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

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

1. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Wendy Chamberlain

   Public Confidence in the Police

   I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. In recent weeks, the APPG has met the Metropolitan police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. There is absolutely no doubt that historical failures in investigations have damaged the survivor cohort’s trust in the police and the criminal justice sector more widely. My hon. Friend is talking about violence against women and girls now, but does he agree that historical legacies also play a part?

   Hansard source
2. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Education and Skills Reform

   Will the Secretary of State commend the staff at specialist schools such as Summerwood in Dorset, where my son George goes, who pick children up after they have been failed by mainstream education, give them the confidence to sit exams such as GCSEs that they never believed they would sit and, when they do not actually make it, give them the resilience to have another go? It is so important to give these children hope. Will the Secretary of State explain how parents, young people and the teaching staff themselves can influence which qualifications children will take, because so often it is based on “the funding says no” and the children then cannot take the qualifications that suit them best?

   Hansard source
3. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

   In Bournemouth, the charges have now gone up to £8, yet there are no buses to the airport. Two buses, which go at 6 o’clock in the morning and come back at 6 o’clock in the evening, serve the industrial estate, but they do not serve the airport staff or passengers, and it is impossible for people to get there any other way. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree with me that these charges should be restricted or banned until such time as the airport provides alternatives for all passengers?

   Hansard source
4. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

   Would the hon. Member like to reflect on what happened to me over the summer when I was flying back from a family holiday? Our flight was continually delayed, and we kept getting told that there were “extraordinary circumstances”, which we know is code for, “You won’t get compensation.” That was the message throughout the wait, but when we got on the plane, the pilot told us the truth. He listed all the things that had happened, and I believe he did that so that we knew that it was not extraordinary circumstances. Does she agree that removal of that phrase is key to changing passenger rights?

   Hansard source
5. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Conversion Therapy

   I welcome the steps that the Minister has outlined. Under the Conservative Government, we saw multiple attempts to bring forward a Bill but one never made it through the successive Government cycles, so I hope that the Minister will learn from those lessons and bring forward a Bill that is properly trans-inclusive too. The Bill talks about “abusive” conversion practices, but that risks implying that non-abusive forms exist, leading to a potential loophole. Will the Minister outline what steps and conversations he is having to ensure people cannot be pushed through those other alternative loopholes?

   Hansard source
6. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

   Other jurisdictions and countries around the world have taken steps to look at the issue of fume events in aircraft cabins. When such events happen, there is no requirement to engage with passengers and let them know, and there is a lack of regulation and scrutiny. Will the Minister meet me and the other members of the all-party parliamentary group on cabin air quality to look at the issue?

   Hansard source
7. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steve Darling

   Summer Health and Resilience

   The tower block at Torbay hospital was like an oven this summer; it is no longer fit for purpose, and it is even seen to be a fire risk for staff and patients alike. On 5 February, myself and my hon. Friends the Members for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) wrote to the Government backing the foundation hospital’s bid for funding for a new ward tower block. Secretary of State, is the cheque in the post?

   Hansard source
8. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

   Jaguar Land Rover: Redundancies

   On the same day that the Chancellor stood up and claimed that his growth mission was working, it was reported that 4,000 more manufacturing jobs were being cut in the west midlands. This news will have been devastating for the thousands of workers and their families affected by the redundancies at Jaguar Land Rover as well as for the companies in the supply-chain industries that are affected. When Starmer’s Government announced that they would underwrite a rescue loan for JLR last year, the Liberal Democrats asked that the Prime Minister assure workers that the deal would be enough to protect their jobs; it was not. This development lays bare the fact that the Government’s growth mission is falling far short. We need to see bold action from the Chancellor on growing the economy across the UK. Earlier this year, we called for the Government to review their tariffs on the steel sector due to the impact they would have on our manufacturing and defence industries, yet Ministers will not even negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with the EU that would unleash our auto industry by removing crippling rules-of-origin trade barriers. Is the Chancellor’s growth mission serious ambition or just words? What will the Government do to ensure that those highly specialised skills are not lost but fully utilised in our manufacturing sector?

   Hansard source
9. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

   Summer Health and Resilience

   I welcome the announcement of £32 million for cooling and ventilation in hospitals. I received letters from seven children over the summer about the closure of Littletown primary school for two days in June, because it acted like a greenhouse and was deemed unsafe. Likewise, Ottery St Mary primary school is fundraising for air conditioning. Will the Secretary of State talk to her counterparts at the Department for Education about adapting the school estate to climate change, so that children do not end up with heatstroke?

   Hansard source
10. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    Pharmacies: Government Funding

    Last Friday I visited a community pharmacy in Tiverton, and it was announced on Monday that an application for another pharmacy in my constituency had been turned down. Currently I have three pharmacies in Tiverton when I actually need four. Does the hon. Member agree that we really need to grasp this nettle and make sure we have enough pharmacies on our high streets?

    Hansard source
11. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Topical Questions

    T3. I thank the Secretary of State for her earlier answer about Meta smart glasses. She is right to acknowledge that this technology can provide benefits to people with disabilities, but that it is also being used for the covert recording of women—so can I push her a bit further? What discussions with other Departments can she commit to in order to ensure that tech company products advance equalities and human rights, rather than undermine them?

