particular decisions will be challenged by way of judicial review, as well as by appeal to the upper tribunal. Clause 1(8) looks like an attempt to limit the judicial involvement in decisions of the adjudicative body to appeals to the upper tribunal only. If that is the intention, with respect, I think it is going to fail. That is not an effective ouster clause. You can certainly expect—and I do—much litigation and ordinary judicial review proceedings challenging particular decisions of the adjudicative body. Although more adjudicative capacity is certainly welcome, and you need that if you are going to deal with the existing and growing backlog, you have to reckon with the risk that it is not quite as straightforward as is hoped.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

    Q Are there examples of other jurisdictions that have tried this? I am thinking of Australia. Professor Ekins: I cannot answer that question offhand, I am afraid. It is certainly the case that different common law and civil law countries take different views, especially those outside the ECHR, of the relevant role of the Department in deciding cases, and the role of courts in reviewing claims about the nature of decision making. Certainly, if you go back not that long ago in our history, you would have had the Home Office making decisions about the application of the relevant migration law. Those decisions would have been subject to judicial supervision, but that would have been supervision with the court thinking, “Has something gone fundamentally wrong here? Is this a misconstrual of the legislation or a perverse decision, which sometimes happens?” What we have now, and have had, effectively, since a pivotal judgment in 2007, is the relevant judicial body thinking that it is its job to decide on the proportionality, fairness or justice of removal, not the Home Secretary’s. The Home Secretary takes her view, but the judge and the court take their view, and it is the court’s view that prevails. That is a different model, and it does not have to be that way.

    Hansard source
37. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

    Reoffending Reduction Programmes

    Restorative justice has a vital role to play in cutting reoffending and supporting victims. I would not be here today, after a violent attack in my home, were it not for a subsequent RJ session. I am consequently very concerned that the Prison and Probation Service has recently issued a protocol that would have denied access to RJ to my family, as well as the family of James Hodgkinson, on whom the play “Punch” is based. As I understand it, no Minister has yet been formally assigned the RJ role in the Ministry of Justice, but when they are, will they meet me and Jacob Dunne, the RJ campaigner and the perpetrator in “Punch”, to help reverse this retrograde step?

    Hansard source
38. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Alistair Carmichael

    English Whisky: Single Malt Definition

    I am really struggling to see what the Government are seeking to achieve by removing the requirement for the whole process to be carried out on a single site. It seems to me that they risk confusing the definition for the Scotch, Welsh and Irish industries, and they undermine the investments that have already been made in the conventional model by other English distilleries. Are the Government trying to create a new market for a different product, and if that is what they are doing, should that not be reflected in its name?

    Hansard source
39. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Monica Harding

    Reoffending Reduction Programmes

    11. What steps he is taking to improve programmes that reduce reoffending.

    Hansard source
40. 15 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Monica Harding

    Reoffending Reduction Programmes

    My local police force is working hard to get youth crime down, as I witnessed when I went out on an op, but reoffending is a real problem. Probation officers and youth justice workers play an essential role in the rehabilitation of young offenders, but in my area, the service was operating with under two thirds of its roles staffed last year. That is mostly due to the high cost of areas like Esher and Walton. A constituent who came to my surgery had been offered a position as a youth justice worker but had waited over six months for employment checks to be made. The Department’s data shows that almost 15,000 candidates are stuck in the vetting pipeline. What is the Minister doing about that?

    Hansard source