    Hansard source
12. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

    I start by joining the Secretary of State in thanking the House of Lords for its work in developing the Bill, and I pay particular thanks to the Liberal Democrat peer team led by the noble Baroness Grender. I also note at the start that it has been a season of reshuffles, and I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Minister with responsibility for aviation, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), and indeed the shadow Secretary of State on their reconfirmed appointments in recent reshuffles. It remains to be seen whether I survive the next Liberal Democrat one. There is much to be encouraged by in the Bill. It necessarily fills in some gaps in our aviation regulation resulting from our leaving the European Union, it brings potential for improving passenger rights, and it enables modernisation of our airspace, which has not been done for decades, including air traffic control, landing slots and optimising main routes to and from airports. Of course, the point about air traffic control is timely following yesterday’s NATS Holdings air traffic control disruption, which is a fresh reminder of the need for reliability. Perhaps the one thing I would agree with in the shadow Secretary of State’s speech is that a Second Reading debate on new legislation is a somewhat unorthodox way for the Government to be held accountable, and it is a matter of regret that the Government have not decided to make a statement to the House on that important disruption yesterday. However, we do have some concerns about the Bill. As drafted, it relies far too heavily on delegated powers and secondary legislation. By leaving critical details to future ministerial regulation, the Government are bypassing meaningful parliamentary oversight and leaving passengers and local communities without robust statutory safeguards. The Bill, as it stands, also grants sweeping powers to the Civil Aviation Authority. Consequently, the Bill could be used to support more flights at any cost. We will be looking to the Government to engage positively with amendments that would make all changes to airspace utilisation subject to strict caps on noise, carbon emissions and night operations, and to accompanying improved transport services to and from airports to reduce their road congestion impact. I note the assurances given by the Secretary of State that airport expansion is not connected to this Bill, but we will fight to ensure that the new powers in the Bill cannot be used to facilitate airport expansion through the back door, and that Parliament is properly involved in any future proposals that impact our environment. The Liberal Democrats will also be calling for the Bill to go much further by adopting a genuinely passenger-first approach, with a focus on passengers with disabilities, who are so often let down by their experience of aviation travel. Critically, we want to see a statutory air passengers charter written on to the face of the Bill to enshrine these rights in law, tackling issues such as inconsistent luggage rules, airport drop-off charges, and disruption and compensation arrangements. At this stage, we support the premise of the Bill, as modernisation is clearly needed. However, our support at further stages will be conditional on positive engagement with our proposals for putting passengers first and for environmental safeguards. Specifically, modernisation must be used to make the most of what we have, rather than increase the noise, carbon emissions, night-time and ground road congestion impacts of aviation. Only if the Government give assurances in subsequent stages that the Bill will do this, and that they will properly commit to advancing passenger rights and protections, will it retain our support.

    Hansard source
13. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Education and Skills Reform

    May I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role? It is good to finally have the chance to question her on this announcement. Despite some of the rhetoric, academic and vocational education are not enemies; a successful economy needs both. However, creating technical pathways without ensuring that they have parity of esteem and funding has led to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds being disproportionately funnelled into technical pathways earlier, and having their options narrowed too soon. Successive Governments have rightly moved us away from that. Academic excellence matters, and remains a powerful engine for social mobility. We should never apologise for wanting children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to have access to the same intellectual opportunities as the most privileged. Yesterday’s PISA scores show that, here in England, we have some of the best results in the world. That is a testament to the dedication of brilliant teachers and the work of all parties to drive up standards across our schools in recent years—and yes, I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have played our part through the introduction of the pupil premium and Progress 8 scores. Although the Prime Minister has put a heavy emphasis on parity of esteem, how will the Secretary of State ensure that technical qualifications will be as rigorous as academic qualifications? Will a child be able to move easily between technical and academic pathways after the age of 14? Crucially, parity of esteem needs parity of funding. Budgets have already been cut to the bone, and on top of that, there are the upcoming SEND reforms, unfunded enrichment activities, and underfunded pay rises and school meals, so will there be new funding attached to the reforms? Despite Labour’s promises, teacher numbers are down. Where will schools find new specialist teachers? Will the Secretary of State be reversing the mandatory qualified teacher status?

    Hansard source
14. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Lee Dillon

    Pharmacies: Government Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the APPG on pharmacy, my colleague on which, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), I am happy to follow. For many residents in rural constituencies such as mine, local pharmacies are the first, and often only, point of contact with the NHS. Longer distances to travel, limited public transport and patchy digital connectivity mean that the trusted and timely in-person service that they provide for our communities is vital. However, access is thin on the ground. Analysis by the National Pharmacy Association has described west Berkshire as England’s “pharmacy desert”, with the lowest number of pharmacies per head of any council area. To put that in context, the UK average is about one pharmacy to every 4,600 patients; in my constituency, it is one to every 7,200. Twelve pharmacies still open their doors to residents across Newbury and west Berkshire, and they do essential, extraordinary work. They dispense more than 111,000 prescriptions every month and deliver enough consultations through Pharmacy First to save more than 8,000 GP appointments, all while acting as a specialist and friendly front door to our NHS. Like many here, I welcome the Government’s recent investment in the sector. We have heard the cash figures, but the 10.3% uplift for 2026-27 is the largest increase anywhere in primary care this year, and the move to expand prescribing rights is a vital step in the right direction. However, a positive uplift does not in isolation deliver the sustainable settlements that pharmacies desperately need. Pharmacies cannot plan their workforce or their services throughout the year when settlements are negotiated and have to be fought for year by year. Nationally, we have lost over 1,300 pharmacies since 2016, and this year’s uplift will not plug the underlying funding gap, which now stands at over £2 billion. It is no wonder that Community Pharmacy England accepted this year’s deal on the condition of further reform, stating clearly: “Accepting this deal does not mean we think it is enough”. With budgets stretched, that instability is compounded by broken medicine supply chains and a framework that leaves many pharmacies in the impossible position of dispensing medicines at a loss. On visits to Lambourn pharmacy and MedWell chemist in Newbury, staff told me that current funding would quickly be absorbed by rocketing drug prices, with some pharmacies paying 14 to 15 times more for prescription medicine than at the start of the year. In rural areas, where proximity to provision is already paramount, older residents in particular cannot afford to lose access to their prescription because their pharmacy down the road has been priced out of existence. Despite those challenges, pharmacies are doing incredible work, and I know how much residents across Newbury and West Berkshire value their expertise and care. In September 2024, the Government commissioned the Lord Darzi report, which rightly acknowledged the huge potential of pharmacies within the NHS. Two years on, with a workforce eager to do all it can, that potential remains unfulfilled—not for a lack of experience and care, but because of a lack of investment from the centre. The 10-year health plan’s ambition to shift care from hospitals into communities is absolutely the right one, and pharmacies are the linchpin of that push. As their responsibilities continue to rise, so must the Government’s backing. Pharmacies have spent the last 10 years being squeezed to near breaking point; the next 10 and beyond must be different. I therefore ask the Minister to launch a strategic review of medicine supply, including reforms needed to build domestic manufacturing capability, and to commit to an above-inflation multi-year funding settlement that allows pharmacies to continue to serve my constituents and millions of patients across the country for decades to come.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Lee Dillon

    Pharmacies: Government Funding

    Lambourn pharmacy, which I mentioned earlier, worked out that about 90% of its profit came from serving the NHS and only 10% came from shampoo and other things, so it wonders whether the Government could pro rata those NI and other costs, meaning that they are paid only on the 10%. Would the hon. Gentleman welcome that type of approach?

    Hansard source
16. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Lee Dillon

    Youth Parliament: Government Support

    We have some alumni of the Youth Parliament in this Chamber today. As a young person, I was on the steering committee that set it up. It is great to see so many former MYPs taking a seat in this Chamber, although sadly not so many on my side of the aisle. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK Youth Parliament plays a crucial role, but that young people who are less confident and more disadvantaged or who simply feel that politics has nothing to do with them might not engage through it? This is an opportunity for the Government to encourage more engagement across youth politics, not just among those who want to take elected roles.

    Hansard source
17. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Lee Dillon

    Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

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

    Hansard source
18. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Lee Dillon

    Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

    Tomorrow is World Suicide Prevention Day. Given the well-established links between domestic abuse, coercive control and suicide, does the Minister agree that organisations such as Project Salama in my constituency, which provides joined-up support to victims of DA, are important? How will the Government ensure that domestic abuse services, mental health services and the suicide prevention strategy work together?

    Hansard source
19. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Public Confidence in the Police

    It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing the debate. Something odd has happened recently that has turned the debate about crime and policing in this country on its head. The hard right have always presented themselves as the defenders of law and order, but a problem has arisen because people on the hard right, in Reform and parties such as Restore, have started to argue about two-tier policing. That is a daft suggestion—there is nothing of the sort—but such accusations are a real problem in this country, because all sorts of issues have arisen and trust in the police has diminished specifically as a result. According to the Office for National Statistics, confidence in the police has decreased in the past decade, even if crimes against people and property have mostly decreased. Tackling that will require proper resourcing. The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe mentioned the 20,000 police yo-yo: there were 20,000 police fewer, and then the previous Government restored them. There is still a question about whether the Government have fulfilled, or are on track to fulfil, their pledges on police numbers.

    Hansard source
20. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Public Confidence in the Police

    I have an awful lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member says. We could get into a debate purely about police numbers—I know that the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe was not keen to—but we should focus on not just the numbers but the visibility of police officers. We need police counters in our local communities and police officers on our streets. In contrast with Members who have suggested there is two-tier policing, I would like to place on record my party’s thanks and admiration for hard-working police officers and their public service—I believe there are at least two former officers here today. I would also like to thank the police team in Cheltenham, ably led by Inspector Steve Benbow and Superintendent James Glansfield, who I visited recently. This debate is not about parochial local issues, but it is important when we have experience of joining our police officers on the streets that we reflect that in this Chamber. During my visit, I learned that police officers in Cheltenham work very hard in increasingly difficult circumstances. I joined Inspector Benbow and Superintendent Glansfield as part of Operation Shield, which followed a summer in which we suffered very visible antisocial behaviour and crime in our town centre, and I know that that has been reflected in towns and cities across the country. One of the most arresting things I learned was that even in Cheltenham, which most people think of as a well-heeled place, there are several, mostly independent, shops where large groups of teenagers are making the lives of the shop workers and owners a misery. We were shown a video captured on a mobile phone by a shop owner of what looked like dozens of teenagers. They apparently go into that shop several times a week, steal stuff and abuse staff. That is not acceptable.

    Hansard source
21. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Public Confidence in the Police

    Absolutely. As it happens, I was invited along by my local police force because I was talking about crime and antisocial behaviour in the town centre. The more we talk about the issue and raise it in our constituencies, the more likely it is that the police will be able to get their messages out about extra resourcing and making tweaks to legislation that will help them do their jobs better. I will come later to some of those points, which were raised by the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe. Another thing that is clear from Cheltenham town centre and across the country is the concerning and increasing aggressive and misogynistic behaviour targeted at women. I have been hugely disturbed to hear reports of women being catcalled and abused with increasingly frequency in my constituency, most notably early in the morning when they are commuting to or from work or the gym. Clearly, a visible policing presence disturbs those who might cause problems and, crucially, gives reassurance to women in our town and city centres. Will the Minister provide an update on tackling the growing problems with violence against women and girls, much of which is encouraged by the online world? One in four women have experienced domestic abuse. Perhaps more shockingly, fewer than one in six victims of rape or attempted rape report the assault to the police. The reasons they cite include the belief that the police simply will not be able to help, or the concern that they will not be believed.

    Hansard source
22. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Public Confidence in the Police

    Absolutely. The more we learn about the al-Fayed case, the more shocking it becomes. I commend the work of the APPG, of which my hon. Friend is a leading member, alongside the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). It is uncovering what seems to be a bigger and bigger scandal every time we hear more about it. We need Harrods to be open and transparent, to start co-operating and perhaps to give more resource to aid the investigation. The issue of violence against women and girls needs to be tackled now, with taskforces that work in partnership with frontline women’s services. That also requires a very visible presence to reassure women that their safety is a priority. To do that, it is clear that police resource must be more focused on the community, rather than just having officers behind desks—although we of course need desk resource too in these complex investigations. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a police counter in every community to increase visibility across the country. That will allow people to share information and intelligence with the police in a convenient and accessible location. Simply emailing a local police officer does not always bring the desired result for local residents who are trying to work out what is going on or share intelligence. We say that we need extra police counters, in contrast to the huge decline in police counters seen under the previous Government and the specific issues in Labour’s London. On a more structural note, will the Minister provide an update on the Hogan-Howe review and the Government’s response to it? Can she also update us on whether police force boundaries are now due to match the boundaries of regional mayors? It is important that we hold to account the people responsible for policing. That is of particular interest to rural areas. In recent years we have seen rural crime become seriously organised and persistent, yet it is often overlooked. Rural crime networks can also be harder to detect and prosecute. Will the Minister commit to giving rural police forces the necessary resources to clamp down on organised crime operating in the countryside? The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe mentioned public order and free speech, which is a really important point. Big Brother Watch revealed this weekend that more than 60,000 people have been arrested in the last five years for communication offences. There are some high-profile cases, such those of Lucy Connolly and others, who are held up by the hard right as martyrs of free speech, but they are nothing of the sort. They have rightly been prosecuted, even if some people have valid questions about the severity of the punishment. Despite that, the facts seem clear: too many people are arrested not for committing crimes but for making tasteless online jokes, offering controversial opinions on social media or non-violent protest. It is a result of legislative failure that the police are not able to do their job properly on these issues. That undermines trust in the police and the work of officers, whose job it is to keep us safe, not to intervene in online arguments that would not trouble us if they happened in verbal form in the Dog and Duck. That is a threat to faith in policing, and to the very fabric of our liberal democracy. It gives space for people such as Reform’s James Orr to make bizarre comparisons between free speech in the UK and Russia and to peddle daft conspiracy theories, undermining British democracy in the process. We must all stand up against that in this place. In the light of the Big Brother Watch report, can the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to work with police and crime commissioners and chief constables to clarify the legal position, give officers greater clarity in their frontline work and protect British free speech rights? Earlier I mentioned the issue with the right, who were previously the big defenders of policing and order. They have traditionally told us that they stand up for those ideas, but the corrosive narrative of two-tier policing has crept into that side of politics. Where they once backed the police, they now use that daft “two-tier” phrase and tell us the police are part of the problem. That places the police alongside those who would do us harm; it is a dangerous narrative, and one that we at the moderate centre of politics must address. Support must be given to and extended for those working in the police, who put their lives and wellbeing on the line every day. Mind has reported that 91% of police officers report mental ill health. That is a shocking statistic, and it undermines the work they are able to do. Let us ensure that, as part of efforts to boost trust in policing, we are able to support police officers too. Improving their working conditions and the support available is vital to ensuring that we have the police force we need, staffed by brilliant police officers, and that they are able to fulfil their vital role to keep us safe.

    Hansard source
23. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Public Confidence in the Police

    I asked a specific question about the alignment of boundaries. In my constituency of Cheltenham, we are served by Gloucestershire police. We are apparently due to get a regional mayor with Herefordshire and Worcestershire. We are served by the health board for Bristol and the west, but policing apparently is being sent eastwards. Given the Government’s devolution agenda and the need for transparency and accountability in public services, that causes a real issue. There are rumours that the Government are changing course and trying to align boundaries. Is that the case—yes or no?

    Hansard source
24. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Max Wilkinson

    Summer Health and Resilience

    The Secretary of State’s mention of prevention was welcome: that means keeping people cool in their own homes. For those who live in a conservation area or a listed building, however, that is extremely difficult. So many people in my Cheltenham constituency and many other places like it have experienced temperatures way in excess of 35°C on their upper floors this summer, which is a particular problem for older people and for parents with young babies. Is it not time for the Secretary of State to get involved with Historic England and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and to lead a big conversation about sensible reform of conservation and listing rules so that the planning system does not stop people cooling their own homes?

    Hansard source
25. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Marie Goldman

    Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

    Last month, BBC news reported on a woman who discovered only by fluke that the man she was in a relationship with was a registered sex offender, after he was summoned to court over an assault charge under a different name. While the law allows police to block a sex offender’s request to change their name, it does not require them to. Women, campaigners and safeguarding groups all say that this is not good enough. Will the Minister work with Home Office colleagues to close this loophole, so that sex offenders are prevented by default from changing their name and police are required to individually approve each request?

    Hansard source
26. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Manuela Perteghella

    Jaguar Land Rover: Redundancies

    This announcement is a devastating blow for my constituents who are employed by JLR, and they will be incredibly worried for their future and their families, so what discussions have the Government had with JLR and the affected authorities—not just the West Midlands combined authority, because JLR is present in Warwickshire as well—regarding support for employees at risk of redundancy, and what measures will the Government put in place to help affected workers secure alternative employment?

    Hansard source
27. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Point of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, the Metropolitan police confirmed that a criminal investigation is under way into allegations of foreign money reaching Reform UK. The allegations are being investigated under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The party denies any wrongdoing and it is right that the police continue their investigation without any interference from this House. However, just a week ago we finished considering the Representation of the People Bill and it is now in the other place, where it can be strengthened. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the Speaker’s Office indicate whether a Minister intends to come to the House to update Members on whether the Government think that the measures in the Bill are still sufficient? The public should not have to rely on an undercover reporter to reveal where their politics is being funded from.

    Hansard source
28. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope to continue the excitement of that result in the Chamber. As an engineer, former aviation consultant and now chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I know that hon. Members will have become accustomed to me calling for stronger growth in the aviation space, and to my belief that technology and innovation can enable us to do that while achieving our obligations to reach net zero and stop the climate crisis. Aviation is the bedrock of our trade agreements. It enables high-value cargo to move along supply chains in a way that no other form of transport can. It makes it feasible for businesses to operate across borders and make connections with other businesses that drive economic growth forward. It has meant that the last three generations of Brits have been able to take advantage of affordable foreign holidays, with massive benefits for them, their mental health and their ability to expand their horizons and make enriching memories in unfamiliar settings. It has been so transformational for Governments, businesses and individuals that it can be safely hailed as one of the most influential technologies in history. But aviation has come at a cost. Consumer and commercial aviation has, without a doubt, contributed to the climate crisis we face. Estimates suggest that annually aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. However, it has contributed around 4% to global warming to date. As the MP for a constituency halfway between Heathrow and Gatwick, and given my former life in the aviation industry, I know that the politics of airports is fraught with complications. The impact on communities, if not handled properly, can be deeply challenging. It is my hope that the Government will listen and engage with the points I make about how we upgrade and improve civil aviation in this country for consumers, communities and the planet, and that they will have understood that events like those we saw yesterday serve only to underline how crucial this mission is, and how, following the third major failure of our airspace management in the past three years, it is imperative that this Bill is amended to include measures to stop that happening again. NATS is quite clearly not fit for purpose. We cannot suffer a major air traffic outage once a year. Following the outage yesterday, I am told by industry contacts that, again, communications with airlines were poor. I gently suggest to the Minister that whoever briefed the media that the disruption was akin to “a day with bad weather” should be found another position far away from the media team rather sharply. In the Lords, amendment 65—submitted by Lord Young—would have required NATS to hold responsibility for compensation for disruption caused by its failure, rather than airlines that were not at fault for these delays. The Government declined to accept the amendment, and Lord Hendy responded in a letter to Lord Young in July that he was satisfied that, following the 2023 outage, “the Government was able to place considerable pressure on” NATS “and appointed the person who led the review into the outage. This helped ensure that NATS took the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of those particular circumstances.” For the benefit of Hansard, I raise my eyebrow and glance at the Minister knowingly. I invite him to address this issue directly in his response and seriously consider the merits of that amendment—a change supported by the International Air Transport Association and airlines. That specific challenge aside, the Bill needs to address three broader challenges, and I hope to work with the Government to ensure that it does. The first challenge is the generational risk of decarbonising aviation, which will require short, medium and long-term solutions as we work with researchers and companies to develop the breakthrough fuels that could reshape the industry. That is how we enable sustainable growth to drive our economy. The second challenge is the more procedural, but equally important, task of updating and upgrading our aerospace infrastructure to keep it competitive, while keeping communities impacted by these changes informed, engaged and fundamentally in control over what happens to them. Here we must secure our infrastructure at the same time as empowering communities. The third challenge is rebalancing the power mismatch between airlines and passengers, giving power to people and not the big airlines, so that the passenger experience can be as positive as possible, and not continue to allow airlines on some occasions to scam passengers like cheap fairground hucksters. We need serious measures that will allow the airline industry to decarbonise. That will require the same collaborative work across the public and private sectors that informed the passage of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, on which I was grateful for the chance to work with the Government in passing. Such enormous industrial transitions take a very long time, and moving existing fleets and fuel infrastructure to green alternatives while they are still in use is outrageously difficult. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, however, it is not impossible. The interchangeability of sustainable aviation fuels and fossil-based aviation fuels, mixed and fed into the same pipelines and engines, makes this a transition that is unusually straightforward compared with other decarbonisation challenges. However, the sheer scale of the challenge and the existing infrastructure is the real difficulty. That, as well as the laws of physics and Breguet’s range equations, which I have mentioned in the Chamber before, mean that by sheer necessity the industry may be among the last to transition away from fossil fuels fully. We should not be afraid of that—it is the reality of achieving the growth we need—but we cannot ground aerospace or regulate it into submission, because to do so would have a catastrophic impact on our economy. We hear from neo-Luddites that we should effectively do that anyway—that we must constrain our horizons, put up with constraints and self-enforced recession, and tell families and businesses that they must put up with penalties and restrictions that their peers and competitors around the world do not put up with. The intention of protecting our world from catastrophic climate change is absolutely right, but these solutions are utterly wrong. Aviation is a Pandora’s box technology—once invented and tasted, it cannot be put back into the box. Like the internet or artificial intelligence, the only valid pessimistic question ought to be about how we transform it to regulate the externalities and make sure it continues to serve people, communities and the planet. The positive question concerns how we grasp the opportunities it offers to keep pushing progress forward. That means backing decarbonisation technology, which is the only way to achieve the future we need. There are great examples of this being done in practice: I spoke about Operation Blue Skies as merely a concept in the SAF Bill debate almost a year ago, but it is now funded and ready to be trialled this winter. That is concrete proof of the progress being made. However, there are things that we are failing to do as a state to remove roadblocks to this progress and there is a need for real leadership from the Government to continue to drive these opportunities forward. Yesterday, I chaired a roundtable discussion about sustainable aviation fuel to allow MPs to hear from the industry about the progress being made and what roadblocks remain. We heard how the pipeline of SAF production is not progressing at the rate needed to achieve the SAF mandate targets over the next few years, and that further Government action is needed to ensure that we do not plateau and then fall behind the target of 10% SAF by 2030 and of 22% by 2040. At the Farnborough international airshow earlier this summer, I was fortunate to witness the first flying demonstration by a fully electric aircraft, and the exhibition halls showed the huge progress on hydrogen and electric aviation that will be the future of travel. Last week, the Hydrogen in Aviation Alliance released its report, “Hydrogen-powered aviation: a pathway to delivery and growth”, which set out a clear set of steps towards harnessing that exciting new technology. Particularly interesting was news of trials led by the Cryogenic Hydrogen Optimised Systems for Aviation—CHOSAN—consortium to be based at Bristol airport, which hopes for the first hydrogen-powered flight from a UK commercial airport by 2028. That is hugely ambitious and gives hope that solutions are available, but it also reminds us that the Government need to play their part in speeding up development and roll-out even more. Whether aviation decarbonisation ends up being achieved by SAF, hydrogen, electricity, methane or some other pathway not yet discovered, it is a huge opportunity for us to grasp in order to continue our great British global leadership in aviation technology. The Bill does not bring forward specific measures on these decarbonisation goals, other than through improvements in efficiencies delivered by airspace modernisation. I see that as a huge missed opportunity, and I will look for chances to bring forward such measures in Committee. Turning to the second task on infrastructure, I greatly welcome the elements of the Bill that will help to deliver the airspace modernisation that will improve the efficiency of the UK’s airspace, reduce nuisance noise pollution around airports and facilitate the decarbonisation I have just spoken about. Far from being change for change’s sake, airspace modernisation is a vital step forward in upgrading our essential infrastructure, which has not been maintained and developed to keep up with changing and growing demands, and is at risk of periodic and then more consistent failure, as we all witnessed yesterday. Airspace modernisation should be done as part of a wider project of renewal across our transport and otherwise critical infrastructure. The lack of modernisation is visible in the chronic and consistent mismanagement of our roads and bridges, in certain aspects of public services and even in the political infrastructure that sits beneath everything else in this country. That is why, to unlock safe and sustainable growth and drag our infrastructure not just into the 2020s, but into a state of readiness for the future, airspace modernisation is utterly essential. However, my support for this Bill is not without reservations. In particular, I am disappointed that, in its current form, it does not guarantee communities a meaningful say over the impact of these changes on them. Progress and improvements in route efficiency will inevitably have negative impacts on many, with new flight paths and concentrations of disturbance taking shape over communities previously not impacted by noise. Those impacts must be considered carefully, and the communities impacted must have a genuine and meaningful say in the changes that will be delivered. As I have said before, my approach is a desire to get to yes on delivering these changes, but doing so requires buy-in from the communities that will live with the decisions for decades, so my response to this Bill has to be yes, if: yes, if we build meaningful community involvement that actually changes options; yes, if we can ensure that the scheme is able to benefit from public scrutiny; and yes, if it can be done in a way that is sustainable and not likely to be unpicked years later because it did not achieve some level of consensus. While the moving parts in aviation are aluminium, steel and carbon, these are ultimately human systems. It cannot be that changes are made that deliver what might look good on a spreadsheet or on the maps that I used to draw in the aviation industry; this must be about how the human situation is impacted by those changes. On Monday, I attended a meeting of the APPG on airport communities. We heard how the airport night noise effects study has shown the huge impact of aviation noise on families living near airports. While aircraft types have become considerably quieter over the years, the more we learn of the health and psychological impacts of noise disruption, the more it is clear that the science is consistent and the impact is real. As such, we must demand that programmes to mitigate those impacts are made available to all those affected. It is also true that as airline traffic approaches capacity and demand continues to grow, airlines are likely to upgauge their aircraft fleets, which typically leads to higher noise signatures from larger, heavier aircraft. We should also remember that the very constraints we put on air traffic are creating an increase in those disruptions. The parts of this Bill that will make airspace modernisation easy to deliver must not be allowed to cut scrutiny of the impact of that modernisation on residents or limit their voices over the options considered and how final flight routes are designed. I am particularly concerned about the impact on communities in my neck of the woods in south-west London, at Heathrow and further afield at Gatwick, which have already been sounding the alarm about the impact of night flights, particularly on their wellbeing. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) have worked on this issue for many years on behalf of their constituents, and this Bill needs to do more to protect the interest of their residents. I expect to hear shortly from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on a similar issue. The Civil Aviation Authority and The BMJ have both demonstrated that living under night flights not just harms mental health, but will inevitably damage a person’s productivity the next day. In extreme cases, it can increase the risk of stroke. If it is done properly, airspace modernisation can improve many of these issues, but, where it cannot, we must insist on mitigations through soundproofing programmes or respite periods. Airspace modernisation has the potential to shift flight paths to less densely populated areas and lower the noise impact on take-off and landing with more efficient, steeper approach and departure paths that balance emissions with noise reduction, but there is no guarantee that it will do any of those things if those living in the communities affected are denied a seat at the table, either through badly designed consultations or top-down diktat. Let me turn to my third and final challenge—I am sure Members will be glad to hear that. It is important to remember that the first two challenges will affect the planet and communities near airports, but the third challenge—passenger rights—is the one that will hit passengers most directly. In the Lords, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendment 36 to implement a passengers’ charter for air travel, with various targets for minimum service levels that an airline can deliver. Lords amendments 10 and 11 would have prohibited airlines from separating passengers on the same booking to force them to pay for assigned seating, or from forcing other passengers to sit next to an unaccompanied minor. Lords amendments 2 and 20 would have stopped the UK from implementing lower standards and diverging away from existing international standards. All of those are good things, and I hope to convince the Government of their wisdom in Committee. However, my favourite amendment, which I hope to push for and convince the Government of the merits of in Committee, is Lords amendment 13, which would have required airlines to standardise the maximum dimensions for permitted cabin baggage across all air carriers in alignment with recognised industry standards. Who here has a Ryanair bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm; a Wizz Air bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 23 cm; an EasyJet and British Airways bag, 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm; and an Aer Lingus bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 24 cm? Each one is subtly different in size, and each one is liable to set someone back a hefty penalty if the check-in agent does not like the look of them. No, I did not think so; we do not have that number of bags—or we do not have all four. It is absolute madness. This is 2026; we have universal phone chargers and universal electric car chargers, and we have had standardised shipping containers for nearly half a century. There are also universally sized overhead lockers on aircraft, so Lord Hendy was not correct when he asserted: “Aircraft have different overhead and under-seat storage capacities. Setting a standard size would necessitate using the smallest aircraft capacity, resulting in many passengers needing to use a smaller case or bag.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. GC71.] That is incorrect and frankly insulting to the intelligence of the passenger who has just been stung for £75 by an over-zealous Ryanair boarding agent due to having an oversized bag, because they picked up the wrong one that morning, and that 5 cm difference cannot possibly fit into the overhead bin of a Boeing 737 but could slip smoothly into that of an A320. Passengers need protection from predatory practices; we need the BSS—the British standard suitcase. That is the well-regulated market that the Liberal Democrats believe in, and I hope I am able to make the Government see the benefit of that during the Bill Committee. In summary, the Bill really is a huge opportunity to take meaningful action to improve our airspace infrastructure to reduce emissions, to improve safety and reduce noise and to improve passenger experience and make flying less expensive and stressful. Those are good aims, but they can only be achieved with careful and clear leadership that listens to the voices of industry, communities and those of us who believe that they must be delivered in the context of a wider rethink about how we maintain and upgrade our systems in this country. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, and I congratulate him on making a strong, if incomplete, start. I look forward to helping him fix the Bill in Committee.

    Hansard source
29. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that particular reference should be given to the previous failures and to the 37 actions, I believe, that should have been completed to resolve the previous incident, as well as explaining quite how this was allowed to occur again? As he says, it is critical that we get to the bottom of what happened, but also that we are able to hold it to account.

    Hansard source
30. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

    To add grist to the mill of all our travel experiences, I had a case in which a customer chose to pay for a seat allocation so that they could sit with their children. They got on the flight and were then moved, and had to claim compensation on the extra service they had paid for—otherwise they would not have got a refund. Does the hon. Member agree that these sorts of things need to be automated and quickened up to improve passenger experience and customer protection?

    Hansard source
31. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Summer Health and Resilience

    I must confess that I am a little frustrated, because I think this is the third time that the ventilation system at Stepping Hill hospital has been announced by a Minister—and it is not new money. There is a £138 million repairs backlog, so may I invite the Secretary of State to join me on a tour to see the remarkable work done by some of the remarkable people working at Stepping Hill, as well as the state of repair of buildings that in many cases are older than the NHS itself?

    Hansard source
32. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Summer Health and Resilience

    May I welcome the Secretary of State to her place? I look forward to working with her as I have done with her predecessors. May I draw her attention to our Committee’s work on corridor care, and the correspondence between the Committee and the Minister for Secondary Care, who is in her place? I thought it was a constructive session. In our correspondence with the Department, we raised the issue of staff fatigue. Staff will understandably have questions, such as whether summer is the new winter, what now happens to the leave they were planning to take and the training they must attend, which they often cannot attend during the winter, so can she be clear with staff about that? In the letter responding to the Committee, the Department said that there are new NHS staff standards and new occupational health and wellbeing support, which is all fine, but it then says that there will be “a continued focus on workforce sustainability through the upcoming NHS Workforce Plan.” Where is that workforce plan?

    Hansard source
33. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·John Milne

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

    With regard to noise specifically, the Government recently reduced the height at which noise is considered an important factor, from 7,000 to 5,000 feet. Noise between 5,000 and 7,000 feet now has less impact on decision making. That change was not meaningfully consulted on; it was just made and enforced on everybody. It has an impact in my constituency, and perhaps in many others. Will the Secretary of State comment on how that decision was reached and whether it is changeable?

    Hansard source
34. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·John Milne

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

    In my constituency, people understand the importance of Gatwick to the local economy—not least because many of them have a job there. However, the way that public consultation has been handled over the last decade has created deep anxiety about what changes to airports and airspace will mean for them, their families and the communities they live in. It is on their behalf that I am asking for the introduction of a dedicated aviation ombudsman, especially in the context of the need to lay out new flightpaths. I am wholly supportive of the need for airspace modernisation, which is being carried out across the whole of Europe. It will bring welcome improvements in both emissions and safety. As part of that process, Gatwick Airport Ltd is looking for a change to a particular currently agreed flightpath, such that planes leaving west and turning south to Europe will be able to do so almost immediately after take-off, instead of building up height first. In doing so, Gatwick will inflict major noise pollution over north Horsham and three rural villages that are not currently overflown to a great extent. When the same route, known as ADNID, was trialled 10 years ago, it provoked an explosion of public distress. The then CEO swiftly withdrew it and promised never to introduce it again. However, lo and behold, in the last round of public consultation—subsequently cancelled—Gatwick gave Horsham people a choice of three airspace plans, all three of which contained that identical route. It was less Gatwick’s choice, more Hobson’s choice. Why did Gatwick do that: simply because it would enable it to increase the number of take-off slots, which are potentially worth millions. That is a clear conflict of interest, and I have great difficulty believing that the financial incentive had no influence whatsoever on Gatwick’s thinking. Either way, at the very least it risks the perception of bias. What is particularly aggrieving is that the route is not necessary. Given all the other changes going on at the same time, it would make a negligible contribution to efficiency, emissions reduction or even capacity, seeing as Gatwick is heading for a huge increase in capacity owing to a second runway and other measures. Unfortunately, the voice of the consumer plays such a small part in the process that no one is able to add up the pros and cons. It is all on the side of industry. I therefore asked the then aviation Minister to include an independent member as standard on airspace review panels. He declined, and now the whole process has been restarted anyway, but we still have a situation where the citizen has no power to challenge major changes that will affect their lives. Another CAA reform further illustrates my point. The Department’s new air navigation guidance, published last month, lowers the altitude up to which noise must be prioritised over efficiency from 7,000 feet to 5,000 feet—I referred to that in a previous question to the Secretary of State. That means that fewer people will be able to argue against such a route on noise grounds. That happened in the same year that the CAA’s own new research—the aviation noise attitudes survey and the aviation night noise effects study—found that the noise level at which people become highly annoyed is 43 dB, rather than 54 dB, as previously advised. Communities are more sensitive to noise than the Department’s own evidence said a decade ago, yet the response has been to shrink, not extend, the altitude band where noise takes priority. Where is the voice of the resident in that? It will have a material impact on decisions in my area, as well as at other airports. Why is the CAA allowed to mark its own homework when no one else is? There already is an alternative dispute resolution available for consumer complaints—such as a refund for a delayed bag or cancelled flight—but it is not a usable tool for regulatory decisions, such as where a flightpath goes, how the noise is distributed or which homes end up underneath it. The Government’s written answers confirm that dissatisfaction with a CAA regulatory decision cannot be pursued through the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; it can only go to internal or judicial review. For the great majority of residents, neither of those is a realistic option. We have been here before. Water is another industry that touches growth, employment, the environment and people’s daily lives, and where trust has been totally destroyed. The Government’s answer to that issue was that there should be a new legally binding water ombudsman. Like campaigners the length and breadth of the country, I believe that aviation deserves the same treatment. The Minister has written to me arguing that there is already a consultation process, but most residents will be left completely unaware of major changes, and, even if they were aware, they would be unable to do anything significant about it. As proposed, the process is so completely dominated by the industry voice that even a modest request, such as not repeating the same mistake on flight paths around Horsham, can never get any kind of hearing. I think that the Minister is wrong to assume that the industry always knows what is best in all circumstances. Fairness and objectivity should be offered on CAA regulatory decisions and on consumer and passenger rights alike. I therefore ask the Government to look again and to shore up this Bill with an independent ombudsman for aviation.

    Hansard source
35. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Sollom

    Education and Skills Reform

    The Department previously had to delay the plans for defunding BTECs, and although there has been progress on T-levels, there are still shortages of placements and teachers. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the transition to V-levels will not have the same uncertainty? Previously delayed transitions have been damaging by not providing certainty to young people.

    Hansard source
36. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Summer Health and Resilience

    I welcome the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to their places—I have to say that I was not expecting to be the continuity figure in the health portfolio. We need to be honest: the NHS is now in permacrisis, as outlined by the National Audit Office report. The hallmarks of peak winter pressure in the past—overcrowded A&Es, queuing ambulances and soaring 999 calls—are now a feature year round. This summer was particularly difficult due to record temperatures across the UK, with over 33 NHS trusts reporting temperatures well above the 28° limit set by NHS England, and we can all agree that is not acceptable. It is inhumane not just for patients but for staff—42° is unbearable. A constituent of mine suffered in his final days in a desperately hot setting in Royal Shrewsbury hospital until managers worked with my team to ensure that he was made more comfortable. We do not want to be dealing with cases like that every year. We need hospitals that can withstand the heat, and the Lib Dems have been calling for a new NHS rapid adaptation unit to urgently heatproof the most heat-affected hospitals and care homes. Turning to corridor care, the percentage of people waiting 12 hours or more in A&E has tripled since before the covid-19 pandemic. Analysis suggests that people waiting this long are twice as likely to die within 30 days of leaving A&E, compared with those who wait just two hours. It is abundantly clear that policies to deal with A&E are not working. Spend is increasing, as outlined in the report, while outcomes are decreasing. We are pumping money into emergency departments with no proportionate improvement. The Lib Dems have outlined our plan to end 12-hour waits in a year by investing more in step-down care and support for people to leave hospital and go into social care. The Health Bill will reduce co-operation between local authorities and integrated care boards, risking those improvements in social care. Although we welcome the cross-party talks on social care, I hope that the Secretary of State will look at this issue as the Health Bill makes its way through the Lords. Will she listen to our plans, change her approach and commit to ending the ongoing A&E scandal?

    Hansard source
37. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Edward Morello

    Pharmacies: Government Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on securing the debate, which is important and timely, especially considering that we had the remaining stages of the Health Bill this week. Community pharmacies are a vital part of the NHS, especially in places like West Dorset, where they provide essential medicines, advice and care close to home. At a time when pharmacies are facing severe financial and workforce pressures, we must recognise their contribution and ensure that they receive the funding, support and protection they need. We are asking more and more of community pharmacies, while for too long we have expected them to absorb rising costs with inadequate funding. In West Dorset, 18 community pharmacies serve a population of around 94,000 people. In a typical month, they dispense around 155,000 prescriptions. Since the introduction of Pharmacy First in January 2024, pharmacies in West Dorset have helped to avoid as many as 8,737 GP appointments. Those figures demonstrate the enormous contribution pharmacies make to our local NHS and why we cannot afford to lose them. Today, people are more likely to live with multiple long-term conditions, require regular prescriptions and need advice and support close to home. For someone living in a rural village, a pharmacy is the most accessible point of contact with the NHS. That is why the funding model should properly recognise rurality and population age. Nationally, community pharmacy funding in 2025-26 was around £800 million lower in real terms than in 2015-16, despite a 16% increase in the number of NHS prescription items dispensed over that period. Since 2017, there has been a net loss of 147 bricks-and-mortar pharmacies, which is 15% of the network. I welcome the Government’s recent 10.3% funding increase, worth £340 million, but their own independent economic analysis identified a funding gap of around £2 billion, so the increase does not close the gap. Some pharmacies in West Dorset have reported to me six-figure annual shortfalls. Poor funding leads to fewer staff, and fewer staff leads to shorter opening hours, temporary closures and fewer services being offered. It means that fewer people receive their medicines and fewer patients are able to access care. In NHS Dorset, there were 207 full-time equivalent pharmacists in 2023 and 47 vacancies, which is a vacancy rate of 19%. In places such as West Dorset, in rural Britain, recruiting a permanent pharmacist can be extremely difficult. Pharmacies have to pay more to attract pharmacists from elsewhere or bring in locums, who have to travel significant distances. Those costs do not exist to the same extent in densely populated urban areas. It is therefore wrong to design a funding system that treats every pharmacy as if it operates in the same circumstances. The pharmacy access scheme provides some support for isolated pharmacies, but its funding pot is just £20 million, which is nowhere near sufficient to deal with the structural challenges facing rural pharmacy provision in England. We need a funding formula that properly recognises rurality, population age, workforce pressures and the cost of serving sparsely populated communities. Funding is only one part of the problem. We also need stronger regulation and stronger powers to intervene when large corporate pharmacy operators fail. Jhoots operated 150 branches across England. In West Dorset, its pharmacies in Bridport and Lyme Regis were closed for months, disrupting prescription access for more than 12,000 people who rely on those services. The impact was felt throughout our community. It was felt by the patients who struggled to access their medicines and by other healthcare providers who had to deal with the consequences. It was felt devastatingly by pharmacy staff. Staff across multiple sites reported going months without pay, despite receiving payslips and seeing deductions for tax and pensions. Some were unable to pay their rent or household bills, and some relied on food banks and could not buy their children school uniform. I pay tribute to the amazing staff in Bridport and Lyme Regis for the resilience they showed during that time. The support shown to them by the local community was outstanding. They did not deserve to be treated that way by the pharmacy owners. Our regulatory framework was largely developed when pharmacies were mainly independently owned businesses operating one or maybe two pharmacies, and it has not kept pace with the growth of large corporate operators controlling extensive networks. Local integrated care boards, local authorities and national bodies need powers to intervene quickly, protect patients and staff, secure medicines and ensure continuity of service. When Jhoots’s services collapsed, I raised the issue through an urgent question in the House, and there was clear cross-party support for legislative action to ensure that that kind of crisis cannot happen again. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who campaigned tirelessly alongside me. His help and advice were invaluable during that period, so I am extremely grateful to him. We need to strengthen the powers available to intervene when a provider fails to meet contractual patient safety or workforce obligations. We need mechanisms to allow alternative providers to step in quickly. We must hold the corporate bodies—not the pharmacies—accountable, and where necessary take away their rights to control an essential service. We need to protect pharmacy staff when a provider collapses. Protecting the workforce is inseparable from protecting patient safety. I say politely to the Minister that when I met her predecessor, he asked for those powers so that he could step in during the Jhoots scandal. We tried to introduce them through amendments to the Health Bill, but they were not accepted. Will the Minister please meet me and other experts, such as the hon. Member for North Somerset, as her predecessor did? Let us get her the powers to prevent this from ever happening again.

    Hansard source
38. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Edward Morello

    Pharmacies: Government Funding

    I thank the Minister for being willing to meet me and the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) to discuss some of the issues raised today. She mentioned that officials are looking at whether legislation is necessary; will she ask them to consider whether the amendments I tabled to the Health Bill would deliver the powers she needs? If so, will the Government support them in the Lords?

    Hansard source
39. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ed Davey

    Engagements

    I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks, not least about the 25th anniversary of the horrific terror attacks of 9/11. I welcome the Government finally banning imports from illegal Israeli settlements, something Keir Starmer should have done a long time ago. On Back British Farming Day, can I also celebrate British farmers? I hope the Prime Minister will do more than that and end the family farm tax. Last week I asked about North Devon’s maternity unit, which is still closed. This week I have to raise Musgrove Park hospital, where the Prime Minister’s Labour colleague Baroness Amos found the “most challenging” maternity estate in the whole country. She described “leaking roofs”, a ceiling propped up by poles and room temperatures that put newborn babies at risk. No mother should have to give birth in such circumstances. Does the Prime Minister agree that Musgrove Park cannot wait until 2033 for work to start on a new maternity unit? Will he offer a meeting to local MPs, so we can move it forward? And will he make fixing the maternity scandal across our country a top priority of his Government?

    Hansard source
40. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ed Davey

    Engagements

    I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Britain should be the safest country in the world to have a baby. We will keep raising this issue until it is the safest. The best legacy of the previous Conservative Prime Minister is our world-leading AI Security Institute, which is now essential to our national security, and to global security, in the age of artificial intelligence. But today, the Financial Times reports that Anthropic did not submit its latest model to the institute for testing, apparently due to pressure from the Trump Administration. Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for President Trump to undermine Britain’s efforts to keep the world safe from dangerous AI?

    Hansard source